Have you received you Census2010 package?
The goal of Census2010 is to have each person residing in the United States counted by April 1, 2010. If you haven't received your package by mail yet, you may need to stop by City Hall and pick up a package.
I didn't received my package (guess that may have to do with the fact that you are counted at your physical address and I get my mail at a post office box), so I picked up one, filled it out today and mailed it. The questions are really simple and not very intrusive as I remember the 1990 questions to be.
If you have questions, please call 1-866-872-6868, 8:00AM to 9:00PM daily for more information.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
As we get closer to SDS Litigation
As we get closer to the bench trial on Service Delivery between Gwinnett County and the Cities of Gwinnett, I thought it might be helpful to revisit Mr. Goodman's opinion piece from the December 17, 2006 AJC.
How Gwinnett handles its cities will affect its future
By Dick Goodman
For the Journal-Constitution
Published on: 12/17/06
Like the ghost of Christmas future, today in South Florida stand two alternative
ghosts of Gwinnett County future.
Each is starkly different, and which one foretells the future of Gwinnett will
be determined by the choices made by voters and Gwinnett County commissioners.
According to the October draft of the Joint County-Cities Community Assessment
Summary Report, the proportion of Gwinnett's population living in its cities was
only 15 percent in 2000. As the county's population grows over the next two
decades, it's expected to decline to 14 percent. Not a good omen.
If this continues, the future Gwinnett may mirror Florida's present-day
Miami-Dade County. Despite the glamorous images seen on TV, this is not good
news.
If we want Gwinnett to be a thriving, desirable community, the county should
encourage the creation of new cities within its borders and the annexation of
unincorporated areas by existing cities. Present-day Miami-Dade County stands as
a cautionary tale for why.
A half century ago, nearly every one of the 250,000 residents of Dade County
lived in one of two dozen cities —- Miami, Miami Beach, Hialeah, Coral Gables
and others.
As the population grew, a few pioneers settled in the county's unincorporated
areas. As more joined them, a centralized county government was established to
manage the surge of new residents. The expectation was that new cities would
form, or existing cities would annex the newly settled areas.
As the population swelled over the next five decades to 2.3 million, instead of
the cities growing, the centralized county government grew and grew. Today, for
more than half the population of what is now Miami-Dade County, their closest
government is a bureaucratic behemoth that administers an area larger than the
state of Delaware.
The result is unresponsive and distant government. Commission hearings are
daylong affairs that for the average citizen require a time commitment few can
afford and are as impenetrable as they are Kafkaesque. The 13 county
commissioners, elected in single member districts, trade votes with their fellow
commissioners to approve projects in neighborhoods about which they know little
and for which they care little. Each chairs a powerful committee controlling
millions of dollars of county money. Consequently, the county office tower is a
nest of lobbyists that makes the U.S. Congress look like a kindergarten. For
individual citizens to be heard requires stamina and resolve few possess.
For 28 years I lived in Miami-Dade and witnessed the decline of neighborhoods
because of governmental indifference or ineptitude. To create parking,
homeowners stripped once-beautiful suburban streets of their trees and lawns.
Attached garages became extra rooms or illegal apartments. And, despite an
ordinance that made it a crime to remove a shopping cart from a store, carts
littered every neighborhood. All this happened under the watchful eye of a code
enforcement system that behaved like Sgt. Schultz in the old "Hogan's Heroes" TV
show, "I see nothing. . . . I see nothing."
County government thwarted attempts by communities to incorporate by
gerrymandering tax-revenue-rich industrial centers or shopping malls out of
proposed new cities and by imposing new fees to compensate the county for "lost"
tax revenue.
This was not an inevitable consequence of population growth. It resulted from
decades of inbred greed and a lust for political power. Just across the county's
northern border a different story had unfolded.
Broward County, home to Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood and 30 other cities,
experienced the same growth but addressed it quite differently.
The population of Broward is 1.6 million, but only 23,000, barely 1.4 percent,
live in unincorporated areas.
In Broward, residents have access to government that is close to them and
responsive. City commissioners are their neighbors. Cities compete to be the
most livable and attractive. The county government's activities are limited to
those beyond the budgets of individual cities, or those it can provide more
efficiently —- not that will yield the greatest power or payoff.
