Category: Election 2017

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, 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

Election 2017, First Amendment Rights, Good Governance

Election Endorsement: Lockwood, Bentley, Jamison, and Longoria

Posted on by Milton Coalition

First Amendment

October 2, 2017

Author:  Tim Becker

From now until Election Day on November 7th, I will be blogging exclusively about the election.  I will be advocating for and against specific candidates.  That is my right under the U.S. Constitution and I intend to vigorously exercise that right.

I support the following candidates:

  • Joe Lockwood – Mayor (incumbent)
  • Laura Bentley – District 2
  • Peyton Jamison – District 1 (running unopposed after Council Member Thurman declined to run for re-election)
  • Joe Longoria – District 3 (incumbent – running unopposed)

Because voting is at-large, you can vote for all four of the above candidates.

I oppose the following candidates:

  • Laura Rencher – Mayor
  • Bill Lusk – District 2

Mr. Lusk and Ms. Rencher seem to be running as a slate.  This makes sense as Mr. Lusk and Ms. Rencher have been close political allies for the last 2+ years.

The focus of this blog for the next 5 weeks will mostly be on the District 2 race between Laura Bentley, Chairman of the Equestrian Committee, and Bill Lusk.  However, in this blog post, I will focus on the other 3 races.

Mayoral Race.

I support incumbent Mayor Joe Lockwood for re-election.  Although I do not agree with Joe’s stances on some issues, I believe that Joe is committed to good governance in Milton.  That is, he is a strong advocate for governance processes that are fair, transparent, rigorous, and citizen-centric.  He is a genuinely nice guy who truly cares what citizens think.  Although he has not always voted the way I wanted, he has voted the right way on the most important issues, particularly the CSO and the Ebenezer re-zonings.  Over the past 2 years, Joe has endured a lot of criticism (at Council meetings and on-line) from Ms. Rencher and her allies.  He always just sits there and takes it.  He understands the importance of being deferential to citizens and allowing citizens to exercise their right to Free Speech.  Joe is deserving of a 3rd term as Mayor.

quote-if-you-want-a-vision-of-the-future-imagine-a-boot-stamping-on-a-human-face-forever-george-orwell-22-12-10-e1485033618151

Regarding Ms. Rencher, let me be blunt:  She would be an absolute disaster as Mayor.  I cannot even bring myself to imagine such a scenario.   George Orwell’s statement comes to mind “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot in your face—forever.”  For the past 2 years, I have witnessed Ms. Rencher’s non-stop temper tantrums at Preserve Rural Milton’s Facebook page.  Ms. Rencher has taken down PRM’s Facebook page.  Is she ashamed of what she has written there over the past two years?  Perhaps, she realizes that PRM’s non-stop political advocacy was in gross violation of IRS rules about political advocacy; PRM is registered with the IRS as an educational charity.  Not to worry, the IRS has revoked PRM’s tax-exempt status for failure to file required forms for 3 consecutive years.  However, my biggest criticism of Ms. Rencher is that she has mostly been missing-in-action over the past 2 years.  Her focus has mostly been on trying to get Milton to adopt conservation subdivisions, an idea rejected by a large majority of citizens.  I rarely see her at any city government meetings.  For example, she did not even show up for meetings on 2 zoning matters at Birmingham Crossroads—one involving a reduction in greenspace in the Publix shopping center.  And she lives just a few hundred yards from the Crossroads!  My intention is to mostly ignore Ms. Rencher, which has been my policy for the past 2 years.  I will not dignify her candidacy with comments at this blog.

District 1 Race.

Peyton Jamison is running unopposed for the District 1 seat.  I support Peyton’s election.  I only met Peyton for the first time in May 2017.  However, I like what I have seen.  As Chairman of the Planning Commission, Peyton has consistently voted against higher density rezonings.  Peyton has a strong work ethic and a lot of energy.  He is a likable family man and community leader.  I most admire Peyton’s courage in running for the District 1 seat.  Some in the community advised him to wait for Burt Hewitt’s seat to open up.  You see, Burt is moving to Cherokee County and will likely have to relinquish his seat on Council before his term ends.  Many political observers considered Peyton a shoo-in for Burt’s seat.  However, Peyton was not interested in a council seat being bestowed on him.  He did not like what he was seeing at Council and decided the time was now to effect change at Council.  He realized that replacing Burt would not do much to change policy or the dynamics at Council.  Rather than taking the path of least resistance, Peyton decided to take a risk and challenge the incumbent.  I admire him for his courage in doing this.

District 3 Race.

Joe Longoria is running unopposed for the District 3 seat.  I support his re-election.  As with  Lockwood, I disagree with Joe Longoria on some issues.  However, Joe’s heart is in the right place.  Joe is a smart guy.  He has a reputation for asking really insightful questions.  Joe understands the importance of vigorous debate at Council.  I especially appreciate Joe’s defense of citizens’ right to free speech.  I also appreciate Joe’s willingness to engage with citizens—in particular, citizens (like me) that are unpopular with some Council Members.  Joe Longoria is deserving of a third term on Council.

