Uncategorized

2021 Elections: Two Competitive Races and Opportunity to Send Message to Council

The focus of today’s post is the 2021 City Council elections.  I will start with some of the basics as there are quite few new subscribers to the blog.  There will be 2 parts to this post, with the second part published tomorrow.

On August 19th, qualifying for upcoming City Council elections ended.  The qualification period lasted 3 days.  Qualification is when candidates officially declare their candidacy, filing the necessary paperwork at City Hall and paying fees to the City Clerk.  The City ascertains that filing candidates are residents of Milton and running in the correct district.  Qualifying ensures that candidates’ names appear on the November ballot. 

Milton’s elected government consists of a mayor plus a city council, comprised of 6 members–two from each of Milton’s three districts.  The Mayor sits on Council and has a vote; he/she also retains some special powers and serves as a kind of “head of state” for ceremonial functions (ribbon-cuttings, etc.).  In Milton, in 2021, voters will elect the Mayor and 3 Council members–one from each of Milton’s three districts.  (Elections are staggered every 2 years, so the remaining three Council members will be elected in 2023.)  The Mayor and Council Members serve four-year terms.  Voting is at-large, meaning that all Milton citizens vote for all council members, regardless of the candidate’s or the voter’s district.  So in 2021, all voters will vote for the Mayor and for three Council members.

Two of the four 2021 races will be competitive.  That is both good news and bad news.  The good news is that two races are competitive.  Milton needs competitive races to keep politicians honest and to foster debates about important city issues.  And one of the races features an upstart against an incumbent.  This race is especially encouraging as it gives citizens an opportunity to send a message to our city government about citizens’ satisfaction with the status quo and with the City government’s accomplishments (or lack thereof) over the past 4 years.  (I will have much more to say about this topic as I strongly believe things are not well in Milton and governance has sadly regressed over the past 4 years.) 

The bad news is that only 2 races are competitive.  It is troubling that more citizens do not enter the political arena; Milton desperately needs smart, honest, and caring elected representatives.  However, citizens’ reluctance to run is understandable given the often dysfunctional (and sometimes toxic) political environment in Milton (the Matilda’s and Painted Horse fiascos are Exhibits A and B of the dysfunction at City Hall.)  Many eminently qualified citizens do not run out of fear, disgust, or both.  In 2013 and 2015, things were so bad that there were actually no competitive elections in Milton.  However, through the hard work of a small group of citizens that I was proud to be a part of (and sometimes lead), citizens rebelled and ejected several City Council members in 2017 and 2019. 

Milton actually has a good track record when it comes to “throwing the bums out.”  Many incumbents have been voted out of office (or sometimes saw the writing on the wall and declined to run).  It is helpful that Milton’s elections occur in odd-numbered years, when there are (usually) no state or federal candidates on the ballot.  This means that only the most committed and informed voters show up at the polls . . . folks like you who are willing to invest to understand the election landscape and are much less likely to be persuaded by appeals based on incumbency and “experience.”

In tomorrow’s post, I will provide my observations on the four City Council seats up for election.

Advocating For Miltonites,

Tim

Uncategorized

Citizen Education and Engagement Are Key to Good Governance

A few days ago, I sent an email to my email distribution list.  Thousands of Milton’s citizens received my email announcing that I had re-launched the Milton Coalition blog in advance of the 2021 City Council elections.  I was encouraged by the response.  My email program and my blog both provide aggregated statistics on citizen responses.  My dashboard shows that 44.1% of citizens opened my email and that 21.6% of these readers clicked through to the Milton Coalition Blog.  This compares with an average open rate of 19.34% and clickthrough rate of 12.66% for political emails.  Also, my dashboard indicates that, on average, each person opening the email forwarded the email to one other person, thereby doubling the email’s distribution.  Thank you.  My blog dashboard shows that the blog has been viewed over 450 times (over 10% coming from citizens’ posts on social media) in the past 48 hoursAround two dozen citizens became new subscribers.  Welcome.  I am humbled by your trust and confidence as indicated by these statistics.  And I am (once again) encouraged by the engagement of so many Miltonites in local good governance.  It is my firm belief that excellent local governance correlates closely with citizen engagement and that education is a necessary prerequisite to such engagement.

