Laura Bentley (Chairwoman of Milton’s Equestrian Committee) has been endorsed by the Mayor of Milton, Joe Lockwood. Mr. Lockwood has served as mayor since Milton was founded in 2006. He is popular with citizens for his promotion of good governance and smart land use. He and Ms. Bentley found common cause in the battle against so-called “conservation” subdivisions, which would have brought higher density housing to Milton than existing zoning laws would allow. Mr. Lusk and his key ally, Laura Rencher, were the key promoters of such high density housing in rural Milton. Ms. Rencher and Mr. Lusk are now running as a slate of candidates against Ms. Bentley, Mayor Lockwood Lockwood, and Planning Commission Chairman Peyton Jamison.
With his endorsement, Mayor Lockwood has sent a strong message that he wants to steer the city away from the dysfunction—led by Mr. Lusk and facilitated by Ms. Rencher–that citizens’ have witnessed over the past 2 years. Mayor Lockwood’s endorsement is a good sign that Milton will be set on a new course toward clean, competent, and citizen-centric governance. I applaud Mayor Lockwood’s endorsement. Thank you, Joe!
Council Member Burt Hewitt and (future) Council Member Peyton Jamison have previously endorsed Ms. Bentley.
. . . Preserve Rural Milton’s Tax Exempt Status Has Been Revoked.
Excerpt From Laura Rencher’s campaign website
After pledging to run a positive campaign (see above excerpt from Ms. Rencher’s campaign website), in the closing days of the election, mayoral candidate Laura Rencher has launched a massive personal attack on Mayor Joe Lockwood. Ms. Rencher has made several negative allegations about Mr. Lockwood, including some allegations relating to the IRS. It is a desperation move.
You see, Ms. Rencher’s campaign has been stuck in neutral since it started. Wisely, Mr. Lockwood has mostly ignored Ms. Rencher. I have also mostly ignored Ms. Rencher at this blog, which drives Ms. Rencher and her small, unmerry band of followers crazy. They endlessly and incoherently rant and rave in a mostly empty room. To acknowledge Ms. Rencher is to undeservedly elevate and dignify her. I hope Mayor Lockwood will continue on the high road and ignore Ms. Rencher. However, Ms. Rencher’s hypocrisy in making IRS allegations compels me to respond. You see, Ms. Rencher has IRS issues of her own. She lives in the proverbial glass house . . . in her case, a virtual Biltmore mansion of a glass house. Oh, where to begin . . .
. . . perhaps at the beginning. Ms. Rencher co-founded an educational charity named Preserve Rural Milton (PRM). That’s right . . . an educational charity. Confused because PRM is clearly a political advocacy/lobbying group? Confused because a tax-exempt organization is not supposed to engage in political lobbying, which is what PRM mostly does? Did you give money to PRM under the false pretense that it was going toward educating citizens about land conservation? Following are excerpts from PRM’s IRS application for tax-exempt status designating PRM as an educational charity.
Excerpt from PRM application for tax-exempt status – designation as Educational Charity
And later in her application, Ms. Rencher affirms that PRM will not attempt to influence legislation. Of course, for the last 2+ years, PRM’s primary focus has been on political advocacy. This includes attempting to influence legislation—for example, PRM’s emails, Facebook postings, and petition advocating for passage of the so-called “Conservation” Subdivision Ordinance, or CSO. The IRS website states that a tax exempt organization: “may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities.” The IRS website further states:
“An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.”
Following are the conditions agreed to by Ms. Rencher to obtain tax-exempt status. Note the language relating to perjury in the signature section.
Excerpt from PRM’s application for tax-exempt status: Conditions For Approval
And Ms. Rencher also seems to have violated the IRS’s stipulation that tax-exempt organizations “not further non-exempt purposes (such as purposes that benefit private interests) more than insubstantially.” The IRS website states that a tax-exempt organization “must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the creator’s family, shareholders of the organization, other designated individuals, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such private interests.” Following is the stipulation, agreed to by Ms. Rencher, in her application for tax-exempt status:
Excerpt from PRM application for tax-exempt status – personal enrichment condition
Preserve Rural Milton has advocated that the City of Milton acquire land adjoining the property where PRM’s President (Laura Rencher) lives. PRM has proposed that this property be converted to a passive-use park. PRM has developed and published (at PRM’s Facebook page) a plan for this park. The President of PRM, Ms. Rencher, would almost certainly benefit financially from such a park being established next to her property (vs. construction of a subdivision, for example). Following is a post from PRM’s Facebook page advocating for establishment of the park next to her property.
PRM Facebook posting (one of several) advocating for acquisition of land adjoining Laura Rencher’s property
Finally, it should be noted that PRM’s tax-exempt status has been revoked because PRM has not filed the required annual forms for 3 consecutive years. This revocation occurred on May 15, 2017. Following is a screen shot from the IRS’s website:
Revocation of PRM’s tax-exempt status – from IRS EO Select Check web page
So it is fair to say that Ms. Rencher and PRM are in deep kimchi with the IRS. And talk about lack of transparency . . . there are no annual forms for the public to inspect, which is a requirement for tax-exempt status. And the lack of reporting begs the question of how PRM has used the funds that it has raised.
(Note: PRM has taken down both its website and its Facebook page. However, I have extensive screenshots of both for public inspection.)
And it is interesting to note that both Ms. Rencher and her running mate Bill Lusk have misused the assets of tax-exempt charities to further their political aims. Not only have they run afoul of IRS rules for charities, Rencher-Lusk have also violated the public trust. They are 2 peas in pod. Citizens, we can do better than Rencher-Lusk . . . Vote Lockwood-Bentley! Vote for Integrity and Good Governance!
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
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):
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.
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.
Milton Coalition 