Citizens, as readers of this blog, you obviously care about governance in Milton.  Please forward my posts to other citizens and encourage them to subscribe to the blog at the Milton Coalition home page.  The key to good governance is informed voters!

Tim Becker

gg

Election 2017, First Amendment Rights, Milton City Council

Some Council Members Set Low Bar For Civility . . . Alienating Citizens

Posted on by Milton Coalition

Lusk-Kunz Conference - 2

September 12, 2017

A few weeks ago, I mentioned that I would comment on Hatcher Hurd’s op-ed about incivility in the Milton Herald.  (Click on link for op-ed: Milton Herald Op-Ed on Civility in Politics)  However, as often happens with our Milton City Council, material presented itself that I could not ignore.  Specifically, Milton’s citizens were shocked by Councilman Matt Kunz’s out-of-control rage that resulted in “near violence” . . . Councilman Longoria’s words, not mine.  I was the only citizen to witness the event and I agree with Longoria’s assessment; he was right to disengage from Kunz.  The subsequent council meeting was equaling appalling, as what should have been a perfunctory council meeting was hijacked for political purposes.

The August 28th events are a good segue to my response to Mr. Hurd’s op-ed in the Milton Herald.  Mr. Hurd was non-specific about the sources and causes of incivility in our community.  I was puzzled that Mr. Hurd did not mention the extreme misbehavior of some council members not only in Milton, but also in Roswell and Johns Creek.  In Milton, council members’ tirades and attacks on citizens in the audience have become routine to the point of tedium.  In Johns Creek, a councilor stormed out of a town hall meeting, spewing invective as she went.

JC Town Hall

Let’s not forget who establishes the threshold for civility in Milton:  our elected leaders.  To the extent a culture of incivility exists, Council Members are largely responsible for it, a point Mr. Hurd overlooks.  My Navy and business experience (and volumes of leadership books back me up) tells me that leaders establish the culture of an entity, including government.  And it is abundantly clear that some of Milton’s elected leaders have set the bar very low for civility in Milton.  Citizens have now been witness to no less than six singularly uncivil temper tantrums from council members in council meetings.  On one occasion, these outbursts included overt threats to stop doing business with the Milton Herald.  Council members have screamed at citizens and used incendiary words like “hate” and “lynch.”  And unfortunately, the nastiness of some Council members has percolated to their appointees on committees.  In one incident, a committee chairman had to be gently removed from a confrontation with the mayor by the City Manager, while police converged on the scene.

shutterstock_363192542-700x467

In contrast to some council members, citizens have been relatively restrained in their behavior.  Milton’s citizens are polite—perhaps to a fault.  However, politeness can only be stretched so far.  About two years ago, when the strong influence of Special Interests became painfully obvious, a handful of citizens began to push back on City Council.  Over time, more and more citizens joined the movement (one Councilman’s descriptor) for accountable government.  This resulted in over 1800 citizens signing (in less than 4 weeks) an 8-point petition on smart land use and good governance.  And it also resulted in an overflow crowd at a rezoning hearing—a first in Milton’s history.

Certainly, the passion of citizens is sometimes intense . . . Milton’s citizens care about their community.  However, what some might describe as citizen incivility is better described as righteous indignation.  And it has led to a citizen awakening in Milton that has encouraged candidates to finally step forward and challenge the status quo.  This is a positive development.  Milton has not had competitive elections since 2011, and it shows.  Elections provide clarity about issues facing the community.  Choice is good.  We, including Mr. Hurd, should be celebrating a return to competitive politics in Milton.  Let’s exult in the vigorous exercise of citizens’ First Amendment political liberties:  free speech, free assembly, and the right to petition.  Let’s have vicious debate among friends about the issues that matter most in Milton!  Let’s celebrate democracy in Milton, with all of the messiness that might entail!

Tim Becker

Election 2017, Good Governance, Milton City Council

Extended Qualifying Period: The Back Story

Posted on by Milton Coalition

Extended Qualifying Period

August 26, 2017

Quite a few of you have contacted me about the above press release.  And yes, there is more to the story than the press release would indicate.  (Note:  It would be inappropriate for the City to provide the backstory.)  I was present during the last hour of qualification . . . just hanging out in the lobby in City Hall on a quiet afternoon.  And I know what you are thinking . . . Tim, you really need to get a life.  However, you must realize that for 22 months, I have devoted my life to advocating for good governance in Milton—as an ordinary private citizen with no political ambitions and zero desire for elective office.  I feel obliged to observe many events in our City government, no matter how mundane.  And I have come to realize that even mundane events/actions are opportunities for manipulation . . . and they are sometimes less mundane than they might seem.  And of course, my suspicions were aroused when Council Member Matt Kunz strolled in at 3:45 pm, 45 minutes before the qualification deadline, and disappeared into the offices behind the front desk.  Even in Milton, we must be mindful that eternal vigilance is the price of good governance.

pmfr83-mitoyen-enthoven

At this point, all announced candidates—Lockwood, Rencher, Bentley, Lusk, and Jamison—had qualified (paid their fee and filed their papers, so that their names would appear on the ballot).  However, it was well-known that Joe Longoria was going to qualify.  And in fact, Joe had told me he was running for his seat and traditionally filed his papers in the last hours of qualification.  I had told Joe I would be down at the City Hall for the last hour (for the reasons stated above.)