By 2006, I'd had enough of the decay I saw in Miami and left. I came to
Gwinnett, specifically to the city of Suwanee. I vowed never again to live where
government could become distant and unresponsive.
As a Suwanee City Council member explained, "We listen to our constituents. They
know where we live." It was meant literally. And it mattered.
Unless Gwinnett changes direction, it risks becoming more like Florida's stolid
and praetorian Miami-Dade County than responsive and enlightened Broward County.
For residents of unincorporated Gwinnett that's not good news. The county is
already struggling to deal with neighborhoods adrift and in decline.
If we want Gwinnett to be a desirable place to call home, with communities that
compete to attract residents with quality services and attractive neighborhoods,
the county should follow the model of Broward, not Miami-Dade. It should commit
to encouraging the creation of new cities and set as a goal that every Gwinnett
resident live in an incorporated city.
> Dick Goodman is a freelance marketing and business communications copywriter
who lives in Suwanee. He lived in Miami-Dade County for 28 years.
How Gwinnett handles its cities will affect its future
By Dick Goodman
For the Journal-Constitution
Published on: 12/17/06
Like the ghost of Christmas future, today in South Florida stand two alternative
ghosts of Gwinnett County future.
Each is starkly different, and which one foretells the future of Gwinnett will
be determined by the choices made by voters and Gwinnett County commissioners.
According to the October draft of the Joint County-Cities Community Assessment
Summary Report, the proportion of Gwinnett's population living in its cities was
only 15 percent in 2000. As the county's population grows over the next two
decades, it's expected to decline to 14 percent. Not a good omen.
If this continues, the future Gwinnett may mirror Florida's present-day
Miami-Dade County. Despite the glamorous images seen on TV, this is not good
news.
If we want Gwinnett to be a thriving, desirable community, the county should
encourage the creation of new cities within its borders and the annexation of
unincorporated areas by existing cities. Present-day Miami-Dade County stands as
a cautionary tale for why.
A half century ago, nearly every one of the 250,000 residents of Dade County
lived in one of two dozen cities —- Miami, Miami Beach, Hialeah, Coral Gables
and others.
As the population grew, a few pioneers settled in the county's unincorporated
areas. As more joined them, a centralized county government was established to
manage the surge of new residents. The expectation was that new cities would
form, or existing cities would annex the newly settled areas.
As the population swelled over the next five decades to 2.3 million, instead of
the cities growing, the centralized county government grew and grew. Today, for
more than half the population of what is now Miami-Dade County, their closest
government is a bureaucratic behemoth that administers an area larger than the
state of Delaware.
The result is unresponsive and distant government. Commission hearings are
daylong affairs that for the average citizen require a time commitment few can
afford and are as impenetrable as they are Kafkaesque. The 13 county
commissioners, elected in single member districts, trade votes with their fellow
commissioners to approve projects in neighborhoods about which they know little
and for which they care little. Each chairs a powerful committee controlling
millions of dollars of county money. Consequently, the county office tower is a
nest of lobbyists that makes the U.S. Congress look like a kindergarten. For
individual citizens to be heard requires stamina and resolve few possess.
For 28 years I lived in Miami-Dade and witnessed the decline of neighborhoods
because of governmental indifference or ineptitude. To create parking,
homeowners stripped once-beautiful suburban streets of their trees and lawns.
Attached garages became extra rooms or illegal apartments. And, despite an
ordinance that made it a crime to remove a shopping cart from a store, carts
littered every neighborhood. All this happened under the watchful eye of a code
enforcement system that behaved like Sgt. Schultz in the old "Hogan's Heroes" TV
show, "I see nothing. . . . I see nothing."
County government thwarted attempts by communities to incorporate by
gerrymandering tax-revenue-rich industrial centers or shopping malls out of
proposed new cities and by imposing new fees to compensate the county for "lost"
tax revenue.
This was not an inevitable consequence of population growth. It resulted from
decades of inbred greed and a lust for political power. Just across the county's
northern border a different story had unfolded.
Broward County, home to Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood and 30 other cities,
experienced the same growth but addressed it quite differently.
The population of Broward is 1.6 million, but only 23,000, barely 1.4 percent,
live in unincorporated areas.
