My father always says, “It’s not a bargain if you can’t afford it.” I believe that is the advice he might pass along to MARTA supporters.

MARTA has long desired more flexibility in its ability to determine how it will spend its funds. Currently, 50% of MARTA funds must be spent on capital improvements and 50% on operations. This is a fairly tight financial straitjacket, though it is a way to prevent subsidization of riders at the expense of abandoning necessary upkeep of the system.

There is a possibility that the ties on spending might be loosened in the draft legislation suggested by the Transit Governance Task Force. There are; however, strings as Maria Saporta writes in The Saporta Report:

To free MARTA from the state-imposed restriction that 50 percent of its revenues be spent on capital and 50 percent be spent on operations, MARTA basically would have to turn over most of its authorities to the newly-created Transit Governance Council. For the record, no other transit agency in the nation is saddled with such an unworkable rule.
MARTA represents a $6 billion investment in our region. Why should MARTA turn over its Constitutional powers to a state-controlled entity and give up its designation as the transit authority that can receive federal funding in the region.
According to folks close to MARTA, relaxing the 50/50 rule would give MARTA flexibility over how it spends its sales tax revenue (and it is expected that currently would be worth about $20 million a year for the transit agency.
It is inconceivable that MARTA could or should give up most of its powers and its $6 billion investment in return for getting flexibility in how it can spend the MARTA sales tax collected in the City of Atlanta, and Fulton and DeKalb counties.

And then there is the issue of the make-up of the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) which would be the body with the ultimate control of MARTA. The 15 members would all be appointed: 9 by the governor, 3 by the lieutenant governor and 3 by the state house speaker. It’s not as though petty, personal politics ever happens in Georgia, so what could possibly go wrong?

From the state’s perspective, things are different. One of the complaints about the state is that it has not contributed as much money to MARTA as is needed. It is a fact that state governments are reluctant to give up control of funds, but let’s take this a step farther.

If the state increases its control of the funds, then it has greatly increased its responsibility for MARTA. It can no longer stand at a distance and point fingers. It will be forced to have a hands-on, problem-solving approach and let’s face it, the state has many more resources at its disposal that it could employ to improve MARTA – if the price is right.

In this case, the price for the state of Georgia taking so much control of MARTA is inescapable political responsibility.

If one wants the state to “man up” and do the right thing by MARTA, then allowing the state to be responsible might be the right way to go. The next logical step would be for the state to increase its funding of MARTA to acceptable levels for a state that still lays claim to the title Empire State of the South.

Is this a bargain that MARTA can’t afford? Perhaps, after all, it is not. My father, actually a man of few words, might offer another bit of sage advice to MARTA supporters, “If you want a man’s help, then make your interests his interests.” Yeah, that bit of wisdom would certainly fit.

There is much more at The Saporta Report, so check it out to get additional information. This is not the only issue with the draft legislation that is discussed. You’re big boys and girls so you can wander over there and find your way back again. For the weary, here’s the link.

Last month the Judicial Nominating Commission started accepting name submissions to fill the vacancy on the DeKalb County Superior Court (formally the Stone Mountain Circuit) caused by Judge Hancock’s resignation. Anyone can submit a name, and apparently, somebody submitted the name of Michael L. Rothenberg, and there is only one person by that name who is a member of the Georgia Bar.

If Rothenberg’s name sounds familiar, it’s because he has a long history with PeachPundit that includes trying to run for an office for which he was not qualified, dropping out of that race, then running again in 2010 and making the runoff before being sued in federal court and by the Securities and Exchange Commission for alleged fraud.

In 2008, Rothenberg ran for Superior Court and Erick questioned his eligibility.

After initially arguing that he was indeed eligible, Rothenberg later ended that campaign. Erick congratulated him on making the right decision and wrote, “I hope in 2010 he will run.”

Rothenberg did indeed run in 2010, and made the runoff against Courtney Johnson, who won the election. Between the general election and the runoff, Rothenberg was accused of running a ponzi scheme in a federal lawsuit seeking the return of $1.35 million “invested” with Rothenberg.

Rothenberg called the lawsuit “nothing more than a political hit job on me.”

He said the lawsuit’s allegations were “absolutely outrageous, slanderous and completely untrue, completely untrue.”

On November 18, 2010 the Daily Report ran a story that Rothenberg implied that his campaign was supported by Congressmen Hank Johnson and John Lewis and State Senator Jason Carter. All three of those elected officials denied having endorsed Rothenberg.

On November 29th, the AJC reported that State Representative Mike Jacobs withdrew his personal endorsement of Rothenberg based on concerns over the private lawsuit. That article also reported that DeKalb County Commissioner Elaine Boyer (R-Smokerise) denied having endorsed Rothenberg, despite her picture appearing on Rothenberg’s mailings under the heading “Endorsed By”.

Liz Carter, the Republican Candidate for the Fourth Congressional District, had the day earlier emailed  a number of DeKalb Republicans stating that she had not approved the printed endorsement that Rothenberg attributed to her and was asking people not to vote for Rothenberg in the runoff.

Both DeKalb Libertarians stood by their endorsement of Rothenberg.

After losing to now-Judge Johnson, the federal Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against Rothenberg, alleging that his “investment” scheme violated the ’33 and ’34 Acts.

[As an aside, let this stand as a lesson to the political opportunists and scalawags who seek to destroy America by robbing Georgians of our God-given right to vote in runoff elections. Absent the runoff election, this might not have all come out and Rothenberg might have been elected. And it would have been your fault when a Superior Court Judge was indicted for fraud.]

