Patrick, I think you started your article with a false premise. It appears that you are trying to persuade folks that the committee is something other than a Mayor Gravitt Committee.

The Committee would not have been organized without city leadership and push. A cochairman of the committee works for the City. The city had no issues with SPLOST VI until the city discovered that the county commission was only going to give the city the SPLOST VI share it deserved (percentage of SPLOST VI matching the city’s portion of the county population).

On November 23, 2007 a front page story in the Forsyth County News contained the following: “Cumming’s mayor on Tuesday night announced a plan to spend the next month recruiting people to fight an extension of the 1-cent sales tax as proposed by Forsyth County” “The mayor asked each of the five councilmen to return in December with one candidate to appoint to a SPLOST opposition panel.” “During the four-week gap between meetings, Gravitt said he will solicit potential members from local organizations.”

It sure sounds like the mayor’s committee to me.

Mayor Gravitt did introduce each and every one of the initial committee members. I think I stated that in sentence #2. Is it the Mayor's committee? No. If that's all you want to argue about when we have SERIOUS gross mismanagement in our county then I think I now know why we are missing the boat.

Our county, as recently confirmed, is the "richest" in the state of Georgia and 13th in the nation. Yet we cannot build a jail or courthouse. We pay rent to other counties to house our inmates. We continue to pay for the same road projects over and over again. To top it off, our commissioners act like jealous school boys picking at each other and other leaders in the community (or a least some do, not all) and cannot get a grasp on how to make Forsyth County a better place. Development runs wild clearing property to the dirt, jamming too many houses onto small lots and our school system struggles to keep up with growth (admirably I might add).

To be candid, I joined the committee to try and a delay SPLOST so we can evaluate where the priorities should be. It has nothing to do with who, what or where the committee started. I can assure you I am nobody's mouthpiece or pawn.

I only wish that instead of continually trying to take the spotlight off the major issues everyone would look at the reality of our tax and spend leadership. And while it makes for more interesting reading, the continual city vs. county talk gets old and it does little to correct the true problems.

Yet the major concern is whether or not the Mayor set up a committee. WOW…does that make a bit of sense?

By the way, go to www.cummingforsythtaxrelief.com for more information on why to Vote NO.

Patrick,

Your article is eloquent and well-written. I read your article as well as the other letters to the editor in the Forsyth County News concerning SPLOST VI, including Ronald Seder's.

Ronald Seder expressed his opinions on this website about the SPLOST split between the county and city. The county did not make an offical offer of 10%. In fact, they voted against it and gave the city 4.29% which was their intention all along.

I don't live in Cumming. I'm not on Mayor Ford Gravitt's anit-splost committee. I'm not employed by the city. Apparently, some former county commissioners and present county commissioners think that only the residents of the city are opposed to SPLOST VI. Not from what I've been hearing.

VOTE NO TO SPLOST

Letter the Editor: Do I Ever Have a Deal for You?? By Ron Seder Originally Published Oct 29, 2007, 10:39am (Updated Oct 29, 2007, 7:50pm)

Commissioner Brian Tam has figured out a way for the city to receive more than twice its population share from the next SPLOST. It’s simple; make the SPLOST collection for the next six years instead of five, and more than double the percentage for the city at an additional $12 million cost to the county.

Apparently Commissioner Tam’s rationale is that the county could also receive more because the total SPLOST would be six years worth rather than five.

According to the Forsyth County News, Commissioner Tam said the county receiving 95.7% (the population share) over five years would not give the county as much money as receiving 91% in over six years. Well duh!

So, the idea is for the county to give the city 9% of the next SPLOST at a cost to the county of $12 million to avoid giving Forsyth County citizens the opportunity to vote on another SPLOST extension in five years. Why, because the voters may not want a SPLOST extension in 5 years? If voters do not want a SPLOST extension in 5 years wouldn’t that mean that voting to accept a six-year SPLOST now is a mistake?

Does this make sense to anyone other than Commissioner Tam and the City of Cumming political leaders?

Thanks Lynn. I truly want what's best for Forsyth County as a whole. I am so tired of these political wranglers.

So much dis-information - so little time . . .

Let's go down all the errors / lies in your article. I'll point out which ones are which as I debunk each of them.

You say: First and foremost, the Anti-SPLOST Committee is neither a city-organized nor a city-appointed committee.

False. The mayor specifically asked his city council to bring back members for his committee. We have the minutes from the city's meeting, because this BOC wants to know what the city is doing with your money as well. Saying it wasn't the mayor who organized this doesn't mean it is not so. You begin your article with a lie, and you and everyone know it.

You say:This committee is a group of citizens from all over the county who have had enough of the games, disrespect and mismanagement of the county’s business. Forsyth County is our county, Ford Gravitt’s county and your county.

False. I met with your "committee". You were more upset that commissioners are elected at large, rather than by district. Your committee railed against that issue for more time than you did about the SPLOST project issue, and you rudely continued to cut me off when I was making points against your SPLOST projects arguments because you didn't want to hear the truth.

You say: Ford Gravitt is concerned about SPLOST and the future of Forsyth County. Ford cares about the well-being of Forsyth County, just as we do.

False. Ford Gravitt cares about the City of Cumming and Ford Gravitt. Period. He has pressured former commissioners into doing his will, virtually all to the detriment of Forsyth County, in order to maintain his power over county business. That power is gone as of 2007. It is also interesting to note a comment overheard regarding water alloocation for new businesses looking to come into Forsyth County and the Chamber of Commerce lack of support for SPLOST. But that is for another time. Needless to say, the mayor knows how to play his power games with what he has control over.

You say: Both Commissioner Laughinghouse and Commissioner Richard have said the $160 million bond is pre-funding of SPLOST monies. Interestingly enough, they never brought this up until they were confronted with it. If this is the case, I wonder what the true benefit of the bond will be after we pay interest and fees. Is it worth it to spend before we earn? I do not think that the original intention of the plan was to repay the bond with SPLOST VI revenues. It is my belief that the commissioners were, once again, caught in the act of trying to hoodwink the citizens of Forsyth County.

False. Most people do not express opinions in ignorance, but you just did with this last line. Anyone who was paying attention to SPLOST before the mayor asked for their help would have noticed this issue discussed during ALL the work sessions associated with the SPLOST ballot language and when discussing the funding of projects. Of course, paying attention is hard for some people. Now, as to the true benefit of bonding? That is to be determined at the time of requesting the bonds. You see, we aren't REQUIRED to bond anything, if it doesn't make financial sense. And we aren't REQUIRED to bond out the whole $160 million, if we don't need it all. And to debunk yet another issue regarding bond payback on your ridiculous website, these bonds will be paid off in less than 5 years, which is the term of the SPLOST tax, not the 20-30 years you have stated. These are revenue-based bonds, with a determined revenue source. And to play it safe, we have set the $160 million at 75% of the expected SPLOST revenue for roads only, so there is virtually no chance for property taxes to be required to pay back any bonds.

You say: In addition, Commissioner Laughinghouse stated that my comment regarding “zero commitment” is incorrect. This, too, warrants further explanation. For example, SPLOST V called for a 30,000 square foot addition to the County Administration Building. When Commissioner Richard was asked about this, he said he knew it was on the list, but they (BOC) decided that the engineering and costs were incorrect, and therefore it had to put it off. So it was on the list, it was agreed that it is sorely needed, it was funded, and then it was excluded. It appears whatever portion of the $7,800,000.00 that was earmarked for that project was used on something else.

False (again). As stated above, your committee interrupted my explanation for this item when asked about it, because they didn't like where it was going. We bought the Sawnee Center and moved Magistrate Court and the Tax Commissioners office to that site, freeing up space in the current building. We purchased the Lodge and moved other county functions like building inspectors to that site. We purchased the Classics site for future expansion of the admin. bldg. To your contention that $7.8 million was "earmarked" for the admin bldg. expansion is false. We do not earmark funds. We spend them where they are needed most. When a shortfall comes up in funding (such as with roads) we determine which is needed more; a building or a road. Guess what? Roads win every time over monuments to government inefficiency (like a 3-story city hall that has one full floor unoccupied).

