Recently, I endorsed candidates for the upcoming City of Milton elections.  The most important race in the City is for the District 2 City Council seat, which pits Laura Bentley, Chairman of the Equestrian Committee, against 11-year incumbent Bill Lusk.  I truly believe the Bentley-Lusk race is a referendum on the future course of our city.  The contrast between these 2 candidates could not be starker.  Ms. Bentley is the antithesis of Mr. Lusk.  Ms. Bentley stands squarely with citizens; Mr. Lusk stands squarely with Special Interests (aka developers).  Ms. Bentley is a strong advocate for good governance; Mr. Lusk opposes good governance at every turn.  For the last several years, Mr. Lusk (and his sidekick, Matt Kunz) have been at the center of dysfunction and gridlock in the City.  And Ms. Bentley, as a community leader, has politely, but firmly, opposed—and often thwarted—their political shenanigans.  

I have attended nearly every City Council meeting over the past 2 years and have been witness to Mr. Lusk’s poor voting record and his bad behavior.  The list of reasons to not vote for Mr. Lusk are many and varied, ranging from his advocacy for high density housing to his temper tantrums on the Council dais.  Following are a baker’s dozen (13) of these reasons—any one of which provide sufficient cause to cast a vote against Mr. Lusk, but taken in their totality show an elected official who is clearly out of touch with his constituents and who has violated the public trust.

1. Lusk voted against the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). The CLUP was written and unanimously approved by a 17-member Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC).  The CLUP captures the community’s aspirations for land use through multiple citizen workshops and citizen input at CPAC meetings; it is a citizen-driven plan.  The CLUP was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission.  The CLUP process was facilitated by professional consultants over a 12-month period using a rigorous, proven process.  Only Council Members Lusk and Kunz voted against the CLUP.  In so doing, they rejected the input of the community, 100s of hours of work by citizen volunteers, and the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
2. Lusk promoted the so-called “conservation” subdivision ordinance—the infamous CSO. This developer-promoted zoning ordinance would have brought cluster housing to un-sewered areas of Milton.  Mr. Lusk attempted to circumvent the City’s process for developing ordinances in his attempt to force through the CSO.  After the defeat of the CSO, Mr. Lusk (and Mr. Kunz) attempted to achieve the goals of the CSO through the Ebenezer rezoning.
3. Lusk has voted 4 times to extend sewer in Milton, resulting in higher density housing than would have been allowed under existing zoning. (See post on Sewer Creep = Higher Density = Higher Developer Profits)
4. Lusk has voted for 3 re-zonings that resulted in 2-3 times higher density than would have been allowed under existing zoning. This includes 1) the townhouse development across from Cambridge High School and 2) the infamous Ebenezer rezoning.
5. Lusk promoted Brightwater Homes Ebenezer project in advance of the Ebenezer rezoning hearing, thereby violating his duty of judicial impartiality in zoning hearings, which are judicial proceedings. This is akin to a judge advocating for a litigant in advance of that litigant appearing before the judge in a court trial.  Mr. Lusk and Mr. Kunz even sported green polo shirts to demonstrate their solidarity with the developer.  Mr. Lusk supported Mr. Kunz’s negotiations on behalf of the developer in the rezoning hearing.
6. Lusk routinely lashes out at citizen-critics on-line, in the newspaper, and from the Council dais. This is a violation of the city’s policy that government officials show deference to citizens, even when those citizens are critical.  In his lashing out at citizens, Mr. Lusk has questioned both the patriotism and volunteerism of his critics.  Furthermore Mr. Lusk has shown disdain for citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights:  Free Speech, Free Assembly, and Right to Petition, even asserting that citizens are “abusing” and “violating” the First Amendment freedoms with their comments at Council and on-line.
7. Lusk was the chief accomplice in the clandestine redrawing of District 1’s boundaries. Mr. Lusk was the only Council Member to write a letter Representative Jan Jones supporting the redistricting.  In so doing, Mr. Lusk kept an ally on Council while eliminating competition for his seat on Council.
8. Lusk recently attempted to throw Milton City Council election qualification process into disarray by advocating against extending the qualification period, in opposition to state law and the advice of the City Attorney. In so doing, Mr. Lusk joined Mr. Kunz in savaging fellow Council Member Joe Longoria at a City Council meeting, where Mr. Longoria was recused and therefore unable to defend himself.
9. Lusk engages, during council meetings, in private consultations with Council Member Kunz to coordinate their strategies on issues before council—this is a direct violation of Georgia’s Open Meetings Law.
10. Lusk routinely circumvents the City Manager to directly engage city government personnel—in direct violation of Milton City code. Mr. Lusk has a widely known reputation for constantly meddling in the day-to-day operations of the City government.  This includes showing up (late) to a Charter Commission meeting and directing/interrupting the proceedings, including urging the commission to expedite its proceedings.
11. Lusk successfully lobbied for a second vote on a subdivision platting that had been rejected by Council when he became aware that a developer friend was  involved in the project requiring the platting. Mr. Lusk then reversed his vote on the platting, which resulted in approval of the platting and creation of a non-standard one-acre lot on a gravel road.
12. Lusk asserts that development of Milton needs to be entrusted to developers, as they are licensed and certified professionals. Furthermore, Mr. Lusk asserts that Milton should not put any additional “hurdles” in the way of developers in Milton.  And Lusk maintains that Milton’s Planning Commission is composed of non-professionals that render subjective recommendations, and accordingly should not be granted additional authority over land use.
13. Lusk has promoted HOA-operated and maintained private sewer systems (i.e., community septic). These systems are relatively untested and have experienced issues both in Milton and in other jurisdictions.  Such systems are needed to support cluster housing in rural areas of Milton.

Advocating For Citizens,

Tim Becker