According to the SEC complaint and press release:

The Commission’s complaint alleges that between at least February 2010 and March 2010, Rothenberg, through Four Five, used misrepresentations and omissions of material fact to induce investors to participate in a secret and allegedly risk-free trading platform or trading facility. This trading platform or trading facility purportedly involved transactions among international banks that would generate substantial return on a recurring basis. Specifically, Rothenberg represented that the trading platform would produce returns in excess of 300% every fourteen days. Rothenberg and Four Five also represented to investors, both orally and in writing, that the majority of their funds would remain at all times in Rothenberg’s attorney trust account, and that all funds invested, along with the profits, would be returned to the investors at the conclusion of the trades. [Emphasis added]

As a result of a settlement of the SEC charges, Rothenberg’s right to appear or practice before the agency has been suspended. His website also is suspended.

As part of the settlement, the SEC found that:

contrary to Rothenberg’s representations that investor funds would remain in his attorney trust account, Rothenberg began disbursing investor funds within days of receipt of those funds. Between March 2010 and October 2010, at least $210,000 in investor funds were transferred to a bank account designated for contributions to Rothenberg’s judicial election campaign. Rothenberg used another $190,000 of investor funds for personal expenses. Although Rothenberg ultimately returned approximately $910,000 to investors, he misappropriated at least $800,000 of investor funds. [Emphasis added.]

And according to the SEC’s press release:

Defendants were also ordered to pay disgorgement, pre-judgment interest and a civil penalty in amounts to be resolved upon motion of the Commission at a later date, and directed that for purposes of that motion, the allegations of the Commission’s Complaint shall be deemed true. Defendants consented to the entry of the order without admitting or denying the allegations of the Commission’s Complaint.

It’s election day tomorrow all across Georgia. Many municipalities will elect new leadership and a number of counties will have items on the ballot as well. The AJC and the League of Women voters have an interactive page that allows Metro Area voters to see what’s on the ballot.

Here in Gwinnett we’ve got a full plate. In addition to municipal races, folks in Peachtree Corners will decide if they want to become a city, 13 Gwinnett cities will decide Sunday Sales, and we’ll have a County wide vote on continuing a 1% SPLOST for education.

Here’s a collection of local election articles in the Gwinnett Daily Post. Also see articles in the Suwanee Patch, Dacula Patch, and Norcross Patch. The Lilburn Patch had a four part series on Lilburn elections.

Peachtree Corners cityhood debate has editorials in favor and against.

The Post’s Camie Young has an article about the Sunday Sales votes in Gwinnett.

City residents can vote on the issue from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Tuesday in the cities of Auburn, Berkeley Lake, Braselton, Dacula, Duluth, Grayson, Lawrenceville, Lilburn, Loganville, Norcross, Snellville, Sugar Hill and Suwanee.

And finally on the countywide vote to extend the education SPLOST, the Gwinnett Chamber says vote yes with this website and video:

Meanwhile Amanda Helmstetter head of the Berkeley Lake Elementary School PTA says the Emperor has been exposed:

But this isn’t the land of fairy tales, the people of this land are thinkers, they challenge the status quo, they don’t blindly do whatever their leadership says – even when dissenting with the popular opinion is unpopular and difficult.

Many of the people of this land are voting NO on the ESPLOST referendum coming up for a vote in Gwinnett County on Nov. 8.

The people of this land realize that the GCPS [Gwinnett County Public Schools] board wants to take out a loan to get the money and spend it NOW before it is generated by the ESPLOST. So, what happens if they borrow $200 and they only raise $125 in taxes? We understand that borrowing the money so it can be spent before it is generated shows a great lack of fiduciary responsibility.

We’re hearing that Tracy Reed, brother of Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed has resigned.

Tracy Reed has caused some controversy for allegedly driving city vehicles with an expired license.

In addition, officials confirmed the city’s law department is investigating an Oct. 28 traffic stop in which Tracy Reed, who has been employed by the city of Atlanta for 12 years, was apparently allowed to drive away without a ticket after being stopped while driving with a suspended license.

At that time, there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest stemming from a failure to appear in court on Oct. 6 to answer charges of driving with a suspended license. The fact that he was allowed to drive away that night raised questions of whether he received special treatment from the police.

UPDATE: After hearing a clip of Mayor Reed on WGST. I think he deserves some praise. I doubt he tried to cover this up. Also, his brother was wise to resign so as to not cause the Mayor more embarrassment.

- Estimated 50 OWS-Atlanta Protesters Remain for Possible Arrest -

The large majority occupying Atlanta’s Woodruff Park left hurriedly, but a small group remained behind to be arrested late Tuesday evening. At this time, there is no notice that any arrests have been made.

Check out the excellent Atlanta Journal-Constitution article by Christian Boone and Rhonda Cook for more details. Here is an excerpt of the piece:

Deputy Police Chief Calvin Moss announced at 11:52 p.m. that the executive order allowing protesters to stay in the park has been revoked. Protesters were told to leave the park and any belongings left behind would be treated as abandoned property.

At 10:45 p.m., Tim Franzen, an Occupy Atlanta leader, told participants who wanted to be arrested to gather in a circle in the middle of the park where there was the best lighting for the media to see. He advised people who had been drinking, using drugs or were on probation not to take part. Those who did not want to be arrested but wanted to continue the occupation were told to circle the park until 6 a.m. and then return.