You say: The Capital Needs Review committee was put together after the Anti-SPLOST committee was formed. It was a direct response to our questions and concerns.

False. This is a lie on your part.

You say: I’m sure they felt that they were an integral part of making SPLOST VI the best ever. However, the past has shown us that this list is a smoke and mirrors tactic to gain approval. Then the Board is off and running with $500,000,000.00 of your money!

False. This is another lie. There is NO $500 million dollars involved in SPLOST. Nor is there $500 million in all the capital projects you and others claim would need to be bonded out. It appears that you, sir, cannot do simple addition. Since even I don't think that is the case, you have lied again. And for you to discredit the dedication of the members of that committee who did more work and took the time to educate themselves on all the facts surrounding SPLOST law and capital projects in order that they could put forth a balanced list of projects for the voters shows how pitiful you and your committee really are.

You say: Don’t be fooled by that “Public Safety” terminology being bantered around. Public Safety to you and me means something different to the Board. Public Safety is fire protection, emergency management and things of that nature. Public Safety does not include police protection.

False. To this boad of commissioners, public safety does include the sheriff's department. However, there is only one capital project that directly concerns the sheriff's department in front of this board; a new sheriff's headquarters building. Estimated between $10-$20 million dollars to build, we will be funding this through capital funds in the future, and do not need to use valuable SPLOST dollars that could be used for other things.

You say: We feel we should fund a new jail from SPLOST instead of a bond that will increase property taxes. We need to include the Sheriff’s Department in SPLOST instead of trying to pass these bonds. Then the capital needs are funded by sales tax revenue versus only home owners and property owners.

False. What do the visitors to this county who pay about 20% of our SPLOST taxes use when they come to Forsyth? Our jail? Our courthouse? No, they use OUR ROADS, OUR PARKS and OUR PUBLIC SAFETY SYSTEM! They tax those systems, and the best way to use SPLOST is to tax them for that use, not to stick them with the bill for our own problems with two county assets they'll never use.

You say: It turns out that we are more pro-SPLOST than Commissioner Richard. He supports a bond to build a new jail and another bond to build a courthouse and another bond for green space.

False. You cannot speak for what I do, or do not believe in. Just because I do not support using SPLOST funds to build a jail or courthouse does not, in reverse, mean that I support a bond for either of these projects. I demand that you remove this reference from your joke of a website immediately. You do not ever speak for me. Ever.

You say: I was incorrect as I was under the impression it was a 30 term. So it will be 20 years…well, that’s better.

This is the first thing you have said that isn't either wrong, or a lie. It only took you until the end of your diatribe. Congratulations.

You say: Our plan is to not renew the SPLOST in February. Not defeat it, not kill it, but simply not renew it right now. Let’s take a year off and develop a worthy plan that incorporates the needs of all parts of the county.

Great idea, Patrick! Meanwhile, a full year of revenues does not get collected, and 1/5 of all planned projects get placed on hold while the traffic and public safety issues continue to pile up. Most people have thought this thing through, and the only thing this current SPLOST plan doesn't address is the reduction in power of the mayor of the City of Cumming. Too bad.

Maybe this time around, the city will be able to complete more than 30% of their SPLOST projects before the tax expires. When you compare the 80% SPLOST project completion rate of the county (with 80% less funding from the state for roads than was advertised) vs. the 30% completion rate of the city, I think we all need to have a good hard look at the financial mismanagement of the city, don't you? Especially when the city only has to worry about 5 simple projects in the current SPLOST, and only one in the next SPLOST. And this time, they won't be able to shake down the county for $8.3 million when they have their cost overruns like they did on the Pilgrim Mill Rd. project.

Before you tell anyone else to be informed about something, you should try it first. You failed miserably on this one.

Patrick, it is you who first made a major issue out of whether or not the committee is the mayor’s committee. It was so important to you that it was the first thing you addressed in your article. Apparently, now that I presented evidence showing the mayor’s major role in the committee, the issue is no longer as important to you.

As for other issues you raised, I will try to avoid a battle of emotions, but I disagree with almost everything you say in your charges of mismanagement of the county by the current board of commissioners. I believe we now have a majority of commissioners doing a better job for we average county citizens than we have had on any board of commissioners for a long time. I think a majority of the current board is doing a fine job. There are a lot of challenges, brought on by rapid growth, and the current board is successfully addressing them. The county now has a population 3.5 times larger than it was in 1990, only 17 years ago, and providing for that growth is a big and busy job for our board of commissioners. And, the fact that the mayor keeps trying take unfair advantage of the county in word and deed adds unnecessary challenges to the job.

My assessment is that the county had a good process and did a quality job of fairly identifying and prioritizing SPLOST VI projects.

Do you agree or disagree that the projects identified for SPLOST VI are needed?

The projects and prioritization are displayed on the county website at http://www.forsythco.com/, click on SPLOST VI for a detailed list of SPLOST VI projects and supporting material.

Also, at the same county web address one can click on "SPLOST V Update" to get the real status of SPLOST V projects.

Lynn and Patrick, I have written more about SPLOST than the letter Lynn printed here. There is more SPLOST information on my website at http://ronseder.com/lost_splost.htm.

Ron,

You've not only written more about SPLOST, you know more about SPLOST and LOST than any commissioner, past or present. Your insights have been more valuable than any other, and residents would be very smart indeed to inform themselves about the real issues regarding SPLOST by reading your website.

Dave Richard's comments from above:

False. I met with your "committee". You were more upset that commissioners are elected at large, rather than by district. Your committee railed against that issue for more time than you did about the SPLOST project issue, and you rudely continued to cut me off when I was making points against your SPLOST projects arguments because you didn't want to hear the truth. end quote

Dave, this was THEIR meeting. I think they had the right to discuss whatever they wanted to discuss. I think commissioners should be elected by district also. Didn't you lose your own district? Didn't Laughinghouse lose his own district? Therefore, they have a commissioner representing them that they DID NOT want. It would level the playing field for people who live in the lower populated areas as opposed to candidates always pandering to South Forsyth for votes.

You say on your website that you went to the anti-splost meeting to stick a pin in their balloon. I think you really went there because you knew it would be covered by the local news and you would get your picture in the paper and put yourself in the limelight.

Isn't it against the law for the school system to campaign for SPLOST? It should be illegal for commissioners as well.

I agree with Patrick. The road projects can wait another year until we can get a BOC who will be honest and straight-forward about what the money will be used for. You say that the magnificent "3" can determine how best to tax us and use our money to our good. I disagree.

Usually, I have found that the proud, haughty, and arrogant do not make the best public servants. That is why I'm seriously considering changing parties and voting for Barak Obama. I was wowed by Caroline Kennedy's endorsement yesterday.

Lynn, as usual, you are wrong. That was a publicly announced meeting, so anyone could attend. I went to listen. They chose to invite me up to answer questions, then shut me off whenever they didn't like the answers I was giving.

Officials may campaign for or against a referendum so long as they do not use government resources to do so. Once again, you are wrong. As usual.

I'm not surprised you agree with Patrick, given your track record on websites. People who are often wrong and uninformed gravitate towards those who are also wrong and uninformed.

Go ahead and try to make a case that this board has not been honest and straighforward about how this money will be spent. But don't lie, like Patrick has done, and come at me with facts, not errors. Personally, I find it amazing that you are not down at city hall right now demanding to know where all the SPLOST money is that the city hasn't spent on projects in the past 5 years. Why aren't you asking them where the fourth lane for Pilgrim Mill Rd. is? That was "promised" in the current SPLOST. Why aren't you down there asking them why that road project isn't completed all the way down to SR9, as was "promised" in the current SPLOST? Why don't you take some time off from posting errors on websites and take a nice soothing swim at the city's aquatic center? Oh, that's right - they haven't even broken ground on that yet. How about a nice leisurely drive down the newly-widened Buford Dam Rd? Ooops! Still 2 lanes.

