Subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . .

I was having lunch with a good friend at LongHorn Steakhouse on Tuesday – and who did I notice a couple of tables over but Congressman Paul Broun, to whom I promptly motioned. Being the good sort that he is, he came over and chatted with us for a while.

Needless to say, our conversation turned pretty quickly to this. As noted in the comments section below the article by ugalawdog98, “This is an editorial/opinion piece masquerading as a news article.” My sentiment, precisely (and there have been more than one of these in the pages of the Banner-Herald of late).

Be that as it may, I applaud Broun for what many others chide him. Here is a reprint of my comments concerning his positions on the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments (see the original here):

Congressman Paul Broun caused something or a minor stir in the local blogosphere over his recent comments concerning the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Given his political philosophy, which I share by the way, his comments are not in the least unexpected. Besides which, he is entirely correct.

The Sixteenth Amendment permitted the federal income tax, which thereby gave the permanent political class a steady and dramatically larger pot of money to fund their various schemes (oh, and never mind those promises that the income tax would never extend beyond about the highest 1% of income earners and that the highest rate would never be more than about 7%).

The Seventeenth Amendment changed the manner in which Senators were elected. Under the original terms of the Constitution, state legislatures chose Senators, as their purpose in Washington was to protect the interests of the states (you know, that pesky concept of federalism in which the central government, the state governments, and the people were each represented). By switching the election of Senators to popular vote, thereby making them functionally equivalent to Representatives, the only difference with whom merely being a longer term, the states lost representation.

The result of these two Amendments has been the inexorable growth in the power, cost, and domination of the national government over those of the states and the people. Broun is correct to advocate their repeal.

Regarding “birthright citizenship,” Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment does, indeed, say:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

However, does that wording apply to the waves of illegal aliens poring across our borders? My conversation with Broun leads me to believe that he does not think so, a principled opinion we both share with Mark Alexander over at The Patriot Post.

The language clearly reflected the times during which the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, obviously having to do with newly freed slaves. However, it in no way anticipated the current situation whereby illegal aliens flood into the country and establish permanent claims on the American taxpayer, either for themselves or their “anchor babies.”

This points out the (what should be obvious) fact that Amendments should not be regarded as sacrosanct. For example, the Eighteenth Amendment gave us Prohibition, an ill-advised policy disaster that merely served to encourage the populace to break the law and produced a spike in organized crime. Seeing the debacle that ensued, the mistake was rectified by the Twenty-first Amendment.

Broun merely advocates that we recognize the policy consequences caused by “birthright citizenship” as it is currently implemented and address an obvious problem. Claims that Broun is somehow against the Constitution, in that he advocates a process enshrined in that very document for its own alteration, is intellectually vacuous (though it may serve as a useful political argument, which, of course, is the obvious intent).

Though I hold the Constitution and its Framers in the highest of regard, neither it nor they were perfect. One of the marvels of their work was that they recognized this fact and made allowances for it.

Sphere: Related Content

Mayoral Candidate Questions

The Clarke County GOP is holding a mayoral candidate forum tomorrow evening (see here and here). Instead of the usual drivel about TDRs, “green” this, and “sustainable” that typically asked by the folks over at Flagpole, the Banner-Herald, the Federation of Neighborhoods, and the Athens Grow Green Coalition, below are the kinds of questions that I want the candidates to answer.

For Nancy Denson:

The Unified Government’s Charter plainly states that the millage rates charged in the county’s various tax districts should reflect the level of government services available in those districts. Instead, for years City Hall has charged those who live in the “general services” district the same millage rate as those who live in the “urban services” district, even though they receive far fewer services. Do you support reducing the millage rate in the general services district to compensate for this lack of services? Why or why not?

For Nancy Denson:

A few years ago, the Clarke County Board of Education raised its millage rate after holding the legally-mandated public budget hearings on a budget that did not include a millage rate hike. When interested citizens presented Clarke County School District and Unified Government officials with clear and convincing evidence that this practice violated both the state Code and the Department of Revenue’s regulations, those officials' responses consisted of uniform evasion and denial. Given that it was your legal responsibility to see that proper procedures were followed in the adoption of the Board’s budget, why should the voters of Athens-Clarke County entrust any further such responsibilities to you?

For Spencer Frye:

The current mayor has repeatedly called for a “circuit breaker” mechanism that would link one’s property taxes to one’s income. Regardless of the practical difficulties that may accompany the implementation of such a plan, do you support this approach in theory? Why or why not?