Some of the people waiting to be arrested waved small American flags. About 50 remained in the park at midnight. Several hundred people were outside the park.

Franzen said arrangement already had been made to cover the bail of group members who were arrested. They are expected to be charged with violating a city ordinance, a misdemeanor.

Based upon previous reports, protesters had worked out a plan to have members return to the public park at 6:00 AM the day following arrests. Members of the group left open the possibility that another venue within the city might also be chosen for future protests.

(Cue the creepy organ music in a minor key and the deep-voiced, overly dramatic, off-screen narrator) So, will the APD make arrests? Will the OWS squatters return at 6 AM? If they do, does the City of Atlanta have a plan to counter? If not, will this soap opera continue forever? (Cut organ and narrator)

In the meantime, congratulations to Mayor Reed for taking some action. He showed patience and now he is showing leadership. That pesky Rule of Law thing really does need to be respected.

Either there is a legitimate explanation or there is a scandal.

Jannine Miller is the Executive Director of the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority.

According to her biography, “Miller coordinated Georgia’s multi-agency proposal to U.S. Department of Transportation for an Urban Partnership Agreement, which led to a $110 million grant award to implement a HOT lanes demonstration project on I-85, one of metro Atlanta’s most congested interstate highways.”

What her biography does not mention, is that Ms. Miller is the patent applicant (and if approved, the holder of the patents) for both patented technologies used in the HOT lanes.

The first is the credit billing system.

The second is the electronic barrier technology to ticket violators.

Now, there is more likely than not a legitimate explanation for all of this, but it raises a real question too — did the Executive Director of GRTA push for a system she stands to profit from due to patent royalties?

UPDATE: The answer is that these folks assigned their claims to GRTA as employees of GRTA so they won’t profit. The additional questions though are (1) is their assignment in total or just for Georgia so if this rolls out elsewhere they stand to make money and (2) does GRTA stand to make money off a roll out in other states and (3) did we roll out HOT lanes so GRTA or some individual(s) could make some money off the patents later?

This news could very well destroy the regional SPLOST for metro-Atlanta.

At a press conference on Monday, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed announced that he would revoke the executive order allowing OWS-Atlanta protesters to remain legally in Woodruff Park through November 7th.

From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution story:

Reed said the turning point occurred over the weekend, when, he said, protestors tried to organize a two-day hip-hip concert without proper security plan or personnel. Reed said the concert, which attracted about 600 people, had been wrongly advertised as featuring rapper Ludacris, who didn’t show up.

Protestors also used an unauthorized generator and put people on top of it to prevent police from removing it, Reed said. The city would have been liable if the machine had combusted, he said.

“I believe they placed lives at risk this weekend,” he said. “The nature of the relationship has changed.”

Reed acknowledged that there were no incidents of violence from the concert. But he said that was because of an expanded police presence that cost the city roughly $100,000 on Saturday alone. Police have worked 12-hour shifts near the park since the weekend, which is presumably costing the city overtime pay.

Alleged OWS-Atlanta spokesmen say that the real danger is from the presence of police and that they remain undeterred.

I’m glad to see Mayor Reed reign this in before November 5th, just to be safe. After all, that date is a famous anniversary in the life of anarchist folk hero Guy Fawkes. Come to think of it, it may be a good thing for the OWS-Atlanta protesters, as well. Just where, do you suppose, the anarchists will be on November 5, 2011?

Remember, remember, the 5th of November
The Gunpowder Treason and plot ;
I know of no reason why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.

Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes,
‘Twas his intent.
To blow up the King and the Parliament.
Three score barrels of powder below.
Poor old England to overthrow.
By God’s providence he was catch’d,
With a dark lantern and burning match

Holloa boys, Holloa boys, let the bells ring
Holloa boys, Holloa boys, God save the King!

Hip hip Hoorah !
Hip hip Hoorah !
– Guy Fawkes Day Poem – English Traditional

The Gwinnett County Public Library system is in another financial tight spot. Budget cuts are forcing them to get creative. Rather than threaten to close branches as happened two years ago (under different Library Board leadership), they are proposing to seek help from the private sector. Not everyone agrees with this proposal however.

Board chairman Phillip Saxton introduced his proposal to seek $1 million in donations, another $1.2 million in advertising revenue and an endowment. All told, he hopes to raise $4 million a year to pay for lost tax revenue after a $2.8 million cut in county funding this year.

But at Monday’s board meeting, Dick Goodman balked at the proposal, which was tabled to be discussed at a specially called meeting at 5 p.m. Sept. 29.

“This is not a high school football team trying to buy uniforms,” said Goodman, the Suwanee city councilman who was named to the library board earlier this year. “This is a distraction from finding a new solution.”

My own opinion is that seeking private sector help is a good idea. I’d even like to see them charge an annual membership fee.

Government budgets at all levels are tight and will be so for many years to come. Agencies that receive government funding need to think outside the box and get used to doing more with less. I applaud the Gwinnett County Library Board for looking to the private sector for help and hope they can come up with a plan all Board members can agree on.

Enrollment is booming in Decatur schools. Add that to an increase in ITP population and it would appear that a city to busy to stop the sprawl is beginning to curl in on itself. In a good way.

As in-town schools swell, it includes parents that work and shop, keeping the economy of Atlanta viable in very trying times.

Talk amongst yourselves about good things that are coming out of this bad economy.