In short, Lynn, you and others have a very different definition of government accountability when it comes to the city and the county. Our records are open for all to see, available on our website. The city's website? Yeah, right. Try finding anything about their accomplishments without an open records request.

And trust me; coming from Massachusetts, an endorsement from a Kennedy doesn't hold much water for me. It would be just like you to vote for a person with no record of legislative accomplishment as a state senator or a U.S. senator. I've passed more legislation than Obama has. But given the choice between the three democrats still running, you don't really have much choice there.

I hope some newcomers to our county are reading this. Are you shocked? Are you appalled? Are you disgusted with elected officials past and present who call people liars and yahoos, idiots, etc? If you believe that SPLOST VI will accomplish more than splost I, II, III, IV and V just because Dave Richard is now a commissioner, well...keep reading his statements. Look at his contradictions of himself, watch how he twists everything to suit his present situation. After a while, it loses it's meaning. It's meaningless. The 3 commissioners who claim to be the "new and improved" majority really haven't accomplished anything if you will take a close look at it. If SPLOST V was spent correctly and was such a success, you can give credit to Jack Conway for that. He was the chairman of the BOC throughout most of SPLOST V.

It remains to be seen if the magnificent "3" will abide by their own UDC changes. How many rezoning applications have they had since the 10 month moratorium was lifted?

Caroline Kennedy's endorsement was historical.

What's the matter, Lynn? Don't have an answer for the facts put in front of you, so you just change the argument?

Since when is the UDC the subject of SPLOST expenditures?

Answer the question, please. If the city has been proved to have completed only 30% of their promised projects according to the very same list that the anti-SPLOST committee uses to judge the county' s rate of completion, and the county has completed 80% of their projects, none of which required the county to sue a higher authority for extra money due to mismanagement, why are you not at city hall complaining about their lack of accountability?

Oh, and by the way, please provide proof where I have contradicted myself.

