 |
|
 |
|
|||
 |
Former Commissioner Responds to Opinion Article
Originally Published Feb 2, 2008, 2:17pm
(Updated Feb 2, 2008, 2:31pm)
The article titled “Vote NO Committee Responds to Opinion Article” deserves response because there are statements in it that are misleading or just plain wrong.
The claim is that the “Vote No Committee” (committee) is not a Mayor Ford Gravitt Committee. However, the mayor initiated the committee, recruited committee members and instructed his city council to recruit committee members. The readers can look at these facts and use their own judgment as to whether or not this is a Mayor Ford Gravitt committee.
The article states: “as was inaccurately pointed out, the committee has not made an issue of the SPLOST split at any time.” That is just not true. The committee website had a statement on it last week that said: “the proposed split of the money with the City of Cumming is unjust. While the city generates over 20% of the revenue, the county wants to cut their share of funds to 4.29%.” That committee website statement fails to recognize that that city residents pay only 4% of the SPLOST paid by all county residents. And, I think because the author is a member of the committee we might also doubt his article statement: “At this time, I am not involved with the disagreement regarding division of SPLOST money so I will not address those comments at this time.”
The article states: “Taxes will go up if we approve SPLOST VI and its related $160 million bond if we cannot go back to the table and include other projects that are badly needed.” That is misleading statement statement. Property taxes will go up and/or necessary county projects will not be done if SPLOST VI is voted down.
The article states: “We need to find a way to include a jail and courthouse in SPLOST funding.” This is like trying to put ten pounds of sugar in a five pount bag. The county has many more needs than a 1% SPLOST can pay for. The county’s Capital Needs Review (on the web at http://www.forsythco.com/, click on SPLOST VI, then click on Capital Needs Review) last year identified $697.5 million dollars of Forsyth County capital needs. The most optimistic forcast for SPLOST VI revenue is $275 million. Therefore the county had to prioritize and include only the projects in SPLOST VI that most deserved to be there.
The article states: “Defeating the renewal of SPLOST VI for 12 months will not create an unbearable burden. Sometimes we have to face small burdens”. Delaying SPLOST VI for one year will reduce the county’s revenue by $30+ million. That is not a small burden, and there is no legitimate reason for a delay.
The article says: “SPLOST VI was not created to respect the citizens”. This is a bogus assertion. The county board of commissioners produced a “Capital Needs Review” last year from which a citizens committee helped the board of commissioners prioritize the projects to be included in SPLOST VI. That is a thoughtfully and respectully produced list of SPLOST VI projects.
The article states: “Regarding SPLOST 5 projects, I too want everyone to get the list from the county website.” The committee continues to assert that SPLOST V was mismanaged by the board of ommissioners. I just don’t agree. I think the board of commissioners has done a decent job of managing SPLOST V projects. Status of the SPLOST V projects is on the county website at http://www.forsythco.com/, click on SPLOST VI, then click on SPLOST V Update.
A county commissioner explained that most, but not all SPLOST V projects are completed or will be completed soon. He said: “the county did not receive $.75 on the dollar for every dollar of road costs as we were promised in 2003 - only $.15 on the dollar. Plus, construction costs ballooned in the past 5 years including right-of-way costs. Still, we have completed 70% of all road projects with the $.60 per dollar state deficit, and an 11% expected reduction in SPLOST revenues. Add to that, we have another 10% of planned projects either under construction today, or expected to have the state contracts let in February of 2008. We have completed all but three parks and rec projects, but two of those are the city's responsibility, not ours. We have completed all but two of our public safety projects, and have acquired land for one (Fire Station 7), and hope to have land for the other (Fire Station 6) shortly. Senior Center expansion is completed. Cumming Library expansion is completed. Hampton Library is ready to be built.”
The article states: “I propose we empower a citizens committee to be deeply involved with recreating SPLOST VI and that the committee remains in place to monitor SPLOST money management and monitor projects”. I think this is a bad idea.
