Latest comments are at the bottom of the page
Our first question is:
You've been pretty quiet about the recent flap over sub-area planning and the changes to the UDC. What
is your position on this?
I've been quiet for two reasons - first, I like to speak only when I have the information I need to back up my positions,
and second, I am frankly saving my comments for the final public hearing in front of the county commission.
As to what I believe, first let me say that there is far too much politicizing of this issue right now, with certain
commissioners trying to pit the north part of the county against the south. Next, there is a lot of speculation about
what is, and isn't in this plan - are the plots on the map correct; are they zoned specific today and will they be in the
future; what will the commission decide on rules for rezoning the map? Too many questions without answers, because future
county commissioners can vote to enforce anything they like, even if the current commission does not.
This points out the inherent flaw in trying to plan a county's growth, especially by citizens with their own narrow view
of the world. Property owners want to do with their land as they choose to do. Homeowners want to restrict property
owners from doing what they would like. Both sides are wrong, because they both take extreme positions that cannot be
supported in today's world. Property owners have not been able to do whatever they want with their property since zoning
boards were constituted in the 20th Century. We have all had to accept reasonable restrictions on property
use for a while now, and these owners should be able to most anything with their properties as long as they do not adversely
affect their neighbors property. Homeowners already living in Forsyth County should have NO say in how a property
is to be rezoned unless they are directly affected as nearby neighbors, not as "concerned" citizens who want
to plan how a county should look in the future.
I will be speaking against this plan, and doing so because Constitutionally, it is the wrong thing to implement at any
time, and an individual's property rights should never be usurped by the government.
Now that our county commissioners have voted to put the entire justice center proposal on the ballot
for March 2004, what is your position on the center?
You know, there were lot of reasonable voices speaking about this proposal when it first came out. A good number
of people thought that Roger Crow, who headed the panel tasked with coming up with the proposal, went a bit too far in his
insistence that the plan be voted on as one large proposal. The Libertarian Party of Forsyth County, of which I
was recently Chairman, came out with a counter proposal that recommended putting the proposal to voters in three separate
questions; one for the jail, one for the justice center, and one for the satellite sheriff's precincts.
Since that time, I have talked with Gary Beebe, a candidate running against current sheriff Ted Paxton. Mr. Beebe
has come out with an interesting proposal to not only keep Forsyth County from spending our tax money in other counties by
putting non-violent offenders in low-cost trailers in county on out existing jail site, but his proposal would also negate
the need to build a new, large jail facility and would also get people out of our jails earlier, saving us countless dollars.
This is the kind of out-of-the-box thinking that is sorely needed in this county.
Mr. Crow's proposal is nothing more than warmed over leftovers from three years past. It was too costly before,
and it will be too costly again. This referendum is for a bond of $65 million dollars, and that doesn't include acquiring
the land or furnishing the buildings when completed! What is amazing is that usual crop of supposedly Republican
county commissioners (Conway, Kreager and Taylor) have fallen for a proposal that insures that our taxes will go up again
for years to come, and will turn the center of downtown Cumming into a wasteland of all-government buildings.
The era of big government is alive and well in the heart of Republican-dominated Forsyth County. I would urge voters
to turn down this proposal in March.
What is your stance on the new Tree Ordinance as it is written?
For the most part, I can live with the new tree ordinance, but I'd like to see a couple of changes before it is implemented.
I think there needs to be a change in the section which requires tree density to be planted if there was not tree density
on existing fields and pastures.
I think the mix of people on the Tree Board needs to be less stacked in favor of environmentalists. There is no
way any person can get an objective hearing when 4 of 5 people on the board are in favor of trees.
I think there needs to be a provision lowering the standards for government land, as this puts a needless burden on taxpayers
to acquire more land to meet the density needs.
I particularly do not like the part where we would force people who cannot comply (not would not, but cannot comply),
to contribute money to a tree fund. This is extortion, and something the government should never be involved in.