OK, OK...I am not a politician nor can I speak from both sides of my mouth. I will try again, to explain this issue as I see it. This is the last time until I can get documentation on the claims made by the Commissioner.
DR claims False. The mayor specifically asked his city council to bring back members for his committee. We have the minutes from the city's meeting, because this BOC wants to know what the city is doing with your money as well. Saying it wasn't the mayor who organized this doesn't mean it is not so. You begin your article with a lie, and you and everyone know it. The TRUTH: As the committee has about 30 members on it right now. Because the Mayor asked his city council members to each appoint someone does not mean it is a city committee. What it means is that there are 5 people appointed by the 5 councilors. 5 from 30 = 25 more members that came from various associations. Want to know where I came from? I called and asked to be on the committee. You say: This committee is a group of citizens from all over the county who have had enough of the games, disrespect and mismanagement of the county’s business. Forsyth County is our county, Ford Gravitt’s county and your county. DR claims False. I met with your "committee". You were more upset that commissioners are elected at large, rather than by district. Your committee railed against that issue for more time than you did about the SPLOST project issue, and you rudely continued to cut me off when I was making points against your SPLOST projects arguments because you didn't want to hear the truth. The TRUTH: If you think that the citizens of Forsyth County are not sick of the way our county is being handled you are further out in space than originally I thought. Look back at the headlines about the BOC...mostly made up of spats between the board, petty arguments between the BOC and its own departments. You can bet your bottom dollar that people are tired of it.
You say: Ford Gravitt is concerned about SPLOST and the future of Forsyth County. Ford cares about the well-being of Forsyth County, just as we do. DR claims False. Ford Gravitt cares about the City of Cumming and Ford Gravitt. Period. He has pressured former commissioners into doing his will, virtually all to the detriment of Forsyth County, in order to maintain his power over county business. That power is gone as of 2007. It is also interesting to note a comment overheard regarding water alloocation for new businesses looking to come into Forsyth County and the Chamber of Commerce lack of support for SPLOST. But that is for another time. Needless to say, the mayor knows how to play his power games with what he has control over. The TRUTH: If you want to get down to the brass tacks neither of us really knows. Do we? I can tell you that in what I know about Ford Gravitt is that he fights for the city which is continually getting pushed around by the “big brother”. He has no choice but to fight and that’s what the citizens of the city expect him to do. As to backing down and taking a bunch of nonsense from the BOC...I can’t see that happening either. My assumption is that is what aggravates the BOC more than anything. Is he perfect? Nope. Am I? Nope. Are you? No again. So whatever you want to conjure up in your rants is fine...as long as everyone understands your opinion is just that...an opinion. You say: Both Commissioner Laughinghouse and Commissioner Richard have said the $160 million bond is pre-funding of SPLOST monies. Interestingly enough, they never brought this up until they were confronted with it. If this is the case, I wonder what the true benefit of the bond will be after we pay interest and fees. Is it worth it to spend before we earn? I do not think that the original intention of the plan was to repay the bond with SPLOST VI revenues. It is my belief that the commissioners were, once again, caught in the act of trying to hoodwink the citizens of Forsyth County. DR claims False. Most people do not express opinions in ignorance, but you just did with this last line. Anyone who was paying attention to SPLOST before the mayor asked for their help would have noticed this issue discussed during ALL the work sessions associated with the SPLOST ballot language and when discussing the funding of projects. Of course, paying attention is hard for some people. Now, as to the true benefit of bonding? That is to be determined at the time of requesting the bonds. You see, we aren't REQUIRED to bond anything, if it doesn't make financial sense. And we aren't REQUIRED to bond out the whole $160 million, if we don't need it all. And to debunk yet another issue regarding bond payback on your ridiculous website, these bonds will be paid off in less than 5 years, which is the term of the SPLOST tax, not the 20-30 years you have stated. These are revenue-based bonds, with a determined revenue source. And to play it safe, we have set the $160 million at 75% of the expected SPLOST revenue for roads only, so there is virtually no chance for property taxes to be required to pay back any bonds. The TRUTH: Can you provide any minutes of any meeting that supports your claims that it was always intended to use the $160 million bond as pre-funding SPLOST and that it would be repaid entirely with SPLOST funds? If you do I will accept it, otherwise I stand by my opinion.
You say: In addition, Commissioner Laughinghouse stated that my comment regarding “zero commitment” is incorrect. This, too, warrants further explanation. For example, SPLOST V called for a 30,000 square foot addition to the County Administration Building. When Commissioner Richard was asked about this, he said he knew it was on the list, but they (BOC) decided that the engineering and costs were incorrect, and therefore it had to put it off. So it was on the list, it was agreed that it is sorely needed, it was funded, and then it was excluded. It appears whatever portion of the $7,800,000.00 that was earmarked for that project was used on something else. DR claims False. As stated above, your committee interrupted my explanation for this item when asked about it, because they didn't like where it was going. We bought the Sawnee Center and moved Magistrate Court and the Tax Commissioners office to that site, freeing up space in the current building. We purchased the Lodge and moved other county functions like building inspectors to that site. We purchased the Classics site for future expansion of the admin. bldg. To your contention that $7.8 million was "earmarked" for the admin bldg. expansion is false. We do not earmark funds. We spend them where they are needed most. When a shortfall comes up in funding (such as with roads) we determine which is needed more; a building or a road. Guess what? Roads win every time over monuments to government inefficiency (like a 3-story city hall that has one full floor unoccupied). The TRUTH: “You spend them where they are needed most”? So what is put before the public at the time you are asking for support is only a “guestimate”. The propaganda put out for SPLOST 5 clearly said “30,000 Sq. Ft. Addition to Administration Building. But then it was decided to buy Sawnee Center, the Lodge, etc...It backs my point up entirely that what is put out to gain approval goes by the wayside when you get the money. You say: The Capital Needs Review committee was put together after the Anti-SPLOST committee was formed. It was a direct response to our questions and concerns. DR claims False. This is a lie on your part. The TRUTH: Nobody heard of your committee until after ours was organized. Got anything that backs up your claim?
You say: I’m sure they felt that they were an integral part of making SPLOST VI the best ever. However, the past has shown us that this list is a smoke and mirrors tactic to gain approval. Then the Board is off and running with $500,000,000.00 of your money! DR claims False. This is another lie. There is NO $500 million dollars involved in SPLOST. Nor is there $500 million in all the capital projects you and others claim would need to be bonded out. It appears that you, sir, cannot do simple addition. Since even I don't think that is the case, you have lied again. And for you to discredit the dedication of the members of that committee who did more work and took the time to educate themselves on all the facts surrounding SPLOST law and capital projects in order that they could put forth a balanced list of projects for the voters shows how pitiful you and your committee really are. The TRUTH: There is $160 million on the February 5th ballot; another $100 million on the February 5th ballot, there is another 80 to $100 million coming in June/July for a jail and then another $100 million for a courthouse coming along. You saw it at the meeting and agreed that these were coming. So let’s see...160+100+100+100=460...now that’s pretty close to a half a billion dollars. You say: Don’t be fooled by that “Public Safety” terminology being bantered around. Public Safety to you and me means something different to the Board. Public Safety is fire protection, emergency management and things of that nature. Public Safety does not include police protection. DR claims False. To this boad of commissioners, public safety does include the sheriff's department. However, there is only one capital project that directly concerns the sheriff's department in front of this board; a new sheriff's headquarters building. Estimated between $10-$20 million dollars to build, we will be funding this through capital funds in the future, and do not need to use valuable SPLOST dollars that could be used for other things. The TRUTH: I cannot get into this and justify anything I have said. It is based on what I have been told by many, many top ranking people in the county and municipal government. I will, however, do more research on this issue and advise. As far as not using SPLOST money to fund the jail. Well, that’s your opinion and not that of the entire BOC. You say: We feel we should fund a new jail from SPLOST instead of a bond that will increase property taxes. We need to include the Sheriff’s Department in SPLOST instead of trying to pass these bonds. Then the capital needs are funded by sales tax revenue versus only home owners and property owners. DR claims False. What do the visitors to this county who pay about 20% of our SPLOST taxes use when they come to Forsyth? Our jail? Our courthouse? No, they use OUR ROADS, OUR PARKS and OUR PUBLIC SAFETY SYSTEM! They tax those systems, and the best way to use SPLOST is to tax them for that use, not to stick them with the bill for our own problems with two county assets they'll never use. The TRUTH: I have tried to maintain civility and not use put downs and sarcasm...but for this one I just can’t refrain. That is the dumbest argument I have heard and I personally think you should have your head examined. Why in the world are you so concerned about “the visitor’s money” and not more focused on supporting your own county? The one that elected you and the one that pays you. I think that is where 100% of your efforts and concern should be.
You say: It turns out that we are more pro-SPLOST than Commissioner Richard. He supports a bond to build a new jail and another bond to build a courthouse and another bond for green space. DR claims False. You cannot speak for what I do, or do not believe in. Just because I do not support using SPLOST funds to build a jail or courthouse does not, in reverse, mean that I support a bond for either of these projects. I demand that you remove this reference from your joke of a website immediately. You do not ever speak for me. Ever. The TRUTH: You said during the meeting that you supported bonds to build the jail and courthouse. You also said that you felt the property owners should pay the bill and you knew it would take increased ad valorem taxes to make it happen. Everyone there heard it so please don’t try and weasel out. You say: I was incorrect as I was under the impression it was a 30 term. So it will be 20 years…well, that’s better. This is the first thing you have said that isn't either wrong, or a lie. It only took you until the end of your diatribe. Congratulations. The TRUTH: When wrong I will readily admit it. Prove me wrong with documentation versus your ramblings. You say: Our plan is to not renew the SPLOST in February. Not defeat it, not kill it, but simply not renew it right now. Let’s take a year off and develop a worthy plan that incorporates the needs of all parts of the county. Great idea, Patrick! Meanwhile, a full year of revenues does not get collected, and 1/5 of all planned projects get placed on hold while the traffic and public safety issues continue to pile up. Most people have thought this thing through, and the only thing this current SPLOST plan doesn't address is the reduction in power of the mayor of the City of Cumming. Too bad. The TRUTH: It is a wonderful idea to not get stuck for 5 years in another bad plan. We had those and now just want a little more accountability and want the money spent on what it is intended...and even more novel of an idea...we would like the projects completed. That’s all. Is it too much to ask that you do what you say you are going to do in a reasonable time frame? Maybe this time around, the city will be able to complete more than 30% of their SPLOST projects before the tax expires. When you compare the 80% SPLOST project completion rate of the county (with 80% less funding from the state for roads than was advertised) vs. the 30% completion rate of the city, I think we all need to have a good hard look at the financial mismanagement of the city, don't you? Especially when the city only has to worry about 5 simple projects in the current SPLOST, and only one in the next SPLOST. And this time, they won't be able to shake down the county for $8.3 million when they have their cost overruns like they did on the Pilgrim Mill Rd. project. Before you tell anyone else to be informed about something, you should try it first. You failed miserably on this one. The TRUTH: The city has the funds still available on the uncompleted projects. Does the county? Again, is the city a perfect entity? No. But it is managed a far cry better than we have seen from the county. Ron, I can honestly say I know I do not know more than either of you about SPLOST. My claims about being the Mayor’s committee came about as DR continually likes to rant about that. I am a VERY concerned citizen, not a politician, about the state of our county. The way things are handled by the BOC, the childish ways and constant strife. I realize they have a difficult job to do but feel they could do it better if not for the constant, embarrassing situations that occur. And the way some of them act they should be booted off the BOC and run out of the county. If you can’t be positive, respectful and 100% for your county and district then you have no business being a commissioner and taking the citizens money. Now that is a clear fact that cannot be argued.

If you support DR then I am sorry, if you support Forsyth County then thank you.

SPLOST law: What is listed in the referendum?

Proposed projects, time period, and maximum dollar amount to be raised for all projects must be listed on the ballot. If road, street and bridge projects are included, a separate maximum dollar amount and time period for these projects must be specified. If debt is to be issued for purposes other than road, street and bridge purposes, the ballot must state the amount of general obligation debt to be issued. The language on the ballot must be specific enough to provide fair notice to voters as to which projects will be funded. If municipalities are involved, their names and their projects must also be identified.

In case of a “shortfall” of SPLOST funds to pay for projects, what happens?

The projects could be scaled back, or the county’s general fund or other funding sources would have to make up the shortfall to complete the projects.

If the $160 million debt for the bond isn't collected in 5 years to pay back the bond, your property tax will.

VOTE NO TO SPLOST

VOTE NO TO SPLOST

VOTE NO TO SPLOST

You guys scan argue until you turn blue, but the bottom line is; it doesn’t matter what good cause the money is spent on. What matters is that we do not let this extra one percent get out of this county. If we do not collect it someone else is going to get it somehow, some place. MILLIONS WILL BE GONE FOREVER!

The Mayor was just fine collecting his fifteen percent for many years and now he ‘hates’ SPLOST?

I really do hate being talked to like I am a complete idiot. It is insulting and so should every Voter be insulted by those who would urge us to join in with the stupidly. Vote NO and lose the one percent? Don’t be an idiot! Vote your sanity and Vote YES!

Lynn,

Why can't you answer a simple question?

If the city has been proved to have completed only 30% of their promised projects according to the very same list that the anti-SPLOST committee uses to judge the county' s rate of completion, and the county has completed 80% of their projects, none of which required the county to sue a higher authority for extra money due to mismanagement, why are you not at city hall complaining about their lack of accountability?