For Spencer Frye:

The “conservation subdivision” ordinance enacted years ago slashed the property values of rural residents by making land in the AR zones essentially un-developable. In the several years since the ordinance was adopted, not a single such subdivision has been built, or for that matter even proposed, because the requirements are so Draconically restrictive (and no, the Orange Twin development did not meet the requirements for a conservation subdivision). Do you favor revisiting the ordinance? Why or why not?

For Charlie Maddox:

Instead of limiting their use to emergency situations, the Commission has imposed a wide array of development moratoria as a means of crafting policy in recent years. These measures routinely are instituted with little to no advance notice, either by adopting them at special called sessions held on nights when votes would not normally be taken or by adding them to the agenda of regular voting sessions at the last minute. Either way, this practice has the effect of rendering the existing zoning ordinances meaningless, since they can be (and have been) suspended at any time. Do you support this practice? Why or why not?

For Gwen O’Looney:

The written agreement you signed on behalf of the Unified Government with the Dunlap Road citizens group promising that the Athens-Clarke County landfill would never be expanded proved utterly meaningless. Given the two decades-long history of broken promises to those who reside in the formerly unincorporated areas of the county, why should they have any belief that the Unified Government will finally live up to the commitments previously made to them?

For Gwen O’Looney:

For almost two decades, the Commission has steadfastly ignored those provisions of the Unified Government’s Charter that call for extending services into the formerly unincorporated areas of the county and for turning control of Ben Epps Airport over to the Clarke County Airport Authority. Do you support adhering to the explicit provisions of the Charter? If so, what will you do to implement them? If not, should the Charter be amended to eliminate these provisions? Why or why not? If the Charter should be amended, should it be through a popular referendum or unilaterally by a vote of the Commission?

For Glenn Stegall:

Fire Station No. 6, located at the intersection of Athens and Olympic Drives has been closed for a year and a half due to the snowstorm on 01 March 2009. This extended closure may well have played a part in the environmental damage resulting from the J&J Chemical Company fire. Rather than rebuild the station with the insurance money and its own funds, the Unified Government postponed any reconstruction activity for almost fifteen months, during which time it unsuccessfully sought an Obama Administration “economic stimulus” grant to rebuild the station. Was this the appropriate strategy? Why or why not? What, if anything, would you have done differently?

Sphere: Related Content

BOHICA

Our betters down at City Hall are poised to rip yet another sewer line out of the Service Delivery Plan. It is notable that in order to accomplish said ripping, the Mayor and Commission must knowingly and willingly violate the both the letters and spirits of the Charter and the Service Delivery Plan – not, mind you, that doing so bothers them in the least.

As proof of this claim, consider that the item for last evening’s agenda setting session clearly states a series of “Goals for the Service Delivery Plan” (see page 7 of the PDF [page 1 of Attachment A]). Listed foremost among those goals is this little tidbit:

To comply with the Unification Charter that requires ACCUG to adopt a plan to provide water and sewer services to all residents.

Some would have us believe that merely adopting a Service Delivery Plan fulfilled the provisions of the Charter. This, of course, is sophistry of the highest order. The Service Delivery Plan should properly be viewed as the means to an end, not an end unto itself. The end in mind, obviously, is for the Unified Government “to provide water and sewer services to all residents” – you know, just like the Charter plainly says.

Unfortunately, such a condescending and dismissive attitude toward we hinterlanders became old hat long ago:

• No water lines (though they were explicitly promised and written into the Charter and though your wells now may be contaminated by runoff from the J&J Chemical Company fire)

• No sewer lines (though they were explicitly promised and written into the Charter and though the Unified Government is eager to regulate your septic tanks and charge you for the privilege)

• No trash pickup (though it was implicitly promised and though the Unified Government is eager to regulate your trash and charge you for the privilege)

• Fire Station Nos. 8 and 9 being built years after Fire Station Nos. 3 and 4 (the former two being built in peripheral areas of the county that lacked fire protection, while the latter two replaced existing in-town stations)

• Fire Station No. 6 being closed for a year and a half – and counting (and how did that one work out?)

• Enactment of the “conservation subdivision” ordinance (that slashed your property values by making your property essentially un-developable; in the several years since the ordinance was adopted, not a single such subdivision has been built, or for that matter even proposed, because the requirements are so Draconianly restrictive [and no, the Orange Twin development did not meet the requirements for a conservation subdivision])

• You pay the same millage rate as in-town neighborhoods (though the Charter plainly says that the millage rates charged in the various tax districts [of which there are five] should be based on the level of government services provided in those districts)

Sphere: Related Content

Unified Government’s Culpability?

