Category: Council Member Bill Lusk

Council Member Bill Lusk, Election 2017, Ethics

Lusk Is Unapologetic . . . Doubles Down On Deception

Posted on by Milton Coalition

October 21, 2017

First, thank you for your expressions of solidarity with my efforts to achieve good governance in Milton.  Over the past few days, your incredible outpouring of support has been both humbling and encouraging.  As you might imagine, taking on Milton’s deeply entrenched politicians and Special Interests is tough work.

Second, I want to thank the Milton city government for its swift and serious response to the misappropriation and misuse of citizens’ personal data.  The City Manager, City Attorney, and Communications Director seem to be taking the right steps to reassure citizens and to make necessary changes to ensure there are no future data breaches or misuse of citizens’ personal information.

Over the past few days, several news organizations have been covering the data breach scandal in Milton.  My understanding is that WSB will air a story on Monday and the Milton Herald will likely run a story in next week’s newspaper.  Articles have already run in Saturday’s Atlanta Journal-Constitution (front page of Local section B) and in The Alpharetta-Milton Patch.  Both articles are excellent.  Following are links to those articles:

Councilman Used Emails For Veterans Program To Promote Campaign Event

Milton councilman improperly used email addresses from city

Please take careful note of Mr. Lusk’s responses in these articles.  Lusk’s strategy seems to be one of deceive, diminish, and dismiss.

  • Deceive – Mr. Lusk doubles down on his deception by telling more lies to excuse his behavior.
  • Diminish – Lusk contends that compromising the personal data of hundreds of citizens is no big deal.
  • Dismiss – Lusk contends this controversy is all about scoring cheap political points.

Let’s start with the deception.  Mr. Lusk states that his use of the city-generated veterans email list was “honest oversight on my part” and “I used my complete contact list to send out invitations to my campaign events.”  This is a lie . . . plain and simple.  Here’s the truth:

Mr. Lusk began his e-mail solicitation with “Hello Fellow Veteran”.  Following is a screenshot of part of the actual invitation.

Hello Fello Veteran

In the next paragraph, Mr. Lusk explicitly references being a veteran and the veterans’ memorial marker initiative.  See the following screenshot of the next paragraph of his invitation:

Invitation Second Paragraph

The above paragraphs make it very clear that Mr. Lusk was using a specific e-mail list—i.e., the city-generated memorial markers list—to send invitations, NOT his “complete contact list” (which he claims incidentally had memorial markers e-mail addresses mixed in).  It is not coincidental that Mr. Lusk even references the memorial markers initiative.

It is incredible that Mr. Lusk claims his misuse was an “honest oversight” when Lusk used the same e-mail distribution list after—that’s right . . . after—the City alerted him to the issue of his use of a City-generated e-mail list.  The City alerted Mr. Lusk about the issue on October 13, 2017.  Nevertheless, using the same distribution list, Mr. Lusk blasted out another campaign email invitation on October 16, 2017 to a second event at Little River Farms.

Lusk Little River Farms Excerpt.png

Why would Mr. Lusk continue use the city-generated veterans list even after he was made aware of the seriousness of the issue?  Arrogance and desperation.  Arrogance, because Mr. Lusk has typically gotten away with such acts in the past.  He did not expect the City to issue such a strong response . . . he was wrong.  Desperation, because his opponent, Laura Bentley, is running a very strong campaign against him and has Mr. Lusk worried.  At this point, Mr. Lusk seems willing to break any and all rules to win.  That is why he planted many dozens of illegal signs in Crabapple the night before early voting.  And that is why he took a risk in using a city-generated email list.  Fortunately, both schemes have backfired on him, with citizens increasingly disposed to vote against him.  Mr. Lusk cannot get out of his own way.

Finally, note that Mr. Lusk had a golden opportunity to explain himself at last Monday’s City Council meeting.  However, he said nothing.  No explanation.  No apology.  Nothing . . . stone cold silence.

