After over a week of rumor and speculation, Mayor Doc Eldridge vetoed Athens-Clarke County's controversial new development ordinance on December 13, renewing arguments over development in the county's rural "greenbelt."
At its December 5 monthly voting session, the County Commission approved the ordinance - the enabling legislation for the ACC comprehensive land use plan - by a 7-3 vote. A separate 6-4 decision equipped the regulations with a rural development provision, known as Option A, allowing one unit per acre development in the greenbelt, which many citizens consider a recipe for suburban sprawl (see City Pages, December 13, on-line at flagpole.com).
The Commission chose Option A over Option B, which would have allowed up to one unit per .625 acres.
The mayoral veto buzz began even before the December 5 session adjourned, prompted in part by Eldridge's repeated requests that the Commission consider retaining current AR (Agricultural Residential) zone standards until transferable development rights (TDRs) can be added to the development ordinance.
"While both options [A and B] had desirable features," Eldridge said at a press conference announcing his decision, "there was no consensus" on which AR plan would be best. The Commission never voted on his proposal to maintain the status quo temporarily , Eldridge noted.
Since the AR provision was part of the development ordinance, Eldridge's veto applies to the entire code.
"Had I been able to simply veto the vote on the AR density, I would have," he said.
This marks the first time Eldridge has used the veto, and it is only the third time the mayoral veto has been employed since the governments of Athens and Clarke County merged in 1991.
"I am of the opinion they [mayoral veto powers] should be used only when the Mayor feels very strongly that a decision of the Commission is one that is not in the best long term interest of the community and its citizens," Eldridge said.
For the veto to stick, it will likely have to survive a Commission vote. A mayoral veto takes seven votes to override. Eldridge said the unified government charter is unclear as to whether or not the current Commission will have an opportunity to overrule or sustain the veto, or if it will fall to the new Commission, which will be seated January 2.
The new Commission may be more receptive to the veto, as District 6 Commissioner Marilyn Farmer, who has been lukewarm on TDRs, will be replaced by Carl Jordan, a vocal TDRs advocate. States McCarter, who will fill the District 8 seat of the retiring Ken Jordan, also sees TDRs as one way to help maintain Athens-Clarke County green space.
"Some will say that I have made a mistake by exercising my veto, others will say it would be a mistake not to," Eldridge said. "If I have to make a mistake, I prefer to err on the side of caution...
"It was not an easy decision. In fact it was downright hard, because I respect each of our Commissioners, and we must do everything we can to work well together. Perhaps my decision will strain that relationship with some, but we will get through it."
The Mayor said he does not intend for his veto to be used to change any other aspect of the development ordinance.

Go, Hedges! (And
Don't Come Back)