Screenshot From Milton Coalition Email Dashboard

When I first engaged in city government in late 2015, it was obvious to me that there was a need for well-reasoned, well-researched perspectives on City government.  The Milton Herald provided some coverage, but it lacked depth and analysis.  And the paper’s editor also seemed to be biased toward one of the two factions battling it out in Milton.  There were also communications from the City, but most were the equivalent of cotton candy—a lot of air and very little nutritional value.  And finally there were several partisan Facebook pages, where the back-and-forth dialogue resembled the verbal equivalent of a food fight.  A lot of nastiness, but little insight.  Does anyone really change their minds based on these Facebook battles? In view of this dearth of accurate and actionable information, I launched the Milton Coalition Blog and slowly built up readership.  It has been a labor of love for me.  Since the blog’s inception, I have published over 275 blog posts.  At times (the run-up to the 2017 election or key City Council meetings), the blog has attracted many hundreds of readers daily.

My hope is that the blog will once again provide citizens with a source of useful information and insights in the run-up to the City Council Elections.  Please feel free to reach out to me with comments and questions.  Please let me know if you find any factual errors, but realize that my opinions are my opinions (supported by facts).  Please feel free to challenge me . . . I welcome an honest, respectful debate.

Advocating for Citizen Engagement,

Tim

Uncategorized

Council Member Bentley: Yet Another Promise Broken

(Last updated August 25, 2023)

(Trigger Warning:  I realize that some readers may find my blog harsh, although I prefer the descriptor “hard-hitting.”  However, I urge you to invest the time to read and understand my perspective.  I invested the better part of 2+ years of my life for the cause of good governance in Milton.  I partnered with Laura Bentley to achieve good governance in Milton; I know Laura (politically) better than probably anyone in Milton.  I have paid a very high price for my involvement in local politics, including spending over $10,000 on an attorney.  And I certainly deeply regret my support for certain politicians.  However, if you are in the I’ve-made-up-my-mind-so-don’t-confuse-me-with-the-facts camp, feel free to unsubscribe from my blog.  Conversely, if you care about Milton and can handle the truth, I believe you will find my future blog posts enlightening.

Upon being elected to City Council, Laura Bentley stated to me and others:  “I intend to serve only one term.  Beginning day one, I am going to find a successor.”

Yesterday, the City of Milton posted the names of candidates who qualified for the Mayorship and for City Council seats.  (Two City Council seats will be competitive.  That is good; the community benefits from competitive local races.)  Surprise of surprises (tongue in cheek), Council Member Bentley paid her fees and qualified for re-election.  Laura’s reversal on re-election was predictable, following in the wake of so many other broken promises. 

Very early in her term, Ms. Bentley demonstrated a singular lack of integrity in the conduct of her office.  And I suppose at some point when engaging in deception, you cross a sort of Rubicon, where political dishonesty just becomes routine.  (See below passage from Dante’s Purgatorio.)  Frankly, I do not think Laura gave a second thought to breaking her promise to serve only one term.  As Laura’s longest and strongest supporter, I was shocked by Laura’s behavior during her first few months in office.  Many of her strongest supporters were similarly shocked.  The foundation of my and supporters’ political bond (and friendship) with Laura was our dedication to shared political principlesstrict adherence to zoning laws and practices (and more generally to the rule of law); improved transparency; shifting power to citizens (through structural changes to city government); enhanced accountability; improved government competence; reform of the zoning process; the end of cronyism; honesty; fairness; a level playing field for citizens (vs. developers); strong deference to residents most impacted by Council decisions;  and the highest ethical standards for conduct of our government.  Within a few short months after taking her oath of office, Laura had abandoned most/all of these principles; the Matilda’s debacle is Milton’s poster child for poor governance (as I will explain in future posts).  Sadly, our City has gone backwards over the last 4 years.  Many of Laura’s strongest supporters have disengaged in disgust . . . another victory for cynicism about politics and politicians.  I myself eventually went into quasi political exile, no longer actively engaged but still watching the terrible dysfunction at City Hall.  However, with election season upon us, I feel compelled to re-engage.  Voters need to understand the problems at Council and with City staff and the resulting ill effects on Milton’s quality of life.

I believe integrity (and more generally political ethics) will be a key issue in the upcoming District 2 election.  For me personally, professional integrity is a litmus test for politicians.  No integrity, no support.  Applying this standard, I will not be supporting Ms. Bentley for a second term.  

For those of you with a more literary bent, I end this blog post with a favorite passage from Dante’s Purgatorio:

He sank so low that all means

for his salvation were gone,

except showing him the lost people.