I also think the tree board should never be engaged in educational activities that use taxpayer money. All the
information everyone needs to know about trees is readily available in public venues, and we should not waste government resources
on this type of activity.
Finally, I think there are too many people who have learned to use the power of government to get what they cannot get
using their own means. I will be speaking to the county commission on January 26th and reminding them that they are
to use the power and force of the government only when needed, and to err on the side of those who have, rather than those
who want. The text of this testimony will be posted after I speak.
A few people are really giving you some flack about not being "Republican enough" for them. How
Republican are you, really?
You bring up a very interesting question. The majority of people I've met over the past few months, especially
those I've met at local Republican party meetings, have been very supportive of my candidacy. Others have been nothing
if not cordial and polite. So except for a couple of truly disaffected people, I think I have been received very well
back into the Republican party.
How Republican am I? I'm probably not the best judge of that, because Republicans represent a wide cross-section
of American voters. Personally, I think Republicans can be put into three basic classifications; moderate, conservative,
and ultra-conservative. I think all Republicans share a host of beliefs - strong fiscal restraint, small, less-intrusive
government, and a strong national defense. I certainly qualify as a Republican on those stances.
I can best be described as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal (that means I'm not going to use the power of government
to keep consenting adults from doing anything that doesn't threaten anyone elses life, liberty or property).
Some people would like to button-hole me into one label or another. I think of myself as a Constitutionalist.
That document was written to limit the role of all forms of government, especially at the Federal level. It was also
written to guarantee the God-given freedoms that every human being is endowed with. It doesn't grant freedoms, it protects
them. It was written for a moral people, but it was not written to force morals on them. I think my philosophy
is much closer to the Republican party than it is to the Democratic party, whose platform is much closer to Socialism than
it is to a Constitutional Republic.
I may not be Republican enough for the ultra-conservatives of the party; I just don't know for sure, because
I've talked to many of them and they seem to genuinely appreciate my honesty and openness.
Some people have called me a RINO; a Republican In Name Only. Without putting too much of a spin on this, I was
a Republican for all of my adult voting life (about 27 years or so), until just a couple of years ago, when I decided to see
what the Libertarian party was all about. They are absolutely some of the nicest people on the face of the Earth, and
are very passionate about keeping government small, as I am. But while they have the third-highest number of elected
officials across the country, they still have little chance to move policy in their direction. I came back to the Republican
party because I want the best chance to be elected (why would I run to lose?), and because I am equally comfortable in the
Republican party as I was in the Libertarian party. Does moving from the Republican party (where I spent 27 years),
to the Libertarian party (which believes in many of the things Republicans believe in) for three years, and then going back
to the Republican party make me a RINO? Respectfully, no. It doesn't. Because my beliefs as a Republican
30 years ago are the same beliefs as a Republican today. My positions haven't changed a bit over the years, because
they are rooted in the U.S. Constitution. I think that makes me Republican enough for those who are willing to
give me a fair shake, and actually listen to what I say, and the reasons behind it. And I think it makes me Republican
enough for a majority of Forsyth County voters. If, upon reading this, you disagree with me, my e-mail address is on
my contacts page. Drop me a line, or call me. I'm always willing to listen.
Did you have a problem with filling out the candidate questionnaire the Republican Party asked you to do
when you qualified?
Not at all. In fact, I welcomed it, and was very glad to see them do that, especially when I was told that all
the answers would be published (but I don't know where they will be published). Complaints that it may have been illegal
are simply not valid. It was clearly legal for the Republican Party to have their booth in the Administration building
lobby, and every candidate was asked to fill it out right then and there. The questionnaires were not allowed to leave
the qualifying area. End of story.
As to the questions themselves, they were perfectly acceptable to me. After all, are we not running on what we
are going to do if and when we get into office? Don't the voters have the right to choose between candidates who believe
one thing is important, but not another? I think any individual or special interest group who does not take the time
to properly inform themselves about each and every candidate is doing themselves a huge disservice. County commissioner
is probably the most important elected official anyone can vote for. They determine how much money is going to be allocated
to first-responders in public safety. They determine growth policies that will reshape this county for years to come.
