What Do They Think?

originally published April 5, 2006

Someone from the Athens Area Chamber of Commerce was kind enough to drop by a draft of the Chamber’s Economic Report Card, and I appreciate it. I am appalled, though, by some of its contents.

The Chamber details 16 votes taken by the Athens-Clarke County Commission during 2005 and indicates which commissioners voted “right” (for economic opportunity) and which voted “wrong” (against economic opportunity) in the Chamber’s opinion. The votes of the individual commissioners are not as telling as the Chamber’s own clearly stated position on these issues.

1. The Chamber opposed a tax refund for residents of the Stroud Road area as setting a precedent to benefit individuals at the expense of the Clarke County taxpayer. Well, good for the Chamber there! Glad to know they’re opposed to special favors for individuals, even though the Commission voted unanimously in favor of that one.
2. Rezone to allow the new Lowe’s to be built on the Eastside - a no brainer. The Chamber was all for it, and so was the Commission.
3. Rezone Oneta Street to restrict industrial expansion. The Chamber said that would send a signal to industry that it is not a priority. The Commission voted unanimously for the restriction.
4. Support the 2005 SPLOST project list. Another no-brainer, with the Chamber and the full Commission in agreement.
5. Increase the sewer/ water connection fee: the Chamber says higher cost for developers, “another word for tax,” discourages growth. The Commission went for it 8-2, with only McCarter and Jordan voting “right.” (Go figure.)
6. “A compromise vote” to restrict Shoal Creek development. The Chamber wanted to open the east-side area to development by providing a sewer line. The Commission went 6-4 for a solution that meant less development.
7. Regulate timber harvesting. This was the ordinance that attempted to stop wholesale clear-cutting by developers before the tree ordinance passed. It had enough loopholes and came late enough that a lot of trees fell anyway, but the Chamber opposed this one, too, saying it makes it more difficult for future development and interferes with property rights. The Commission voted unanimously in favor of the trees.
8. Rezone on Olympic Drive to allow residential mixed-use. The Chamber opposed, because it “will limit potential growth of existing businesses, and sends a clear signal that industry is not a priority.” The Commission went 9-1 for the rezone, with only McCarter seeing it the Chamber’s way.
9. Adopt the Neighborhood Notification Initiative. Another telling vote: after years of discussing how to involve neighborhoods earlier in government decisions that affect them, the Commission finally acted. The Chamber opposed this program as “unnecessary government expense that hinders economic development and will unnecessarily polarize the community with hostility.” Those two great neighborhood advocates States McCarter and Kathy Hoard agreed with the Chamber’s reasoning; the other eight Commissioners voted for including the neighborhoods.
10. Increase fees for local trash service. The Chamber called it “another tax and we are opposed.” The Commission voted for it unanimously, perhaps because of the rising costs of doing business - probably familiar to Chamber members.
11. Increase fees for water and sewer. “It’s another tax and we are opposed.” Commission split 5-5, with the Mayor presumably voting in favor.
12. Retain the existing traffic operations on Hawthorne Avenue between Oglethorpe Avenue and Prince Avenue - i.e. don't three-lane. Chamber for, Commission, too - unanimously.
13. Restrict mass-grading. “Tied the hands of developers to make it difficult to build even a road… too severe,” according to the Chamber. This is the ordinance that attempts to hold down the familiar bulldozing of all topographical features even before the use of the land has been determined. The Commission was for this one 100 percent.
14. Set up a citizens’ ad hoc review committee to consider the lighting ordinance. Chamber: "no compelling government interest, and it would increase the cost of doing business.“ The Commission voted 8-2 against this one, which was more complicated than it looks.
15. Three-lane Prince Avenue with bike lanes between Milledge and Pulaski. Chamber: "…would hurt current businesses along route and reduce future development on Prince, not to mention peril to citizens in neighborhoods forced to absorb the overflow.“ The idea here was to calm traffic on Prince with the aim of protecting the adjacent neighborhoods. The Commission voted six-four against, with Lynn, Kinman, Dodson and Jordan voting ”against economic opportunity.“
16. Take over local maintenance of Milledge and Prince avenues. The ACC government would assume the cost of maintaining Prince and Milledge avenues and would gain control over the streetscape. Chamber: ”…a blatant disregard for taxpayer dollars.“ The same six Commissioners agreed with the Chamber; the same four did not.

So, what we have here is a Chamber of Commerce that advocates clear-cutting our tree canopy, bulldozing our landscape, making our streets faster, choking our government’s efforts to keep up with costs, opposing citizen participation in government and encouraging the expansion of industry into neighborhoods.

How in the world can we ever hope to attract clean, smart-growth industries and businesses, whose owners and employees are likely to favor the very amenities opposed by our Chamber? What do these business leaders think when our Chamber leaders assure them that we favor destroying our charming town to make it more attractive to industry? What do they think?

Pete McCommons, Editor & Publisher editor@flagpole.com

Pete McCommons, Editor & Publisher

editor@flagpole.com