Carter Aims To Close
Greenbelt "Loophole"

The Athens-Clarke Commission may backhandedly retrieve a little of what it voted away last December when it essentially abdicated regulating development in the county's rural "greenbelt."

On December 5, the Commission adopted Commissioner Linda Ford's "Option A" as part of the county's new development ordinance. The Ford plan allows "conservation subdivisions" to be built throughout the AR (Agricultural Residential) zone at an average density of one dwelling unit per acre without Commission review.

For conservation subdivisions, the development ordinance says units must be clustered onto 50 percent of the developed tract, with the remainder kept as "open space." However, the regulations do not require "open space" to be contiguous, undisturbed, or even to have trees, nor does it mandate permanent preservation in the form of easements or land trusts.
Option A also contains a rezoning option to permit non-clustered, one-unit-per-acre "cookie cutter" subdivisions.

Approval of the Ford plan came despite a request from Mayor Doc Eldridge that the Commission refrain from changing AR densities until the county implements a transferable development rights (TDRs) provision. Eight days after its passage, Eldridge vetoed the development ordinance; on December 19 the Commission voted 7-3 to override the veto.
Commissioner Charles Carter voted for Option A, for the development ordinance, and for overriding Eldridge's veto. Then on January 2, Carter announced his intent to propose an amendment to the ordinance that would require conservation subdivisions to gain Commission approval.

"Really, I wanted it [the review provision] in there before we voted on the ordinance," says Carter, "but some other Commissioners didn't think it would go, and I just laid off because I didn't want to go back to the five-acre thing."

"Option B," also before the Commission on December 5, would have divided the greenbelt into two different zones, with much of the land allocated for development at one unit per five acres.

"Then after it passed, I decided we better do something, because I saw a loophole there," Carter says, "and I just wanted to get it closed as quick as we can before something happens, [before] some undesirable cluster subdivision goes in."

Carter explains that he is not opposed to conservation subdivisions, but thinks the community should be given ample opportunity for public input. He says some of his constituents are concerned about the possibility of poorly planned developments degrading neighboring property values.

The ACC Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of Carter's proposal, in part because it was given very little time to consider the amendment. Planning Commissioner Lucy Rowland says she and her colleagues didn't know about the proposal until the night they were expected to vote on it.

"It was just a formality," Rowland says. "All they wanted was to get it up on the [Commission] agenda for the February meeting."

During the Planning Commission meeting, held January 4, Rowland made a motion to recommend that conservation subdivisions come to the Planning Commission for a final decision; Scott Weinberg made a substitute motion to recommend denial of Carter's proposal.
Rowland voted for Weinberg's motion because subdivision reviews - unlike rezoning requests - are intended to focus on the merits of design. And if proposals become subject to Commission approval now, she believes that focus will be lost.

"A rezoning is where you are making a change from what is allowed to be built," Rowland says. "A subdivision is a design process. It's very different, because it brings in the technical details... When you're talking about a rezoning, that's a different story."

Their recommendation report says Planning Commissioners "did not support making the [approval] process a political one and were hesitant to change a brand new ordinance that has not yet been tested."

"It's nothing against the Commission," Rowland says. "They get a lot of pressure from both sides."

It its report, the Planning Staff recommended ACC Commissioners postpone a decision on Carter's amendment until March, to give them time to look at conservation subdivision design standards now being developed by planning staff.

So far, Commissioners John Barrow and States McCarter have indicated they will back Carter's amendment. Linda Ford has said she supports the idea of conservation subdivisions being approved by the Planning Commission, but believes Carter's proposal removes incentives to build such developments.

"I don't see why it would take the incentive away to have to do this, if somebody's going to develop a good one," Carter says. "If somebody's going to do a shoddy one it may be an incentive for them not to do it."

The Commission will vote on Carter's amendment at its February 6 regular business meeting.

Voter Choice Bill
Makes A Comeback

After Georgia House Speaker Tom Murphy (D-Bremen) struck down its bill at the eleventh hour of the 2000 legislative session, the Voter Choice Coalition is preparing for another battle against the state's two-party political duopoly.

The Coalition, a Duluth-based group of "independent representatives from several third political parties as well as citizens' organizations," will soon launch a full-on blitz to see the Voter Choice and Election Access Reform Act passed into law. Sponsored by Rep. Brian Joyce (R-Lookout Mountain), HB188 would lower Georgia ballot access barriers in local, state and federal elections by reducing the number of signatures potential independent and third party candidates must gather in order to be placed on their respective ballots.

Georgia has the most stringent ballot access laws of any state in the US, the Coalition says, with its petition signature requirements up to 10 times the national average. (Georgia was the only state Ralph Nader gave up on in trying to get his name on the ballot for last November's presidential election.)

Under current state law, petition requirements are based on the number of registered voters, rather than the number of people who actually vote. This is an unfair standard, the Coalition says, because it often results in independent and third party candidates having to collect signatures in excess of the number of votes cast in their particular races.

HB188 would lower the number of signatures required for local races to five percent of the votes cast in the previous election for the office sought, with a cap of 3,000 signatures. In state-wide races, the requirement would be lowered to two percent of votes cast in the previous election, with a cap of 7,500.

Apparently, Speaker Murphy prefers things the way they are. According to Coalition executive director Helmut Forren, Murphy reneged on a promise to send the bill to the House floor for a vote last March. Instead, Murphy sent it to the House Rules Committee, where it died. At that time, Forren said Murphy killed the bill because it had the votes.

"We left off last year with almost a majority of the Representatives in the House voting to take us off the table [to bring the bill to a vote]," Forren says. Though that may not necessarily indicate support, Forren notes the 90 Representatives who pledged to vote for the Voter Choice Act in 2000 was a marked increase from the year before, when the Coalition claimed 20 to 30 allies in the House.

"This year we have moved up from three sponsors in the House to six," Forren adds, "including Bob Holmes [D-Atlanta], who is chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee."

"We have a really, really good chance of getting it through the House this year."

Forren says the Coalition has more money to work with than it has in the past, and is using it to run strategically placed radio and TV ads. Forren has talked with a number of legislators about the spots, which he says have the capitol buzzing early in the session.

"They've seen them," he says. "The word's been passed around a little bit. They know we're coming."

For more information on the Voter Choice Act, see voterchoice.org.