In Broward, residents have access to government that is close to them and
responsive. City commissioners are their neighbors. Cities compete to be the
most livable and attractive. The county government's activities are limited to
those beyond the budgets of individual cities, or those it can provide more
efficiently —- not that will yield the greatest power or payoff.
By 2006, I'd had enough of the decay I saw in Miami and left. I came to
Gwinnett, specifically to the city of Suwanee. I vowed never again to live where
government could become distant and unresponsive.
As a Suwanee City Council member explained, "We listen to our constituents. They
know where we live." It was meant literally. And it mattered.
Unless Gwinnett changes direction, it risks becoming more like Florida's stolid
and praetorian Miami-Dade County than responsive and enlightened Broward County.
For residents of unincorporated Gwinnett that's not good news. The county is
already struggling to deal with neighborhoods adrift and in decline.
If we want Gwinnett to be a desirable place to call home, with communities that
compete to attract residents with quality services and attractive neighborhoods,
the county should follow the model of Broward, not Miami-Dade. It should commit
to encouraging the creation of new cities and set as a goal that every Gwinnett
resident live in an incorporated city.
> Dick Goodman is a freelance marketing and business communications copywriter
who lives in Suwanee. He lived in Miami-Dade County for 28 years.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Worrisome SDS Update
Are you worried about the direction our County seems to be going? Do you worry that we are headed for a government directed cradle to grave society? Are you concerned at the lack of respect for and adherence to the Constitution of the United States of America?
I am. I am fearful for our Country and the lack of leadership in Washington. But I am equally worried about the lack of respect for and adherence to the Constitution of the State of Georgia and the laws of our State. The lack of leadership of the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners is shocking and sickening. The state Constitution forbids double taxation, and the Service Delivery Strategy Act forbids the use of funds for the provision of services among cities and counties except in certain areas unless an SDS Agreement between the Cities and County allows for other choices. There is no disputing the fact that there are tax inequities in Gwinnett County. Less clear is how much that inequity has cost the taxpaying public who live in Cities. Over the life of the past ten year Agreement, the tax inequity is something on the order of $20,000,000 to $120,000,000. The Cities’ position is that this tax inequity cannot be extended to another SDS Agreement period.
The Cities of Gwinnett and Gwinnett County have been debating, arguing, fussing, and litigating about the SDS Agreement renewal for nearly three years. But nothing has been settled even though the Cities and County agree on all points but about three or four major points of contention. Now we have missed date of the judge’s ruling for settling our differences of February 1, 2010, and we are in the throes of sanctions against the Cities and County. That means that neither of the groups will be able to receive state grants, spend state grant money on projects, and this will affect you, the citizen, adversely. Roads will remain unrepaired and unpaved, sidewalks will not be repaired nor new one begun. There are a plethora of areas in which you will be affected.
I encourage you not to blame the Cities for this stalemate. The Cities have presented offer after offer to settle, but the Commissioners have ignored or refused all offers of compromise, intent on keeping the previous tax inequities and spending service funding the way they want in contravention of the Constitution, State Law, and court rulings.
City Mayors or representatives and the Board of Commissioners met jointly for a meeting on January 19, 2010. This was the first time since the actual inception of the talks some 6 or 8 months ago that all the County Commissioners heard the same presentation even though correspondence for some thirty months prior had been distributed to each commissioner. The upshot of this meeting was everyone heard our latest offer of compromise, but NOTHING else was accomplished. Obviously, the ball is in the Commissioners’ court. I believe, that the judge’s ruling on how funds that are collected by the County must be spent in accordance with the SDS Act for providing services, is the correct one. The Georgia Supreme Court agrees with that view in that they refused to hear the County appeal of Judge Barrett’s ruling. My understanding is that the Cities have the moral and legal high ground in this matter. You should not have to pay for services you don’t receive from Gwinnett County just because you live in an incorporated city.
We folks who live in Cities are a part of Gwinnett County. The Cities and the County agree and work together on many issues. As an entire County, we need to settle this SDS issue. Jointly we need to stop spending your money on legal fees, get sanctions lifted, continue to provide excellent services at the lowest cost available, and move on.
