Citizens:

Mr. Lusk is circulating a rebuttal to claims that I have made regarding his voting record and his conduct as a Council Member.  He is correct in that I have made all 13 assertions, and I stick by all 13.  Below, I have included Mr. Lusk’s rebuttals in their entirety.  My counter-rebuttal is in red.  I also urge readers to peruse my blog posts over the last 2 years.  I have covered most of these topics in detail.  Not once has Mr. Lusk, who is obviously a regular reader of my blog, ever contacted me to dispute either my facts or my findings.

1. Claim: Lusk voted against the Comprehensive Plan

To be clear, there are two Comprehensive Plans. I supported one for good reason and did not support the other.  (meaning he voted against it.)

• In August 2011 I voted with a unanimous Council to support the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. It was a good plan. My opponent campaigned against it. She did not use the actual language of the Comprehensive Plan.  I don’t think she actually read the entire 110 page document. If you’d like to read it, here is the link:  https://www.cityofmiltonga.us/lib/file/manager/Comp_Plan_Final.pdf
• The 2035 Comprehensive Plan had some serious problems. It was too ambiguous and took away individual rights. My opponent supported the 2035 plan. These arguments were never made by Mr. Lusk during the city council hearings.  Watch the video at the City website.

If we are to have an honest discussion, let’s talk about the differences between the two plans and stop throwing darts.

Wrong.  There is only 1 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP).  The CLUP is updated every 5 years. The current CLUP was approved in October, 2016 and replaced the 2011 plan.  Only Lusk and Kunz voted against the 2016 CLUP.  The reason they cited was that the CSO was not included . . . the same CSO that citizens overwhelmingly opposed and which Lusk never mentions anymore.  The CLUP was written and unanimously approved by a 17-member committee that channeled the desires of citizens expressed at workshops and other meetings.  The drafting of the CLUP followed a rigorous process that encompassed nearly a year and was facilitated by consultants.  The Planning Commission approved the CLUP 7 to nothing.  If you do not believe me (that there is only 1 CLUP), then call the Community Development department at City Hall and talk to Cathy Field or Robyn McDonald.

2. Claim: Lusk promoted the so-called conservation subdivision ordinance

I supported the 2030 Comprehensive Plan which the Council unanimously approved in August 2011which stipulated that the city should consider using conservation design to achieve our objectives.

• When Councilman Bert Hewitt introduced the motion in August 2011, he actually asked to strengthen the language regarding conservation design.
• I agreed that it was a tool that the city could use to avoid AG1 sprawl.
• My opponent opposed the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in spite of the wishes of the Council. Even worse, she maintained that the conservation design was not in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This is false.  Watch the video. 

 I see this as an issue of integrity. We must have honest discussions about all the tools available to us. Platitudes and misstatements are not the answer.

The 2011 CLUP only specified that the City CONSIDER Conservation Subdivisions.  The City did and rejected them as unworkable for Milton.  All conservation subdivision language was expunged from the CLUP by the 17-member Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee.  That is why Mr. Lusk and Mr. Kunz voted against the CLUP.

3. Claim: Lusk voted 4 times to extend sewer in Milton

Sewer has been a divisive issue in Milton since the beginning. Some people believe that new sewers lead to overdevelopment, while others believe that sewers are more efficient and effective than individual septic tanks. Constitutional issues also come into play.

• This issue was basically resolved during the last election and the worst-case scenarios are behind us.  (How was it resolved?)
• If we constantly deny a property owner the right to decide whether to have sewer or septic, a landowner will still have the right to sell his or her property to someone who might make the situation worse or the landowner might take the city to court.
• We will continue to make good decisions regarding land-use, so that what goes above the ground is within the vision of a Comprehensive Plan.

Lusk’s gives a non-answer . . . a series of non sequiturs. 

We have a sewer map that shows where sewer can go and cannot go.  A lot of work went into developing the sewer map; it should be followed.  This is not complicated.  Each time sewer was extended, it was to allow higher density housing; that is a fact.

4. Claim: Lusk has voted three times for zonings that resulted in higher density

When I assumed office, I promised that I would protect the rights of all Milton citizens.

The Ebenezer Road development is one example where rights became an issue, whether 31 or 48 homes would be built on that parcel. The landowners had rights for 48 homes, and they will be close to that number when it’s built out.  (Empirically not true.)

• My vote was based on my promise to defend Milton’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan to preserve greenspace. The idea was supported by the Fulton County Health Department, the city staff, and two independent licensed engineers
• The Ebenezer property would have preserved 35 acres of greenspace, two miles of walking trails, sold 700K+ homes, and would have been the first subdivision that would have added a horse pasture in Milton unlike all the AG1 properties that take them away.
• Unfortunately, the equestrian pasture that I fought to defend will be developed to more AG1 homes.
• If you want to read the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, here’s the link: https://www.cityofmiltonga.us/lib/file/manager/Comp_Plan_Final.pdf

Brightwater homes bought the most attractive 38 acres and is building 21 homes on it.  It is doubtful that the remaining land (which is less attractive or unbuildable) will support more than 9 more homes and who knows when that will happen.  So <30 homes will be built where 55 were originally proposed (and 48 were sought by Mr. Lusk).

