Voters, because of your relentlessness in questioning him about his record, Council Member Rick Mohrig has been forced to defend his terrible record. He is now furiously backpedaling and on the defensive. Thank you, citizens!
The ever-malleable Mohrig has slimily shifted from his unsuccessful strategy of ignoring his record to grossly distorting his record. In a few instances (the Ebenezer Road rezoning and denying District 3 a voting location), Mohrig actually (tries to) entirely flip the script and to morph himself from villain to hero.
Mohrig has added two new defensive web pages to his campaign website. There is little factuality and lots of fakery. Provided below are links to both pages. You might be questioning why I would give Mohrig access to my wide readership. The answer is that Mohrig is his own worst enemy. His assertions (aka lies and innuendo) are easily refutable and further underscore the case for electing Phil Cranmer (and Carol Cookerly, who has strongly called out Mohrig for his bad behavior). Mohrig assumes voters are morons who can be easily duped. I hold the opposite opinion. I have always trusted the discernment of Milton’s voters . . . and I am confident voters will elect Cranmer and Cookerly. It’s NOT a difficult choice. I am quite sure voters will NOT countenance a corrupt and dishonest hack politician like Mohrig.
Through anonymous emails and posts, Mohrig’s surrogates are parroting Mohrig’s lies and innuendo. Their anonymity begs the question: Should astute voters trust anonymous and slanted communications that provide little/no substantiation or sourcing?
Following are my rebuttals of Mohrig’s false assertions about land use, elections, and campaign collusion.
- LAND USE
Long-time readers know that my steadfast position on land use has been hardline. I would NEVER recommend any candidate that did not largely share my positions on land use in Milton. My positions are shared by Phil Cranmer and Carol Cookerly. Conversely, Rick Mohrig has an abysmal, documented land-use record . . . a record he is now twisting. At his campaign website, Rick Mohrig has made several egregious but also easily falsifiable assertions about land use in Milton.
False Assertion #1: Rick has protected Milton from high-density development.
This is the lie that most has me seeing red. Why? Because, I (along with former council members Laura Bentley and Julie Bailey) led the opposition to both rezonings to higher density that Mohrig SUPPORTED. In response to these existential threats to the community, I started this blog and posted two petitions that have garnered over 2,700 signatures. I KNOW the TRUTH . . . and so do the many citizens that engaged on these rezonings. In the instance of sewer being extended on Hopewell Road, Mohrig goes silent when asked about it. Following is a link to my blog post about this sewer extension:
In the second instance of sewer extension–the Ebenezer Road rezoning–Mohrig simply LIES, creating a completely fabricated narrative (that is the opposite of the truth) by ONLY focusing on the second Ebenezer vote when he REVERSED his first Ebenezer vote. I wrote an entire blog post debunking Mohrig’s heroic myth about the Ebenezer rezoning. Following is the link:
Mohrig Votes For Ebenezer Rezoning: Cluster Housing & Private Sewer . . . Watch Video
After repeatedly being called out, Mohrig has finally acknowledged the first council rezoning hearing for Ebenezer on April 25, 2016, and his vote for sewer extension (to allow higher density). However, he asserts the April vote was the “first unofficial vote” in advance of a “final” vote in June. This is complete nonsense. There is no such thing as a “first unofficial vote.” It is completely fictional. Conveniently, Mohrig does NOT mention that Lockwood vetoed the first rezoning . . . and that is the only reason why the rezoning appeared again before council on June 20, 2016, where Mohrig REVERSED his first vote to approve sewer extension and higher density. See the following from the Milton Herald.
Mohrig was the villain, not the hero, in the Ebenezer rezoning. Had Mohrig voted to DENY, the rezoning would have failed (in a 3-3 tie) . . . and Lockwood would not have needed to veto the rezoning. Instead, Mohrig’s vote to APPROVE was the deciding vote that kept this divisive issue alive for another 8 weeks, causing tremendous acrimony in the community.
Mohrig’s ginormous Ebenezer lie is quite audacious but also quite stupid. The Ebenezer rezoning set the stage for the biggest battle I have ever witnessed in Milton. Many hundreds of citizens were engaged on both sides of the Ebenezer rezoning. They know the truth, so I am flummoxed that Mohrig would float such blatantly false assertions. However, this sort of deception is classic Mohrig . . . he just covers up his initial lies with more and bigger lies. He thinks voters are stupid and easily duped. Prove him wrong by voting for Cranmer and Cookerly.
