Tag Archives: foreclosures

Re: The proposed text amendments —Richard Raines

Richard Raines answered again. He continues to be communicative and genial. -gretchen

From: Richard Raines
To: Gretchen Quarterman
Subject: RE: Text Amendment

The motion to table the issue is made by the Commissioners. Chairman Paulk thinks (and I agree) that this issue cannot be satisfactorily settled by December 11th and that the new Commission should take it up. It is not unusual for Chairman Paulk to weigh in on whether or not we should table an item. Often times he is in a unique position to give an informed opinion and in this case I concur.

The proposed text amendments, if approved, do not endanger Moody’s mission or survival. If I have my way, the MAZ will be strengthened in the areas closer to the base while easing development restrictions in the areas furthest away. Even a cursory glance at the ULDC and MAZ 1-3 reveals certain issues which must be addressed in an effort to be equitable.

I reject the template which argues

Continue reading →

SPLOST won in Houston County but not in Lowndes County: why?

Why did SPLOST in Houston County, Georgia win by a landslide while SPLOST VII in Lowndes County lost?

Houston County’s SPLOST passed in March 2012 by a landslide. Christina M. Wright wrote for The Telegraph 6 March 2012, UPDATE: Houston officials celebrate landslide SPLOST approval,

“This is a ‘thank you’ for the voters,” said Houston County Chairman Tommy Stalnaker as Warner Robins Councilman Paul Shealy presented the black and white sign. “They are the real victors of this thing tonight.”…

Unofficial results showed the SPLOST received 10,029 ‘yes’ votes to 4,799 ‘no’ votes. More affirmative than negative votes were cast in every precinct.

That’s 67.6% to 32.4%, and a difference: Houston County local elected officials thanked the voters. Lowndes County Chairman Ashley Paulk, who rushed through a SPLOST vote a year early, Continue reading →

Text Amendment —Gretchen Quarterman

Received today, referring to TXT-2012-02, which is on the agenda for Monday morning’s Work Session and Tuesday evening’s Regular Session of the Lowndes County Commission. -jsq

Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 13:42:37 -0500
From: Gretchen Quarterman
To: Richard Raines
Subject: Re: Text Amendment

On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 12:25:31PM +0000, Richard Raines wrote:
Gretchen,
Richard,

Thanks for your thoughtful and indepth answer.

Based on a conversation with the Chairman yesterday, it is my understanding that this issue will be tabled until sometime next year (Chairman-elect Slaughter will decide when to put it back on the agenda) because we are working with MAFB on a compromise as they are well aware of our mandate to balance property rights with protecting against base encroachment.

Interesting, I thought that the commissioners made the decisions about hearing or tabling an issue, not the chairman. While the chairman can set the agenda, it is my understanding that the voting members of the commission are the ones that actually get to make the decisions.

Since I’ve been on the County Commission we have made it a priority to constantly evaluate the ULDC and all zoning districts. MAZ 1-3 is no exception and must be evaluated to make sure that it is balanced and consistent.

I appreciate that.

We have discovered a few inconsistencies with the MAZ which are not practical and making adjustments will in no way put Moody Air Force Base in peril. I was recently informed that Lowndes County is the only community in the country with a MAZ, which means we have gone to greater lengths than any other community to protect against encroachment. Making minor adjustments is necessary with all ordinances and, even if the proposed changes are made, we still have the only MAZ in the country. Making minor adjustments in an effort to promote consistency and eliminate duplication is not equal to an all out assault on Moody.

I have many concerns about the continued presence of Moody AFB in our community. Moody is a $400M+ economic engine and its loss or reduction

Continue reading →