May 31, 2017

Last night, a number of citizens attended an informational meeting for a new subdivision being proposed on Hamby Road.  Such informational meetings are one element of enhancements to our zoning process promoted by the Milton Coalition and recently approved by City Council.  Notification is provided by letter to nearby residents.  The meeting is also advertised by the City, so that citizens further away might attend.  Prior to the implementation of these informational meetings, all that a developer needed before building was a land disturbance permit (LDP).  Often, the first notification that citizens received of a new subdivision was the sound of chainsaw and the appearance of bulldozers.  Today, before a builder gets a LDP, she/he must appear before the public to explain his concept for the subdivision, answer questions, and listen to community input.  This is just one example of sensible enhancements to our zoning process that are being promoted by the Milton Coalition.

The City will be further enhancing this process by replacing the informational meeting with a Planning Commission hearing.  In the future, the Q&A mostly occur between the developer and the Planning Commission.  However, as with all public hearings, citizens will still be able to make a public statement that will be part of the public record.  The Milton Coalition hopes that the Planning Commission will allow some public input (e.g., submission of questions) during the hearing, so as not to lose the informal (and valuable) give-and-take with the developer now enjoyed by citizens.

The City needs to continue to seek ways to enhance our zoning process.  Such reform is one of the nine elements of the Milton Coalition’s Petition For Smart Development and Good Governance.  Specifically, our petition calls for “reforms needed to make the zoning process citizen-centric.”

Currently, citizens are at a decided disadvantage in zoning matters.  Developers have time, money, knowledge, highly paid attorneys/advisors, and connections that citizens are generally lacking. 

Rezoning hearings before City Council are a particularly frustrating experience for citizens.  Many citizens walk away from these meetings feeling frustrated, angry, and helpless.  At a rezoning hearing, each side is initially allowed 10 minutes to make their case.  To their credit, the Mayor and Council are always good about extending the 10 minutes to let all citizens speak.  (Equal time is then allocated for the developer, which is fair.)  However, once the public comment portion of the hearing is over, citizens have no other opportunities for input.  Thereafter, the discussion is developer-dominated.  Council questions the developer, thereby allowing the developer to continue to make his case.  This is frustrating to citizens, as developers often provide false or misleading information that frequently goes unchallenged.  Such was the case during the most recent council-approved rezoning.

It is important to understand that a (re)zoning hearing is a quasi-judicial proceeding.  However, in a real court, both sides are allowed the same opportunities to press their case.  There is back-and-forth exchange; examination and cross-examination.  However, the current practice in Milton only allows citizens to make the equivalent of an “opening statement,” but thereafter the developer’s position is presented largely unchallenged.  This is inherently unfair to citizens.

The Milton Coalition advocates that the City review its current hearing process for opportunities to level the playing field for citizens in opposition to a zoning application.  For example, at the end of the Council’s Q&A, the mayor can ask if any citizens want to address issues raised during the Q&A.  We know this may not be a common practice, but we would like to think that here in Milton we aspire to be the best.  And that means giving citizens equal time and opportunities to press their case.

More generally, the Milton Coalition advocates for a deep review of our entire zoning process to ensure that the playing field is truly level for citizens that oppose a zoning request.  While we applaud the recent changes the City has implemented, we believe that there are many more opportunities to make our zoning process more rigorous, fair, transparent, and citizen-friendly.  The City should identify and seize those opportunities.

(In future posts, we will have more to say about last night’s informational meeting with citizens.  Seminal issues around sewer and density were raised.)

May 30, 2017

The latest rezoning of 3 parcels on Hopewell Road has outraged citizens.  In just the last seven days, our blog has received over 300 hits and 60 citizens have signed the Milton Coalition Petition For Smart Development and Good Governance.  The number of Milton citizens that have signed this petition has now surpassed 1,850; 639 have left comments.  One comment about replacing the horse on Milton’s logo with a bulldozer especially resonated with us.  Following are some of the recent comments made to us by citizens.

