August 24, 2017.

(You’ll want to read to the end.  The video at the end is must-see tv.)

Today, I wanted to direct you to a story from the Johns Creek Post, which is a website in Johns Creek devoted to City government issues.  Similar to this blog, the Johns Creek Post has a mission of holding government officials–especially elected representatives–accountable.  I have been subscribing to the JCP for the last three months and have been comforted knowing there are other concerned citizens actively engaging their government in our sister cities.  If you are not getting enough of your local government fix from this blog, I highly recommend subscribing to the JCP.

“Motor Court” Homes Proposed For Bell Road: Denied

The JCP‘s story concerns a high density development that a developer proposed in Johns Creek.  There was strong opposition from local residents.  Sensing that he would lose the vote before Council, the developer requested to withdraw his proposal and was granted his request.  It is important to understand that a City Council can reject such a withdrawal request, discuss the developer’s proposal, and accept/approve the developer’s proposal.  However, if the developer’s proposal is rejected, he has to wait a year before submitting another proposal for that particular property.  However, when a request for withdrawal is granted, the developer can immediately come back with a modified proposal.  As the JCP noted, this submit-and-withdraw tactic is one of many used by developers to wear down citizen opposition.

We see similar tactics used in Milton.  A variation of this tactic is constantly morphing rezoning applications.  I have seen rezoning applications (e.g., the Ebenezer Road rezoning) that were constantly revised during the vetting process, including during the final days before the rezoning was heard by Council.  And to add insult to injury, citizens are not informed of these changes unless they are constantly calling Community Development and asking about changes.  And often, the changes are not “tracked,” meaning that a citizen cannot easily compare the latest version of an application to previous versions.  Sometimes the zoning process feels like a game of whack-a-mole.  The reality is that citizens do not have the time and expertise to continuously monitor and react to constantly changing developer proposals.  Zoning processes need to be reformed to level the playing field for citizens.  Furthermore, Council needs to be alert to manipulative tactics by developers and take actions to ensure citizens’ interests are protected.

I have attended quite a few contentious zoning hearings.  The one common denominator has been citizens’ frustration.  Not because of the outcome, but because citizens felt unfairly treated.  What is needed in Milton is a top-to-bottom review with an objective of making zoning processes more citizen-centric.

*****************************************************************************

Johns Creek Post – Part 2

Following is more exciting post from the JCP.  It still shocks me to see elected officials attack citizens in this manner.  (Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems some profanity might have muted in this video.)

Viral Video: Town Hall Meltdown

Of course, we have witnessed similar behavior in the past year from three Council Members in Milton, despite a policy approved by Council in February 2016 that stressed the importance of government officials, including elected representatives, being deferential to citizens.  Although do we really need a policy that states that elected officials should be respectful and courteous in their interactions with constituents?  Shouldn’t this be obvious to our elected officials?  Thin-skinned, ego-driven politicians probably need to find another line of work.

Tim Becker