False Assertion #2: Little or nothing can be done about the increasing commercial blight in the Highway 9/Deerfield/Windward corridor.
Mohrig has hoisted the white surrender flag regarding blight in SE Milton. Of course, Mohrig’s assertion that Milton’s hands are largely tied is self-serving and ridiculous. The District at Mayfield in Crabapple (discussed later in this post) is proving otherwise. The truth is that Mohrig has been mostly AWOL in efforts to re-invigorate Southeast Milton. In the absence of results, Mohrig’s fallback is to offer flimsy excuses. Following is an extract of Mohrig’s Highway 9 campaign web page. Mohrig provides a litany of excuses for blight in his district. Read Mohrig’s explanation in his own words and ask yourself: Is this really the person citizens need leading efforts to reinvigorate Milton’s largest commercial area?
Phil Cranmer has pledged that he will restore District 3’s commercial vigor. Let’s give Phil that opportunity. Vote for Phil Cranmer to re-vitalize District 3’s commercial sector. Cranmer will pull down Mohrig’s white flag of surrender and charge forward to defeat District 3’s commercial blight.
False Assertion #3: Through pure innuendo, Mohrig implies Cranmer is beholden to developers
It is TRUE that Phil Cranmer has accepted contributions (totaling $4,000) from TWO developers. However, Mohrig conveniently and deceitfully leaves out 2 critical details. First, both developers LIVE in Milton so they are private citizens—just like you and me—participating in the political process. Second and more importantly, both developers have NEVER developed in Milton nor ever intend to develop in Milton (and I suspect if either did come before council, Mr. Cranmer would recuse himself . . . or else vote against their proposals.)
One of the developer-contributors is Charlie Roberts (and his wife), who contributed $3,000 to Cranmer. I have never met Mr. Roberts, but I know him by reputation. He is well regarded as a man of integrity and vision. For several years, Roberts served on Milton’s Design Review Board. In that capacity, Mr. Roberts took the lead in developing the District at Mayfield (DaM). He invested significant time to lead a year-long, citizen-informed concept plan for 22 contiguous properties (on 18 acres) south, east, and west of the Milton Library. This District’s plan will preserve historic homes and bring a unified vision to an important area of Crabapple.
This concept plan was approved unanimously by city council in June 2023. (Note: Mohrig was on the phone during this meeting but dropped off . . . so he did not vote on the DaM . . . just as he failed to show up for the 2021 vote on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Milton needs council members who SHOW UP for important land-use votes.) Following is a city government link that provides more information on the DaM.
Milton City Government District at Mayfield Website
I find it despicable that Mohrig’s cronies have conducted a smear campaign against Roberts, who has applied his development expertise and experience to craft a cohesive, attractive, and Milton-centric sense-of-place in Crabapple. Perhaps Mr. Roberts contribution to Cranmer’s campaign merely reflects a sensible and informed perspective that a similar approach should be applied to the increasingly blighted District 3 (Highway 9-Deerfield-Windward) area, which Mohrig has ignored even though he resides there . . . and which Phil Cranmer has pledged to revitalize.
I find it even more despicable that Mohrig implies that Cranmer’s acceptance of money from two respected resident-developers makes him an agent for developers. Mohrig’s smear campaign is merely meant to distract voters from his own terrible record on land use described above.
Interestingly, Mohrig also implicitly criticizes Cranmer for a higher proportion of contributions from big donors. However, Mohrig’s whining should be attributed to sour grapes. Mohrig supporter (and fellow elections committee member and partisan activist) Lisa Cauley hosted a big donor event that failed miserably. Cauley spent nearly $1000 to raise (no more than) $4000 . . . a dismal outcome for such an event.
It should be noted that the sanctimonious Mohrig has hypocritically accepted a few $1000+ contributions. He would certainly welcome more such contributions but obviously hasn’t inspired donors to contribute much to his low-energy candidacy.
2. ELECTIONS
False Assertion #4: Rick recommended the 2nd polling location be in District 3 when he supported the Committee’s 2 polling location guidance.