Much of Brightwater’s “greenspace” was unbuildable and 14 acres were going to have septic drip lines.  And Mr. Lusk makes no mention of the HOA operated/maintained community septic system–aka community septic. 

NINETY PERCENT of Ebenezer Road residents opposed the development; yet Mr. Lusk still wanted to cram it down their throats.  Will he do the same to Wood Road residents one day?  Or neighbors near a future rezoning that he votes to approve.

The property across from Cambridge High School, was another fractious issue. Few people know the history of the property.

• The property was supposed to be a church, with far less traffic, and far less use.  Because that was denied, the developer explored other options. I would have preferred a church, as it was initially proposed, but the City Council voted 5-2 for a compromise for transitional housing.

The church story is a red herring.  The land was zoned AG-1, meaning it should have been built out with 7-8 homes.  Plain and simple.  Instead, 27 townhouses are going to be built . . . more than 3 times the density under AG-1 zoning.

A third issue involved rezoning of a property on Hopewell Road.

• The property was originally zoned for low density housing. My opponent continues to hide from this fact. See the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in the 2030 Future Land Use Map: https://www.cityofmiltonga.us/lib/file/manager/Comp_Plan_Final.pdf
• A Sewer main runs directly through the property. 
• A developer was prepared to challenge that zoning in court.

The best solution was a compromise because a court could have decided in favor of a far higher density. I could not let that happen in the city of Milton.

Again, the property was zoned AG-1 and should have been built with 1+acre lots.  End of story.  Milton’s sewer map was violated; in fact, a second vote was needed to extend sewer.  Do you know how many times the City has been sued by a developer that won?  ZERO times.  This is a tired and disingenuous response that is always used by Lusk, etc. to justify their votes for higher density.  Developers ALWAYS THREATEN TO SUE.  Let the developer sue!  Let’s defend AG-1.

5. Claim: Lusk promoted the Ebenezer property which is a violation of his oath of office (Well, actually I stated that his promotion of the rezoning was a violation of his duty of judicial impartiality, as a rezoning is a quasi-judicial matter.)

This is a false and misleading claim. I did not “promote” the project.

• The Ebenezer project was based on “conservation design,” one of the tools included in our 2030 Comprehensive Plan. That plan referenced conservation design 8 times.

My opponent apparently does not know this, but the people behind her candidacy surely do and choose to not tell the truth.  When I vote to do something, I give my word, and I tell the truth.  I talk to people and listen. I research. And then I make a decision in the best interest of the city, not for a selected few.

This is a blatant lie.  Lusk co-led tours of the property.  On the night of the second hearing, the Ebenezer proponents put out the word to wear green shirts, which both Lusk and Kunz wore.  I met with Lusk shortly before the 1st Ebenezer meeting and he offered to broker a meeting between me and the developer!  There are Facebook postings, etc. of Lusk and Kunz promoting the Ebenezer development.  Ask the residents of Ebenezer Road whether Lusk and Kunz were promoting Brightwater’s project.  Or watch the meeting video.

6. Claim: Lusk routinely lashes out at citizen critics

This claim is a Saul Alinsky tactic to ridicule just for the sake of divisiveness. (Alinsky wrote the book Rules for Radicals). It is an attempt to intimidate and silence elected officials.

• If anybody has a question about where I stand, they can meet with me and we can talk, something I’ve done with citizens many times in my 11 years on the Council.
• This charge comes from one disgruntled individual who spends an inordinate amount of time lashing out at fellow citizens.  Plus, this individual publicly disclosed that he’s under an ethics investigation by the state of Georgia.
• When citizens hear these claims, they should consider the source. 

Watch the videos at the Milton Coalition blog.  In fact, many citizens have witnessed these attacks from the dais.  

I disclosed that a complaint was lodged against me, after citizens told me that Lusk, Kunz, and Thurman were telling citizens that I was “under investigation.”  The complaint is false and frivolous and I expect it to be dismissed in the near future.  A complaint was lodged, I responded, and the ethics committee staff are making a determination whether or not to dismiss the complaint.

I have never lashed out at individual citizens.  Mr. Lusk often makes assertions with no proof.  I provide proof at my blog of any assertions I make, including video.  I challenge Mr. Lusk to provide 1 instance where “I lashed out at fellow citizens.”