The debate over how much of the Metro Atlanta TSPLOST project list should be rapid transit continues. It’s a tough balancing act as the assumption is that voters in Atlanta want more transit while voters in the other counties favor more money for roads. Tilt it too far one way and you risk losing voters in areas that favor the other types of projects.

Atlanta Mayor Reed has stated publicly he wants 60% of the TSPLOST revenue to be spent on transit. The current proposed list spends about 55% of the expected $6 billion on transit and the balance on roads.

But does transit help ease traffic? Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers weighs in:

“We know that rail offers some things that you can’t get from just building roads, but we also know that rail doesn’t do a great job in lessening traffic,” Rogers said. “And at a time when we need traffic to be lessened significantly, I don’t know that we would put 55 percent of all our resources into that alone.”

Politifact took a look at Rogers comment and found it to be “mostly true.”

What the right percentage of transit vs. roads should be I’m not sure. I’ll repeat what I posted back in July:

In my mind, for the transportation tax to pass next year people need to be convinced of two things: 1) this tax will improve Georgia’s transportation infrastructure which in turn will help attract jobs and 2) the tax will fund projects that will help me get to and from my job faster and easier.

I would focus the project list on projects with quick delivery times and a big bang for the buck. I’m not sure rail lines to the suburbs do the trick.

The issue that may ultimately doom the statewide T-SPLOST is the clash between the need for regional planning and the ultimate self-interest of rational voters. An economically-rational voter might consider the benefits he or she will derive from their extra penny sales tax and decide it’s not worth the cost.

I think this is part of what underlies the widespread opposition of commenters on this blog, where any post mentioning TSPLOST becomes an opportunity for MARTA-bashing by OTPers, and for “we’ve been paying for it for 40 years now it’s your ” by the smarter and better-looking denizens of intown neighborhoods. I’ve been guilty of that last part myself, not just in regards to MARTA but also Grady Hospital.

In the 1990s, this dynamic played out along Johnson Ferry Road, where Cobb County residents pushed for widening in order to ameliorate rush-hour traffic but Fulton homeowners opposed the widening that threatened their front yards and homes.

With respect to the Atlanta metro area, we should understand that the benefits of a project are not necessarily constrained to its immediate area, but ramify outwards as bottlenecks are relieved, or demand sated elsewhere. OTPers who travel intown or across 285 benefit from the cars taken off the roads by MARTA, regardless of whether they ever step foot on bus or train. However, this type of benefit does not translate across larger regions, such as northwest Georgia where traffic hotspots tend to be local, population density lighter and the areas where transportation improvements receive more money are farther away.

Below is an excerpt of a memorandum written by Georgia House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams outlining some of the initial Democratic objections to the GOP’s Redistricting map. That map has now passed the House. Minority Leader Abrams has raised additional objections since this memo was written, including legal arguments of retrogression and isolating minorities from the majority.

Abrams is respected by both Parties in the House as a very smart, critical thinker. She is an attorney and a creative author of books by profession, assets which keep her political opponents on their toes.

Republicans were projected to win about 123 seats, Democrats 57, of which 49 would be majority-minority districts (though a few of these districts would likely be represented by white Democrats). Writes Minority Leader Stacey Abrams (all words below are hers):

“BOTTOM LINE:  Democrats would hold between 56 seats (if all GOP-leaning seats are picked up by the GOP) and 59 seats (if our current incumbents draw in to GOP districts all perform above GOP levels).  Although there is one less pairing, there is also one less open Democratic seat, creating a wash.

PURGING WHITE DEMOCRATS:  As compared to our earlier estimates:  we see an intended potential loss of at least 9 White and 1 Latino member of the Democratic Caucus (which currently has 20 White members, 1 Latino member and 42 Black members).  There is a potential loss of at least 8 White members and 1 Latino member.  In addition, the Black Voting Age Population has increased for several other White members; however, we continue to decipher the maps provided to align existing districts with new lines.  The potential remains for at least 3 additional White members to be draw into competition due to increased packing of Majority-Minority Districts, including Floyd, Buckner and Drenner.   Targeting White elected officials is as unlawful as targeting any other race.

• PACKING MAJORITY-MINORITY DISTRICTS:  Our analysis shows an increase from 42 to 49 Majority Minority Districts, with rates as high as 72% Black Voting Age Population.  This level of packing is not necessary.

• DILUTION OF VOTING STRENGTH:  By packing Majority Minority Districts and targeting White Democrats, the proposed GOP map dilutes and reduces the effectiveness of minority voting strength by eliminating the ability to build multi-racial coalitions.  Georgia has a demonstrated history of multi-racial coalitions, which will be eviscerated by the proposed scheme.

• SILENCES MILLIONS OF VOTERS:  In the 2008 and 2010 statewide elections, Democrats won 47% of the votes cast; however, under the proposed maps, Democratic voters would only have an opportunity to elect 31% of the House of Representatives.

• POLITICAL PAYBACK IS BAD FOR VOTERS:  Democrats did not seek to increase their numbers in the General Assembly, nor have they offered maps to diminish the GOP’s control of the House.  However, the dilution of minority voting through packing and through targeting White elected officials has been justified by the GOP leadership by comparing it to the unconstitutional actions of earlier administrations.  Both maps show political vindictiveness during a time when the GOP leadership promised a fairer process and Democrats simply ask for fairness to the voters – not to themselves.

Rep. Edward Lindsey, an attorney, is regarded as one of the smartest guys in the House. He’s released an e-Newsletter this weekend covering the legal talking points on the House redistricting map that passed this week.  I don’t normally copy/paste things to PeachPundit, but this is essential reading for those who want more than a 30,000-foot aerial view of redistricting.