And Mr. Lusk has yet to apologize for the data breach that compromised the personal data of hundreds of Milton citizens and has shaken confidence in our local government.  Mr. Lusk thinks he has nothing to apologize for.  Mr. Lusk thinks the data breach issue is minor and being exploited for political purposes.   This contention highlights the other part of his strategy:  diminish and dismiss . . . more about that tomorrow.

Advocating for Clean Government,

Tim Becker

Council Member Bill Lusk, Election 2017, Ethics

Data Breach and Email Scandal . . . Mr. Lusk Should Resign and Withdraw

Posted on by Milton Coalition

securitybreachdatabreach_825877

October 19, 2017

In one fell swoop, Council Member Bill Lusk has managed to disgrace the City (and a tax-exempt charitable organization) while also taking politics in the City to a new low.  How did Mr. Lusk manage to accomplish such an incredible feat?  Mr. Lusk misappropriated a city-generated database containing personal information of citizens, including email addresses.  This database was provided to a charitable organization, Milton Veterans Memorial Markers, that honors fallen veterans . . . the markers (mostly white crosses) that you see planted along roads on Memorial Day and Veterans Day.  Mr. Lusk misappropriated this information for political purposes:  to create an email distribution list for political solicitations.

This is a data breach not unlike the data breaches that have become all too common these days—the most recent being the Equifax data breach.  However, in this case, the hacker was not a gang of North Korean, Chinese, or Russian cyber-criminals.  Rather, the “hacker” was our own Council Member Bill Lusk.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident.  This fits into a pattern of bad behavior from Mr. Lusk that I have witnessed over the past 23 months of my involvement in City government.  This is the same Bill Lusk that promoted a developer’s project and re-zoning in advance of a judicial hearing on that developer’s re-zoning application.  It is the same Bill Lusk that planted dozens of illegal signs (that he refuses to take down) all over Crabapple on the night before early voting at the Milton City Library.  Citizens have been witness to such reprehensible acts from Mr. Lusk on a regular basis.

To its credit, in this matter, the City has taken swift and decisive action.

First, the City issued an email to potentially affected citizens about the unauthorized use of their personal information by Mr. Lusk.  The City took responsibility for the lapse, apologized, and committed to taking corrective action to ensure citizens’ personal information is protected in the future.  I applaud the City for its leadership in this matter.

Important Message - Part 1

Important Message - Part 2

Second, the City issued an unequivocal reprimand and cease-and-desist order to Mr. Lusk.  In no uncertain terms, the City expressed its displeasure with Mr. Lusk and directed him to refrain from all uses of the city-provided e-mail addresses.  Following is the letter issued to Mr. Lusk.

Lusk Cease and Desist Letter

In the coming days, I will provide additional information on this scandal, including additional documentation.

I want to make clear that this violation of the public trust is a very personal issue for me.  I am a veteran, having served nearly 8 years as a nuclear submarine officer in the U.S. Navy.  My wife is also a veteran, having served nearly 12 years as an officer in the U.S. Navy.  My grandfather, father, and brother all served in the armed forces.  We are saddened and troubled to see such a noble initiative to honor fallen veterans sullied in this fashion.

Given the serious nature of this ethics violation, I am calling upon Mr. Lusk 1) to immediately resign from City Council and 2) to withdraw from the race for the District 2 Council seat.  Resignation and withdrawal is the honorable course of action.  Mr. Lusk would spare the City and citizens from having to endure long, painful, and expensive ethics hearings on this matter, which seem inevitable.  Following are 1) my comments before Council this past Monday night and 2) Council Member Longoria’s subsequent comments on the matter.

Council Member Longoria’s comments follow.  Joe gets it.  Notice Mr. Lusk’s feigned disengagement from the discussion.  And notice Thurman and Kunz’s lack of any contribution to the discussion.  Do they care about ethics?  (Rhetorical question.)

