Milton Citizens:

See the letter below that was sent by the Mayor to the City’s board and commissions regarding citizen interaction.  Note that these rules are stated to apply to both elected and appointed officials.  This letter was approved by City Council.  So how is it that Council Member Lusk feels he is above the rules that he has voted to enact?  Lately, both Councilmen Mr. Lusk and Mr. Kunz have been explicitly attacking citizens.  Mr. Lusk recently did so in a social media posting, labeling citizens that oppose his views as his views as “lurking critics, detractors, non-performers, and naysayers.”  He goes on to even call such citizens unpatriotic and critics of volunteerism.  Both Mr. Lusk and Mr. Kunz recently verbally attacked a private citizen in a Council meeting, because they did not like the citizen’s comments before Council.  Think about it.  Council Members are the leaders of our City.  They set the tone and culture.  Will anyone else on other boards and commissions take the rules seriously if Council Members do not?

Following is a link to Kunz/Lusk attack on a private citizen.  Que to 4:41:40 and 4:50.25 in the video.

Lusk and Kunz Attack Citizen in City Council Meeting

Unfortunately, this rule-breaking is predictable behavior from both of these Council members.  They routinely and flagrantly violate the rules.  Consider the following:

• Both Council members actively promoted a developer’s project, even giving tours of the developer’s property.  This is in direct violation of the Milton City Code that prohibits a Council Member’s even indirect interest in the outcome of a matter before City Council.
• Both Council members have both used private e-mail to conduct City business.  This is a violation of laws governing transparency in government.
• Both Council members have circumvented City staff, including the City Manager.  This was evidenced by e-mails obtained through an open records request.  Per City Code, Council members are required to work with City staff only through the City Manager.
• Both Council members have violated their quasi-judicial roles as judges in rezoning hearings by explicitly advocating for applicants before and during rezoning hearings.  Mr. Kunz even gave a 20 minute PowerPoint presentation that could best be described as a marketing presentation for Brightwater Homes.

So it is not surprising that Mr. Lusk and Mr. Kunz would openly and explicitly attack citizens.  They obviously believe that the rules don’s apply to them.  Isn’t this typical of politicians?  This is the same sort of lawlessness that we see in Washington DC.  Lusk and Kunz have imported this lawlessness to Milton and the community is worse for it.  The rules only apply to the other guy . . . the ordinary citizen.

This post is going out to the 2000+ citizens that signed the Milton Coalition’s petitions against cluster housing and the CSO.

In a recent post on social media, Council Member Bill Lusk asserted that citizens that oppose his views are “lurking critics, detractors, non-performers, and naysayers.”  He goes on to say that “they would rather hide behind their keyboards, contribute nothing except divisiveness, and nurse their empty egos, while others bend over and pick up trash along our roads.”

Apparently, not only do we not volunteer on behalf of the community, we also are critics of those who do volunteer.  And we are also unpatriotic.  Mr. Lusk compares us to American colonists who did support the War for Independence and Americans who badly treated returning Vietnam veterans.  Mr. Lusk clearly has a wild imagination.

In signing a petition opposing Mr. Lusk’s developer-promoted ideas on community septic, cluster housing, and high density housing, we petition signers are apparently pretty horrible people.

Initially, Mr. Lusk tried to dismiss the signers of Milton Coalition petitions.  He claimed that most of the signatures came from people that lived outside Milton or were forged (i.e., that many signatures were anonymous).  However, we unequivocally exposed Mr. Lusk’s lies–for example, only 1 person anonymously signed the petition that was submitted into the Milton City Council record.  So now Mr. Lusk has shifted his strategy to attacking citizens that oppose his positions.   This is despicable.  And it will not work.

Clearly, Mr. Lusk has become unhinged.  Mr. Lusk is frustrated that he has not been able to get cluster housing approved for un-sewered areas of Milton.  He is frustrated that he is not able to deliver the goods to the Special Interests he represents.  He realizes that he has lost the confidence and trust of citizens, so has taken to lashing out blindly at anyone that opposes him.  Mr. Lusk (and Mr. Kunz) has even attacked private citizens from the Council dais.  This is in direct violation of the City’s own rules and guidelines (Letter to Boards and Commissions dated February 12, 2016 with subject line:  Citizen Interaction).

Citizens of Milton, Mr. Lusk is up for re-election in 2017.  We need to show Mr. Lusk that we are serious about clean, competent, and citizen-centric government.  We should not tolerate a politician that shows such blatant disdain and disrespect for so many of Milton’s citizens.  Mr. Lusk clearly has to go.