By Representative Edward Lindsey, Georgia House Majority Whip:

1.     Does the Redistricting Plan for the Georgia House of Representatives (HB 1EX) violate the Federal Voting Rights Act (VRA)? No

“The redistricting plan passed by the Georgia House on August 18, 2011, was created in accordance with guidelines issued by President Obama’s Justice Department and creates 49 African American “majority-minority” districts, which are the same number that exist at the present time. This will keep us in full compliance with the VRA. In addition, we will have for the first time a Hispanic Majority Minority district.

By contrast, the alternative proposal presented to the House Reapportionment Committee by the Democratic Party through its caucus leadership on August 16, 2011 only maintained 43 African American “majority-minority” districts according to the testimony of the House Minority Leader.  If true, their plan is likely retrogressive and in violation of Section 5 of the VRA. Furthermore, the alternative plan created by the Democratic Party has four districts with African American populations that are 80+%. This would also likely be considered unlawful packing under the VRA.

What legal rationale has the Democratic Party tried to use to justify its proposal and attack the plan passed by the Georgia House? It argues that the state of Georgia should move away from protecting “majority minority” districts and instead create more “cross-over districts” in order to comply with the VRA.

A “cross-over district” is a somewhat nebulous term defined as a district in which minority voters make up less than a majority of the voting-age population, but the minority population is potentially large enough to elect the candidate of its choice with help from majority voters who cross over to support the minority’s preferred candidate. How you prove this has occurred, however, is not clear and that is why such districts have been rejected as a legitimate barometer under the VRA both statutorily and in court decisions.

In the U.S. Supreme Court decision Ashcroft v. Georgia (2003), Justice O’Connor allowed using such districts in analyzing compliance under section 5 of the VRA, but did not mandate their consideration in drawing new districts. However, in the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA, the U.S. Congress amended Section 5 in order to legislatively overrule Ashcroft in regards to permitting consideration of cross-over districts. The legislative history contains the following statement from the House Judiciary Committee: “the committee makes clear that Congress explicitly rejects all that logically follows from Justice O’Connor’s statement; [that “cross-over districts” can be utilized in determining compliance under Section 5 of the VRA].

The Supreme Court returned to the issue of “cross-over districts” in the case of Bartlett v. Strickland (2009). This time the court looked at whether it could consider such districts when considering possible violations under Section 2 of the VRA. Justice Kennedy in Bartlett decided against expanding consideration under the act to include such districts. He reasoned that to do so “would require courts to make complex political predictions and tie them to race-based assumptions.”

Given the clear law to the contrary, why would the Democratic Party nevertheless argue for use of “cross –over districts” under the VRA? Simply put, it is desperate to cling to any rationale in order to protect the seats of its incumbents in areas that have lost population in the past ten years.

Of the 20 smallest districts in Georgia, measured by population, 19 of them are presently held by members of the Democratic Party.

By contrast, of the 10 largest districts in Georgia, measured by population, all of them are held by members of the Republican Party. This will naturally lead to a migration of districts to the areas of growth in Georgia –which is away from the Democratic Party’s historical geographic strongholds.

2. Does the redistricting plan passed by the Georgia House  (HB 1EX) unduly pair existing Democratic House Representatives? No

All total, 10 Democratic Representatives inside the perimeter (I-285) of metro Atlanta and two in rural east Georgia have been paired and will have to run against each other in Democratic primaries next summer. The reason is simple. According to the census numbers gathered in 2010, 8 of the 10 smallest State House districts by population were Democratic seats inside the I-285 perimeter in Metro Atlanta. Many more Democratic seats in this urban area were also in the bottom twenty five in population. In addition, Democratic districts in east Georgia also lost significant numbers of residents.

Under the guiding principle of one person, one vote, if an area loses population it loses seats. This is not partisan. This is not personal. This is simple math. In fact, the same thing is happening under the passed redistricting plan in rural South Georgia where 8 Republican legislators are being paired because of a loss of population in their area.

In contrast to the redistricting plan passed by the House, it is interesting to look at the alternative redistricting proposal submitted by the Democratic Party at the House Reapportionment Committee on August 16, 2011. By gerrymandering and slicing up suburban Republican areas, it found a way to protect its members and instead pair 16 Republicans and only one Democrat. The Republicans paired were Chairman Joe Wilkinson, Chairman Sharon Cooper, Speaker Pro Tem Jan Jones, Chairman Mark Hamilton, Chairman Mike Jacobs, Chairman Ben Harbin, Rep. Barbara Sims, Rep. Jason Shaw, Governor’s Floor Leader Rep. Amy Carter, Chairman Penny Houston, Rep. Darlene Taylor, Chairman Jay Powell, Rep. Delvis Dutton, Chairman Greg Morris, Rep. Bob Hanner, and Rep. Mike Cheokes. Only Democrat Elena Parent faced a pairing.

It should be of little surprise that the Democratic Party took this path in 2011. It similarly paired 37 Republicans and only 9 Democrats in its redistricting plan in 2001.

3. Does the redistricting  plan passed by the Georgia House (HB 1EX) have unduly odd shapes and destroy communities of interest? No

Nevertheless, a mathematical analysis of the passed plan and Democratic alternative proposal was done using a well established formula called the “Polsby-Popper Test” The analysis is intended to determine the overall compactness of all drawn districts in a state’s redistricting map. The resulting measurements were virtually identical for each map, with the district map passed by the Georgia House being slightly better but only by a .001 margin.