For this I visited the region of the dead . . .

Advocating For Integrity in Politics,

Tim

Uncategorized

Good Process Is Essential to Good Outcomes and to Maintaining Public Trust

In re-launching the Milton Coalition blog, to support my conclusions and recommendations, I will be providing citizens with email correspondence, texts, voicemails, and even a few hand-written notes.  I have kept every scrap of documentation from my civic activities.  (This will prove decidedly inconvenient and uncomfortable for some city officials.)

Following is an email exchange with Steve Krokoff, the City Manager, which is typical of exchanges I’ve had with the City Attorney, Mayor, and most council members (especially Council Member Laura Bentley).  I provide this email because it concisely summarizes my reasons for getting into city politics, staying in city politics, and most importantly, my deep passion/care for good governance.  To sum up, how things get done in Milton is much more important than what things get done.  My long experience with my clients has taught me that good outcomes (i.e., what gets done) are inevitably the result of good processes (i.e., how things get done).  To achieve good outcomes, you have work hard to implement and consistently execute good processes.  Good processes are characterized by honesty, fairness, transparency, rigor, and accountability.  And mostly importantly, a good process upholds the rule of law.  If suboptimal outcomes occur, then processes should be revised . . . rather than circumvented.

There is danger, and ultimately failure, in ignoring or circumventing good governance to achieve so-called good outcomes,  which predictably usually promote the interests of politicians and their friends/family but not citizens’ interests.  Things have gone badly wrong in Milton because certain politicians—some of whom regretfully I supported—have ignored our laws and have abused/disregarded established city processes and good governance principles to promote their own personal agendas or friends/family’s agendas.  And what these politicians fundamentally do not understand is that the ultimate good outcome—and the basis for all other truly good outcomes–is trust and confidence in government.  Such trust is hard to gain and easy to lose . . . it takes but a few big lies (and some council members have told some whoppers).  In fact, big lies by some city council members in Milton have caused trust and confidence in local government to dramatically decline, causing increasing division among citizens.  Milton is doomed to divisiveness until we elect officials that are passionate about principles and process and act on that passion.

One glaring example of abuse of process (and a resulting loss of trust) is council’s practice of allowing developers to bastardize use permits with variances (exceptions to zoning laws) to put properties to use in ways contrary to the law, reasonable expectations of citizens, and Milton’s rural character.  Granting such variances sets legal precedents that ensure that Milton City Council’s poor decisions metastasize across the community.  In future posts, I will cite specific examples of process abuses (and their reverberations across the community) and call out particular politicians and government officials for their roles in eroding public trust.

Advocating For Good Governance,

Tim

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

RE: Congratulations on Your Appointment

Steven Krokoff <Steven.Krokoff@cityofmiltonga.us>

Fri 7/15/2016 3:20 PM

To:  You

Thank you very much, Tim. Based on what you have said, I believe that we are very much like-minded. I have almost 25 years in public service with over a decade in top leadership roles. Much of the success that I have been a part of has been rooted in forming outstanding leadership teams and inspiring public trust and confidence. I am confident that we can achieve all of what you seek for Milton and more. I look forward to working with you as well. Have a great weekend.

Warmest Regards,

Steve Krokoff

Steven Krokoff

City Manager/Interim-Chief of Police

From: Tim Becker
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 7:15 PM
To: Steven Krokoff <Steven.Krokoff@cityofmiltonga.us>
Subject: Congratulations on Your Appointment

Steve:

Congratulations on your appointment to City Manager.  I think the City made a good and wise choice.

I look forward to working with you.  

Please understand that my primary interest is in City processes.  I strongly believe that if our processes are fair, rigorous, honest, and transparent, the City will achieve the right outcomes . . . which may not be the outcomes I would prefer.  If we get the process right, then citizens will have trust and confidence in our City government.  This is critical.  I know this to be true based on my 30+ years in the military and in business.

I wish you success in your new job.  Please do not hesitate to reach out to me if I can help you in any way.

