October 9, 2017

Yesterday’s post was about the past; today’s blog is about the future.  Yesterday’s blog post debunked 5 of 6 of Mr. Lusk’s alleged past “accomplishments.”  Today’s post focuses on Mr. Lusk’s promised future accomplishments.  They are listed above.  Here’s my take on Mr. Lusk’s 3 campaign promises:

1. Freezing property value assessments. Certainly, reform of property taxes is needed.  The property tax system needs to be changed to eliminate steep and sometimes arbitrary hikes in valuations, such as were recently experienced in the early summer.  Furthermore, Milton’s government needs to lobby Fulton County and the state to effect such changes.  However, citizens need to realize that the issue is mostly out of our city government’s hands.  Accordingly, I do not believe Mr. Lusk can deliver on this promise or, should property tax reform occur, claim much credit for reform.  Additionally, any efforts to promote reform need to be effected through City staff and City Council, not showboating efforts from individual Council Members.
2. Complete trail system and develop new parklands. Based on Mr. Lusk’s past behavior, I am skeptical that he would fulfill this promise in an aboveboard fashion.  Mr. Lusk tried to politicize the staffing of the Greenspace Committee, including stacking the committee with controversial appointees—in particular, current mayoral candidate Laura Rencher.  When Ms. Rencher complained (twice) before Council that she had been unfairly passed over in favor of less qualified candidates, Mr. Lusk proposed naming “alternate” board members that would attend meetings and automatically be slotted into vacancies on the Greenspace Committee. Fortunately, Mr. Lusk’s political shenanigans were thwarted; however, that is a post for another day.  Fortunately, Council appointed capable and objective citizens to the Greenspace Committee.  I have watched a few meetings and been impressed with the proceedings.
3. Improving city’s roads and intersections. This campaign promise is being made by all the candidates in Milton.  However, this promise by Mr. Lusk begs the question of why he continues to support re-zonings to higher density; schemes (e.g., the CSO) to accelerate development and/or increase density; and sewer extensions (which enable density)—all of which put more vehicles on Milton’s already overcrowded roads.  Traffic congestion is an issue where we need to think about both capacity/supply (e.g., road improvements) and volume/demand (e.g., vehicles and trip length).  Lusk seems to be only thinking about the capacity/supply side.

The issue of traffic congestion raises the question of where Mr. Lusk stands on future development in Milton, which underlies many of our City most pressing problems, such as traffic congestion, overcrowded schools, and threats to property values.  Mr. Lusk does not make any promises about development.  Given the critical importance of development in Milton, it boggles the mind that Mr. Lusk would not include development objectives in his campaign platform.  Mr. Lusk’s silence on the issue of development speaks volumes about his priorities.  In the past, Mr. Lusk has clearly stated that the City of Milton should leave development “to the professionals”—i.e., developers.  His justification for this position is that developers are “objective” because of their licenses and certifications.  Conversely, he believes that the City’s quasi-judicial land use committees, such as the Planning Commission, are composed of “nonprofessionals” who render “subjective” decisions.  Accordingly, he asserts that these committees’ role in land use decisions should be minimized, even though they have been chartered by the city to make land use decisions.  Mr. Lusk has also argued against adding any “steps” or “hurdles” to the city’s development processes.  He asserts that the City has “pretty good control” over development in Milton.  So I suppose that Mr. Lusk is not making campaign promises about development because he believes our current development regulations are working well.  Apparently, the clear-cutting that has become commonplace in our city doesn’t bother Mr. Lusk.  I urge citizens to take 4 minutes to watch the following two videos where Mr. Lusk explains his views on development in the City (and also expresses his low regard for the Planning Commission).  It should be obvious to viewers why Mr. Lusk does not have a development “plank” in his campaign platform . . . reckless development in Milton is not a concern for Mr. Lusk.

Advocating For Citizens,

Tim Becker

October 8, 2017

At his website and in a recent mailer, Bill Lusk lists his top “accomplishments” as a City Council Member.  In some cases, Lusk’s alleged accomplishments are completely fabricated, with Lusk incredibly taking credit for the accomplishments/positions of his opponent (e.g., denying high density development and achieving 3-acre minimums along gravel roads).  In other cases, his alleged “accomplishment” is far past its expiration date, with Mr. Lusk going back 12 years with one “accomplishment.”  And most of Lusk’s claimed “accomplishments” are not accomplishments at all.  Opposing something is not really an “accomplishment.”  A yes or no vote on an issue is not really an “accomplishment.”  A real accomplishment would be taking the lead on an issue and successfully advocating for a solution, as Laura Bentley has done for 2+ years .  What initiatives did Mr. Lusk champion and get implemented?  Does Mr. Lusk know the meaning of the word “accomplishment”?  Does he think voters will not take a little time to think about what he so carelessly listed as his “accomplishments”?  Mr. Lusk has been on Council for 11 years and these “accomplishments” are the best he can come up with?  Really?  The truth is that Mr. Lusk is running FROM his record.  He has accomplished a lot for developers, but has done nothing for citizens.

Accomplishment 1:  I fought the Fulton County Board of Commissioners to rescind Property Value Assessments.

The Facts:

1. THIS IS FALSE . . . plain and simple. The Fulton County Board of Commissioners (including our local representative, Bob Ellis) fought hard to rescind the inflated property value assessments.  The problem was with Fulton County’s Board of Assessors.  You would think Mr. Lusk would have gotten this basic fact correct.
2. Nearly every North Fulton County elected official opposed the tax increase. All seven Milton City Council members opposed the tax assessments and signed a letter of opposition.  In any case, opposing something is not an accomplishment.
3. Lusk did NOT play a prominent role in opposing the property tax increases. I only saw him at 1 town hall meeting, where he was silent.  Mr. Lusk did not attend nor speak at the all-important Fulton County Board of Assessors meeting in downtown Atlanta.  I did attend and speak, as did Commissioner Bob Ellis, Mayor Lockwood, and Council Member Matt Kunz.  Mr. Lusk was nowhere to be found.  The following video shows Council’s initial discussion of the property tax increase.  Mr. Lusk says NOTHING.