In short, they will affect our daily lives much more than any other elected official we will vote for this year.
It is your duty to find out as much about us as you can, and it is our responsibility as candidates to tell you the truth
about how we are going to vote on issues that you think are important.
Almost every candidate is talking about green space this year. You're not one of those tree-huggers, are
you?
I don't think anyone would accuse me of being a tree-hugger in any lifetime, but there are certainly a couple of people
running for commissioner who do qualify. Trees are an important natural resource, and should be preserved as much as
possible, but not at taxpayer expense. We have many ways to preserve greenspace; TDRs which allow greenspace to be saved
in one area while another is allowed to be developed, private donations from individuals and corporations (for which I think
some tax breaks could be allowed), and private property owners and individual homeowners themselves.
Some people have taken my opposition to the proposed tree ordinance as being against greenspace. Nothing could
be further from the truth. Our old ordinance had no teeth to it. It was completely without enforcement powers.
The new tree ordinance, as proposed, was at the other end of the spectrum. It was far too restrictive and forced
people to pay for things they didn't control or cause. Think of these two opposing positions as a pendulum. The
old ordinance swung one bad way, the new one swung completely to the other. It needed to be stopped somewhere in the
middle. It came close, but is not quite ready for prime time.
But one thing I think is always overlooked when talking about preserving trees is the individual homeowner. I used
to live in a neighborhood which started out as an open field. After six years there, our area had more tree density
than would have been forced on us if we were developed under the proposed ordinance. This happened for two reasons;
one, our neighborhood was developed with large enough lots and small enough density to allow room for people to plant many
trees on their property, and two, people inherently like to have trees on their property. And it was all done without
interference by government.
The simple answer to all this is to stop dense-packing homes into 4-per-acre lots or higher. Half-acre lots allow
people to enjoy both space to live, and room to plant the trees they want on their property. It's called smart growth
and is a part of my managed growth policy. Will there be times where I will support 3 or 4 to an acre density?
Sure. But only when a small overall area is being developed, and the development meets the other parts of my infrastructure
means test. It's the kind of common sense I think has been sorely lacking in county government for a long time now.
And it's the kind of thing I think separates me from my opponents in this race.
I'm posting my own question concerning this county sign issue our esteemed commissioners have brought up.
What the devil are our county commissioners up to this time with these community signs? No good, I can tell you
that. First of all, here are the supposed reasons for doing this program.
1. It will keep subdivisions from posting all those pesky little signs all over our intersections.
2. The program will pay for itself, and potentially bring in a profit to the county by charging fees to "advertise"
on the community signs.
First of all, does anyone really believe that other signs will not be posted in other areas away from the intersections?
I don't, and no matter what is done to any ordinance, you cannot restrict a developer from advertising their property, because
it is a restriction of their freedom of speech. So permanent signs will be posted at each major intersection, while
the same small road signs will be posted everywhere else.
Next, does anyone really think that people will be willing to pay extra for a permanent sign, when repetitive smaller
signs will be cheaper and more effective? I don't. Once built and installed, these new signs will have to
be maintained. Who will pay for that? If a subdivision becomes fully sold, who will pay for the continued signage?
How much money will be needed to keep these signs looking good and updated, and who will pay for those costs, and which county
or sign personnel will be responsible for making sure these signs are kept in good shape?
Finally, is this a proper role of government? I don't think so.
The fact that there are far too many questions without answers makes this a very bad direction for this board of
commissioners to go in.
Looks like we have an opening in our Public Information Officer position in 2004. Since you proposed
eliminating that position months ago, what do you suggest we do now about this?