With deep civic pride,

Tim

Tim Becker

The Milton Coalition

Uncategorized

Advocating (Again) For Accountability

After the 2017 Milton elections, I received a call from newly elected Council Member Laura Bentley (paraphrasing):  “OK Tim, you are the first one I am calling.  I wanted to (again) give you the opportunity to serve as one of my appointees to one of Milton’s committees.  You can choose any appointed position that you want.”  Laura’s offer was in recognition of my role—some would claim it was dispositive—in Laura’s historic landslide victory (she garnered 71% of the vote) over an 11-year incumbent who had served on City Council since the founding of the City of Milton.  In Laura’s words I had done the “very messy heavy lifting.”  (In future blog posts, I will relate some of tasks I performed.  Readers will clearly understand what Laura meant by “very messy heavy lifting” and they might be surprised by the role I played.)

I appreciated the call, but Laura knew my answer.  I told Laura:  “I have to decline.  I think I can best serve the community in my current role.  Some citizens need to remain outside of government and hold it accountable.  I think I need to continue what I have been doing.”  I wanted to continue to objectively blog about city politics, to speak freely before council, and to take other actions to keep our government accountable.  I felt a committee appointment might constrain me in these activities. Laura knew this, but I did appreciate her extending the courtesy of asking me one last time to serve on a committee.  (Laura and I did discuss other appointees for various appointed positions.  And I did convey to Laura that I would like to serve on the Charter Commission, which meets every 5 years to review Milton’s Charter; Milton’s Charter is roughly akin to the city’s constitution.  More about the Charter in another blog post.)

With the 2021 elections approaching, I strongly believe that holding Milton’s government accountable is now more important than ever.  Accordingly, in advance of the 2021 elections in Milton, I have decided to re-launch the Milton Coalition blog. My purpose is the same as always . . . to promote good governance in the local community.  I have always strongly believed that Milton deserves (to quote the title of a book from President Jimmy Carter) “a government as good as it’s people.” A key component of a good government is accountability, which ultimately is the job of ordinary citizens, like you and me.  I learned much from my experience of being steeped in City government and politics for 2 years.  I want to convey some of these lessons to Milton’s citizens so that they might better engage local government and demand greater accountability.  I believe good governance is strongly correlated with citizen engagement in our government.  (And that is why I primarily supported Laura Bentley because she made “shifting power to citizens” one of her 3 primary campaign promises.  More about this promise in future blog posts.)

My humble hope is that, in advance of the 2021 election, citizens will once again visit the Milton Coalition Blog.  It is during elections, particularly competitive races, that citizens are afforded their best opportunities to question government officials and flush out their stances on issues of greatest importance to citizens.  I hope my blog will help citizens to better formulate questions for the candidates and to better convey their concerns to these candidates.  Please let your friends and neighbors know about the blog and encourage them to subscribe.  And please reach out if you have specific questions or would like me to address a specific issue.

Advocating For Good Governance,

Tim

Uncategorized

Birmingham Park Work Day and Mark Law Memorial Roundabout Equestrian Statue

Park 5

Dear Friends and Neighbors:

Your help is needed for a volunteer effort to spruce up Birmingham Park (750 Hickory Flat Road).  A work day has been scheduled for March 16th  (Saturday) from 9 am to 1 pm.  (The rain date is March 23rd.)  The goal is to clear fallen brush and trees from trails, making park trails safer for hikers and horseback riders.  This work day is being sponsored by the Milton Equestrian Committee.

Equipment is also needed.  Following is a list of tools that are needed.  If you have such tools and are willing to loan them to the effort, please bring them with you.  Gas-powered equipment is preferred.  However, battery-operated electric equipment is acceptable; please bring extra batteries, if you have them.

    • Power saws
    • Hedge trimmers
    • Pole saws

If you own safety gear (e.g., gloves, safety glasses, hard hats, safety vests), please bring that gear.  Trash bags for trash found along the trail are also needed.

Please consider contributing to this worthwhile effort.  There are plenty of opportunities to help regardless of your skill level—e.g., spotters for clearing teams, manual labor to deposit trimmings in the woods, etc.  At over 200 acres, Birmingham Park is a treasure to our hiking and equestrian communities and to citizens that just enjoy nature.  Unfortunately, the City has not had the resources to properly maintain the trails, requiring a volunteer effort to clear the trails to make them more usable for citizens.

The primary point of contact for this effort is Larry Covington.  He can be reached at larrywaynecovington@gmail.com or at 770-826-6288.  Please email Larry if you would like for volunteer for this worthwhile effort; he would like to get a good estimate of the number of volunteers.  However, if you cannot commit at this point, last-minute, walk-up volunteers will certainly be welcomed.