Stop changing the subject and answer the question directly.

Patrick,

Don't belittle yourself. You sure can talk out of both sides of your mouth. Worse yet, you lie to the public, which is something many politicians refuse to do.

Let's go to your answers:

Your answer: As the committee has about 30 members on it right now. Because the Mayor asked his city council members to each appoint someone does not mean it is a city committee. What it means is that there are 5 people appointed by the 5 councilors. 5 from 30 = 25 more members that came from various associations.

Fact: The mayor asked city councilors to bring him at least 5 members each (see FCN and meeting minutes). 5x5=25, +5 for the mayor=30. Your membership? Around 30 people. Stop lying to the public.

Your answer: If you think that the citizens of Forsyth County are not sick of the way our county is being handled you are further out in space than originally I thought. Look back at the headlines about the BOC...mostly made up of spats between the board, petty arguments between the BOC and its own departments. You can bet your bottom dollar that people are tired of it.

Fact: Headlines? Patrick, please. Headlines created by the most biased newspaper on the planet. One dedicated to belittling the BOC at the expense of every other elected body in Forsyth County. Where have you been for the last 30 years? You know what people are tired of, Patrick? Getting screwed by the city in every negotiation when the mayor holds water contracts over the BOC's head. We stopped that this year. Oh, they're also tired of the mayor in particular.

Your answer: If you want to get down to the brass tacks neither of us really knows. Do we? I can tell you that in what I know about Ford Gravitt is that he fights for the city which is continually getting pushed around by the “big brother”. He has no choice but to fight and that’s what the citizens of the city expect him to do. As to backing down and taking a bunch of nonsense from the BOC.

Fact: The city has never, I repeat, never been pushed around by the county. You'd better provide proof of that last statement of yours or you will once again be accused of lying through your teeth. Again, where have you been for the past 30 years?

You say: Can you provide any minutes of any meeting that supports your claims that it was always intended to use the $160 million bond as pre-funding SPLOST and that it would be repaid entirely with SPLOST funds? If you do I will accept it, otherwise I stand by my opinion.

Fact: Sorry, Chuckles. You're the one who made this accusation without the facts. Get your own proof by requesting the documents. Just because you are ignorant doesn't mean I have to fix your problem. The documents are there.

Your answer: “You spend them where they are needed most”? So what is put before the public at the time you are asking for support is only a “guestimate”. The propaganda put out for SPLOST 5 clearly said “30,000 Sq. Ft. Addition to Administration Building. But then it was decided to buy Sawnee Center, the Lodge, etc...It backs my point up entirely that what is put out to gain approval goes by the wayside when you get the money.

The facts: Patrick, you cannot spend what you don't have. Why do you continue to ignore the fact that SPLOST revenues are down 11% over original estimates, and that state participation on roads is down 80%? We did things that would allow the administration building's life to be extended for years, and instead of doing something fiscally sound (since the money wasn't there to accomplish the addition), we get hammered by your committee for not completing a project. Which road project would you have NOT funded in order to build a building that didn't need expansion, Patrick? How about the traffic light at Martin Rd. and GA 400? Not enough people killed or injured at that intersection for you? Maybe if the mayor hadn't extorted $8.3 million dollars from us to finish his mismanagement of Pilgrim Mill Rd., we could have built our addition. These are real world problems we have to deal with, Patrick, not some intellectual exercise that you are not equipped to handle.

Your answer: Nobody heard of your committee until after ours was organized. Got anything that backs up your claim?

The fact: Just because you weren't paying attention (as usual) doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Your answer: There is $160 million on the February 5th ballot; another $100 million on the February 5th ballot, there is another 80 to $100 million coming in June/July for a jail and then another $100 million for a courthouse coming along. You saw it at the meeting and agreed that these were coming. So let’s see...160+100+100+100=460...now that’s pretty close to a half a billion dollars.

The facts: There is no cost estimate yet for the proposed jail. The last jail and courthouse bond referendum was a total of $90 million TOGETHER. So now, to scare the voters, you make up a $100 million bond for a jail, you make up a 100 million bond for the courthouse which is not even on the horizon, and you add a $160 million bond into SPLOST that is not going to be paid back with property taxes. The real numbers, without the lying by you and your group, is a $100 million park and rec bond that will affect you tax dollars, and a far less than $100 million (maybe less than $50 million) jail to be possibly placed on the July primary. The REAL total is UNDER $200 million, Patrick. And no, I did NOT agree that all the bonds you state were coming. Another lie on your part.

Your answer regarding the sheriff's participation in SPLOST: I cannot get into this and justify anything I have said. It is based on what I have been told by many, many top ranking people in the county and municipal government. I will, however, do more research on this issue and advise.

The facts: If you don't have the answers, maybe you should not bother to state an opinion. And I doubt very seriously that you have talked to "many, many top ranking people" in county government. Talking to Linda Ledbetter doesn't count. She hasn't paid much attention to details since she lost her majority when Jack Conway left office.

Your answer: As far as not using SPLOST money to fund the jail. Well, that’s your opinion and not that of the entire BOC.

The facts: That is the opinion of 4/5ths of the BOC, which counts for a lot. See the note above regarding the remaining 1/5th.

Your answer on jail and courthouse being funded by SPLOST: I have tried to maintain civility and not use put downs and sarcasm...but for this one I just can’t refrain. That is the dumbest argument I have heard and I personally think you should have your head examined. Why in the world are you so concerned about “the visitor’s money” and not more focused on supporting your own county? The one that elected you and the one that pays you. I think that is where 100% of your efforts and concern should be.

The facts: Since when does improving transportation and public safety NOT fall under supporting my county? The jail and courthouse are barely a blip on my radar screen in importance to fixing our infrastructure regarding roads and public safety. Just because you don't want to pay your own freight when it comes to our county's lawbreakers doesn't mean you get to ignore the more vital things that have to be fixed. Common sense (I realize that is something in short supply with you and your committee) says that the visitors who CAUSE the problems, get to pay to FIX the problems. Their problem is not our jail or courthouse.

Your answer: You said during the meeting that you supported bonds to build the jail and courthouse. You also said that you felt the property owners should pay the bill and you knew it would take increased ad valorem taxes to make it happen. Everyone there heard it so please don’t try and weasel out.

The facts: No, Patrick, I said I don't favor SPLOST being used for the jail and courthouse. Just because I don't favor that, doesn't in reverse mean that I favor a bond for a jail or courthouse. You wanted to hear something, but you may not manufacture a stance from a statement that doesn't exist. Again, I demand that you remove that reference from your joke of a website immediately.

Your answer: It is a wonderful idea to not get stuck for 5 years in another bad plan. We had those and now just want a little more accountability and want the money spent on what it is intended...and even more novel of an idea...we would like the projects completed. That’s all. Is it too much to ask that you do what you say you are going to do in a reasonable time frame?

The facts: We have completed a far higher percentage of projects than the city has in 5 years, yet you have no problem with their lack of accountability. We received 11% less revenues thus far, and 80% less state matching funds for roads. All-in-all, we have done extremely well with the hand we have been dealt by previous commissions, even if you cannot see the facts all around you.

Your answer: The city has the funds still available on the uncompleted projects. Does the county? Again, is the city a perfect entity? No. But it is managed a far cry better than we have seen from the county.

The facts: No, the county does not have SPLOST dollars in hand for remaining projects. We have 9 intersection improvements ready to start that have already been paid for by SPLOST dollars, and need no more. See above for reduced revenues. See above for extortion money. Where is the fourth lane for Pilgrim Mill Rd. that was promised in SPLOST 5? Why doesn't the Pilgrim Mill Rd. widening go all the way to SR 9 as was promised in SPLOST 5? You think maybeTHAT is why the city might have funding still available, Patrick? Where is the accountability from the city, Patrick? Based on the FACTS, how can you honestly say the city is better managed than the county?