We already elect a citizens committee called the board of commissioners. Who would appoint the suggested citizens committee? Special interest groups? City politicians? Another county wide election to elect a “super board of commissioners”? We elect our commissioners on a countywide basis and if a majority of citizens do not like a commissioner’s performance they can vote the commissioner out of office.
As you can see, there are a lot of things incorrect or misleading in the referenced article. It is important that we not let the demagoguery of the committee influence our vote.
A YES vote for SPLOST VI is best for Forsyth County Citizens.
Want More info? Submit Request
More from Politics
Would you like information on how to build a profitable online business like this one? Visit www.promoxie.com
Comments
9 comment(s) on this page. Add your own comment below.
As addendum to this article, apparently the Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC) came away from discussions with with the city thinking the "Vote No Committee" was mayor Gravitt's committee. The following quote is from a 2/3/08 AJC article: “Members of Gravitt's committee have anti-SPLOST signs plastered on their vehicles and plans for a last-minute mailing to voters.” Also, it is important to note that one of the two “official” co-chairmen of the committee works for the city.
In response to this and many other assertions, all I can encourage our citizens to do is look around the county, take some time to think about the projects listed on SPLOST 5 and ask themselves:
“Do I see any improvement and do I feel that the money was well spent”? If the answer is yes, then vote yes. If you don't see improvements and think the money was mismanaged, then vote no.
I feel strongly that the answer is no and that is why I am so vocal. To continue to assert that SPLOST 5 was managed properly is not true, to say it was spent as said, not true.
A vote no now is the first step in correcting the way our county is managed, correcting the Board and finally standing up and saying "We have had enough shoddy management, embarrassing actions and lack of addressing all issues in our county."
If you go to www.cummingforsythtaxrelief.com there is no reference to the division of SPLOST monies. It may (stressing "MAY") have been on the initial site which was up for less than a week but the site we have had up for a majority of the time does not address this at all.
To me, anyone that would oppose a board to monitor SPLOST revenues and spending is hiding from accountability. If you're on the up-and-up you have nothing to worry about. Or do you?
To delay SPLOST VI is a burden. The burden to some may be perceived as small and others it may felt as large. I, for one, want to see a fair and balanced plan that addresses all needs of the county. Traffic is an issue we all face and is due in part to a lack of planning by county leaders. This county has known for a long time it was growing rapidly and failed to address the situation and neglected to take a hard position on managing growth. To say that we just can't afford to add a jail, courthouse or other needs into SPLOST continues to ignore those needs. Roads are not the only issue we face. It's the only issue that is pushed and tossed around as it is a "feel good" issue.
So while I am sorry we have these traffic problems and hate that people sit in traffic for up to 30 minutes to go 5 miles, it is our own fault as we ignored the way our leaders managed the county business. When it comes down to it, if we don't address some of these other hard decisions and make progress on all fronts, we will be sitting here in the future saying the same thing but with different topics.
WE CANNOT IGNORE ALL PARTS OF THE COUNTY, CANNOT IGNORE ANY NEED AND SHOULD STRIVE TO MAKE POSITIVE PROGRESS ON ALL. BE IT ROADS, INTERSECTIONS, PARKS OR RECREATION. AND YES JAILS, COURTHOUSES & OTHER COUNTY SUPPORT PROJECTS. WE NEED TO ADDRESS EACH AND EVERY AREA AND DEVELOP A PLAN THAT ADDRESSES ALL OF THEM.
TO IGNORE IT NOW IS REPEATING THE PAST AND WE SEE WHERE THAT HAS GOT US.
DELAY SPLOST VI...let's put more than 54 days into how we spend more than $200 million dollars. The Citizen's Board the BOC put together was approved on November 18, 2007 and presented its list on January 8, 2008. 54 days minus weekends, Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's holidays. How could a plan of such importance have been developed in that short time frame? How in the world can anyone believe that this is a "thoughtfully and respectfully produced list of SPLOST VI projects"???? And only one month for public review and input. If we have $697.5 million in needs I would think a little more planning is in order. We need planning, accountability and fairness.
