Home > Gwinnett > Rick Badie / My Opinion > Archives > 2007 > September > 17 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.US“Citizen input might curb haphazard development”
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
A developer proposes an 1,800-house subdivision.
Opponents cry foul to anyone who’ll listen. They protest.
The developer returns to the table with a scaled-back project. Instead of 1,800 houses, 1,500 will be built. And to show that he’s community-minded and dealing in good faith, he promises to plant a few more trees and shrubs and agrees to other changes that are cosmetic at best.
On the hot seat, county commissioners praise the project and the developer’s stellar reputation. This project, the elected officials say, will be an asset to the community. So they give it the green light, even if it doesn’t fit the comprehensive land-use plan.
In these here parts, it can happen. And in other states like Florida, the story typically ends no differently. There, practically anything goes when it comes to residential and commercial construction. Developments are seemingly allowed anywhere, built over any type of geographical terrain.
Well, there’s a grass-roots, nonpartisan group that’s trying to nip willy-nilly development in the bud, before the entire state gets paved over. It’s called Florida Hometown Democracy, founded by Florida natives Ross S. Burnaman and Lesley Blackner, according to the Web site www.floridahometowndemocracy.com.
Florida Hometown Democracy wants to put a referendum on the 2008 ballot that would require voter approval of changes to master growth plans. Say an entrepreneur wants to build a CVS Pharmacy in Ocala, Fla., at a location that’s inappropriate. If city leaders OK’d it, the people of Ocala would have to agree to it.
I lived in Central Florida for eight years, so I know and can tell you: Metropolises in the Sunshine State have got nothing on Gwinnett - and vice versa - when it comes to the mind-boggling proliferation of strip malls and subdivisions. Both locales are first-place contenders for the King of Sprawl award.
Burnaman grew up in Winter Park, Fla., near Orlando. Blackner’s a Jacksonville native. Both are attorneys. And like so many of us, both are sick of what sections of their hometowns and other communities have become.
A mess.
When I interviewed Burnaman Monday, we exchanged examples of the nonsense that goes on here and in Tallahassee, his home. Strip malls go up on one side of the road while another strip mall with vacant space sits across the street. Strip malls and storefronts sit right next to one another, yet are not connected by a road or walkway.
If the people had a stronger voice, Burnaman said, they’d be more protective of a community’s quality of life. His organization is trying to collect 611,000 signatures by Jan. 31 to qualify for the November 2008 ballot. So far, they’ve gotten about 500,000. He thinks developers would stop proposing outrageous projects that don’t fit land-use plans if they had to win over citizens.
“We simply want to have a citizen veto at the tail-end of the process,” said Ross, who once worked for the Florida Department of Community Affairs, the state’s planning agency.
“We’re not cutting out the politicians. The only way a [proposed project] would get on a ballot is if a majority of the politicians wanted to do it. If local planners and planning agencies and politicians want to go forward with a project, they have to sell it to the citizens. If people had a vote on these issues, then maybe [growth] would be more constrained.”
Naturally, the idea has its critics, namely the Florida Retail Association, the Florida Homebuilders Association and the state Chamber of Commerce, according to articles in various Florida publications. They say passage of the amendment would stymie the state’s economy and raise the cost of projects. The same concerns would be raised in our county, our state, against such a measure in our county, I suppose.
Yet it seems that more and more Gwinnettians are voicing their discontent with the growth pattern that has been allowed to proliferate. It’s a concern that gets aired routinely in the opinion pages of AJC Gwinnett News and one that I hear often in the community. True, property owners have the right to develop their property - as long as it fits zoning regulations and the growth plan. But let’s be real: Rules get bent all the time. How else can you explain so many situations where buildings sit out of character with their surroundings?
Surely, there’s a better way. We need a more balanced, sustainable approach to a decades-old pattern of development in this county.
Maybe Florida Hometown Democracy is on to something.
What do you think?
Rick Badie’s column appears on Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. Contact him at 770-263-3875 or e-mail rbadie@ajc.com.
Permalink | Comments (18) | Post your comment | Categories: Rick Badie
Services »
Comments
By Alexis
September 17, 2007 7:15 PM | Link to this
I say we should retake the land being occupied by the illegals in this county and gentrify it; then move on to the rest of the county. I don’t think it is smart land-use policy to be developing needless and expensive propositions when we have a ton of land being occupied by non-citizens that should be reclaimed and put to better use. Then we should move on to further development, as I strongly believe development is the key to economic growth in this area and if the development stops so will growth.