The hedges that are a longtime symbol of University of Georgia football also represent a plant that is destroying native species elsewhere in the state, says a university researcher.
The Chinese privet, the plant known as “The Hedges” lining Sanford Stadium, has become a major threat to native plants in Georgia and all over the Southeast, says Ron Ward, a UGA geography professor and expert on privet.
Brought to the United States as an ornamental shrub in the 1860s, the Chinese privet was first planted in Sanford Stadium in 1929. No one knew of the damage it would cause in the future, Ward says.
Privet is now one of the most invasive species in Georgia - maybe more damaging than kudzu.
“The privet is everywhere,” Ward said. “It·s just less conspicuous than kudzu, so no one sees it as a problem.”
Concentrating mainly on the Chinese privet and kudzu, Georgia has spent millions of dollars trying to find out how to control the spread of non-native species, says Jim Allison, president of the Georgia Exotic Pest Plant Council.
“Attention to the proliferation of exotic species... has been late in coming,” Allison says.
The biggest problem posed by Chinese privet is that it alters biological evolution by reducing biodiversity, according to Ward. The privet invades the habitat of native Georgia plants and covers the surrounding area with its seeds, so other plants cannot grow and reproduce in that area. Privet also impedes natural erosion and causes respiratory irritation in humans with the pungent odor from its flowers, Ward says.
However, Chinese privet remains a popular landscaping plant because it is low-maintenance and tolerates various environments.
Toby Brown, assistant store manager and nursery manager of Cofer·s Home and Garden Showplace on Mitchell Bridge Road, says the privet is fairly popular because it is cheaper than other plants.
“We only sell the variegated (multi-colored) variety here,” Brown says. “I am not aware of any growers of the green kind anymore. No one wants it because it is considered a weed.”
Brown says the green and multi-colored species of Chinese privet are “all the same” and have the same effects on native plants. He recommends other plants for landscaping, such as the cleyera, because they are easier to manage and have no known damaging effects.
Ward has been studying the Chinese privet for three years with a $10,000 grant from the National Science Foundation. He performs some of his fieldwork at the State Botanical Garden of Georgia on Milledge Avenue.
Ward says the more he learns about the Chinese privet, the more upset he becomes.
“Just look around,” he says. “It·s taken over the land.”
Ward says the privet is “the problem that never goes away” but adds that eliminating the plant everywhere is not an option. He says taking the privet hedges out of Sanford Stadium would not have a significant effect.
“Getting rid of the privet in the stadium would be silly on many levels and sound thinking only on one level,” he says. “The only reason to take the privet out of the stadium would be to set an example and show a commitment to reversing our past mistakes and [show] that UGA is concerned with losses of biodiversity stemming from invasive species.” (Katy Stillerman)

EPA Bans Harmful
Pesticide, Sort Of

This past summer, the EPA banned the popular pesticide chlorpyrifos, known to its users as Dursban and Lorsban.
Well, kind of banned it, anyway.
US Environmental Protection Agency administrator Carol Browner said that her agency is “shutting off the manufacture of this chemical.” But the details on the deal paint a different picture.
According to an article in the Sept./Oct. issue of Mother Jones, an agreement between the EPA and Dursban·s maker, Dow AgroSciences, will shut down production for residential use by the end of this year. Stores can continue selling the pesticide for residential use until the end of 2001.
In Athens, as of December 3, Home Depot still had a few bags of Dursban left, but Lowe·s no longer carried it. An employee of Lowe·s said that its absence from store shelves was a decision by the corporate office not to sell the pesticide any longer. Williams True Value hardware store still has Dursban and will continue to sell it until the end of next year, when the ban takes effect.
The “ban” was brokered in conjunction with the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, passed with the aim of safeguarding children from exposure to chemicals. So use of chlorpyrifos on apples and tomatoes will be phased out this year, and use on grapes will be limited. These targets were presumably chosen to protect children who, as a group, eat a lot of applesauce, ketchup, and grapes.
But there will be no restrictions on other crops that people, children included, eat regularly. And there will be no restrictions on the pesticide·s use on golf courses or for community sprayings to control mosquitoes.
As Stuart Lieberman of Realty Times writes, “We can·t have it in our homes. But, we can have it in food processing plants, and it can be sprayed on... other vegetables. Does this sound right to you?”
Steven Milloy, in a June column for the New York Post, takes the criticism even further. He believes the tepid ban is a result of the EPA not using existing data from experiments on paid human subjects. This data, Milloy says, prevents the need to extrapolate "safe levels" from say, mice, to humans. He and other scientists have lambasted the EPA for claiming that this kind of data is unethical and, thus, irrelevant. Because the human data was not used, the EPA estimated safe levels that were far below what human testing showed was necessary.
Many adults and children have become ill from exposure to Dursban. The ongoing question, reminiscent of the DDT craze, is who is to blame for higher than recommended exposure. Is it the manufacturer, who says it·s safe if used appropriately? Or the farmers, janitors and homeowners who use too much of it and do so in ways it is not supposed to be used?
Whoever is responsible, Dursban is far from gone. The ban led some fans of Dursban to flock to stores to stockpile it for future use. Plus, Dow AgroSciences is still free to manufacture and sell it for residential use overseas. And it will continue to be sold for agricultural uses here in the States. (Brian Glazer)