VOTE NO and DELAY SPLOST VI.
Patrick, I know you dislike the current board of commissioners, and I think many of your conclusions and assertions are based on that dislike (and maybe also based on your admiration of the mayor). It would be pointless to get into an emotional argument with you based on factless opinion, but I will try to get the facts presented correctly.
Patrick says: “If you go to www.cummingforsythtaxrelief.com there is no reference to the division of SPLOST monies. It may (stressing "MAY") have been on the initial site which was up for less than a week but the site we have had up for a majority of the time does not address this at all.” There is no “May” about it. Being of suspicious mind in anything involving the mayor, I printed out the committee's website and am looking at the document right now. The website in its current form has only been up for a week, and the division of SPLOST VI between the city and county was addressed on the website until that change.
Patrick says: “To say that we just can't afford to add a jail, courthouse or other needs into SPLOST continues to ignore those needs.” I have not said we can’t afford a jail or a courthouse, nor am I ignoring the need. I have said a 1% sales tax does not provide enough funds to satisfy all the county needs, so choices had to bee made for SPLOST VI. The county “Capital Needs Review”, (http://www.forsythco.com/, click on “SPLOST VI”, then click on “Capital Needs Review”), accomplished last year, shows a need for a jail and a courthouse annex.
Patrick encourages us to look around the county and ask if there has been improvement as the result of SPLOST V. He knows that not many of us will really do that, but it gives him a base from which to assert that there has been little improvement and the money was poorly spent. There have been numerous improvements resulting from SPLOST V, and there are no factual reasons to believe the money was not well spent. The real facts are on the cunty website at http://www.forsythco.com/, click on “SPLOST VI”, then click “SPLOST V” update. One will not find the real facts in Patrick’s writings, the committee’s website or the committee’s public advertisements against SPLOST VI.
There is not a dislike of the current board nor the admiration you mention. To be candid, I have more disappointment in the board than anything. I wish you could see through the smokescreen and realize that as citizens we have been let down.
The unmanaged growth and ignoring less popular capital needs is going to compound and we will find our great county in dire trouble.
As a budget in our own lives, you cannot ignore parts because it may be unpleasant. You must address each and every issue and not just do the popular thing.
Regarding the website, I will check on that but I can assure you that as an individual I am not at all concerned about the split of revenue at this point.
Patrick, I have a much different assessment of the current board of commissioners than you. I think we now have a majority on the board doing a better job for we common citizens than any board of commissioners we have had in a long time.
Ron: I have a feeling Patrick is trying to make a name for himself over this SPLOST issue. I think he may be positioning himself as a city backed candidate for the District 4 seat held by Dave Richard.
Mel, if correct, your feeling would explain a lot of Patrick’s incorrect and misleading statements.
Ron, we all have different opinions and we are certainly entitled to them. Personally, I don’t think that we have a whole lot to be proud of in our Board. I will not say it is the entire board but a majority. As for District 4, we have the most embarrassing and least amount of representation of all.
I hope that someone surfaces that will run against Dave. We need a board that can get along and work towards building a better place to live. We need someone that will not embarrass the county and that believes in working as a team. A team that includes the county, city and school system. Not that they cannot disagree, but can at least disagree respectfully and not create an atmosphere of hostility.
Patrick, my experience is that the mayor has never been a team player with the county. He has been much more a dictator, but this time he does not have a majority of loyal or intimidated subjects on the board of commissioners.
Again, I know you do not care for our current board of commissioners. I just do not agree. I think a majority of the board is well fulfilling their responsibilities to us.
I think Dave Richard is doing a good job for county residents. You may run against him, but I expect you will lose.
Add a Comment
Please be civil.