Citizens, as always, thank you for your commitment to Milton.  You are making a difference.

Tonight City Council is going to approve a proclamation recognizing Constitution Week.   The Milton Coalition is fully supportive of Council’s proclamation tonight.  However, we remind Council that the best way to honor the Constitution is with actions, especially upholding the five fundamental rights listed in the First Amendment.

The best way to uphold free speech is to allow citizens to speak even when Council members disagree with what citizens say and how they say it.  The best way to uphold free assembly is to embrace groups (like the Milton Coalition) that freely form to promote good governance.  And the best way to uphold the right of citizens to petition for redress of grievances is to take seriously those citizens’ petitions.

Council, thank you for recognizing Constitution Week.

Citizens:

It is important that citizens continue to sign the Petition urging Council to protect our gravel roads.  This means a strict interpretation of the three-acre lot minimum along gravel roads that includes not only lots accessed from a gravel road, but lots adjacent to a gravel road.  Council Member Kunz has already stated that legally landowners are entitled to one-acre lots due to precedent.  (This is actually false.  See earlier post on this issue.)  However, Council member Kunz and Lusk have already supported 1-acre lot minimums along gravel roads in the 745 Ebenezer Road rezoning.  And they will certainly support 1-acre lots along Lackey Road, when a rezoning application is ultimately brought forward for parcels along that road.  The application will certainly be disguised in “conservation” language, but obviously one-acre lots (vs. three-acre) lots are not conservatory, except in the Orwellian world that Mr. Lusk and Mr. Kunz inhabit, where language is manipulated as a means to an end.

In the next few months, Council will be adopting clarifying language for three-acre minimum lots along gravel road.  Accordingly, citizens need to continue to stay engaged.  Following is the Wood Road petition.  Please sign and urge your friends and neighbors to sign.  Thank you.  Click on the following link to get to the petition.

Wood Road Petition

Following are some photos taken from the 27-unit townhouse development across from Cambridge High School.  This development is Exhibit A in how terribly wrong we can get rezoning in Milton.  Sewer was extended and density was increased by 3 times.  The rezoning approval motion was made by Bill Lusk and seconded by Matt Kunz.  (Don’t let anyone tell you that the person that makes the first and second motions on important issues does not matter; it does.)  At the time, Council Member Kunz even bragged to the Milton Herald about the townhouses:

“We approved the subdivision with an additional 25 feet of buffer space not required by Agricultural-1 (AG-1) regulations, making it a total of 75 feet of space, and also capped the sewer.  About half of the land will now be left as undeveloped, natural land.”

And don’t let anyone tell you that the choice was between a church and townhouses.  This is false.  This property was zoned AG-1 and should have been developed AG-1.  An AG-1 development would have yielded no more than 9 homes and would have better fit the look and feel of the area.  And as we have seen so many times, in approving this development, Council disregarded the recommendations of the Planning Commission, which voted 7-0 to deny this abomination.

This is just more evidence–as if you needed more–that Mr. Lusk and Mr. Kunz are the most pro-development members of Council.

Where is the supposed 75-foot buffer?

Below is a reckless and false argument made on social media by Council Member Kunz, where he argues for one-acre minimum lots on gravel roads.

First, this is a reckless and irresponsible statement for an elected official to make.  It is yet another example of a Council member positing an opinion about an issue where he has no expertise and prejudging an issue before all the facts are known or citizens have registered their opinions.

Second, the statement is just plain false.  There is no precedent.  Period.  This so-called loophole has never been used in the City of Milton.  This issue was only raised recently with Nix Road and now on Wood Road.

The real reason for this ridiculous social media posting is that two Council members have previously, but unsuccessfully, supported one-acre lots along gravel roads.  With the Ebenezer rezoning, Council members Kunz and Lusk and supported Brightwater Homes contention that 1 acre lots were permissible as long as these lots were accessed from a paved road.  This assertion was made to support higher density than would have otherwise been allowed under existing zoning.

I would contend that those who make such irresponsible and false statements do not support preserving our gravel roads or land conservation.  They do not represent the will of citizens in Milton.

(Note:  In his post, Council Member Kunz mentions that a CSO would have included a collaborative process.  However, such a collaborative process can be included in improvements to AG-1.  In fact, the AG-1 enhancements currently being considered by Council include more collaboration with citizens.  And if Council Member Kunz wants a even more collaborative zoning process, why hasn’t he proposed one for AG-1?  The reason is that his goal is cluster homes, higher density, and community septic.  These are needed to allow builders to profitably develop currently unprofitable land in Milton.  That is the real motivation behind a CSO; the collaborative process is just window dressing.)