Advocating for clean governance,

Tim Becker

Council Member Bill Lusk, Election 2017, Ethics, Good Governance

Mr. Lusk’s Grand Miscalculation . . . Overlooking the Citizen X-Factor

Posted on by Milton Coalition
IMG_5233
Sign Placed on Alpharetta Government Property On Night Before Early Voting

October 17, 2017

Yesterday, I published a post about Mr. Lusk’s assault on Crabapple under the cover of darkness.  On the night before early voting, Mr. Lusk plastered Crabapple with many dozens of illegal signs.  Let’s be blunt . . . this is cheating pure and simple.

So cheaters never prosper, right?  Well, I would like to think so, but that is not always the case, particularly with the campaign signs.  The City of Milton will certainly remove signs on city property (and there were some) and signs in the right-of-way.  However, signs that are properly located on private property are off-limits . . . the city has no way of knowing whether the sign placement was authorized by the property owner or not.  And Mr. Lusk knows this . . . and accordingly he will continue with his cheating . . . that is, unless we can change the calculus.  The calculus?  Yes, calculus.

You see, Mr. Lusk is an engineer.  To Lusk, politics is an equation . . . benefits on one side and costs on the other.  (BTW, integrity counts for nothing in this calculus.)  Every decision he makes is based on benefits vs. costs . . . to Mr. Lusk (not to you, the citizens).  The benefit of illegal signs are more votes.  The cost of illegal signs is perhaps—a big perhaps—a penalty (mostly likely a small fine) from the city.  This is a no-brainer for Mr. Lusk.  The benefits, more votes, outweigh the costs, a small fine (that is, if you can prove the infraction . . . a big IF).

Fortunately for citizens, Mr. Lusk has made many miscalculations over the past 2 years.  He has often gotten the calculus wrong.  The costs of many of his decisions have exceeded the benefits.  Why?  Because Mr. Lusk left out one critical variable in his cost-benefit analysis.  It is Milton’s X-factor.  What is that X-factor?  It is you . . . citizens.  Long ago, Mr. Lusk forgot about you and cast his lot with Milton’s Special Interests, aka developers.  Mr. Lusk became arrogant and entitled.  However, for the past 2 years, more and more of you have been showing up, standing up, and speaking out.  And that has made all the difference.  The citizen X-factor has turned Mr. Lusk’s calculus upside-down.  Mr. Lusk has increasingly found himself on the losing side of many issues.

So citizens, let’s turn Mr. Lusk’s yard-sign cheating to our advantage.  Let’s take the high road and leave Mr. Lusk stranded on the low road.  Here’s the plan:

  • Do NOT uproot Lusk’s signs. Leave that to the City and to private property owners.
  • Do NOT erect illegal signs—e.g., put signs on city property, in the right-of-way, or on private property without the property owner’s permission.
  • Report immediately any sign violations to City code enforcement.
  • If you see any Lusk crews erecting illegal signs on private property (also known as trespassing), immediately contact the Milton police. Ensure that Milton police trespass the perpetrators.
  • If you live in a subdivision where Mr. Lusk has planted signs on your subdivision’s borders (usually at the front entrance), immediately contact your HOA to request expeditious sign removal. HOAs should lodge a complaint with the City, so that Mr. Lusk is cited for a violation.  HOAs should also contact Mr. Lusk and demand that he cease-and-desist from illegal sign placements on HOA property.  Lusk’s city e-mail is bill.lusk@cityofmiltonga.us
  • Ensure your own yard signs are in good shape—that is, erect and perpendicular to the road. Those displaying signs on the open road should ensure their signs are out of the right-of-way.
  • If you don’t have a Bentley sign, get one.
  • Email Mr. Lusk to express your dissatisfaction with his blatant disregard of Milton’s sign ordinances. Here is Mr. Lusk’s e-mail address:  lusk@cityofmiltonga.us
  • Most importantly, educate your neighbors, friends, and family about Mr. Lusk’s attempts to subvert democracy in Milton.

If enough citizens take the above actions, we will once again upend Mr. Lusk’s political calculus.  He will stop the illegal sign placement.  Citizens, you are the X-factor in City politics.  If enough citizens are informed and engaged, we will oust Mr. Lusk and usher in an era of good governance in Milton.