Please forward this information to others that might be interested in helping.  This might include hiking/equestrian organizations and school environmental/equestrian/agricultural clubs.

Following is a link to a pdf with more information.  BirminghamParkWorkDay

Thank you.

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

As many of you know, long-time and beloved Milton City Arborist Mark Law recently passed away.  A roundabout equestrian statue has been proposed to memorialize Mark LawA GoFundMe page has been established by the Milton Arts Council to raise money for this memorial to Mark.  So far, $5,770 of the needed $6,900 has been raised in just 4 days.  Please consider contributing.  Attached is a link to the GoFundMe page:

GoFundMe Link for Mark Law Memorial Equestrian Statue

37398374_1551311238555066_r

Good Governance, Milton City Council, Milton Government & Politics Back Story, Smart Land Use

City Moving Backwards: Conflicts of Interest, Exceeding Authority, Lack of Transparency, and Cronyism

November 12, 2018

Citizens:

Is it possible to achieve good outcomes with a corrupt process?  That is the question citizens need to ask our Milton city government.  Today, I sent a letter to the Milton City Manager about issues issues of conflict of interest, lack of transparency, exceeding authority, and cronyism in our government.  See the letter below.  In the letter, I reference the July 25th Planning Commission (PC) meeting, where the Planning Commission Chairman tells the developer at the podium that the Milton City Council regretted its decision to deny variances for the SE corner of Birmingham Crossroads.  The chairman then proceeds to invite the applicant to discuss the matter further in a private meeting.  That meeting did occur and shortly thereafter the developer again applied for a variance for the SE corner.  At the City Council meeting on Monday night, four city council members changed their original votes and the variance was granted.  Here is the video, so you can hear for yourself the conversation between the PC chairman and the developer, Tad Braswell.

 

Error
This video doesn’t exist

Unfortunately, the events described in this post and in my letter cause citizens to lose trust and confidence in our government.  And we are seeing that in Milton.  Many previously engaged citizens are disillusioned and are checking out.  Citizens deserve better.  Good governance is on the wane.  Council members Bentley and Jamison both ran on a platform of good governance in the 2017 election.  Will they now step forward to address these violations of the public trust?  Will they (finally) deliver on their promises to reform our government and shift power back to citizens?  If not now, when?  How bad do things have to get to prompt action from our local government?

(Still) Advocating for clean, competent, courageous, and citizen-centric government