By Sandy_G
September 17, 2007 8:50 PM | Link to this
I think the Hometown Democracy idea is wonderful. That’s what is so frustrating and maddening about the rezoning process in Gwinnett, hundreds of people can write, call and email the county commission protesting a rezoning and then a couple of hundred make time to show up at the meeting and voice their disapproval and it passes anyway.
We have county leaders who have no vision and no backbones and the citizens no longer have a voice in the process. The county land use plan is meaningless and zoning ordinances are continually “tweaked” in the form of variances so they too, have become meaningless. When it takes private citizens to reclaim blighted areas and pay for improvements out of their own pockets (think Gwinnett Village CID, Evermore CID, etc.), then our county government has completely lost touch with the citizens of Gwinnett. It’s time for a little “check and balance” in the system and for us to make sure that our county government is “For the people and by the people” once again.
By Dave
September 17, 2007 9:20 PM | Link to this
I don’t think we should allow any further development of any areas. Development is how bad income areas are made. All development should be stopped to avoid poverty places and a bad economy and where you have to live in a bad place that has crime. We should stop development so people don’t lose their jobs.
By BobG
September 18, 2007 2:05 AM | Link to this
Here’s a simpler solution— accept no application for rezoning unless the proposal is in accordance with the Land Use Plan.
If a developer (or owner) wants to build something that doesn’t match the LUP, he must first petition to change the Plan… and the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that the proposed use is more suitable than the use established by the Plan.
Land Use Plan changes can only be filed twice a year and a public hearing would be required, as is done now. Only after the LUP is amended could the developer then file a rezoning application.
This approach would do two things— first, it would increase the value of the Plan; the LUP would become much more than a non-binding “guideline for growth,” as it is considered now.
Second, deviations from the Plan would not occur under pressure of a pending rezoning, after just a 20-minute public hearing. As it is today, the LUP is often ignored simply because somebody asked… because a developer filed a rezoning. The Plan should be more binding, more authoritative than that.
The solution has always been simple— develop a plan and follow it. Make deviations from the Plan difficult to effect.
By T
September 18, 2007 6:08 AM | Link to this
I find it impossible to believe that the state of Florida actually has a “Master Growth Plan”.
So, I assume as part of this bill being introduced, a “Master Growth Plan” will be let out for bids and a land-planner will come up with this document?
Does anyone realize what it would take to draw a land-plan of that size that would actually mean anything?
Dumb idea.
I certainly wouldn’t want a rezoning in Gwinnett looked at on a statewide level.
Also, what about property owners that have large tracts of land? If you owned 100 acres would you want the state to decide a “Master Plan” that includes your property?
Again I say dumb idea …
I liked some of Bob’s ideas.
By robo
September 18, 2007 7:00 AM | Link to this
What I can’t believe is people actually buy these monopoly board houses in these butt-ugly, over-priced developments. I don’t even like driving through one, much less spending hard earned money to live in such a souless place. I guess living near little Jimmy’s soccer field is not a priority of mine. Scenery is. Plus, worrying about my mailbox color p** off the heomeowners association, never keeps me up at night.
Actually, I hope more dense, suburbanite villagers group together. I sure don’t want these sheeple living around me.
By LT5000
September 18, 2007 7:06 AM | Link to this
This Wednesday at 6:30pm at the Global Mall on JCB and 85 the Gwinnett County CID will be holding a forum on the Security in Gwinnett County CID.
I suggest everyone show up and complain about the illegals and the trashing of Norcross.
The article can be found in the Gwinnett Daily Post.
http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=3971&SectionID=6&SubSectionID=6&S=1
LT5000
By jim d
September 18, 2007 7:33 AM | Link to this
There ya go Rick,
It’s just another part of the “Mexican Plot” ;)
By Bonedaddy
September 18, 2007 7:39 AM | Link to this
Yes, good idea, lets let the mob rule mentality preside of zonings now. The commissioners have already placed incompetent, unqualified people on the planning commission to appease the mob mentality, what makes average Joe smoe with no civil engineering background the authority on how to plan any damn thing. Most of the ones I have spoken with can’t plan their way out of a wet paper bag. There is nothing wrong with commercial development, people have to live, work and shop. When areas go into decay, then you re-develop. What do you think helps drive the economy and all of our jobs people? After all, it was a mean spirited developer who built your home or crappy subdivision, your place of employment, and where you get your food, clothes and medicine.