IMG_5244 (1)
Lusk Signs on backside of Alpharetta’s St. Michelle Subdivision.  Note Milton Library in Background

The above photo shows some of Mr. Lusk’s signs on Mayfield Road.  Note the Milton Library in the background.  This is the sole location for early voting in Milton.  These 4 signs were placed on the night before early voting, along with dozens of other illegal signs in both Milton and Alpharetta.  The four signs in the photo are actually in Alpharetta.  The board fence is on the backside of Alpharetta’s St. Michelle neighborhood.  It is doubtful that the residents provided permission for these signs . . . or even know about them.  Code enforcement in Alpharetta will not remove these signs.  Removal requires tracking down the property owner and convincing him to take down the signs.  This example of Mr. Lusk’s sign placement is a metaphor for his record on Council . . . always bending, breaking, and changing the rules to his advantage and the advantage of his patrons.  Milton, we deserve better.

Advocating For Clean Elections,

Tim Becker

Council Member Bill Lusk, Election 2017, Ethics

Massive Sign Deployment Shamelessly Flaunts Rules . . . Typical Lusk

Posted on by Milton Coalition

October 16, 2017

Last night’s mass deployment of unauthorized/illegal signs by the Lusk campaign is yet another example of how Mr. Lusk has operated for 12 years as a Council Member . . . bending, breaking, and flaunting the rules for himself and the Special Interests he represents.  It is yet another egregious example of dirty politics perpetrated by Mr. Lusk in our City.

For weeks, this blog’s readers have been urging me to weigh in on the issue of campaign signs.  With some justification, readers have contended that the Lusk campaign is breaking/skirting Milton’s sign ordinances.  Lusk’s placement of signs around last week’s Crabapple Fest were especially egregious, prompting some citizen complaints to the City.  However, I decided to steer clear of this fight, as I believe—or believed—that the election focus needs to be on substantive issues of policy and how candidates comport themselves in the conduct of government business.  My sense was that the Lusk campaign was baiting its opponents on the sign issue—that is, creating a distraction from  substantive issues and attempting to drag Ms. Bentley’s campaign into the mud.  However, last night, the Lusk campaign crossed a line and made sign placement a substantive campaign issue . . .

Last night, many of dozens of signs were plastered on properties in and around the Crabapple area.  As you know, early voting for city elections begins today.  The signs were placed to cover all approaches to the Milton City library, which is Milton’s only polling location for early voting.

All of these new signs seem to have been installed by a single group of individuals, as they all appeared last night and all seem to have been installed in similar fashion–deeply planted and perfectly perpendicular to the road.

Most/all of these signs appear to be unauthorized/illegal–i.e., were installed without property owners’ permission.  Given the timing (on the evening before early voting), the rapid deployment, the large quantity of signs, and the clearly illegal placement of the signs (discussed below), these signs represent a serious threat to the integrity of our local elections. 

I cite as evidence of illegal/unauthorized sign placement:

  • Signs are placed on the property line between 2 homes, making it ambiguous if either homeowner (and likely neither) authorized/placed the signs.  (We have seen such suspicious placements elsewhere in the City.)
  • Many signs are clearly and purposely in the right-of-way
  • Signs are placed on city property–Alpharetta (e.g., Alpharetta Government Center) and Milton (e.g., Broadwell Pavilion)
  • Signs are placed on HOA property (e.g., Kensington Farms and Six Hills).  It has been confirmed that at least one of these placements was unauthorized.
  • Placements are generally not in front of homes/businesses, but along the fence lines of  neighborhoods, on empty lots, etc.

Concerned citizens have verified with one property owner that placement of a Lusk sign on her property was not authorized.  Concerned citizens are currently verifying other unauthorized placements.

I hope and trust that the City is going to take prompt and meaningful corrective action regarding this situation.  Expeditious sign removal and resolution of this matter are needed to ensure the integrity of our local elections.  Given the magnitude of this sign deployment the night before early voting and previous infractions, the Lusk campaign should be made to provide an explanation.