Your answer: If you can’t be positive, respectful and 100% for your county and district then you have no business being a commissioner and taking the citizens money. Now that is a clear fact that cannot be argued.

The facts: When the citizens of my county (and my district) get together and lie about issues in order to get their way, I will not be respectful, and I will not be positive. I will just tell the truth. You got caught in your lies, Patrick. You gambled that no one would challenge you on them, and you lost.

My objections to splost has nothing to do with Ford Gravitt, the City of Cumming or the anti-splost committee. I am against it because of the bond debt. splost was never meant to be a permanent tax. But, once a bunch of politicans get another penny, they don't let go of it easily.

Congress has passed an economic stimulus package to head off a recession. It isn't going to work. They are not telling the whole truth. The economy is hanging by a thread. The dollar is a worthless piece of paper. Telling people the truth would start a panic and the house of cards would fall.

Answer my simple questions asked of you Dave and I'll think about looking up the answers to that big, long list of questions you asked me.

My comments and question on the "inaccurate letters" article:

HI Dave,

Did you read the letters to the editor in the Forsyth County News online today?

Quote: Let's see ... Mayor Gravitt and his supporters, in his objections to SPLOST VI, want the commissioners to disregard what voters have said "no" to in three elections, (the courthouse, jail, and justice center). End quote

The commissioners have done a great job on selling the county on a new jail. NOT!

Just last year, there was a big debate going on about whether to trade water and sewer for 30 acres of land at the landfill in North Forsyth, Or build the jail on the present site, including the old fire station property. Then, out of the clear blue sky, land became available on Market Place Blvd. 33 acres to be exact. The county decided to buy it for a jail. Why are the commissioners now seemingly trying their best to get the jail referendum defeated? (when and if it ever comes up for a vote).

I made a mistake...I meant to say "Veteran's Memorial Blvd., not Market Place Blvd.

Dave's answer:

I'd answer your questions if I could make any sense out of them.

Sorry, Lynn, but it doesn't wash. Your questions do not make any sense. They are disjointed and do not follow any logical progression.

I have just one simple question, which you have failed to answer twice now, and I suspect a third time is coming:

If the city has been proved to have completed only 30% of their promised projects according to the very same list that the anti-SPLOST committee uses to judge the county' s rate of completion, and the county has completed 80% of their projects, none of which required the county to sue a higher authority for extra money due to mismanagement, why are you not at city hall complaining about their lack of accountability?

The real answer is that if you don't have facts on your side, change the subject. You are a champ at that game, Lynn.

Patrick, I asked yesterday in comment number 7 above: Do you agree or disagree that the projects identified for SPLOST VI are needed?

I have not yet seen your answer.

The question is simple Dave...Why did the county buy that land?????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I told you Dave. I'm not worried about how the City spent their portion of SPLOST. I don't care!! Why can't you get that through your head? How many times do I have to say it? I'm against the bond debt at this particular time in history. Do I have to write a book to explain it to you? Why widen Bethelview Road at this particular time? Why build infrastructure for Great Wolf Lodge and an upscale mall just to bring in more traffic? I'm against it. Now stop bugging me Dave!

Uh, Lynn? The county bought that land for a future jail. Do you not read? Or do you not understand?

Do you not travel Bethelview Rd in the morning or afternoon? Do you not know that it takes 25-40 minutes to get to Ga 400 from Bethelview each and every morning?

You have no problem with a city that completes only 30% of their 5 projects, with their one main project one lane less than promised and about a 1/4 mile short of their promise?

You're against bond debt that has a guaranteed revenue source to pay it back in less than 5 years.

And you expect people to pay attention to anything you say? I feel sorry for you.

Hi Ron,

Yes, I agree that the projects listed in SPLOST VI are needed. The fact is we also have other needs in the county. Many needs.   "Politicians" continue to talk about roads because that is what hits the majority of the citizens people every day, it hits emotion...it is fresh in the minds of those that have to commute in this mess. Some of the other needs are not so emotional but it makes sense to address them. The continual rhetoric may fool some of the folks, but not all. I have been through the list and can see what has been done.   Think about this...the BOC, current and past; have allowed Forsyth County to grow out of control. That it is fact. Yet there is nothing but a bunch of talk and meaningless actions to move in a direction that allows the county to grow but keep things under control. We need roads, intersection improvements, sidewalks and bridges. We want libraries, parks and recreation facilities.
  We also need county administration facilities like jails, courthouses and administration support space. Not fun, not fuzzy, not emotional, but really needed.   My concern is quite simple.   · What started all this is that the county and city could not come to terms. For whatever reason. The BOC, in typical fashion, tried to cram the parking deck down the throat of the city. It is the only project that is clearly identified on the ballot. Everything else (for the county) is vague including the $160 million bond.   That is what prompted me to get involved. Since then I have learned more about the shenanigans of some members of the BOC.   · Look at the list of projects proposed on previous SPLOSTs and see that they are not complete. All the talk in the world is just that. Get the list, drive around and see what has improved and what has not improved. Let that be the deciding factor.   · If the BOC meant for the $160 million bond to be repaid with SPLOST revenue then why was it not worded that way? Someone took the time to develop the specific language as it relates to the city project. Could it have been that difficult to add specific wording the bond? Or is it that the BOC did not want to be bound to that? We know that they have made changes in direction in the past and I think they did not want to be bound by mandating repayment from SPLOST. Can they honestly say that it was not in their minds at some point?   · It bothers me that the funds went somewhere else other than what was promoted at the time we approved them. Putting out the propaganda on the “feel good” projects to get approval and then make an about face is wrong.   · Lack of accountability. We need to insure that when we are sold SPLOST that funds go where they are intended with some type of time frame in place. One of my fellow committee members told me of this idea: Like we would do with a bunch of kids, we need a monitor and oversight. I want to investigate how we can get an impartial board to monitor the future SPLOSTs and Bonds. The BOC will be accountable to this board and will face sanctions if they continue the monkey business.   I support the SPLOST method 100% as a vehicle for funding projects. Again, "Yes. I SUPPORT SPLOST IN THEORY. I don't support the manner in which it has been managed in the past." That’s my main issue. However, there is nothing I can do about the past, nothing I can do about how things were done and I cannot argue or justify anyone’s actions or desires of the past.   What I can argue, and will argue, is this: We need to insure that our monies are being spent in the best way possible and as we are being told they are too be spent.
We need honesty and integrity in those that represent us. We need leaders that care more about the county and their own districts than visitors and themselves. The childish, rude, arrogant and belittling manner of certain public servants should never, ever be tolerated. We need leaders that can own up to their mistakes and use them as a learning tool to move this county in a forward positive direction. We need to work towards building a team atmosphere between the BOC, its departments, the city, the school system, businesses and the citizens. Does a team always see eye-to-eye? No...but at least a team can get along and push towards a common goal. So that's it on this issue. That's my stance and my opinion.
  I hope that the citizens will accept delaying SPLOST and the bonds for 1 year. I would like to be able to see SPLOST and Bond referendums that are more specific and have accountability built in to them. We need an oversight committee until the BOC can earn back the trust of the community.   I really hope that the voters see the type of leadership we have and do something about it. We have some really good people in this county and not all leaders fall under the broad category of "poor". But those that we know are poor...well, we need to send them packing.

Dave, Yes I go Bethelveiw Rd. I've been backed up at the traffic light at the intersection of 9, 141 and 400 all right there together. I don't see the need to widen all of Bethelveiw Rd. If there are two lanes of traffic going in that direction, they are still going to be backed up at the two traffic lights on the 400 bridge. That huge shopping center isn't going to help either. There will be a massive tie up with traffic trying to merge left to get onto 400.

Can you believe that I vaguely remember when Bethelview road was a dirt road? Yes, the Atlanta area is the third worst traffic congested area in the nation. Years ago, people would say to me...everytime I come to Atlanta it's under construction. It was under construction then, and it'll be under construction when I'm carried off in a hearse.