By jb
September 18, 2007 7:51 AM | Link to this
I have lived in Gwinnett for just over five years. Stopping all rezonings by forcing a statewide vote is not enough. Not nearly enough. We need to reclaim land that has been rezoned and developed.
The optimum population of Gwinnett was reached August 22, 2002. My position is that any rezoning which ocurred after that date should be voided.
After voiding these zonings every office building commercial building, parking lot, residence, school, hospital, fire station, and library built on those properties must be demolished. The land must be returned to the virgin forest that it was when that optimum population was reached.
The people who live, work and play at these places? They can move into a intown condo or to Cobb or Forsyth or somewhere, anywhere. Just not here.
By BobG
September 18, 2007 8:23 AM | Link to this
Bonedaddy, I don’t necessarily agree with your assessment of the competence of the planning commissioners but, in reality, they don’t really plan. And we wouldn’t have to worry about their competence at all if we implemented my proposal, described above.
The Land Use Plan is the product of months of development by planning professionals and staff, not unqualified citizen appointees. Follow a sensible plan and “spot” zonings and conflicts between uses are minimized or eliminated. Incorporate innovative concepts into your plan and you move in the right direction whereas, currently, land use is often determined by who makes the most noise at a Commission hearing.
I don’t have a problem with development, but let’s do it right. By following a sensible plan, many of our problems could have been avoided.
By Alexis
September 18, 2007 9:57 AM | Link to this
“Jerry, it’s Frank Costanza. Mr. Steinbrenner’s here… George is dead… Call me back.”
By Sandy_G
September 18, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this
JB, What you are describing (tearing down properties) is not legal, so that’s not going to happen. Neither is stopping all new development.
Most Gwinnettians don’t want to stop development, they just want to develop “smarter” so that one development doesn’t create a wave of development that overruns an entire area and forever changes the area in ways that create traffic gridlock, declining property values, empty store fronts and increased crime 5 or 10 years down the road.
What we want is “sustainable development”. We don’t want big box stores and gas stations built without some guarantee that the store won’t be allowed to sit empty five years from now.
We’re talking about simple things like development that is planned hand-in-hand with some thought to how the increased traffic will also be dealt with. Shopping centers that are interconnected or built on access streets so that they don’t seriously impact traffic on major thoroughfares. Shopping centers with stores closer to the street and parking lots in the rear instead of the front. New subdivisions with homes that don’t cover more than 50% of the lot and that have some built-in green space or leave a certain number of mature trees in place.
This is not rocket science. It’s just common sense and it’s completely doable without a lot of additional expense on the part of the government.
By Paul
September 18, 2007 7:43 PM | Link to this
Land use is often dictated by its rightful owner - that pesky Constitution again.
By rukiddingme
September 19, 2007 8:17 AM | Link to this
Le’s just focus on getting rid of illegals instead of accommodating them with more housing.
By jb
September 19, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this
In Response to Sandy_G. My posting was written with tonge in cheek. But in response to your comments I offer this:
“Smarter” growth almost always means build homes bigger and better than what I own. My home has siding, but the new homes should be four sides brick. The new development should set aside open space. The new homes should widen the street that serves my development, since they are adding traffic. The woods that are behind my home or that I drive by as I commute, single occupancy, 25 miles to work should not be cut down because I like to look at them.
If you are in traffic gridlock it is because of decisions that you made. Decisions like: I want to live here. I want to work there. I want to drive to work at this time. I want to drive my children to school. I want my child to have a car to drive herself to school. I need to go to the mall before I go play tennis.
Sustainable development? The primary factor that causes empty shops is that people stopped using them. People choose to go to the new place. Even if it is a longer drive. People don’t support sustainability. People support shiny new shopping places that are fun and different. Kroger has to build a new bigger store because people are shopping at the new bigger Publix. Or even worse driving by the old Kroger an extra 6 miles to shop at a new bigger and better Kroger.
Everyone likes the development that they live in, and the Office or Industrial development where they work. Everyone likes the places, especially the new places, where they shop. Every thing was perfect when they moved here. Why should we allow things to change?