Given that this is not the Lusk campaign’s first sign offense, it concerns me that the Lusk campaign is showing a pattern of disregard for local regulations about placement of campaign signs.  Lusk has been in office for 12 years.  He knows the rules and is purposely flaunting them.  Lusk has obviously calculated that the ramifications of this breach of Milton’s sign laws are outweighed by the benefits of exposure conferred by such a large deployment of signs on the first day of early voting.  This is the Bill Lusk that I have come to know over the past two years.  Lusk holds himself up as a paragon of virtue while shamelessly flaunting the rules.  Lusk’s callous disregard for principles of good governance has caused much dysfunction in our City.  Citizens, Mr. Lusk has given us yet another reason—as if there weren’t enough—to unceremoniously remove him from office.  Milton deserves much better than this.  Early voting begins today . . . Vote Today For Bentley.  And please forward this post to your friends, neighbors, and family.

Advocating For Clean Elections,

Tim Becker

Council Member Bill Lusk, Election 2017

Lusk Publishes Lame/Deceptive Set of “Accomplishments”

Posted on by Milton Coalition

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.
CHS Town Homes
Lusk Made First Motion to Approve Townhouses Across from CHS

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.

Kunz Gravel Road post

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

Rencher Post on 3 Acre Minimums

Advocating For Truth and Citizens

Tim Becker

Council Member Bill Lusk, District 1 Redistricting Scandal, Ethics, Good Governance

Mr. Lusk Was Chief Accomplice in Redistricting Scandal

Posted on by Milton Coalition

Vote-Denied

October 10, 2017

Council Member Bill Lusk has pooh-poohed Milton’s recent redistricting scandal as much ado about nothing.  The Milton Herald wrote about Mr. Lusk that he felt “the request was a minor change and he didn’t think it required a public discussion.”  Furthermore, Mr. Lusk was the only member of Council that complied with Ms. Thurman’s request for a letter supporting legislation to change the district.  Mr. Lusk made minor modifications to a form letter provided to him by Ms. Thurman.

I strongly disagree that the district change was minor.  As I have discussed (in more detail) in previous posts, Ms. Thurman should have vacated her seat when she moved outside her district.  Changing District 1’s boundaries meant that all of Milton’s voters—every one of them (as voting is at large)—were disenfranchised.  Furthermore, the one third of Milton voters that live in District 1 were denied the opportunity to run for the vacated seat.  So the redistricting was actually a major change that impacted all voters.  Furthermore, with this district change, Mr. Lusk’s actions revealed his propensity for non-transparency, even when changing Milton’s Charter.

Unfortunately, there is an even darker side to this story.  It is a story that Mr. Lusk would prefer that citizens not know.  You see, Mr. Lusk was the one person, other than Ms. Thurman, that most directly benefited from the redistricting.  By moving the district lines, Mr. Lusk eliminated a potential competitor for his seat.  Had the district lines not been changed, Ms. Thurman would have found herself in Mr. Lusk’s district and might have challenged him.  Additionally, Mr. Lusk and Ms. Thurman have been political allies since the founding of the City, so the district change kept their alliance intact.  So you see, Mr. Lusk was Ms. Thurman’s primary accomplice in clandestinely changing the district lines in Milton, so that he could eliminate a potential competitor while also keeping his voting bloc intact.  Mr. Lusk aided and abetted in the thwarting of democracy in Milton.