Remind members of the Board of Commissioners that they are the decision makers in this matter. They should determine how compromise with the Cities is to be obtained, and instruct County staff to implement their decisions. Remember, lessening the tax inequity will mean money in the taxpayers’ pockets not in any City coffer. As long as the Board of Commissioners can string this out, they will be collecting somewhere around $1,000,000 per month of city taxpayer money without providing the corresponding services.
Let’s get on with it. Just because the County is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, doesn't mean that what they are doing is legal. We have spent enough time and your resources on this issue. If jointly we do not reach an Agreement, a judicial rule will ultimately determine how much taxes you pay each year for services you receive from Cities or the County. By the time you read this the Cities and the County may be trying the suit to determine service delivery methods and means. You will not be pleased with a judicial decision, of that I am certain.
I am. I am fearful for our Country and the lack of leadership in Washington. But I am equally worried about the lack of respect for and adherence to the Constitution of the State of Georgia and the laws of our State. The lack of leadership of the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners is shocking and sickening. The state Constitution forbids double taxation, and the Service Delivery Strategy Act forbids the use of funds for the provision of services among cities and counties except in certain areas unless an SDS Agreement between the Cities and County allows for other choices. There is no disputing the fact that there are tax inequities in Gwinnett County. Less clear is how much that inequity has cost the taxpaying public who live in Cities. Over the life of the past ten year Agreement, the tax inequity is something on the order of $20,000,000 to $120,000,000. The Cities’ position is that this tax inequity cannot be extended to another SDS Agreement period.
The Cities of Gwinnett and Gwinnett County have been debating, arguing, fussing, and litigating about the SDS Agreement renewal for nearly three years. But nothing has been settled even though the Cities and County agree on all points but about three or four major points of contention. Now we have missed date of the judge’s ruling for settling our differences of February 1, 2010, and we are in the throes of sanctions against the Cities and County. That means that neither of the groups will be able to receive state grants, spend state grant money on projects, and this will affect you, the citizen, adversely. Roads will remain unrepaired and unpaved, sidewalks will not be repaired nor new one begun. There are a plethora of areas in which you will be affected.
I encourage you not to blame the Cities for this stalemate. The Cities have presented offer after offer to settle, but the Commissioners have ignored or refused all offers of compromise, intent on keeping the previous tax inequities and spending service funding the way they want in contravention of the Constitution, State Law, and court rulings.
City Mayors or representatives and the Board of Commissioners met jointly for a meeting on January 19, 2010. This was the first time since the actual inception of the talks some 6 or 8 months ago that all the County Commissioners heard the same presentation even though correspondence for some thirty months prior had been distributed to each commissioner. The upshot of this meeting was everyone heard our latest offer of compromise, but NOTHING else was accomplished. Obviously, the ball is in the Commissioners’ court. I believe, that the judge’s ruling on how funds that are collected by the County must be spent in accordance with the SDS Act for providing services, is the correct one. The Georgia Supreme Court agrees with that view in that they refused to hear the County appeal of Judge Barrett’s ruling. My understanding is that the Cities have the moral and legal high ground in this matter. You should not have to pay for services you don’t receive from Gwinnett County just because you live in an incorporated city.
We folks who live in Cities are a part of Gwinnett County. The Cities and the County agree and work together on many issues. As an entire County, we need to settle this SDS issue. Jointly we need to stop spending your money on legal fees, get sanctions lifted, continue to provide excellent services at the lowest cost available, and move on.
Remind members of the Board of Commissioners that they are the decision makers in this matter. They should determine how compromise with the Cities is to be obtained, and instruct County staff to implement their decisions. Remember, lessening the tax inequity will mean money in the taxpayers’ pockets not in any City coffer. As long as the Board of Commissioners can string this out, they will be collecting somewhere around $1,000,000 per month of city taxpayer money without providing the corresponding services.
Let’s get on with it. Just because the County is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, doesn't mean that what they are doing is legal. We have spent enough time and your resources on this issue. If jointly we do not reach an Agreement, a judicial rule will ultimately determine how much taxes you pay each year for services you receive from Cities or the County. By the time you read this the Cities and the County may be trying the suit to determine service delivery methods and means. You will not be pleased with a judicial decision, of that I am certain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