Tim

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

Dear Steve:
(I am copying City Council and the City Attorney on this email.)
On Monday night, I expressed concerns about the process followed for granting variances for the SE corner of Birmingham Crossroads.  Previously, I have discussed with you concerns (different from the concerns that will be discussed herein) I had about the process followed for granting variances for the NW corner.  I will address both the SE and NW corners in this email.
SE Corner of Birmingham Crossroads.
As you know, on July 25, 2018, the Planning Commission (PC) reviewed the preliminary plat for the SE corner for Birmingham Crossroads.  In that meeting, the chairman of the Planning Commission, Mr. Paul Moore, who was calling into the meeting, stated that some council members regretted their previous (in April 2018) decision to reject the developer’s requested variances.  Mr. Moore further requested to meet with the developer, Mr. Tad Braswell, to discuss this matter.  I request that you, all council members, and the City Attorney watch the PC meeting.  Cue to 1:20:45 in the video to hear the PC chairman’s comments; listen for 2 minutes.
The meeting requested by the PC Chair did, in fact, take place at City Hall.  I do not know all people that attended, but I do know that the developer, the PC chairman, and another PC member attended.  Furthermore, Mr. Moore told the other attending PC member, a friend of mine, that the Mr. Moore had concerns about the other PC member’s participation.  The reason cited is that Mr. Moore did not want me, Tim Becker, to know about the meeting and what was discussed.
Steve, as you know, Mr. Braswell did come back to Council with a variance request, which was granted to him.  Four council members changed their votes.
Steve, this meeting raises obvious (ethical) questions about the role of committee members and transparency.  So I ask these questions:
  • Under whose authority and in what capacity was the PC chairman operating?
  • Who else attended this meeting?
  • Was staff there?  If so, who?
  • How long was the meeting?
  • Who in our government knew about this meeting?
  • What was the content of this meeting?
  • Were notes kept from this meeting?  If so, please provide them.
  • Why would the PC chairman not want me or other citizens to know about what was discussed?
  • Were conditions discussed that Mr. Braswell would need to agree to?  Was Mr. Braswell coached on how to proceed with his new application?
  • Were there additional meetings or other communications between the PC chairman and Mr. Braswell?  If so, many of the above questions pertain to these meetings and communications.
  • Were any city council members involved in these communications with Mr. Braswell?  Did a city council member authorize or otherwise sanction this meeting?  Which council members knew about this meeting?
  • Who informed the PC chairman that members of council regretted their decisions?  Which council members were referenced?  Is it appropriate for a member of the PC to discuss with a developer the stances of council members on zoning matters, particularly in public meeting (and even privately)?
NW Corner of Birmingham Crossroads.
Steve, you and I previously discussed the Planning Commission’s hearing on Curtis Mills’ application for a special use permit (and 9 concurrent variances) for the NW quadrant of Birmingham Crossroads.  By his own admission, the PC chairman is a fan and frequent attendee of concerts at Matilda’s.  He was aware that due to re-development, Matilda’s was soon to be homeless.  The PC chairman devised a plan to find Matilda’s a new home in Milton.  The PC chairman took Mr. Mills to a Matilda’s concert, introduced him to the Potters (the owners’ of Matilda’s) and suggested the idea that Matilda’s move to Mr. Mills’ land on the NW corner of Birmingham Crossroads.  I first heard this story from Council Member Bentley.  However, in March 2018, the PC chairman told me the same story, in the presence of 4 other people.
I have no problem with the Mr. Moore finding a home for his favorite music venue.  And I supported the general notion of bringing Matilda’s to Milton, although not to the Crossroads.  However, my concern is that the PC chairman did not recuse himself from hearing Mr. Mills’ application when it came before the PC.  Furthermore, if you watch the PC hearing on the NW corner (and I suggest that you do), the PC chairman recommends concessions from the City (e.g., concerts on both Saturday and Friday nights) that were not even sought by the applicant.  I would remind you of Milton’s city code Section 2.15 (a) – Prohibitions, part (1), which states that no appointed official shall knowingly:
“Engage in any business or transaction or have a financial or other personal interestdirect or indirect, which is incompatible with the proper discharge of official duties or which would tend to impair the independence of his or her judgment or action in the performance of official duties”
So for this matter, I have just one question:
Did the PC chairman have a direct or indirect personal interest in the granting of a special use permit for the NW corner that “would tend to impair the independence the independence of his judgment or action in the performance of official duties”?
(Note:  Steve, you and I previously discussed this issue in another context.  However, I assert this matter needs to be re-visited in light of Section 2.15 (a) of Milton’s City Code.)
*************************************************************************************
Steve, to be clear, I am not looking to overturn either the decision on the SE or NW corners.  What’s done is done.  However, I assert the actions described above represent serious breaches of the public trust.  Furthermore, I do believe the actions described herein are not conducive to concepts of good governance, including transparency.  Citizens deserve better than this from our city government . . . much better.  I request that you formally investigate both matters and provide a response back to me.  
Regards,
Tim
Tim Becker
Good Governance, Milton City Council, Smart Land Use

Empty Campaign Promises and a Rigged Zoning Hearing

“Meet the new boss . . . same as the old boss”

(Last 2 lines of Won’t Get Fooled Again by the Who)

November 10, 2018

Citizens:

After nearly five months of staying away, I attended this past Monday’s City Council meeting.  I felt obligated to attend and speak.  Following are videos of my remarks before Council.

Shifting Power Back to Citizens:  Just Another Empty Campaign Promise?

On the anniversary of the 2017 election victory for good governance, I felt compelled to speak at Council.  The central campaign theme of 2017 was shifting power back to citizens.  Sadly, little has been done to actually shift power back to citizens.  In fact, power in our city government seems to have been concentrated in just a few council members.  You can listen to my remarks to Council in the following video.

Rigged Zoning Hearing

Instead of taking actions to shift power to citizens, our City Council has been bogged down with zoning hearings relating to the SE and NW corners of Birmingham Crossroads.  A second hearing on the SE corner consumed vast amounts of staff resources that would have been better deployed to reforming our zoning processes.  The Council hearing was a sham, as a deal had already been cut with the developer in a backroom, away from the prying eyes and ears of pesky citizens.  As always, Council’s indulgence of developer requests means the agenda for Council is driven by the needs of developers, rather than citizens.