I have waited for weeks to see just how this story developed – but I can remain silent no longer, as no one else is even mentioning this important aspect of the fiasco that is the recent J&J Chemical Company fire. A much abridged version of what appears below appears as a letter to the editor in today’s edition of the Banner-Herald. 

In the aftermath of the recent J&J Chemical Company fire, with its resultant runoff of industrial chemicals into Trail Creek and the Oconee River, local politicians and environmentalists remain in high dudgeon, wringing their hands and pointing their fingers. They are all asking questions and demanding answers as to the responses of the Unified Government and the state’s Environmental Protection Division, or more appropriately to the seeming lack thereof, to that runoff and the deaths it caused of thousands of fish, frogs, and turtles. All of this is well and good – but only insofar as it goes.

To my mind, though, they are all missing an obvious point. The real culpability of the Unified Government in this matter occurred long before the blaze itself. That culpability has to do with the extended (and continuing) closure of Fire Station No. 6, located a mere mile down Olympic Drive from the J&J Chemical Company site on Trans Tech Drive.

To recap, Fire Station No. 6 has been vacant since 01 March 2009 because of damage to its roof due to an accumulation of snow. Not content to rebuild the station in a supposedly lesser, utilitarian manner, the Unified Government opted to apply for an Obama Administration “economic stimulus” grant so as to reconstruct the station to a “suburban” standard consistent with its elaborately overbuilt stations erected through local SPLOST funding.

That being the case, City Hall applied for an ARRA grant on 13 July 2009, more than four months after the snowstorm. A full ten months after that, on 13 May 2010, the Unified Government was informed that its grant application had been denied.* It was only at this point that plans began to be made to rebuild the station with local government’s own funds (see here and here). and

I cannot claim with any certainty that the situation with which we are faced would have been any different had Fire Station No. 6 been operational. I can claim with absolute certainty, however, that the response time to the J&J facility from the corner of Athena and Olympic Drives is considerably less than the corresponding times from the county’s next nearest stations, which I believe to be those located on Nowhere Road and College Avenue.

And response times are a factor in firefighting, are they not?

Unfortunately, Fire Station No. 6 is the one closest to a preponderance of the county’s industrial and manufacturing facilities, a point I raised almost a year and a half ago (see here). As it turns out, the Unified Government is finally doing precisely what I have advocated all along, namely using the insurance settlement and its own funds to repair Fire Station No. 6 – but only after an inexcusable delay of well over a year.

Note the total lack of interest in this salient fact displayed by all of those politicians and environmental groups mentioned above (and, it must be pointed out, by the local media). The predictable result of this delay was that when Fire Station No. 6 was needed the most, it sat unused, unoccupied, and unprepared.

And those almost fifteen months of inaction cost us dearly, did they not?

If our betters down at City Hall are looking for someone to whom they can assign some blame, perhaps they need look no further than the nearest mirror.

*As an aside, this in and of itself is somewhat perplexing. As I recall, the entire “economic stimulus” debacle was sold to the public as being intended for “shovel ready” projects. The Unified Government already had the land (obviously, the current site of Fire Station No. 6) and the plans (from Fire Station No. 9) for the project, not to mention an immediate need This project was as “shovel ready” as any that one is likely to find (of course, one may properly ask how rebuilding an existing fire station really constitutes economic stimulus is any meaningful sense, but that is fodder for another day). Anyway, the denial gives lie to the rhetoric about the ARRA being anything other than a political slush fund for the Obama Administration.

Sphere: Related Content

Audit the Unified Government’s Property

I addressed the Unified Government at the second of its three legally-mandated TBOR hearings (13 May) pertaining to the FY 2011 budget; to the best of my knowledge, I was the only person to speak at any of the hearings. Be that as it may, my recounting of City Hall’s somewhat disingenuous claims of lowering property taxes in recent years received some press coverage.

What did not get any mention was my suggestion that an audit of the Unified Government’s property be conducted. You know, a survey to answer such questions as: What properties does the local government own? To what uses does it put these properties? Could they be put to better uses? What are the plans for the properties going forward? Could any of these properties be returned to the tax base? Needlessly to say, all I got in response from the government paycheck types in attendance, both elected and appointed, was glassy-eyed stares.

Things went quite a bit better when I addressed the Overview Commission at its fourth public input session last Friday (06 August) at the Chamber of Commerce. Reflective of the meeting’s locale, the session began with a discussion of economic development topics. Having been on the Development Authority of the Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County for some years, I had a few thoughts in that regard. That discussion, in turn, segued into one concerning the bureaucratic and administrative hurdles faced by businesses and/or industries thinking of locating here which, in my opinion as one who has campaigned for office twice and been involved in local affairs for a good while now, are far more considerable and burdensome than need be.