Recently, Mr. Lusk went on the offensive regarding the Redistricting Scandal.  I urge all citizens to watch the above video of a nearly 7-minute rant by Mr. Lusk during a Special City Council Meeting called to extend qualifying period for the District 3 Council Seat.  Note the following when watching the video:

  • Mr. Lusk incredibly claims that the redistricting was “perfectly transparent.”  Quite the opposite was true.  At the time, not a single citizen was made aware of the redistricting.  No opportunity for public input was provided.
  • Mr. Lusk claims that all of Council participated in the redistricting.  This is false.  Notice Mayor Lockwood shaking his head in response to this assertion.  The truth is that Mr. Thurman worked with a state representative for 2+ months to change the district lines.  Ms. Thurman only apprised Council of the redistricting as the bill to change the district was being introduced in the Georgia State Assembly.  Only Bill Lusk submitted a letter supporting the change.
  • Mr. Lusk likens the redistricting to extending the election qualification period.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  No less than 5 times, the City Attorney advised Council that the qualification period extension was mandated by state law.  Contrast that with the fact that the City Attorney was kept entirely in the dark about the redistricting.  He likely would have advised that the redistricting be added to a Council agenda for discussion and approval.
  • Mr. Lusk asserts that the City’s issues stem from a personal agenda . . . yes, Mr. Lusk’s personal agenda.  Other than Ms. Thurman, Mr. Lusk had the most to gain from the redistricting, as described above.
  • Note Mr. Lusk’s use of the word “lynch” to describe citizens’ actions to expose malfeasance in our city government.  Such incendiary language has no place in our public dialogue, particularly coming from an elected official.  Rather than excoriating citizens for exposing corruption in our city, Mr. Lusk should be congratulating citizen watchdogs.
  • Mr. Lusk accuses his critics of “taking down the City.”  Unfortunately, he chose the wrong adverb . . . citizens are rather taking back the City . . . taking it back from the Special Interests and their agents on Council, like Mr. Lusk.

After watching Mr. Lusk’s rant, ask yourself:  Is this the best we can do in Milton?  Is Mr. Lusk really the best choice to represent me on Council for the next 4 years?  As someone who has attended nearly every city council meeting for the last 2 years, I can confidently assert that we can do better . . . and must do better.  I am voting for Laura Bentley.

(I have re-published some blog posts from the Redistricting Scandal.)

Advocating For Good Governance,

Tim Becker

Council Member Bill Lusk, Election 2017, Mayoral Candidate Rencher, Smart Land Use

Lusk-Rencher Running Away From Their Advocacy of CSO . . . Don’t Be Fooled

Posted on by Milton Coalition

October 12, 2017

A vote for the Lusk-Rencher ticket is a vote for the CSO.  Both Lusk and Rencher are currently running away from their advocacy of so-called “conservation” subdivisions, which were roundly rejected by Milton’s citizens, with over 2500 signing one or more petitions against such cluster housing.  However, if elected, it is a sure bet that Lusk-Rencher will run back to their beloved CSO and once again try to force such cluster housing upon their constituents.

At their campaign websites, neither Council Member Bill Lusk nor mayoral candidate Laura Rencher mentions so-called “conservation” subdivisions or the infamous Conservation Subdivision Ordinance, or CSO.  Of course, Mr. Lusk was the chief proponent on Council of the CSO and “conservation” subdivisions.  And through her tax-exempt educational charity Preserve Rural Milton (PRM), Ms. Rencher was the chief political lobbyist for the CSO and conservation subdivisions.  (Note:  PRM’s tax-exempt status has been revoked because of failure to file required annual forms for 3 consecutive years.)  Unfortunately, with their reckless and unworkable conservation subdivision proposals, the Lusk-Rencher duo dominated the city government’s land-use policy-making for nearly 2+ years.  In that time, the City made very little progress on practical and effective land-use policies.  And during this time, developers pursued unfettered development with reckless abandon.