Error
This video doesn’t exist

Citizens, I understand that many of you are disillusioned by the recent actions of our city government, and you are disengaging.  I feel the same way and have considerably dialed back my involvement.  It is just too depressing.  Same old, same old . . . Meet the new boss, same as the old boss . . .

(Still) Advocating for clean, competent, courageous, and citizen-centric government

Tim

 

Good Governance, Milton City Council, Smart Land Use

Zoning Modification Approved on 4-2 Vote; Low Hopes for City

November 5, 2018

Citizens:

The Zoning Modification for the SE corner was approved by Council 4-2.  A number of us fought the good fight, but lost.  Joe Longoria and Rick Mohrig voted against the ZM.  Thanks Joe and Rick.  Time permitting, I will provide more commentary on the hearing in the coming days.

Watching tonight’s proceedings confirmed what I have gradually been realizing over the last several months.  We are not going to see fundamental change in our City government because of the 2017 election.  Shifting power back to citizens was a nice campaign slogan, but not much more than that.  I really don’t see reform of city processes that would shift power citizens.

I do think the new council members Jamison and Bentley will generally vote for the interests of citizens more than their predecessors.  Both are hard workers.  And I think both are providing and will provide excellent constituent services to citizens–i.e., be responsive to complaints and problems raised by citizens.  However, I don’t see them pushing initiatives to improve our government.  Their allegiance to Joe Lockwood is concerning, especially considering that Lockwood is the most pro-developer member of council.  I get particularly worried about Lockwood’s influence when I hear his half-baked notions of governance (e.g., “citizens don’t care about process, they only care about outcomes”) parroted by other council members.  It was very clear from tonight’s meeting that Lockwood is running the show unchallenged at City Hall, and that is not good for citizens or the City.  Because of his rivalry with Lockwood, Bill Lusk served a useful function of acting as a check on Lockwood.  Unfortunately, there are no longer any checks on Lockwood.  My hope is that a council member will step forward to more forcefully challenge Lockwood.  I am confident that such a council member would garner broad public support.

Advocating for clean, competent, courageous, and citizen-centric government,

Tim

Good Governance, Milton City Council, Smart Land Use

Truth in Government and My Letter to Council

Citizens:

Thanks for the emails that you have sent regarding the Zoning Modification for the SE corner.  Nearly every citizen is asking the same question:  Why is this issue again on Council’s agenda?  The City’s official response is that a developer is free to come forward with a request for Zoning Modification and Council must hear it.  And that is technically correct.  However, there is always a back story in Milton.  The real truth is that some in our City government have told the developer that Council regrets its previous decision to deny the Zoning Modification and that if the developer comes back with a similar proposal that Council will vote to approve.  (In fact, one Planning Commissioner actually mentioned this in a Planning Commission meeting with the developer and then later met with the developer in a private meeting at City Hall.)

The proposal on tonight’s agenda is nearly identical to the previous proposal.  The only difference is that staff is now recommending approval.  To do so, staff asserts that its “professional judgment” can trump Milton’s 4-part test for granting variances.  However, nowhere is Milton’s variance ordinance is such leeway provided to staff.  And the City Attorney on April 23rd said as much in his comments.  (See video of City Attorney’s advice to Council in my previous posts.)  Nevertheless, it is a distinct possibility that the ZM will be approved tonight.  I know of 2 council members that will switch their votes.  Four votes are needed for approval.  And it is interesting to note that even staff’s analysis for the 4-part test has changed from 6 months ago.  This is ironic in that staff in its most recent analysis touts its training and expertise.  Why would the analysis change from 6 months ago regarding the buffer?  Why would highly trained staff with so much expertise change their analysis so dramatically?  Clearly, there are folks at City Hall–likely one or more City Council members (and most likely Joe Lockwood)–that are cajoling City staff to give them a particular answer, again to provide cover for a vote reversal.  This should concern all citizens.  We need a Community Development department that is independent and objective–free from political influence.  That is critical to ensure development in Milton is done the right and legal way.

Some council members are caving to the developer’s threats, which I believe are empty, to build 31 town homes on the site.  The developer has had 3 years to build such homes, which he can build by right, but has not done so.  I believe such a project does not meet the risk-return profile for his investors.  In any case, I am fine with 31 town homes with a buffer and the commercial building on Birmingham Road vs. 25 single family detached homes with 10 feet between them and no buffer or commercial building on Birmingham Road.

Following is my letter to Council in opposition to the proposed Zoning Modification.