To support this assertion, Mohrig cherry-picks early statements he made in an April 10th regular city council meeting and later in an April 17th city council working session. However, he conveniently and dishonestly omits his final position (and the only position that matters) on polling place locations expressed in the last few minutes of the April 17th working session. In the final three minutes of the April 17th working session, Mohrig states THREE times he is “good” with the recommendation that District 3 be denied a polling place. This recommendation formed the basis of a motion made two weeks later by Moore, seconded by Mohrig, and passed by council in a 4-3 vote, with Mohrig providing the DECIDING vote AGAINST—yes, AGAINST–a District 3 polling place.
At the April 17th city council working session, at 2:33:38, Jan Jacobus first recommends the switch (from a District 3 polling location) to the Milton Park and Preserve (District 2). Mohrig expresses no opposition and (at 2:33:40) states “I’m good with that.” Council Member Moore (2:34:00) then provides his support for the switch. Moore appallingly justifies denial of a District 3 polling location by stating that District 3 has the lowest percentage voter turnout . . . implying District 3 voters do not deserve a polling place. In response to Moore’s recommendation Mohrig (2:35:00) states “I would be good with that.” Mohrig concludes the council discussion with a few additional comments, ending by saying (at 2:35:48): “I’m good with those two voting locations” In the span of slightly more than 2 minutes, Mohrig states THREE times that is he is “good” with Milton City Hall and Milton Park and Preserve as the two day-of polling locations, leaving District 3 without a polling location. Following is a link to the video. Forward to 2:33:35 (and listen for 2 ½ minutes):
The next regular city council meeting occurred on May 1st. This is the meeting where council discussed and voted on the number and location of the day-off polling spots. I suggest watching the entire elections discussion and council vote, which lasts only 9 minutes. At this meeting, Mayor Jamison ardently argues for a third polling location. Mohrig is clearly annoyed and clearly does not understand basic voting protocols . . . amazing given his long tenure on council. NEVER does Mohrig recommend the second polling location be in District 3. NEVER does Mohrig object to District 3 being denied a polling location. In fact, Mohrig provides the deciding vote AGAINST adding a District 3 polling location (in a 3-4 vote). He then seconds the follow-on motion for 2 polling locations: one at Milton City Hall and one at Milton Park & Preserve, providing the DECIDING vote to APPROVE (in a 4-3 vote) an election design that denied District 3 a polling location. His opposition to a polling location in his own district could not be clearer. Following is a link to the video. Forward to 3:31:00
Two weeks later, in the wake of bad publicity over the decision, Mohrig’s radical mob appeared at council to blast the council members who favored the third polling location. It was gratuitous and disgusting. Milton’s Conservative mayor was cursed as “woke” and even “Marxist” for daring to advocate for equal voting access in Milton. What was the point? The Lunatic Fringe had prevailed. Council designated only 2 polling locations; District 3 was denied a polling place. I attribute this outburst to Moore and Mohrig spiking the football and flexing their political muscle. Fortunately, their maneuver backfired. They overplayed their hand and citizens rebelled. This was the last straw for Phil Cranmer, sealing his decision to run for council. Only because of overwhelming public pressure (stimulated by this blog) did Mohrig reluctantly vote to add back a District 3 polling location at the July 24th regular city council meeting. Following is a link to May 15th general public comment. Forward to 11:30. These are the people who will be controlling Mohrig if he is elected . . . think about it!
However, it gets worse. At his “Facts Matter” web page, Mohrig goes beyond denying his pivotal role and lamely tries to shift the blame to City Manager Krokoff and Mayor Jamison for the denial of a District 3 polling location. He extracts and quotes completely out-of-context three sound bites from Krokoff and Jamison. This is sliminess personified. Anyone half paying attention knows that Krokoff and Jamison were steadfast in their insistence on three polling places to include a polling place in District 3. But don’t trust me, watch the suggested April 17th, May 1st, and May 15th video clips
A vote for Cranmer and Cookerly is a vote for Election Integrity, for Equal Voting Access, and for restoring political sanity to Milton.
False Assertion #5: Milton’s election prep has been free from wrongdoing, and Rick Mohrig had no interference or improper influence.