With the CSO, Lusk-Rencher hijacked the city’s policy-making process, bypassing staff and the City Manager, to develop a Frankenstein ordinance that only a developer could love.  And in fact, Atlanta’s two largest developer lobbyist groups did support the CSO in public comment at the City Council hearing where the CSO was denied.  Lusk-Rencher’s CSO required NO conservation of buildable land . . . not one square inch.  Randall Arendt, the father of the conservation subdivision, advises that a MINIMUM of 35% of buildable land be conserved in a conservation subdivision.  Furthermore, Arendt explicitly advised Milton against counting unbuildable land (e.g., stream buffers) as conserved land, but was ignored.  Arendt further advised that Milton’s one-acre minimums (Arendt prefers jurisdictions with larger minimum lot sizes) and lack of sewer made conservation subdivisions impractical for Milton, and again his advice was ignored

CHS Town Homes

The Lusk and Rencher alliance goes further back than the CSO, stretching back to the rezoning of the land across from Cambridge High School in 2013.  Both Lusk and Rencher supported the Cambridge townhouse development (although Rencher advocated for granting 2+ times density rather than 3+ times that was granted).  Here is what Rencher stated in public comment (from the Council Meeting minutes):

Rencher CHS Public Comment

Where are the “large naturalized buffers”?  Where is the “rural wooded view from the street”?  Rencher claims this development to be “an excellent style development for a city that values it rural character” . . . really?

Mr. Lusk echoed Ms. Rencher’s comments.

Lusk Council Comment 3

Yes, Mr. Lusk, the property’s zoning should have remained AG-1.  Under AG-1 zoning, the developer would have built no more than 7 homes.  Seven homes on 1 acre lots would have looked much better than the clear-cut pipe farm and retention pond that currently mar the property.  The current buffers are skimpy.  Where is the conserved land (i.e., 50% of the parcel) that was promised?

Of course, the most controversial battle over “conservation” cluster housing occurred with the Ebenezer rezoning in the first half of 2016.  Ms. Rencher and Mr. Lusk both promoted Brightwater Homes’ development and its rezoning application.  Through PRM, Ms. Rencher scheduled tours of Brightwater’s property, with Mr. Lusk co-leading tours with Brightwater’s CEO.  In advocating for Brightwater’s Ebenezer rezoning ahead of the rezoning hearing, Mr. Lusk violated his duty of judicial impartiality.  Mr. Lusk even sported a green polo shirt to demonstrate his solidarity with Ms. Rencher and Brightwater Homes.  It is hard to wrap your mind around a City Council Member so shamelessly promoting a developer’s project.

The Ebenezer rezoning was only denied after overwhelming citizen opposition, with so many opponents attending the final City Council hearing that a holding room had to be created for the overflow crowd—a first in Milton’s history.  Of course, the actual development of the Ebenezer property is proving that opponents were correct with their arguments.  Rather than 48 homes being built on the 65 acres, it seems fewer than 30 will eventually be built under AG-1 zoning.

Despite strong public opposition, Mr. Lusk and Ms. Rencher continued to promote “conservation” subdivisions.  In November 2016, Mr. Lusk voted against the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) because its conservation subdivision language had been removed.

So citizens, don’t be fooled by Lusk-Rencher’s silence on “conservation” subdivisions.  Lusk-Rencher still strongly favor such high density development, but realize their election prospects are slim if they publicly embrace such cluster housing.  However, if Lusk and Rencher are elected, you can be sure that they will promote “conservation” subdivisions with a vengeance.

Tim Becker

Council Member Bill Lusk, First Amendment Rights, Good Governance, Milton City Council

Honor the Constitution By Following the Constitution

Posted on by Milton Coalition

We the People

September 19, 2017

Although there were only 2 agenda items and it lasted only an hour, last night’s City Council working session was quite interesting.  There were only five of us in attendance . . . mostly the usual suspects.

The first item was a proclamation recognizing Constitution Week.  This proclamation was presented by Bill Lusk, who sponsors most of Council’s patriotic proclamations.  I support such proclamations and other City-sponsored acts of patriotic recognition.  However, I frankly find Mr. Lusk’s sponsorship of these proclamations puzzling, as Mr. Lusk is clearly the most anti-Constitutional of the seven Milton Council Members, (although lately Matt Kunz, ironically an “American Studies” major in college, has been giving Lusk a run for his money).

