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