Furthermore, with regards to splitting counties, the passed redistricting plan splits fifteen fewer counties than the Democratic Party’s alternative proposal and five fewer than the map drawn by the Federal Court for Georgia in 2004.

MARTA, Transit and the T-Splost

A “put up or shut up” challenge by a Peach Punditeer: A MARTA supporter challenges MARTA opponents to clearly state how the system could be better managed.

I wrote a post on Monday regarding the T-Splost referendum and the now-inevitable conversation about MARTA came up. Heavy.

There have been 69 total posts on that T-Splost post and the term MARTA was invoked 27 times. The management of MARTA and transit will be a centerpiece of the T-Splost debate, both for proponents and opponents.

One fellow PeachPundit poster, “rense”, is an apparent supporter of T-Splost. rense essentially argued that opponents of MARTA and transit have few substantive ideas on running MARTA better, and just want to complain about it.

“rense” raised a great challenge:

“Please articulate how MARTA could have been better managed, or stop saying that it is mismanaged.”

How could MARTA have done a better job in the past, could be doing a better job in the present, or could do a better job in the future?

The name of Brad Bryant has been suggested for the open position at DeKalb County Schools.

State Sen. Fran Millar, a surprise speaker in public comment at Tuesday’s DeKalb School Board budget hearing, urged the board to break its logjam over hiring a superintendent and interview the former DeKalb and state school board chairman, Brad Bryant.

Millar, the chairman of the Senate Education Committee and a Republican, was accompanied by Democratic state Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver, the ranking member of the DeKalb house delegation.

Millar told the board his suggestion of Bryant had the backing of Gov. Nathan Deal and State School Superintendent John Barge.

The DeKalb school board has been trying for months to find a superintendent to replace the indicted Crawford Lewis. Three finalists were named publicly, but a series of leaks torpedoed them. The contract of interim superintendent Ramona Tyson was just extended.

In the last round of the search, four board members supported the candidacy of the superintendent of schools in San Antonio, Tex., a fifth vote couldn’t be found to hire him.

Bryant last year, as you may recall, was appointed interim State School Superintendent after the candidate qualifying period and fell short in obtaining the required signatures to run for that office as an independent.

The AJC reports today on a lawsuit by the Securities and Exchange Commission against Michael Rothenberg, who ran unsuccessfully for DeKalb Superior Court in 2010.

The SEC complaint appears to originate with the same transaction that birthed a federal lawsuit against Rothenberg just before the December 2011 runoff election.

The SEC alleges that Rothenberg transferred $169,o00 of money from defrauded investors to his campaign account. In November, the Fulton Daily Report noted Rothenberg denying having transferred the funds in questions to his campaign.

But long before the November general election, there were other warning signs.

In 2008, Michael Rothenberg announced his candidacy for another seat on the DeKalb Superior Court. Erick Erickson, writing on Peach Pundit challenged Rothenberg’s eligibility. Rothenberg and his Campaign Manager/attorney responded in the comments with their version of his qualifications.

Two days later, Erick published a lengthy analysis and concluded that Rothenberg did not meet the statutory requirements to hold the office of Superior Court Judge at that time. This would not be the last time Rothenberg had no comment.

Rothenberg ultimately withdrew from that race over his qualifications. Erick wished him the best and said “[we] hope to see him run in two years.” Erick’s wish was fulfilled.

On November 18, 2010 the Daily Report ran a story that Rothenberg implied that his campaign was supported by Congressmen Hank Johnson and John Lewis and State Senator Jason Carter. All three of those elected officials denied having endorsed Rothenberg.

On November 29th, the AJC reported that State Representative Mike Jacobs withdrew his personal endorsement of Rothenberg based on concerns over the private lawsuit. That article also reported that DeKalb County Commissioner Elaine Boyer (R-Smokerise) denied having endorsed Rothenberg, despite her picture appearing on Rothenberg’s mailings under the heading “Endorsed By”.

Liz Carter, the Republican Candidate for the Fourth Congressional District, had the day earlier emailed  a number of DeKalb Republicans stating that she had not approved the printed endorsement that Rothenberg attributed to her and was asking people not to vote for Rothenberg in the runoff.

Both DeKalb Libertarians stood by their endorsement of Rothenberg.

After Courtney Johnson won the runoff election with 61% it wasn’t clear how much of her victory could be attributed to the last news cycles of the election.

But precinct-level returns shed some light.

Mike Jacobs’s district comprises eleven precincts in North DeKalb. During early runoff voting, Rothenberg ran the table here, carrying 66% of the vote and all but two of the eleven precincts. On election day, voters gave Courtney Johnson 56% of the vote, a twenty-three point gain over the weekend, and she carried nine of eleven precincts.

Courtney Johnson won the rest of the county handily, approaching 90% in a number of precincts. But it is instructive to view the sea-change in voter sentiment in reaction to a news story about candidate ethics.

Disclaimers: I was a consultant to Mike Jacobs during this drama. On November 1, 2010, I recevied a payment for robocalls from Michael Rothenberg’s campaign. That expenditure appears never to have been disclosed.

State Rep. Mike Jacobs garnered some headlines when he introduced what he described as a “skeletal charter” for a proposed City of Brookhaven. Some liberal crackpots oppose even discussing the idea.

Jacobs plans a second town hall meeting to discuss cityhood on Tuesday, May 24 at 7 p.m. in the auditorium at Lupton Hall on the Oglethorpe campus, located at 4484 Peachtree Road.