Please consider attending Council tonight to express your opposition to this Zoning Modification.

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

November 5, 2018

City Council and City Manager:

I am writing to express my opposition to the granting of a zoning modification for the southeast corner of Birmingham Crossroads.  My focus is not on what should or should not get built on the SE corner, as such issues pale in comparison to the issues of 1) gutting and ignoring Milton’s 4-part variance test and 2) legislative fiat—the usurpation of Council’s powers by City staff to enact legislation without a proper public hearing.

Because the proposed plan is essentially the same plan that Council previously and unanimously denied (and in my opinion, a bit worse), the same arguments against the first plan apply to this revised plan.  Given that the 2 plans are nearly identical, it would seem that any Council member that votes to approve the proposed plan has an obligation to citizens to explain why his/her vote has changed.

I would also point out that the developer has owned this property for 3 years.  He claims that he loses $1000 for every day that he does not develop this property.  By his reckoning, this property has already cost him over $1M in property taxes, insurance payments, mortgage payments, etc . . . and he has yet to move any dirt.  By right, the developer could have built 33 town homes on this property, but has not done so.  This strongly indicates that the developer and/or his investors know that town homes at this location do not fit their risk/return investment criteria.  So it would seem that this developer’s threats to build townhouses are empty.  That is why he keeps returning—this is the third time—to council for variances.  Council needs to call his bluff once and for all.

This gets me to my main concern about this Zoning Modification.  The only substantive change between tomorrow’s hearing and the April 23rd hearing is that staff has made a determination that it will ignore Milton’s variance ordinance to reverse its recommendation that Council deny this zoning modification.  Staff now claims that it can ignore Milton’s 4-part variance test to achieve a better outcome (an inherently subjective determination) for the community.  Staff contends that its expertise, training, and “professional judgment” trump the requirements of Milton’s variance ordinance.  Unfortunately, Milton’s variance ordinance does not provide such authority to staff.  Therefore, staff has violated Milton’s variance ordinance.

Staff is attempting to (radically) change Milton’s policy for granting variances.  Staff’s unilateral actions to change Milton’s variance laws constitutes legislative fiat.  Changing Milton’s variance ordinance can only be accomplished by Council and only through a public process that includes public hearings and opportunities for public input.  And in fact, Milton’s City Attorney advised City Council at the April 23rd hearing on the SE corner that Milton’s strict variance test gives Council little flexibility.  And he further advised Council that to give itself more flexibility, Council (not staff) would need to relax Milton’s variance criteria—i.e., Council would need to legislatively address the issue, including holding public hearings.  And most importantly, the City Attorney explicitly states that Milton’s variance ordinance precludes granting variances to “make  developments better” . . . just the opposite of what staff is now contending.  I urge council members to visit my blog to watch the 4-minute video of the City Attorney’s advice to Council.

As with war, the first casualty of politics is truth.  So Council, let’s be honest.  Nothing has changed here.  It is common knowledge that the developer has been advised by some in our City government that council regrets its April 23rd decision to deny the Zoning Modification for the SE corner.  The developer has been further advised (again by some in our city government) that a majority of council will vote for his new proposed plan.  (Of course, this collaboration with a developer raises all sorts of issues about ethics, transparency, etc. but those are topics for another day.)  Understood in this light, staff’s epiphany about its right to apply its “professional judgment” to trump Milton’s variance ordinance is a transparent attempt to provide cover—the proverbial “fig leaf”–to those council members seeking to reverse their vote on this zoning modification.  It will be interesting to hear how the City Attorney might square his support for staff’s ignoring Milton’s variance law with his advice from 6 months ago.

Council, I implore you to consider the implications of sanctioning such gross violations 1) of our variance ordinance and 2) of our process for enacting legislation.  Council’s acceptance of these violations represents a serious violation of the public trust.  It is the sort of action that alienates citizens and erodes public confidence.  Milton’s citizens deserve better.  If we are going to relax our variance criteria, let’s do it the right and legal way (the way recommended by the City Attorney on April 23rd ):  through enacting an ordinance, including holding public hearings.

Council, I urge you to only consider application of Milton’s 4-part test for variances in your decision.  Clearly, the requested variance does not meet the criteria of that test.  And accordingly, this variance should be denied.

Thank you for considering my perspectives in this matter.

Advocating for clean, competent, courageous, and citizen-centric governance

Tim