 

4.  Lusk’s actions relative to the tax increase were counterproductive. Mr. Lusk joined Council Members Thurman and Kunz in quickly surrendering on the tax increase and instead promoting a roll-back of Milton’s millage rates.  This roll-back, which would have had little effect on overall property taxes, was a transparent effort to curry favor with voters.  At best, this millage rate proposal was distraction from the main battle against the tax assessments; at worst, Mr. Lusk undermined efforts to rescind the tax assessments.  Later, Mr. Lusk jumped on the opposition bandwagon once citizens’ ire became clear to him.

Accomplishment 2:  I continue to fight against Milton’s high density and over development.

The Facts:

1. THIS IS FALSE . . . plain and simple.
2. The truth is that Mr. Lusk has been the chief proponent of high density and overdevelopment in Milton.
3. During his current term, three rezonings from low density to high density have been considered by Council. Bill Lusk voted for all three high density rezonings, granting anywhere from 2 to 3 times more density than was allowed under existing zoning.  This includes the townhouse development across from Cambridge High School.
4. Lusk also was the chief advocate of the infamous CSO, which would have allowed high density housing in the rural areas of Milton. This ordinance would have allowed HOAs to manage private sewer systems!
5. During his current term, Council has considered extending sewer on 4 occasions. Bill Lusk voted for all 4 sewer extensions, thereby allowing higher density in the affected areas.
6. Lusk opponent, Laura Bentley, has been the chief opponent of high density and overdevelopment. Bentley spoke at Council against all 3 rezonings that Mr. Lusk voted for.

Accomplishment 3:  I cast the deciding vote to deny a 256-unit apartment complex that I felt was not in the best interest of Milton.

The Facts:

1. THIS ASSERTION IS HIGHLY DECEPTIVE. Lusk engages in some interesting sleight of hand.  This “accomplishment” is meant to “prove” that Mr. Lusk is fighting against high density as he asserts in the previous “accomplishment.”  (BTW, a vote for or against something is not really an accomplishment.)
2. THIS VOTE WAS NOT A VOTE AGAINST HIGH DENSITY. The proposed re-zoning was to rezone the property from Commercial/Business to Residential.  I would have also voted against this rezoning.  This was a vote to preserve Milton’s commercial/business capacity and maintain a strong commercial tax base.  As explained in item 2 above, Lusk consistently votes for residential-to-residential rezonings from low density to high density.  To cite a commercial-to-residential rezoning as a credential for opposing high density is just plain dishonest.
3. This vote was taken over 5 years ago. It is interesting that Mr. Lusk had to go back 5 years to find an “example” of his fighting high density.  One year later, Council unanimously voted against a similar proposal by the same developer at the same site.
4. All 4 Council Members that voted against this rezoning could claim to be the “deciding vote.”

Accomplishment 4:  I fought to create the City of Milton despite strong opposition from the Fulton County Board of Commissioners.

The Facts:

1. This moldy-oldie  “accomplishment” dates back 12 years and obviously predates the founding of the city. Why is it that Mr. Lusk cannot conjure up more recent accomplishments from his current term on Council?  The reason, I would assert, is that Lusk has no recent accomplishments . . . or at least none that would gain him votes from anybody other than developers.
2. Many dozens of people can claim they “fought” for the creation of the City of Milton. This is like saying you are in favor of “puppies” or “oxygen.”
3. People with whom I have spoken have stated that, as with the recent property tax assessments, Lusk did not play an especially prominent role in the creation of the City.

Accomplishment 5:  I continue to fight to maintain and protect Milton’s cherished Gravel Roads.

1. MS. BENTLEY (NOT MR. LUSK) HAS BEEN THE CHIEF PROPONENT OF PROTECTING MILTON’S GRAVEL ROADS. MS. Bentley initially raised the issue of one-acre vs. three-acre minimum lot sizes on gravel roads when she protested the development at the corner of Nix and Freemanville.  Then Ms. Bentley led citizens in a successful campaign for 3-acre minimum lot sizes along gravel roads.  Residents called Bentley when the issue was raised on Wood Road.  She attended meetings of Wood Road residents and advised them on how to advocate for preservation of their gravel road.  If you drive down Wood Road today, you will see a lot of Bentley signs . . . Wood Road residents know the truth.
2. Lusk was uncharacteristically quiet during Council discussions about gravel roads. However, Mr. Lusk’s two closest allies, mayoral candidate Laura Rencher and Council Member Matt Kunz, both advocated loudly against 3 acre minimums along gravel roads (see posts below).  Both cited non-existent “precedent” as justification for their support for desecrating our gravel roads.  Mr. Lusk let Ms. Rencher and Mr. Kunz promote the notion of 1-acre lots along gravel roads.  When it became clear the votes to overturn 3-acre minimums were not there, Mr. Lusk swung to the majority.  This is an often-used Lusk tactic:  Switch sides on an issue when it becomes clear where the majority is leaning.  It is unprincipled, but effective.  This tactic allows “plausible deniability” with uninformed voters who will not dig deeper to find the truth.  That is why Mr. Lusk hates this blog . . . I dig down to inconvenient truths.

Here is Matt Kunz’s post on gravel roads where he advocates for 1-acre (vs. 3-acre) minimum lot sizes.

Following is Laura Rencher’s post about minimum lot sizes on gravel roads:

Advocating For Truth and Citizens

Tim Becker