VOTE NO TO SPLOST

Hi Patrick,

You say: “I agree that the projects listed in SPLOST VI are needed.”

You say: “I support the SPLOST method 100% as a vehicle for funding projects.”

However, you think we should delay the SPLOST VI vote until next year. That is your opinion, but I do not agree. I think it is unwise to forgo the millions of sales tax dollars partially paid by non-county residents. That will delay critically needed projects and probably raise property taxes to pay for the most critical.

We do have other county needs, but the 1% SPLOST does not provide enough revenue to pay for all the projects needed, so the board of commissioners had to set priorities to establish the projects to be included in SPLOST VI. You may not agree with the priority of every project on the list, I may not agree with the priority of every project on the list, and many citizens may not agree with the priority of every project on the list. That is human nature. We all look at the world through our own set of experiences. But, the project list was carefully put together with the aid of professionals and a citizens committee, and represents the conscientious collective input of many, therefore, I support the project list. The projects are needed and time will only make the needs more demanding, so it is important that we move smartly ahead and vote for SPLOST VI.

I will sum up a large part of your lengthy statement in comment #24, as well as others above by saying your many factually unsupported opinions show that you despise this board of commissioners, but you like the mayor. That is your opinion, but I don’t share it, and the real facts do not support it. I think a majority of the current board of commissioners is doing a good job for us.

I meant with traffic trying to merge right.

vote no to splost

vote no to splot

Also Dave, you know what is going to happen if Bethelview is widened to a four-lane. People who have lived there all these years are not going to want to live on a four-lane thoroughfare probably congested with truck traffic. They are going to want to sell. If they get an offer, they will take it. So, don't give them a hard time about getting their land rezoned.

Also Dave, this "we moved here because it's a beautiful county and we want quality of life for ourselves and to hell with you" attitude really sucks.

Dave, you remind me of one of those whiny, cry baby boys who use to hit me in school. Then, when I hit them, they would run and tell the teacher and get me in trouble. But I wasn't a tattle tale.

Patrick,

Just keep settin' them up, and I'll keep knocking them down!

You said: Think about this...the BOC, current and past; have allowed Forsyth County to grow out of control. That it is fact. Yet there is nothing but a bunch of talk and meaningless actions to move in a direction that allows the county to grow but keep things under control.

Meaningless actions, Patrick? What do you call performing the first-ever infrastructure survey which told us every specific place we needed to improve? How about UDC changes that increase lot sizes and lower future density? Done. Purchasing land for your precious future jail, something not done by previous boards. Putting about 75% of our SPLOST funds towards our most pressing needs - roads. Meaningless? I don't think so. The list would be much longer, but it would be wasted on you.

You say: My concern is quite simple. What started all this is that the county and city could not come to terms. For whatever reason.

For whatever reason? How about the mayor's negotiating style? Give me what I want or I'll sue. Have you ever heard of the county initiating a suit against the city, Patrick? No. The city has sued, or threatened to sue us twice in just this past year! The county asked the city if they would accept a 10% SPLOST allocation. The mayor (three times!) said NO. We met them halfway between what they were getting, and what they could get. They chose to spit in our face.

You say: The BOC, in typical fashion, tried to cram the parking deck down the throat of the city. It is the only project that is clearly identified on the ballot.

Once again, Patrick, you are lying. Why do you continue this nonsense when you know it is not true? The board (and I know this because I was the one asking the question to the mayor) met with the city to have them present their list of proposed SPLOST projects - according to law. The city made their case for their projects. I asked the mayor, "What order of importance are these projects? Are they listed in order of priority?" He said, "Yes." Guess which project was at the top of their list, Patrick? Hint: It was the parking deck. In short, Patrick, we gave the city exactly what they asked us to do. That is not cramming the parking deck down their throats, Patrick. Why is it the only project on the ballot? Because it was the only project the city could build given their allocation. Plain and simple, Patrick, even for you.

You said: Everything else (for the county) is vague including the $160 million bond.

The ballot has the same ballot language the city approved in SPLOST 1,2,3,4,and 5, Patrick. (My mistake: the only difference is in the amount of money the city now gets - my bad) It is the same ballot recommended by the ACCG and the GMA; the very association that supports cities across Georgia. Furthermore, any ballot with over 5 letter-sized pages of projects (our list) listed would be thrown out of court as un-Constitutional.

You said: If the BOC meant for the $160 million bond to be repaid with SPLOST revenue then why was it not worded that way?

It is worded that way. Just because you don't understand 6th grade english doesn't mean the rest of us don't.

You say: We know that they have made changes in direction in the past

What changes, Patrick? Please provide proof to back up your claim, or it is just another lie.

You say: I think they did not want to be bound by mandating repayment from SPLOST. Can they honestly say that it was not in their minds at some point?

Yes, I can say it was never in our minds to not repay the bond with SPLOST money. Because our minutes show that, Patrick. And by the way, you weren't there at our meetings, haven't taken the time to look over the minutes, and don't know a single thing about how or what we thought through the SPLOST process.

You say: It bothers me that the funds went somewhere else other than what was promoted at the time we approved them.

That is yet another lie, Patrick. Please provide proof that SPLOST funds when to other projects than what were on past ballots and county lists. Failure to do so constitutes another lie on your part.

You say: I want to investigate how we can get an impartial board to monitor the future SPLOSTs and Bonds.

That already exists, Patrick. They are called citizens and the sanctions are voters who put us back in or vote us out. Take your committee idea and stuff it.

You say: We need leaders that care more about the county and their own districts than visitors and themselves.

We already have them, Patrick. Check out commissioners Laughinghouse, Harrell and Richard. But do so without the mayor's hand up your backside.

You say: I would like to be able to see SPLOST and Bond referendums that are more specific and have accountability built in to them. We need an oversight committee until the BOC can earn back the trust of the community.

Patrick, there are about 30 people who don't trust this BOC, and the mayor is behind you all. There will never be more detailed SPLOST ballots, because they would be rejected as too complex by the courts. All the accountability you need is in the system of government we have today.

You say: I really hope that the voters see the type of leadership we have and do something about it. We have some really good people in this county and not all leaders fall under the broad category of "poor". But those that we know are poor...well, we need to send them packing.

I agree. Let's vote Ford Gravitt out of office!

This is ridiculous. Why can't Patrick and I oppose SPLOST without past and present commissioners jumping all over us and tackling us like we are playing in the super bowl or something?

Of course, Patrick and I are not as informed as the insiders. We have to get what few bits and pieces that we can pick up from the "open meetings" and the local press, which isnt' very much.

Sorry, Lynn, but if you are going to make incorrect comments, false accusations, and outright lies about a subject as important as SPLOST (or for that matter, anything related to county government), you'd better be prepared to take the heat for those actions.

Stick to facts, and no one is going to question you. That has been yours and Patrick's biggest problem. Let's face it; Patrick has put out more disinformation in two weeks on one subject than you have done in two years on countless subjects.

And that's saying something . . .

Ron, thanks for your comments above. You are very correct and it is accepted that we all see things differently. Further, I can accept a portion of your statements but not the others.

Regarding the Board of Commissioners. I do not despise the entire board and think that there are a few that try and do the right thing and make smart decisons.

I do despise the ones that cannot accept other viewpoints, cannot accept opposition, cannot accept accountablility and continue to spew disrepect at every opportunity. And it's not just disrepect at me. It has been aimed at fellow board members, other constitutional officers, board of education, the city and anyone else that dare speak up.

It has gone on for far too long and needs to end.

Lynn, I think that only the four of us are even reading most of this. However, keep a look out as you never know where it may pop up.

Patrick,

Tell the truth, and you might just get respect.

Inform yourself on both sides of an issue, and you just might get respect.

Keep your opinions to yourself until you do the two things noted above, and you might just get respect.

