Talk Back to Crier: Commissioner Kathie Gannon March 14, 2010

My record is well documented on bringing sense and sensitivity to environmental and development issues since elected to my first term in 2004.  The Green Commission, an outgrowth of citizen input, is a volunteer commission created by me with the support of CEO Burrell Ellis.  The commission advises and promotes sustainability initiatives in DeKalb County by ensuring that the county provides the resources necessary to improve the quality of life of our citizens and facilitate their stewardship of our resources. 

The development code in question, (which impacts two practice fields and trails, a very small part of the Marist Plan), was enacted because the Board of Commissioners found that the preservation of existing trees in a floodplain is a worthy public purpose that protects all taxpayers.  In addition, the Commission found that the county’s system of streams is a valuable natural resource that requires cooperative action by the county and development community to mitigate existing flooding problems and prevent their worsening.  Protection of the floodplain is a public purpose essential to the health and safety of our citizens and as recent experience has shown is an issue of great concern now more then ever before.

There are a number of incorrect statements in the article that need to be corrected.  I am now in my 6th year as a commissioner and was not serving during the 2000 vote attributed to me in the article.  The facts also were not checked regarding Ms Zickert’s statement on jeopardizing no fewer then 41 Parks, nor the prior conditions and impact on floodplain of the Silverbacks and New Birth developments. I understand an attorney’s ploy toward emotional rhetoric but that does not make her statements true.  Ms Zickert is well aware of this issue as she states in her article of 2001 Tree Preservation Ordinances: Sacrificing Private Timber Rights on the Diminutive Alter of Public Benefit; “DeKalb County’s ordinance also requires that all trees within the 100-year flood plain be left undisturbed.”

I admire the strong advocacy on the part of District 1 appointees, Bob Lundsten and Wendy Butler, but their statements are of the same vein aimed more to scare than present facts.  This is a 1999 law.   There are clear procedures and assessment criteria for our County Parks, the same as for this development.   The county probably could not clear cut a forested section of floodplain for a ball field today and that is taken into account in our Parks Master Plan. 

No one is mentioning the rights of tax paying homeowners subjected to increased flooding due to old development practices and lax enforcement of codes.  No one is mentioning the use of tax dollars to buy out homeowners who have been flooded too often to renovate, such as the $6 million to buy out the 18 homes in the nearby Gainsborough neighborhood.  Add to that the ongoing maintenance paid by the county and the loss of property tax revenue.

It is my assessment that most everyone is in support of the majority of the Marist Plan.  The Plan does focus most of the redevelopment in already disturbed areas and that is as it should be. It is the responsible thing to do.  I too should be expected to act responsibly, and I will.   I believe we can achieve a good plan but inflammatory rhetoric and incorrect assertions will not help us reach that goal.