I had previously held reservations about incorporation, thinking “we don’t need another layer of government” and being overall pretty satisfied with the current level of county services. But as of today, count me firmly in the “Yes” category.

When I was leaving the house to get lunch, I saw a neighbor kid rounding the corner with what appeared to be my lawnmower. I parked, and went out back, where the lawnmower should have been and it was gone. I walked back to the corner, and there was my lawnmower, pushed up in the side yard of the house in which I believe the kid currently stays.

I called the police, told them what happened, including the facts that I saw it happen and know where the suspect lives. After some information was taken down, I was told that someone would call me back later to take a report over the phone.

WTF doesn’t just stand for “Winning the Future.”

I called the North Precinct and asked if I could talk to someone since I knew who the crook is and where he lives. They sent out an officer who is a credit to the county and a comfort to this taxpayer.

Last night I listened to a story on NPR in which Mark Fisher, an editor at the Washington Post, discussed a burglary at his home and his local police department’s inability to take mere property crimes seriously. Fisher made the point that letting property crimes go might lead to an escalation to violent crime. There does appear to be a correlation between the rates of property crimes and those of violent crimes.

One opponent of the incorporation efforts told a reporter that “including the Buford Highway area in the new city in order to gain the area’s tax base would also bring in crime.” and “[t]he new city of Brookhaven is going to have one of the highest crime rates around.”

But my experience with the DeKalb County Police Department’s apparent policy that “we’ll call you back and take a report if it’s just a property crime,” is the strongest argument for incorporation.

It’s not that the officers on the street don’t want to fight crime. The officer who responded to my call did everything he could and made it clear that he will follow up. The problem is the distribution of resources, and that is a political problem.

State Rep. Tom Taylor, who served on the Dunwoody City Council and helped set up that city’s police department, shared with us some of his experiences with respect to police resources and the cost of local government.

Before Dunwoody incorporated, the area contributed approximately $13.1 million to the annual police budget in DeKalb County and the county placed one or two active patrols in Dunwoody on any given shift. In the year after its incorporation, the new City of Dunwoody’s entire annual police budget was a little more than $5 million, which paid for at least seven active patrols per shift.

It is unclear for the time being whether a City of Brookhaven is financially feasible, and it will remain unclear until a Carl Vinson Institute Study is undertaken. But given what we currently know about DeKalb County’s financial condition and law enforcement priorities, we should take the step of funding the necessary study.

For what it’s worth, Mike Jacobs is a client of mine. In keeping with Peach Pundit’s policy of avoiding potential conflicts of interest wherever possible, I had not attended to address this issue here.  After a request from management earlier today and subsequent conversations, they decided my first person account was the best way to address this need.  So, here’s what I saw. Make of it what you will.

The Gwinnett County Commission will vote tonight on whether to request formal proposals for expanding or privatizing Briscoe Field in Lawrenceville. A vote to move forward does not mean commercial flights will begin at the airport, merely that proposals will be received. There’s been a lot of discussion of this idea and we’ll include some of that in this post.

Last week about 800 people attended a public hearing at 12Stone Church in Lawrenceville.

Commissioners did not rule out commercial flights at Briscoe after the public meeting:

“What I heard tonight is we need more facts,” Commissioner Shirley Lasseter said after the two-hour hearing.

Facts have been in short supply since the county announced in November 2009 it was considering selling or leasing Briscoe Field, which serves corporate jets and other small aircraft. Last fall three firms expressed interest in running the airport.

None of the firms has announced specific plans. But one – New York-based Propeller Investments – has said it wants to launch commercial passenger service with jets seating up to 140 people.

Propeller Investments sent out an email on Sunday urging the Commission move forward with accepting proposals:

Dear Residents of Gwinnett County,

As you may know, there is an effort to add commercial service to Gwinnett County Airport at Briscoe Field. As the Chief Executive Officer of Propeller, one of the companies interested in privatizing the airport, I feel compelled to reach out to as many Gwinnettians as possible. It is important to understand the significant benefits which a redeveloped Briscoe Field offers.

Some of these advantages include:

· New Jobs
· Convenience
· Lower travel expense
· Significant time savings
· Increased county revenues

If any of the above is appealing, then it’s critical that you ask the Board of Commissioners to issue the Request For Proposals (RFP) giving you and the entire county a chance to see “what’s on the table”. The only way to see if this initiative is a fit for Gwinnett is to see what is being offered. Much has been said about the airport and what could happen, however no plans have been made public since the RFP has been put on “Standby”.

I am sure you would agree that speculation is not the best way to make a decision. Your voice is an important part in the process; getting the Commission to properly investigate will ensure that the right decision is made.

Click here: http://www.whyprivatizebriscoe.com/support.php to send a message today urging the Commission to explore Briscoe Field and this unusual opportunity. For further information please visit http://www.whyprivatizebriscoe.com and feel free to contact me directly if you have questions.

Best regards,

Brett

Brett Smith
Chief Executive Officer
Propeller Airports, Inc.

Last night the Lawrenceville City Council reitterated their opposition to expansion of the airport and vowed to fight it:

LAWRENCEVILLE — The Lawrenceville City Council re-emphasized its opposition to the expansion at Briscoe Field following a report from Council members Tony Powell and Katie Smith at Monday night’s council meeting.

Smith and Powell attended the recent airport expansion meeting conducted last week by the Gwinnett County Commission, in which, according to Smith, 90 percent of residents attended opposed expansion of the airport.