Failure to do your job as a voting citizen by ignoring the three things noted above gets you nothing but contempt.

Everyone knows the truth, everyone reads the papers and talks to others...don't think for a minute you are making any headway.

You said: Think about this...the BOC, current and past; have allowed Forsyth County to grow out of control. That it is fact. Yet there is nothing but a bunch of talk and meaningless actions to move in a direction that allows the county to grow but keep things under control.

Meaningless actions, Patrick? What do you call performing the first-ever infrastructure survey which told us every specific place we needed to improve? How about UDC changes that increase lot sizes and lower future density? Done. Purchasing land for your precious future jail, something not done by previous boards. Putting about 75% of our SPLOST funds towards our most pressing needs - roads. Meaningless? I don't think so. The list would be much longer, but it would be wasted on you.

Answer without Rhetoric: We see, everyday, the subdivisions and strip centers going in with our county being stripped clean. Drive around your district sometime and take a look. I am not against development at all, I am against the manner in which this BOC as well as past BOC’s have handled it. I have not seen the changes to the UDC yet so no comment there. We allowed too many variances in the past so what makes me think that will change?

You say: My concern is quite simple. What started all this is that the county and city could not come to terms. For whatever reason.

For whatever reason? How about the mayor's negotiating style? Give me what I want or I'll sue. Have you ever heard of the county initiating a suit against the city, Patrick? No. The city has sued, or threatened to sue us twice in just this past year! The county asked the city if they would accept a 10% SPLOST allocation. The mayor (three times!) said NO. We met them halfway between what they were getting, and what they could get. They chose to spit in our face.

Answer without Rhetoric: I have read the minutes from each board meeting back to September. I see what has been recorded about the discussions regarding SPLOST VI.

On October 18th an issue was briought before the BOC regarding the split of SPLOST funds. The motion was to offer the city of Cumming 10% of the SPLOST VI proceeds and an Intergovernmental Agreement. in the final vote it was 3 in favor (Laughinghouse, Ledbetter and Tam) and 2 in oppostiton (Ricard and Harrell). Most don't know about the super majority policy you guys put in place but without at least a 4-1 voite it fails. This motion of 10% failed.

There was then a motion by Commissoner Harrel and a second by Commissioner Laughinghouse to offer the city an Intergovernmental Agreement on the basis of a 92% to 8% split with a deadline on noon Friday (the next day). Motion carried with the same 3 in favor and the same 2 opposed. This motion too failed.

There were other meetings discussing the split but I don't see a vote. How about you ponying up your records for the public to see where it is?

The Mayor’s style is tough. I think you don’t like the fact that he will not cave in to you and your cronies. A suit is brought when one party feels they have been done wrong by another. It is designed to have an impartial decision made to settle differences. Are you now adding to your growing list of backwards beliefs that our legal system is wrong too?

The judge in this case clearly said that the case has merit and it can be brought before the court again after the February 5th vote. In order to protect the position of the city, the suit had to be filed or it would have been in jeopardy when re-filed in February. The Judge continued on by saying “Yes, the county knows they want the money but they don’t know what they want to do with it.” which supports our position of not handing out blank checks to this BOC.

You say: The BOC, in typical fashion, tried to cram the parking deck down the throat of the city. It is the only project that is clearly identified on the ballot. Once again, Patrick, you are lying. Why do you continue this nonsense when you know it is not true? The board (and I know this because I was the one asking the question to the mayor) met with the city to have them present their list of proposed SPLOST projects - according to law. The city made their case for their projects. I asked the mayor, "What order of importance are these projects? Are they listed in order of priority?" He said, "Yes." Guess which project was at the top of their list, Patrick? Hint: It was the parking deck. In short, Patrick, we gave the city exactly what they asked us to do. That is not cramming the parking deck down their throats, Patrick. Why is it the only project on the ballot? Because it was the only project the city could build given their allocation. Plain and simple, Patrick, even for you.

Answer without Rhetoric: I have read the minutes from each board meeting back to September. I see what has been recorded about the discussions regarding SPLOST VI.

If you felt it important to give the city what was on the top of the list why did you not propose to fund it 100%. On the other hand, when it was decided by the BOC that the city was to get a smaller pportion of SPLOST why did the City Council not get to give you the ballot wording or at least input on the portion that pertained to the city?

Was the ballot sent to the City Council and/or Mayor for review and input before it was finalized? If those courtesies were not given then you were wrong. Plain and simple.

You said: Everything else (for the county) is vague including the $160 million bond.

The ballot has the same ballot language the city approved in SPLOST 1,2,3,4,and 5, Patrick. (My mistake: the only difference is in the amount of money the city now gets - my bad) It is the same ballot recommended by the ACCG and the GMA; the very association that supports cities across Georgia. Furthermore, any ballot with over 5 letter-sized pages of projects (our list) listed would be thrown out of court as un-Constitutional.

Answer without Rhetoric: My contention exactly. Past SPLOSTS had money collected without the projects being completed or the scope of the project changed. The split of money between the county and city is not something I have brought up. Mismanagement by the BOC and not following through on promises is my concern.

I do not know the laws and will do further research but I am sure there is a way to have accountability AND follow the law. The ballot language as now written could certainly been expanded on.

You said: If the BOC meant for the $160 million bond to be repaid with SPLOST revenue then why was it not worded that way?

It is worded that way. Just because you don't understand 6th grade english doesn't mean the rest of us don't.

Answer without Rhetoric: More disrespect for the citizens. If not trying to wiggle out of something there would be no issue in adding a few words to the ballot to make it perfectly understandable. In fact, you may want to poke fun but there are voters that have plenty of intelligence but may not be able to read past the “6th grade level”. Your statement tells me that you do not feel they are worthy vote...interesting.

Why so much fear about adding a little language that forces accountability? What is the big deal and vehement opposition to adding a few words that just clarify that the Bond is to be repaid with SPLOST money?

You say: We know that they have made changes in direction in the past

What changes, Patrick? Please provide proof to back up your claim, or it is just another lie.

Answer without Rhetoric: No lie...just hits you right in your growing sore spot. Take a trip over to the County Admin building. Enter through the doors of the new 30,000 sq. ft. addition and make your way to records storage. Oops, wait! There is no addition and there is no new records storage. But we were sold that as part of SPLOST 5, part of $7.8 million in Public Building Projects. But we ended up with Sawnee Center, the old Lodge Motel and Classics. No addition to the administration building. All one has to do is drive by and they can see for themselves. And please don’t say that these purchases were made towards getting the addition done. The propaganda clearly said “30,000 SQ FT Addition To Administration Building” and”Records Storage Facility”

No matter what the purpose you want to claim, the simple truth is te project was not done and the money spent on someting else.

You say: I think they did not want to be bound by mandating repayment from SPLOST. Can they honestly say that it was not in their minds at some point?

Yes, I can say it was never in our minds to not repay the bond with SPLOST money. Because our minutes show that, Patrick. And by the way, you weren't there at our meetings, haven't taken the time to look over the minutes, and don't know a single thing about how or what we thought through the SPLOST process.

Answer without Rhetoric: I have read the minutes from each board meeting back to September. I see what has been recorded about the discussions regarding SPLOST VI.

Why so much fear about adding a little language that forces accountability? What is the big deal and vehement opposition to adding a few words that just clarifies that the Bond is to be repaid with SPLOST money? Could be fear of accountability.

You say: It bothers me that the funds went somewhere else other than what was promoted at the time we approved them.

That is yet another lie, Patrick. Please provide proof that SPLOST funds when to other projects than what were on past ballots and county lists. Failure to do so constitutes another lie on your part.

Answer without Rhetoric: See above regarding admin building. I am also compiling a complete list from county records of all SPLOST 5 projects...tune in at 11

You say: I want to investigate how we can get an impartial board to monitor the future SPLOSTs and Bonds.

That already ex