I still maintain that it is not the role of government to fund a Public Information Officer position, and I have said
so for months. While it is always beneficial for people to know as much about their government as possible,
it is also the responsibility of citizens to seek out that information, and not let government funnel only that information
which government wants us to know. There is also the ever-present possibility that our government would use this position
as a propaganda tool, propping up people who may need a better public view than they normally deserve. In addition,
during election times, the need to keep incumbents out of the news is vitally important, so that their positions do not artificially
enhance the public's opinion of them over other candidates with free advertising.
The problem is, there is too much room for abuse, with results that cannot be changed for 4 or more years if left to
someone with less-than-sterling ethics. Certainly, based on some of the information I have heard, this type of un-ethical
behavior focusing on me may have contributed in small part to our former PIO's resignation. It also uses tax dollars
that can be used elsewhere.
Finally, I think it is much better for our citizens to get involved with their government by pulling information directly
from the people who represent them, not having information filtered through a third party source.
I have requested that this type of discussion be part of a working meeting with our county commissioners in the near
future. I would also ask each and every person who agrees with my position to contact their commissioner by phone
or e-mail, and make sure they schedule a working session with candidates who think this is an important issue, and do it before
they move to fill this position again.
You are being painted by some as favoring the "property rights" groups. What does that mean, and is
it true?
Yeah, I laugh every time someone tries to paint me in some kind of corner. Mostly this kind of charge is brought
by people who don't ever take the time to talk with me, don't ever do any research on me, and flat out don't want to have
someone they can't control in a commissioner's seat. Do I favor property rights? You bet I do! And so should
everyone else who owns, or desires to own, their very own home or property some day. But we'll get into the details
of that further in this answer.
The problem here is one of semantics. The people who accuse me of favoring the "property rights" crowd, really
mean that they think I will side with the development community when rezonings come before the board. If they had taken
the time to do their research, they would have found out three things about my reasons for running for county commissioner.
1. If I was so concerned about the developer community being represented on the county commission, why did I announce
my candidacy 7 months before Marcie Kreager announced she was NOT going to run? She has certainly pandered to the development
side of the equation, so why would I oppose her if I thought she was supporting the people I was supposedly supporting?
2. If I was on the developer's side of the house, why has my platform called for not accepting any campaign
donations from any developer, or their legal representative, so that there could be no hint of questionable ethical behavior?
And why have I called for all commission candidates to forego campaign contributions from the same sources?
3. If I am so tied to developers, why do I have a managed growth policy that has, as it's cornerstone, an
infrastructure means test to be applied to all rezonings before approval?
In short, the people who accuse me of siding with the development crowd have another agenda in mind, and after I get
confirmation of some stories I am hearing, I will publish why I think these people are afraid of me getting on the county
commission. Needless to say, they are wrong in their accusations of my supporting the development crowd. I support
the U.S. Constitution - period.
Now on to the property rights issue. I already told you that I believe in the U.S. Constitution, which
guarantees certain rights, one of which is property rights over those of the government or of other individuals who wish to
take that property by force or fraud. But over the years, we have come to accept reasonable restrictions on
what we can do with our property, which is why we have zoning laws today. In short, my belief is that government should
not allow, through their actions, anything that will reduce the value of someone's private property.
To those people on the "property rights" side of the issue; if you come to me with the "A person should be able to do
whatever they want to do with their own property" argument, I will tell you this:
Fine, the person next to you wants to put up a six story apartment building on their 4 acres, and the guy across from
them wants to build a strip joint. Do you support their right to do that?
To those on the other extreme who want to control how someone uses their property, I will tell you this:
Any government that I am a part of will not do anything to knowingly reduce the value of your property through our
actions, but if I have any indecison between harm or not, I will ALWAYS side with those that HAVE versus those that WANT.
The owners have invested their own money in their property, just as you have. But the bottom line is, it is still THEIRS,
not yours.
Look at that - a candidate for public office who thinks before acting. What a concept, and something sorely needed
in this county. Bottom line - I'm the only candidate for county commissioner who has the Constitutional knowledge to
find a balance between what government can do and what government should do when considering rezonings, so that owners values
are protected without jeopardizing our community's future.