Finally, I had the opportunity to comment on my reason for being there in the first place. My wife and I live in what is euphemistically termed the “general services” district. I say euphemistically because, when it comes to providing the basic services expected of a local government, we are conspicuously underserved by the Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County. This fact brings into sharp relief the discrepancy between City Hall’s obligations under the Charter and its actual practices. Simply put, the Unified Government employs systematic discrimination against those of its citizens who live outside the former city limits of Athens as a matter of policy.

That section of the Unified Government’s Charter quoted on the Overview Commission’s web site that repeatedly says “all” means just that; the residents of the general services district are entitled to just as many governmental services as the residents of in-town neighborhoods. After all, that was the explicit promise used to sell the idea of city-county consolidation the third time is came up for a popular referendum. Such promises were even written into the new government’s Charter.

Once city-county consolidation became an established fact, however, the rules began to change. For about the first decade under the Unified Government, residents of the general services district were treated with what amounted to benign neglect. Some improvements were made in terms of running water lines along a (precious) few main roads (but, as I recall, only after the Unified Government had been threatened with legal action in conjunction with chemical leakage from the landfill) and the outlying areas of the county did get Fire Stations 8 and 9 (but even that took many years after the new Stations 3 and 4 were built in areas that already had fire protection? – and by the way, Fire Station No. 6 has been closed for a year and a half and will remain so for some months more).  And that has been about it.  Our betters down at City Hall have made it abundantly clear that those other water and sewer lines that were promised and incorporated into the Service Delivery Plan are not going to happen.

Despite paying the same property tax millage rate and being subject to the same capricious reassessments as the folks in Five Points and Cobbham, we general services district folk might as well live in Oglethorpe County insofar as the provision of basic governmental services is concerned. When it comes to deriving revenue from us, however, the Unified Government regards us as being just as much a part of Clarke County as anyone else (see above), as imposition of the Stormwater Utility Fee proves.

So, the end result of my pontificating to the Overview Commission was three recommendations:
1. The Unified Government should actually abide by the provisions of the Charter (a radical concept I know)
2. Current or projected SPLOST projects should not undo or lead to the dismantling of previous SPLOST projects (as a taxpayer, I do not relish the thought of paying for something to be built, only to pay for then having it destroyed, and then paying for having it rebuilt elsewhere, i.e. the ball fields connected with the never-ending Tennis Center debacle)
3. The property of the Unified Government should be audited (what brought this back to mind is the concern expressed by some at the meeting about the suitability of the proposed location for new diversion center)

I appreciate the work being done by the members of the Overview Commission and thank them for their service to our community. Since the Overview Commission was appointed by the grand jury rather than the Mayor and Commission, even if it can do nothing but make recommendations, perhaps some good will come from its deliberations.  Even if that is the case, those inside the rail have made it known that they intend to unilaterally amend the Charter so as to reflect their self-consciously "progressive" ideals - the rest of us be damned.

The purpose of the Overview Commission is to hold the Unified Government accountable. For two full decades, though, residents of the general services district have been treated to a staggering litany of denial, delay, sophistry, and obfuscation as pertains to full implementation of the provisions of the Charter. Thus, the Unified Government needs to held accountable.

Sphere: Related Content

Upcoming GOP Mayoral Forum

The Clarke County Republican Party will hold a mayoral candidate forum at 6:30 p.m. on Saturday, 28 August, at the Party’s headquarters office located at 445 North Milledge Avenue.

District 9 Commissioner Kelly Girtz and Probate Court Judge Susan Tate (pending the blessing of the Judicial Qualifications Commission) have agreed to moderate the forum.

The event will be styled as an outdoor, old-fashioned political BBQ - with pork, chicken, hamburgers and hotdogs provided for those in attendance. The rest of the menu remains under construction, but will no doubt include banana pudding from The BBQ Shack - arguably the best dessert in Athens for this type of gathering (or any other for that matter).

The format will be a series of pre-screened questions for each candidate, meaning different questions for each candidate - not the same question for each candidate - which typically gives the rest of the field time to formulate an answer and result in monotony. The program will conclude with a 2-3 minute "stump speech" by each candidate, the order of which will be determined at random in a drawing conducted by Judge Tate.

Candidates who qualified for the office of mayor are:

Nancy Denson

Spencer Frye

Charlie Maddox

Gwen O’Looney

Glenn Stegall

Sphere: Related Content

SCHS Pigskin Preview

Following an impressive string of playoffs appearances over the preceding several seasons, my alma mater Indians struggled mightily through last fall’s campaign, going 3-7 (2-5).