This picture says it all.  Those who are posturing, preening, and pandering about transparency are hypocrites.  Certain council members prefer whispered conversations to texting because it leaves no record.  They use private e-mail for City business, which is prohibited.  During the April 25th meeting to consider rezoning of 745 Ebenezer Road, Council Member Lusk engaged in no less than 4 private conversations (one while a citizen was speaking) with other council members.  Yet he feigns “I’m shocked, shocked that texting is going on in here.”  Yes, hypocrites indeed.  But also clever by half.  Milton’s citizens are smart and engaged.  They will not fall for thinly veiled schemes to score political points.  Serious public policy issues should not be manipulated for partisan purposes.

Photo was taken during a Council working session in Summer 2016.

I am republishing my blog post from June 2016.  At the time, developers has found a loophole in Milton’s zoning laws.  Specifically, there was an inconsistency between two sections of our code.  And as is typical, developers found the inconsistency before city staff.  (Unfortunately, developers know our zoning laws much better than staff.  This is a big problem with often bad consequences for citizens.)  And as is also typical, City staff interpreted the laws to the benefit of developers.  (And these same staff are still in the same positions making the same mistakes.)  City Council did eventually clarify the laws and approved stronger, more definitive rules on 3-acre minimum lot sizes along gravel roads–albeit more diluted than some of us wished.  A few other community advocates and I met multiple times with the residents of Wood Road to assist them with their efforts to preserve 3-acre minimum lot sizes on gravel roads.  In addition to advising these residents, I helped residents post the petition to protect Milton’s gravel roads.  You can click on the below petition link and sign the petition to protect gravel roads.

Advocating For 3-acre Minimum Lots on Gravel Roads,

Tim

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

Concerned Citizens:

Following is a republished post from July 2016.  At the time, there was a lot of criticism of AG-1 zoning from proponents of cluster housing in Milton.  However, AG-1 zoning actually protects Milton . . . if it is enforced.  And it is that enforcement that is a problem.  Staff is often lax in enforcement, and City Council, through granting of copious variances, also had eroded AG-1 protections for citizens.  As noted in my blog below, the City would is better advised to enhance AG-1 zoning, strengthen Milton’s tree ordinance, and re-engineer the entire zoning process to make it more rigorous and tougher for developers.  Some modest AG-1 enhancements have been made.  The tree ordinance was eventually strengthened, but it took 4+ years to finally approve an ordinance.  And absolutely nothing has been done to reform the zoning process and make it more rigorous and fairer to citizens . . . NOTHING, despite 1900+ citizens signing a petition specifically demanding such reform.  (The below photos were taken on my property in Milton.)

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

At the June 20th City Council meeting, speaker after speaker in favor of “conservation” cluster housing cited the evils of AG-1.  As if reciting a mantra, cluster housing proponents repeatedly spoke of “clear-cutting” and “cookie cutter” lots and properties in AG-1 subdivisions.  We found this interesting in that quite a few of these speakers live in AG-1 subdivisions and many of them are quite nice . . . or at least we think so.  We also found the criticism interesting in that the City has never made a serious attempt to reform AG-1 to make it better.  Furthermore, many speakers seemed unaware that AG-1 explicitly forbids “clear-cutting.”  Perhaps Milton has an enforcement issue.  Perhaps staff does not have the resources to enforce AG-1’s provisions.  Or perhaps the penalties for violating AG-1’s provisions need to be increased.  Rather than cluttering Milton’s Code with new zoning ordinances that would not be enforced or approving complex rezonings that staff cannot manage, the city should focus on toughening existing ordinances, including AG-1 and our tree ordinance.  And furthermore the City should re-engineer the city’s entire zoning process to make it more rigorous and tougher on developers.

The truth is that there are many beautiful AG-1 subdivisions in Milton.  The many thousands of Milton residents that live in AG-1 subdivisions are proud of their homes and their properties.  They do not view AG-1 as evil and they do not view their homes as cookie-cutter.  Many residents have bought or created unique properties in AG-1 subdivisions.  We strongly believe that AG-1 is compatible with land conservation and protecting wildlife.  Following are photos of one property in an AG-1 subdivision.  Does this property strike anyone as cookie-cutter?

Uniting the community with positive land-use solutions

COMMENT