7. Claim: Lusk was the chief accomplice in the redistricting of District 1

This charge is a fabrication. Every member on Council, including the Mayor, knew the redistricting was happening and that is was consistent with State law.  Not a single member voiced any concern with it.

This charge is nothing more than a political attempt to influence the elections. That could be why the individual who makes this claim is under an ethics investigation by the state of Georgia. 

Council members were only made aware of the change as a bill was about to be introduced into the Georgia Assembly.  Citizens were never notified of the change or give a chance for input.  Thurman requested letters of support from Council AFTER the bill was introduced; ONLY Lusk provided a letter.  Lusk’s support of the change kept Thurman from running against him and kept a Lusk ally on Council.

8. Claim: Lusk and Kunz engage in private conversations during Council meetings

The issue here is my challenge of the Mayor for his practice of texting during City Council meetings. Texting during Public meetings is a violation of the State Open Meetings Act.  The charge comes from an individual who supported the mayor’s texting and seeks to distort the real issue which is that City Council members should not exchange texts with advisors in the audience and elsewhere during discussion of issues that will be voted on during the meeting.

Texting is NOT a violation of the State Open Meeting Act.  The State Attorney General has been very clear about this.  And texts are always subject to open records requests.  However, Mr. Lusk and Mr. Kunz routinely engage in conversations about strategy that are not heard by the public.  And unlike texts, there are no records of these conversations.  Several Council members, including Mr. Lusk, also use private and personal email to conduct City business, which is not transparent (although not against the law—similar to texting).  Having said that, I do have concerns about texting in Council meetings, particularly zoning hearings.

9. Claim: Lusk successfully lobbied to reinstate a subdivision plat that had been rejected by Council

The fact here is the subdivision plat was required to come before Council for ratification. While the Council initially rejected the plat due to some legal confusion, the staff brought it back because those legal concerns needed to be understood and reconsidered. There was no lobbying involved. When you govern, you have to consider all aspects of the law. That was done in this instance.

Wrong.  Staff did not bring it back.  Mr. Lusk specifically requested that the subdivision platting be put back on the council agenda.  And I have an email from the city government stating this.  A developer essentially got a second day in court–a developer who is a friend and political patron of Mr. Lusk’s.

10. Claim: Lusk routinely circumvents the city manager

This is silly.  I don’t circumvent anybody. Just ask the City Manager.

Mr. Lusk is constantly involved in the day-to-day operations of the city.  Many citizens have been witness to his meeting one-on-one with staff, without the participation of the City Manager. 

11. Claim: Lusk recently attempted to throw city Council elections into disarray

This absurd charge concerns one city council member who failed to file his election qualifying paperwork on time. As a result, we had to have special council meeting to extend the election process. I voted for that extension, but I believe the difficulty could have been avoided.  Qualifying ended two days after it should have, but it’s done now.

Watch the video at the Milton Coalition blog.  Mr. Lusk and Mr. Kunz trash Joe Longoria, who cannot speak because he is recused.  Mr. Lusk argues against the extension.  When he realizes that he does not have the votes, Mr. Lusk tries to disqualify Mr. Mohrig from voting.  Watch the video.  Mr. Lusk also tried to recruit candidates to run against Mr. Longoria.  Mr. Lusk voted for the extension only after he realized he did not have the votes to stop it.

12. Claim: Lusk asserts that development of Milton should be entrusted to developers

This is an outright lie. I supported the 2030 Comprehensive Plan that, through conservation design, would allow citizens to determine where homes ought to go in every subdivision. Current AG1 housing gives citizens no right to decide where homes should go. My opponent doesn’t want you to have that right.

• Since our city’s inception, over 53 AG1 subdivisions have sprawled throughout the Milton landscape, eating away at our horse pastures and rural character.
• Unless your Council deals with AG1, citizens will continue to have no say where future homes will go.

My opponent continues to advocate for more AG1 housing subdivisions.

Watch the two 2-minute videos at my blog where Lusk states “leave it to the professionals”, let’s not put any additional “hurdles” in the way of developers, “we have pretty good control” over development, etc.  Lusk is hoping you will not watch the videos at the Milton Coalition website.  The title of the post is “Must-See Video:  Mr. Lusk’s Views on Development in His Own Words”

13. Claim: Lusk has promoted residential community septic

Our laws have allowed community septic. We have it already in our city in some places. It is a technology that could help us achieve the goals of our 2030 Comprehensive Plan and stop AG1 sprawl.

• My opponent doesn’t have a plan to stop AG1 sprawl which is a major threat to what’s left of our rural character.
• I seek to utilize all the technology and other tools available to protect and preserve our rural character. 

Community septic is private sewer.  Think about the issues associated with an HOA operating and maintaining a sewer system.  This technology is not proven and has had many problems, including at The Manor.  Forsyth County had issues with community septic and banned it.

Tim Becker