• We will make sure these council members hear us loud & clear in their next election.
• Milton is being bulldozed quickly by the developers & their friends on the city council. Cluster homes only benefit developers. Soon Milton will look no different than John’s Creek or Alpaharetta; completely over developed with no large tracts of land left. Take the horse off the city signs and replace it with a bulldozer.
• Please please please do not make living in Milton any more of a nightmare. We have lived here more than 25 years and seen the destruction of a beautiful place firsthand.
• Milton needs to preserve the rural environment that made it so desirable vs. compromising the community to further the tax base
• Preserve Milton! This rezoning is unacceptable.
• We’re already experiencing reduced property values as the result of high density housing in the Crabapple area. Enough!
• Please control and limit more development. There is already far more housing developments than needed. Use what we have and keep Milton beautiful.
• Feeling pinched enough to consider relocating away even though I moved here only 4 years ago from NJ. There are days that in the time it takes to commute here locally (7-8 mi), I could have traveled 4 times further in NJ.
• If I wanted to live in Johns creek or Cumming, I would have moved there. We moved to Milton because of the rural feel, non-congested roads, and great schools. Adding high density properties will lower values because this will become just like all of the other areas that are much cheaper to live.
• This is totally against why we voted for the city of Milton. Very disappointing.
• Keep and respect Milton’s original zoning vision to ensure that it’s rural history, charm and the safe transportation of its residents are perpetuated.
• I moved here due to the charm of Milton with the estate lots – not cluster homes!
• I oppose cluster housing and specifically live here because it is not allowed!

Council, please listen to your citizens ( . . . and staff . . . and the Planning Commission) and deny these reckless rezonings that violate the original vision of Milton and Milton’s own Comprehensive Land Use Plan!

Citizens, we know you are frustrated to learn that Council has approved a rezoning to allow higher density on 3 parcels on Hopewell Road.  This approval comes despite overwhelming citizen opposition to such rezonings and other developer schemes to skirt Milton’s current zoning to achieve higher density and inflated profits.  However, there is silver lining in Council’s rezoning approval . . . the debate over land use in Milton has been clearly defined:

• Either the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) will be followed or not. The CLUP is Milton’s strategic plan for land use.  It was just approved by Council 7 months ago.  The CLUP is developed through a rigorous year-long process by a 17-member committee.  It involves a lot of citizen input.  The CLUP is City Council’s contract with citizens regarding land use.  However, with the latest rezoning, the CLUP was summarily disregarded.
• Either Milton’s Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Fulton County regarding sewer will be followed or not. The IGA governs where sewer is allowed.  It was a compromise developed through a lot of debate and hard work.  The IGA was also summarily disregarded by the latest rezoning.
• Either the Planning Commission’s recommendations will be seriously considered or not. The latest rezoning is just the latest example of Council overruling the Planning Commission, who (along with staff) unanimously recommended denial of the rezoning.  The Planning Commission cited the CLUP and IGA in its decision.  The Planning Commission always respects the Rule of Law; Council often does not.
• Either we will reject sewer extension (including authorizing residential community septic) or not. The latest rezoning will require Council to approve another ordinance to extend sewer to the subject property.  During Council’s rezoning discussion, one council member suggested that Council revisit the sewer map to “clean it up.”  Citizens, beware!  This is likely a ploy to extend sewer under the guise of “correcting” the sewer map.
• Either Council will focus on solving the problems of Milton (like traffic congestion) or it will be consumed with ridiculous zoning requests into eternity. Council needs to draw a bright line in the sand regarding developers’ rezonings and variances that increase density:  Zero Tolerance.  The latest rezoning has now opened the door to a new wave of developer requests.  This means Council and City staff will spend inordinate amounts of time and resources on these requests vs. solving the City’s worsening problems, such as traffic congestion and strain on our infrastructure.
• Either Council will respect the views of citizens or not. After all, how many petitions will it take to convince Council to listen to us?  How many times do we need to pack Council chambers to get our point across?  How many letters do we have to write before our message is received?

The Hopewell rezoning has provided clarity to citizens.  That is good.  Citizens will have a choice at the ballot box in 5 months.  Three council members fall clearly on the side of developers; they vote for nearly every developer request, no matter how ridiculous, that comes before them.  They are a lost cause.  One council member falls clearly on the side of citizens; he will never vote for any developer request that increases density.  Unfortunately, there are 3 council members straddling the divide who will need to clarify their positions in the coming months; hopefully, they will side with citizens.

May 26, 2017

Rezoning = Higher Density = Higher Developer Profits – Lower Citizen Quality of Life

The above “equations” concisely describe residential rezoning in Milton.  Nearly every rezoning request submitted to Council involves a developer asking for higher density than the current zoning, usually AG-1, allows.  Higher density means more housing units per acre of land.  And of course, higher density means higher developer profits, because revenues are increased and certain fixed costs get distributed across more housing units.  And higher density almost certainly means a lower quality of life for citizens . . . no matter where you live in Milton.  We all drive on the same roads and we send our kids to the same schools and we all want to protect our investment in our homes.

So let’s consider the current situation in Milton

Traffic Congestion.

