|
Political
season will open Wednesday,
often with "No developers' money" cry
By Norman Baggs
Reprinted from the Forsyth County News
(Editor's Note: The following by Sugar Hill
resident Norman Baggs first appeared in Forsyth County News, and
appears to apply as much to Gwinnett as it does Forsyth. ---eeb.)
JUNE 18, 2002 -- When qualifying opens Wednesday, the flag will
officially drop to start the 2002 race for seats on the county commission,
though some candidates have already been hard at work on the campaign
trail.
You can bet that one of the favored political ploys in the weeks
to come will be a candidate's pledge that campaign donations from
developers will be refused outright.
As a campaign tactic, such a commitment tends to solicit support
from the masses and, sometimes, candidates themselves feel their
position is justified. However, the pledge not to take money from
developers or builders or those who might benefit from the decision
made by a county commission is one that won't stand up to much rational
scrutiny.
By making such a statement, a candidate is saying that builders
and developers somehow constitute a special interest unique among
those who live and do business in the county, and that, somehow,
donations from those sources are clearly tainted in some fashion.
Take that line of thought to its logical conclusion, however, and
it eventually becomes ludicrous. If developers somehow stand to
reap a windfall of ill-gotten political benefit from their campaign
contributions, then surely, too, must the lawyers and bankers who
provide the legal work and financing for the projects undertaken
by the developers. And so must the contractors and subcontractors.
And the building supply houses and retail establishments who sell
to the builders. Surely, then, the equipment and auto dealers must
benefit, along with the landscaping firms, the sign builders and
the outlets selling residential mailboxes.
Start connecting the dots from point A to point B and, before long,
it's obvious that a truly idealistic candidate wishing to remain
free of any hint of accepting donations from someone who might benefit
from a commission decision had better refuse campaign money from
anyone other than simple individual homeowners with no business
interest in the county.
Except individual homeowners constitute the biggest special interest
group of all. After all, they are affected by virtually every decision
made by a county commission, from setting tax rates to locating
utility easements and building roads. So candidates had better not
take their money either.
Rather than carry their prohibition of campaign funds to its logical
conclusion, it's easier for candidates to single out developers
as the one great Satan in the world of local politics.
Funny how that works. Sitting in modern suburbia, grassroots politicians
and their supporters blame developers for all that is wrong in their
communities. Never mind the inherent hypocrisy in the fact that
most of them live in homes built by developers, work in jobs made
possible by a developer's investment
in commercial property, enjoy a quality of life that is only possible
because of the efforts of developers and take great pleasure from
amenities, such as restaurants and nearby grocery stores, that exist
only because of developers.
Visit pretty much any of the dead, sleepy, jobless counties of
south Georgia and you'll see what happens when no one wants to invest
their money into property to develop for homes and jobs.
It is somehow woven into the fabric of suburban life that those
who live it curse it for what it is, even as they embrace it and
jealously try to deny it to others. Suburban sprawl exists because
it gives people what they want, as evidenced by the phenomenal growth
here in recent years.
Most of those who live here want low-density housing, residential
areas distinctly separate from commercial districts and the sort
of quality of life that exists in a suburban community----good schools,
parks and recreational facilities, shopping and dining options that
are nearby, but not too close. They don't want high-density or multi-family
housing, mass transit, mixed zoning codes, or the sort of rural
setting that requires a 20-minute trip to
the nearest grocery store.
They prefer exactly what the developers have given them, and, in
return, they demonize the very industry that makes the financial
investment necessary to make it all possible.
Typically, a candidate promising to refuse the filthy lucre from
the development industry sees himself as a populist and mistakenly
believes the county commission is supposed to be an exercise in
democratic government. It isn't. Pleasing the masses isn't in the
job description. The job require seeing what is best for the community
within the parameters set by the law, not bending to mob rule.
There are some greedy, unscrupulous developers out there. The same
can be said of some of those running for office. If a candidate
can be swayed by the political donation of a developer, then he
can be swayed by the donation of a school teacher or a preacher.
A candidate's integrity and moral convictions either are up for
sale or they aren't, regardless of where a donation originates or
how much it might be.
Of course, most candidates understand that voters will never look
that closely at the snake oil being sold as a miracle cure for local
political problems.
Click
here to read other community commentaries...
|
Number
2.20, June 18, 2002