No, it isn’t rocket science. But neither is it the majority rules.
We have a representative government. We elect these representatives. If we don’t like how they represent us, then we vote them out. If we are going to change that, to make future decisions by majority vote, then no elected representation is needed. If the job of local government is to prepare ballots so that we can vote on each zoning issue, the we need a lot less local government.
It will become (or is it already): I am here. I like it here. My impact on traffic, trees, schools, etc. is of no importance. I am not responsible for the impact that I made. But the new people the new developments, those should not be allowed to impact me. I was here first.
So, is the right thing to do, is the intelligent thing to do to allow every homeowner or renter to vote(are renters going to be allowed to vote?), on what happens to the property next door. Property that is owned by someone else. Is someone in Norcross going to vote on what happens in Dacula?
If the above is the correct choice, then we certainly can have those same voters determine what can happen with the existing development down the street? Those homes don’t even have one side brick, and have you seen their entrance, and don’t even talk about their pool and recreation area. Ugly! It is just dragging down the value of our homes.
By Sandy_G
September 19, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this
“Land use is often dictated by its rightful owner - that pesky Constitution again.”
So Paul, That means I can move a horse, cow and a few chickens into my backyard right? Or maybe set up a metalworking shop in my garage and put a sign out front advertising my business right? Or hey, maybe I could built a couple of townhouses in my backyard and rent them out!
Wrong. The county zoning ordinances were in effect when I purchased my property. I was fully aware that I was buying a piece of property on which I could not do certain things or build certain things.
Here’s how the redevelop thing works. A homeowner buys a house in a residential area on 10 acres. All of the other houses in the area are similarly situated on large lots. Ten or 15 years go by and a developer comes knocking on the door. He says he will buy their house and 10 acres for say, $500,000. Now that’s a lot of money for a homeowner who may have paid a fraction of that 15 years ago. There’s one catch though, before the developer will sign the purchase papers, the owners have to have their property rezoned to high density residential. The developer has an attorney who will handle the rezoning, the owners just have to agree.
Then the fun starts. Once the owners neighbors find out what is going on, they, expectedly, object. They live in a rural area and building 60 homes on 10 acres on a two-lane road without even a left hand turn lane doesn’t make any sense and doesn’t fit with the surrounding area. Well, of course all of those people objecting go down to the county commission meeting and voice their opposition. But the developer has a high-priced attorney and he’s been through this drill a thousand times. He knows all the commissioners and they know him and they have a comfortable working relationship. The developer cries about how if he builds any less than 60 homes on the property, he will go broke. The rezoning passes and the developer buys the property and bulldozes the old house and all of the trees.
Then, the surrounding neighbors find that they don’t have the same quality of life as before. Now, they have two story homes looking down into their once, private back yard. The developer builds his homes which sell for $250,000 each and his gross income from the property is $15,000,000. Now I don’t know how much it may have cost to build those 60 homes, but I would say the developer pocketed a pretty good profit.
Once the development is completed and all the houses sold, the developer moves on to the next target. He or she does not know or care what the impact is to the surrounding properties or the neighborhood in general. None of the commissioners will likely ever visit that neighborhood or even drive through it. Ten years later when the area is over-developed and the streets and roads are gridlocked, property values are down and people are moving away in droves, it will be up to the citizens that live there to turn it around. Private business owners may get together to pay for increased police patrols, infrastructure and road improvements in an attempt to bring the neighborhood back.
In the meantime, the developers and the commissioners are not affected by this and behave as if they had nothing to do with it.
For me personally, I’m sick of it. A lot of other people are too. Come this next election, we are going to take back our county, out of the hands of developers and spineless politicians who cannot and will not put their constituents needs and desires above those of profit-seekers.
By Sandy_G
September 19, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this
http://www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/landuse/lusstoc.shtml
http://www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/landuse/luintro.shtml
The links above list communities that have successfully created “sustainable development” and information about how land use planning works in conjunction with sustainable development. It is not impossible, it does exist, and other communities are doing it, now, today. We just have to open our minds, get our heads out of the sand, break our mindset of “we’ve always done it this way and there’s no other way to do it” and look around us.
If only our county commissioners and developers would take trips to places like these instead of trips to Las Vegas, our county could be a better place.