“We all came together and did our homework,” Smith said, adding that there would be adverse health effects to nearby residents if the expansion goes through.

“We’re making sure that the (Gwinnett) Commission is aware that we’re going to fight the fight,” said Powell.

Mayor Judy Johnson said the Council spent 16 hours working on the presentation made at the airport meeting. A former attorney for the Federal Aviation Administration has been hired to represent the city in the matter.

UPDATE: Commission decides to not take the matter up until 4/28.

After a barrage of phone calls, emails and then seeing the packed Gwinnett County business meeting Tuesday, commissioners voted to put aside their most recent hot potato — the future of Briscoe Field.

All agreed to table a resolution about the issue until after a public hearing Thursday, April 28 at 7pm.

“There’s obviously some strong feelings about this issue”, said newly elected Chairperson Charlotte Nash.

The idea of allowing commercial air traffic at Briscoe Field in Lawrenceville has become somewhat of a hot button issue. Last year Propeller Investments approached the Gwinnett County Commission with the idea. The Commission moved forward using an FAA program that allows for local airports to be privatized. Initial inquiries were solicited and Propeller and two other companies expressed interest. Then Commission Chairman Charles Bannister resigned and another Commissioner was indicted for allegedly crooked land deals. The remaining Commissioners wisely put the airport privatization idea on the back burner.

Now Gwinnett has a new Commission Chairman (Charlotte Nash) and is back at full strength. Consequently, airport privatization is back on the schedule and the next step is about to be debated. At a work session meeting the Commissioner were to take up whether or not they should ask for formal proposals from the three companies previously expressing interest in either purchasing or leasing Briscoe Field. However, a move by Commissioner John Heard may table the motion until the next evening Commission meeting and eliminate the possibility of commercial flights at the airport. John Heard was elected last year in large part due to his expressed opposition to commercial flights at Briscoe.

Today, a new poll by Rossetta Stone, Inc was released showing support for at least some commercialization of Briscoe Field. Democrats are generally more supportive than Republicans and independents across the County are opposed. The poll is broken down by County Commission district and not surprisingly District 4, where Briscoe Field is located, is where support is weakest (though a majority still support the idea).

The poll also shows broad support for receiving proposals from the businesses that might want to run the airport.

Poll Results (click on highlighted links below for full details).

Question 3. Some community leaders have proposed allowing limited commercial service at Gwinnett’s airport. They state that having this service would help bring new employers to the area and create jobs. Would you support allowing some form of commercial service at Gwinnett’s airport, or not?

Ch-ch-ch Changes: a report for PP readers on demographic changes broken out by State House, Senate, County and Congressional District.

A quick note: remember that these are population counts from the Census, not voter registration or voter participation numbers. These are relevant numbers for redistricting as well as for projecting some election trends that may happen over the next ten years.

– HOUSE REPORT: 23 Georgia House districts experienced double-digit growth of black residents as a percentage of total population; Republicans hold 11 of these districts and Democrat hold 12. Yet there has been surprising stability in these districts: Only 1 of these 23 districts started the decade held by a State Representative of other Party (House 159, Ann Purcell), though District 104 (now Rep. Valerie Clark) switched from R to D and then back to R in 2010. In all, 118 of the 180 House districts experienced an increase in their overall percentages of black residents.

House districts represented by Republicans that had double-digit growth in the percentage of total black residents include the districts of Steve Davis, which grew from 15% black to 39% black, a 24 point net increase), Len Walker, which grew from 4.5% black to 28% black (a 24 point increase), Brett Harrell (a 23 point increase), Bill Hembree (18 points), Valerie Clark (18 points), Andy Welch (14 point), Paulette Rakestraw Braddock (12 points), John Yates (12 points), David Casas (11 points), Ann Purcell (11 points) and Donna Sheldon (11 points).

–SENATE REPORT: 6 Senate districts experienced double-digit growth in the percentage of total black residents, and Republicans represent just 2 of these. Sen. Don Balfour’s Gwinnett Senate district experienced the largest increase of black residents, an increase from 9% of residents to 27% of residents, an 18 point increase. Sen. Rick Jeffares has a district in which the percentage of black residents increased by 16 points.

–CONGRESSIONAL REPORT: The Congressional district that experienced the biggest demographic change was that of Congressman Rob Woodall (the former “Linder District”). The black residential percentage increased in the 7th Congressional district, doubling from 11.7% of the residents to 21.8% of all residents. Note that Sen. Don Balfour’s Senate district also lies within the 7^th Congressional district. Both districts changed substantially.

–UPDATED: COUNTY-BY-COUNTY REPORT: The Top 10 counties that experienced the fastest growth of black residents (as a percentage of total residents) are Rockdale County, which increased from 18% to 46%, an increase of 28 points, Henry, which increased from 15% to 36% of residents for a net increase of 22 points, Douglas (a net 20 point increase from 18.5% to 38.5%), Newton (18 points), Clayton (14 points), Paulding (10 points), Gwinnett (10 points) and Fayette (8 points), Daugherty (7 points) and Cobb (6 points). Both DeKalb and Fulton were very stable in terms of black and white residential percentages, actually becoming 1 point less black in terms of total overall population percentage.

These numbers will likely result in significant changes to those districts in metro Atlanta that are currently represented in the legislature by white Democrats. Those white Democrats will be facing either Republicans in new Republican-leaning districts, or each other, or most likely new districts with much larger percentages of black voters.