Well, around 4:15 pm, I am starting to become concerned, as I had not seen Joe.  I spoke with the City Clerk and verified that the deadline was 4:30 pm and that Longoria had not qualified.  I became more puzzled as 4:30 pm approached.  At 4:27 pm, I received a call from Longoria:

Joe:  Hey Tim, I know you said you would be hanging out there during the last hour and just wanted to let you know I am on my way.

Tim:  Joe, qualification ends at 4:30 pm.  You’re going to miss the deadline.

Joe:  Oh no.  I thought the deadline was 5:30 pm.  Let me call Sudie.  Phone goes dead.  (Sudie is the City Clerk . . . the one with the calming DJ voice at City Council meetings that announces agenda items.)

At 4:34 pm, Joe came  running in, but it is too late.  Qualifying had ended.  However, pursuant to state law, the City has extended the qualifying period for 2 days.  A special-called Council meeting has been scheduled for 8:30 am on Monday to discuss the matter and to ensure the City is complying with the law.  And Longoria does plan to file early on Monday morning, this time leaving nothing to chance.  I plan to be at the special Council meeting and perhaps I will linger a bit in the lobby of City Hall.

(None of this is meant to impugn the reputation of Joe Longoria.  I personally like and respect Joe.  All of us get times and locations wrong from time to time.  At least half a dozen times over the last year, I have showed up at the wrong place or the wrong time for city government meetings.  And in this situation, within minutes, the technology-enabled “jungle telegraph” has already broadcast the story of the missed deadline.  I received my first text before I left City Hall!)

Oh and back to Council Member Kunz.  Mr. Kunz strolled out of the City Clerk’s office at 4:31 pm . . . one minute after the deadline had passed.  I question the appropriateness of a Council Member using his position and access to monitor qualification from an inside and advantaged position at City Hall.  And more generally, I have serious concerns about Council Members cycling through City Hall and interfering with the day-to-day operations of the City (which is prohibited under our City Code, but blatantly ignored by certain Council Members).  This is a major issue for the City.  However, that is a post for another day.  Citizens, be assured that I (and others) will continue our vigilance at city government.

Tim Becker

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

Tomorrow’s post will be about Hatcher Hurd’s recent op-ed about civility in politics.

Election 2017

Four Announced 2017 Candidates in Milton . . . So Far

Posted on by Milton Coalition

election2017July 27, 2017

Election Day is November 7, 2017.  In Milton, our elected government consists of a  mayor and a City Council, comprised of 6 members–two from each of Milton’s three districts.  The Mayor sits on Council and has a vote.  In Milton, in 2017, we will elect the Mayor and 3 Council members–one from each of Milton’s three districts.  (The other three Council members will be elected in 2019.)  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 their district.  So in 2017, all voters will vote for the Mayor and three Council members.

It looks like Milton will have competitive elections in 2017.  This is a positive development.  Competitive elections are good for the health of our democracy in Milton.  Competition requires candidates to define and defend their positions on the issues.  Competitive elections clarify issues for voters and foster healthy debate on those issues.  It is great news that citizens will have choices in 2017.

So far, four candidates have announced their candidacy for office in Milton.  Following are links to candidate websites or newspaper announcements.

Mayor Joe Lockwood has announced he is running for a third and final term.  Following is a link to his announcement in the Milton Herald.

Milton Herald: Lockwood Candidacy Announcement

Laura Rencher has announced she is running for Mayor.  Following is a link to her website:

Mayoral Candidate: Laura Rencher Campaign Website

Laura Bentley has announced she is running for the District 2 seat currently held by Bill Lusk.  Following is a link to Ms. Bentley’s campaign website:

District 2 Candidate: Laura Bentley Campaign Website

Peyton Jamison has announced he is running for the District 1 seat currently held by Karen Thurman.  Following is a link to Mr. Jamison’s website:

District 1 Candidate: Peyton Jamison Campaign Website

No candidates have announced they are running for the District 3 seat currently held by Joe Longoria.

We expect that there will be other announcements of candidacies in the coming month.  Qualifying is the last week of August.  Qualifying is when candidates formally enter the race by submitting their papers and paying a qualifying fee.  This means their names will appear on the ballot.  It isn’t official until then; some announced candidates may ultimately withdraw from the race and choose not to qualify.  It is shaping up to be an interesting election.  Stay tuned . . .