Traffic jams have become ubiquitous in Milton.  Some of us have difficulty even making a right turn out of our subdivisions or driveways.  And a left turn?  Forget it . . . that is a suicide mission.  Stop sign lines are getting longer and longer.  Some traffic circles, built to facilitate traffic flow, have already become overwhelmed to the point where the city is considering technologies (i.e., stop lights) to meter flow into the traffic circles.  And cut-through traffic represents a growing danger to public safety, as drivers seek to shave time off their commute.  At Birmingham Crossroads, 70 vehicles per hour cut through the Publix parking lot during the evening rush hour.

So why would Council ever approve a rezoning that puts more cars on the road?

Overcrowded Schools.

The excellent public schools are a key reason that many of us move to Milton.  Despite the recent construction of new schools and expansion of existing schools, Milton’s schools are again facing overcrowding.  School board members have stated that the school system cannot keep up with the population increases.  Portables are installed or being planned for a number of schools.  School overcrowding is directly correlated with school quality.  And school quality is directly correlated with property values.  It is interesting to note that all 5 council members voting for the recent rezoning do not have school-age children.

So why would council ever approve a rezoning that puts even more students in our schools?

Lower Property Values.

Americans’ housing wealth at $25.6T nationally exceeds Americans’ $21.2T wealth in their stock and bond portfolios.  For the average American, their home is far and away their largest investment.  And the value of that investment is highly correlated to the community’s quality of life (e.g., traffic congestion) and school quality.  You do not have to go far to see the folly in reckless development.  Despite constructing quasi-superhighways everywhere, John’s Creek’s traffic is paralyzed by gridlock, even in the middle of the day and on weekends.  Despite relatively new housing stock, Alpharetta and Roswell are plagued with blighted, high-crime areas.  Their answer to this blight is double down on high density.  And Forsyth County is Exhibit A in the idiocy of extending sewer . . . high density subdivisions are popping up like mushrooms after a good rain.  Milton’s real estate agents understand these issues best and many of them are the Milton Coalition staunchest supporters.

So why would council ever approve a rezoning that threatens property values of Milton?

So if traffic congestion (and other quality of life issues), overcrowded schools, and property values are a concern, Milton citizens need start considering replacing Council members that are approving density giveaways.

Tomorrow, we will explore how the priorities of certain Council members differ from the priorities (described above) of most citizens.

(Photo taken of development across from Cambridge High School.  This property was rezoned to provide 3X the density that would have been allowed under AG-1 zoning.  Bill Lusk made initial motion to approve, which was seconded by Matt Kunz.)

May 25, 2017

Several days ago, the Milton Coalition did a soft re-launch of our blog.  For 6 months, we had let our blog go dormant.  However, the rezoning of 3 properties on Hopewell Road prompted a number of citizens to urge us to step up our efforts against reckless development in Milton . . . including resurrecting the blog.  Today’s blog post is meant to provide an introduction to development in Milton and its importance in Milton’s government and politics.

You cannot understand Milton government or politics unless you understand development.  Why?  Because development is where the money is.  And it is a lot of money.  Milton’s remaining development potential ranges from $1B to $3B.  Development is far and away Milton’s biggest industry.  Accordingly, it should come as no surprise that development dominates Milton’s government and politics.  City Council spends well over 50% of its time on land use issues.  And development, and its attendant problems, dominate political debate in Milton.

Of course, developers are naturally keen to maximize their profits.  And this often means lobbying the government for special favors—e.g., rezonings and variances.  Through campaign contributions and business/personal relationships, developers seek to grease the gears of our city government to their benefit.  Their goal is usually higher density, which translates to higher profits.  Unfortunately, Milton’s citizens pay the cost of this higher density in the form of traffic congestion, overcrowded schools, and lower home values. 

Fortunately, the community has been fighting back against developers.  And we have been mostly winning.  Several rezoning/variance applications have been denied or withdrawn.  A cluster home ordinance was voted down.  And ambiguities and gaps in our ordinances are being addressed.  However, to secure these victories will require replacement of some Council members who are promoting higher density development in Milton.

After 2 election cycles with no contested elections, it appears certain that Milton will have competitive races in 2017.  And it appears certain that the main campaign issue will be Milton’s unconstrained development.  The campaign will pit citizens against moneyed special interests.  It will be a battle for the heart and soul of Milton.  Voters will be presented a stark choice.  Citizens can surrender to developers (and their proponents on Council) and become Anywhere, USA.  Or we can assert our prerogatives and preserve what makes Milton special.  It is that simple.

Tomorrow’s post is “Rezoning = Higher Density = Higher Developer Profits – Lower Citizen Quality of Life”