It appears that the GHSA regions have been realigned for this year: the teams with which the Indians had the most problems last year have moved up to AAAA and SCHS in now in the six-team 8-AAA (Division A). Also, from what I read, it appears that the regular season has been trimmed from ten games down to nine, with a concluding “play in” game.

The schedule is as follows:

13 August – Habersham Central (at Mt. Airy) for a preseason scrimmage with an 8-AAAA opponent

27 August – Elbert County (at Toccoa) for a non-conference game with an 8-AA opponent

03 September – Hart County (at Hartwell) for a non-conference game with an 8-AA opponent

10 September – Oconee County (at Watkinsville) for a non-conference game with an 8-AAA (Division B) opponent

17 September – West Hall (at Toccoa) for a non-conference game with an 8-AAA (Division B) opponent

24 September – Open date

01 October – Franklin County (at Carnesville) for an 8-AAA conference game

08 October – Chestatee (at Toccoa) for an 8-AAA conference game

15 October – White County (at Cleveland) for an 8-AAA conference game

22 October – Lumpkin County (at Dahlonega) for an 8-AAA conference game

29 October – North Hall (at Toccoa) for a 8-AAA conference game

05 November – “Play In” game (at Toccoa)

Sphere: Related Content

Impertinent Observations

Though my opportunities for blogging are fewer and farther between of late (though I hope to remedy that going forward), things are still happening that draw my interest. To wit:

Congressman Paul Broun caused something or a minor stir in the local blogosphere over his recent comments concerning the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States (see here, here, and here). Given his political philosophy, which I share by the way, his comments are not in the least unexpected. Besides which, he is entirely correct. The Sixteenth Amendment permitted the federal income tax, which thereby gave the permanent political class a steady and dramatically larger pot of money to fund their various schemes (oh, and never mind those promises that the income tax would never extend beyond about the highest 1% of income earners and that the highest rate would never be more than about 7%). The Seventeenth Amendment changed the manner in which Senators were elected. Under the original terms of the Constitution, state legislatures chose Senators, as their purpose in Washington was to protect the interests of the states (you know, that pesky concept of federalism in which the central government, the state governments, and the people were each represented). By switching the election of Senators to popular vote, thereby making them functionally equivalent to Representatives, the only difference with whom merely being a longer term, the states lost representation. The result of these two Amendments has been the inexorable growth in the power, cost, and domination of the national government over the those of the states and the people. Broun is correct to advocate their repeal.

Those of us who live in the euphemistically named “general services” district are about to get the double whammy. First it was, and now is again, the idea of divvying up the formerly unincorporated area of Clarke County and mandating that the residents thereof use the private trash hauler assigned to them (the idea is to reduce the number of such haulers through attrition over time). To that will be added the periodic inspection and pumping of residents’ septic tanks. What both of these issues have in common is that the Unified Government steadfastly refuses to provide such services to the formerly unincorporated areas of the county – the Charter be damned (and note that the point is access to services, not the manner of payment for said services). On the other hand, though, City Hall would be quite happy to regulate how and with whom I do business regarding these services, all the while charging me for the privilege.

Speaking of which, what about all of those complaints about the Unified Government not fulfilling the terms of the Charter? Our betters are bandying about the idea of simply rewriting the document to suit their own self-consciously progressive ideology. I am quite eager to see whether the Overview Commission’s deliberations result in any worthwhile suggestions for City Hall – and by that I really mean castigations – but I am not counting on it.

The Clarke County School District is touting its improvement in AYP scores and graduation and dropout rates (read the items for yourselves). So, we are still paying top dollar for results that, while they may be marginally “better” than those to which we are accustomed, remain astonishingly poor. And by the way, I still have received not the first word of feedback from that “open letter” to the members of the Board of Education and the powers that be over on Mitchell Bridge Road.

Also, a lawsuit has been heard in Magistrate’s Court concerning the Unified Government’s Stormwater Utility Fee, on which I will comment more when the verdict is handed down.

Finally, I had a bit of a brush with greatness a few weekends ago at a GSSF match in Dawsonville (I don’t get to shoot much these days and am horribly out of practice). Standing directly in front of me in the registration line was none other than Massad Ayoob, well known for his myriad articles in the “gun press” and as former director of the Lethal Force Institute. He was in Atlanta for a radio appearance and took the opportunity to bust a few caps while in the area. I thoroughly enjoyed our chat.

Sphere: Related Content