I have tangled with Mr. Lusk for nearly 2 years.  Lusk has tried mightily to shut me and other citizens down because of our criticism of him.  In so doing, Lusk has shown a profound ignorance–or perhaps worse, a willful disregard for—the U.S. Constitution.  He has asserted that citizens speaking in public comment and in on-line forums are “violating” and “abusing” their right to free speech when they criticize his policy positions.  He has criticized petitions against his policy positions, perhaps not knowing that “the right to petition the government for redress of grievances” is also a First Amendment right.  He has also attacked groups of citizens that dare organize in any fashion to challenge our local government and in so doing, Lusk is trampling on Freedom of Assembly—another First Amendment freedom.  He is often supported in his attacks by Council Member Kunz (and sometimes Councilor Thurman).  He attacks citizen critics from the Council dais, in direct violation of City policy.  He has also excoriated his citizen-critics in the Milton Herald, comparing us to protesters that spit upon returning Vietnam veterans and to Loyalists during the American Revolution.

First Amendment

So my suggestion to Mr. Lusk follows.  Mr. Lusk, before you sponsor another patriotic resolution, please commit to actually reading—and better yet, understanding—the Constitution.  I might also suggest reading the Federalist Papers.  Unfortunately, I suspect Mr. Lusk will continue in his anti-Constitutional ways, true to the old saw that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks. 

old-dog-new-tricks

I take no pleasure in tangling with Mr. Lusk.  Mr. Lusk and I are both veterans.  Mr. Lusk served for 2 years in a construction battalion in the 1960s.  I thank him for his service to our country.  I volunteered for the U.S. Navy’s submarine service, serving as a nuclear submarine officer for 7 ½ years.  It is this investment of my time in the Navy to defend our great country and its institutions, including the Constitution, that keeps me fighting for good governance in Milton and against those, like Mr. Lusk, that block the way.

(Tomorrow’s blog post will cover the last night’s other Council agenda item on incentivizing large lots in Milton.)

Tim Becker

Council Member Bill Lusk, Council Member Thurman, District 1 Redistricting Scandal, Ethics

Bill Lusk: Major Accomplice and Beneficiary in Redistricting

Posted on by Milton Coalition

Vote-Denied

July 27, 2017

Council Member Bill Lusk has pooh-poohed Milton’s redistricting scandal as much ado about nothing.  The Milton Herald wrote about Mr. Lusk that he felt “the request was a minor change and he didn’t think it required a public discussion.”  Furthermore, Mr. Lusk was the only member of Council that complied with Ms. Thurman’s request for a letter to Representative Jones supporting legislation to change the district.  Mr. Lusk made minor modifications to a form letter provided to him by Ms. Thurman.

We strongly disagree that the district change was minor.  As we have discussed (in more detail) in previous posts, Ms. Thurman should have vacated her seat when she moved outside her district.  Changing District 1’s boundaries meant that all of Milton’s voters—every one of them (as voting is at large)—were disenfranchised.  Furthermore, the one third of Milton voters that live in District 1 were denied the opportunity to run for the vacated seat.  So the redistricting was actually a major change that impacted all voters.  Furthermore, with this district change, Mr. Lusk’s actions revealed his propensity for non-transparency, even when changing Milton’s Charter.

Unfortunately, there is an even darker side to this story.  It is a story that Mr. Lusk would prefer that citizens not know.  You see, Mr. Lusk was the one person, other than Ms. Thurman, that most directly benefited from the redistricting.  By moving the district lines, Mr. Lusk eliminated a potential competitor for his seat.  Had the district lines not been changed, Ms. Thurman would have found herself in Mr. Lusk’s district and might have challenged him.  Additionally, Mr. Lusk and Ms. Thurman have been political allies since the founding of the City, so the district change kept their alliance intact.  So you see, Mr. Lusk was Ms. Thurman’s primary accomplice in clandestinely changing the district lines in Milton, so that he could eliminate a potential competitor while also keeping his voting bloc intact.  Mr. Lusk aided and abetted the thwarting of democracy in Milton.  Now you know the rest of the story . . .