This allegation is super easy to refute . . . like shooting fish in a barrel, as the old saying goes. The following is from Mohrig’s website:
Both Mohrig and Moore have asserted that the City Attorney’s response (attached below) to three separate complaints to the Georgia state elections board “exonerates” (their word) them from charges of elections misconduct. This is laughable and indicative of Mohrig (and Moore’s) assumption that voters are morons . . . are you sensing a theme here? The City Attorney is the equivalent of the city’s defense lawyer. Of course, he is going to assert that the city did nothing wrong . . . that is his job! Obviously, defense attorneys cannot exonerate their clients. If they could, our prisons would be empty. Nevertheless, both Mohrig and Moore have been using the City’s Attorney letter (to the state elections board) as a blanket excuse for their bad elections behavior.
Unless a voter has been living under a rock, he/she knows that Milton’s elections project has been a complete and utter disaster . . . Mohrig’s signature failure. That is why Mohrig never brags or even talks about it . . . unless he is forced to. Milton will be paying much more for much less. Costs for Milton to self-run its elections will be at least double the cost Fulton County would have charged . . . for much lower service levels: fewer polling locations; fewer voting days/hours; no option to early vote outside Milton.
A vote for Cranmer and Cookerly is a vote AGAINST council member interference in elections.
3. CAMPAIGN COLLUSION
False Assertion #6: Through pure innuendo, Mohrig implies Cranmer is beholden to Milton Families First, an independent committee, and to MFF’s founders.
This is a serious charge with NO substantiation, only innuendo . . . which seems to be a common theme in Mohrig’s campaign and in his surrogates’ anonymous communications.
Milton Families First (MFF) is an independent committee (not to be confused with a PAC) that was formed in July. The operative word is “independent.” Legally, Cranmer’s campaign and MFF must operate independently; they cannot coordinate. Cranmer has NO control over MFF. However, MFF and Cranmer do share a common goal of thwarting Mohrig’s re-election . . . a goal shared by me, most of council, and (I believe) a large majority of citizens. So what?
It is TRUE that Cranmer has accepted campaign contributions from two of MFF’s officers, acting in their capacity as private citizens andparticipating in the political process . . . as is their right. These contributions are legal and in no way tie Cranmer to MFF. Like MFF itself, these two private citizens desire to thwart Mohrig’s re-election bid . . . again a goal they share with Cranmer, myself, most of council, and (I believe) a large majority of citizens. So what?
Mohrig has accepted a few $1000+ contributions. I am quite sure he would like more such contributions but hasn’t inspired donors to generously contribute.
Regarding MFF, citizens should judge MFF by its actions. So far, MFF has enunciated three short-term goals: to oppose Paul Moore’s candidacy; to oppose Rick Mohrig’s candidacy; and to expose/protest Milton’s corrupt elections design/planning process. I support all three of these short-term goals . . . as do many Milton voters . . . a large majority, I believe.
A vote for Cranmer and Cookerly is a vote AGAINST innuendo-driven smear campaigns.
Citizens, as Paul Harvey used to say when signing off . . . now you know the rest of the story. I am cautiously optimistic that Milton will soon be rid of Mohrig and his dishonesty. I am confident voters will put Milton’s last political dinosaur out to pasture.
Advocating For Political Integrity,
Tim
Note 1: Note: I am including a pdf file of this page. I urge readers to circulate this document to family, friends, and neighbors. We must not let Mohrig get away with distorting his record and smearing his opponent.
Note 2: This rebuttal required about 12 hours to research and assemble. A much bigger investment is required to tell the truth than to create lies. Mohrig’s false assertions take mere minutes to create but take hours to debunk. However, there is power in the truth. For 8 years, I have published this blog. I have established a large, loyal and trusting readership. Not once have my opponents ever reached out to report a factual error. (However, I must admit to perhaps a dozen factual errors over 8 years that were all reported by my supporters and which I promptly corrected and annotated as corrected.) I rely heavily on primary source materials and usually provide my source materials in their entirety so readers can draw their own conclusions. This sort of reputation for factuality requires investment over many years and is difficult to replicate. My opponents do not understand this and do not realize their anonymous, amateur, slanted, and unsubstantiated communications are dismissed by Milton’s discerning voters . . . rather, their communications are often a source of humor.
Milton Coalition 