Exclusive: 1120 Florence Street, A Nightingale Singing Questions

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Augusta, GA

By Al Gray

Within the last three years the Housing Department of the City of Augusta has contracted for the construction of multiple new housing units throughout the city, most prominently in the Laney-Walker Community. Questions in the community, city, and area abound. Are taxpayer funds being used wisely? Are the funds being disbursed according to governing regulations? How do costs compare with similar new homes in the city or in Columbia County?

The question of whether the home building funds were dispersed properly within the terms of the governing contracts and regulations has been reviewed. Augusta Today contributor Dee Mathis submitted a Georgia Open Records Request Act on February 23, 2012 to the Augusta Richmond County Law Department requesting:

“Plans and Specifications for the two units built under contract with the City of Augusta at 1120 and 1122 Florence Street; Payments made under the contract for the construction of these units, including invoices, payroll registers, and any other documents substantiating the costs reimbursed or paid to the contractor.”

As background, it is noted that Dee Mathis has exhibited keen interests in the real estate developments and revitalization efforts in the Laney-Walker neighborhood, having previously appeared before the city commission in opposition to the Laney-Walker overlay zoning ordinance. **(See CS Article: Dee Mathis Wins Overlay Fight Here)

The housing constructed was a duplex of two stories built by designated Laney Walker contractor J&B Construction and Services, Inc. The contract for it was dated June 22, 2010 and it was completed before, October 2011, when the final payment was made by the City of Augusta. J&B Construction is a designated Development Partner for the City's Laney Walker Bethlehem improvement district.There are other development partners who have similar contracts and this review is not intended to single out this contractor but to address the City's performance in administering similar contracts.

On March 6, 2012, Ms. Mathis received a two page response from Kenneth Bray of the Augusta Law Department accompanied by 60 pages of documents. This report summarizes the key points of the resulting review and commentary. **(View Dee Mathis' GORA Request Documents here)

The nature of the contract is that it provides for construction costs to be reimbursable up to a Not-to-Exceed (Maximum) Price This is established by the language throughout the contract **(to view, click--> here) including the following provisions:

The stated amount of the contract was stated in Article 1, Section A, paragraph 1 as “an amount not to exceed $272,681.00 shall be expended ….. from NSP Program funds for construction costs related to the development of an affordable multi-family housing unit as part of the Florence Street Project.”

Then the contract states in  Article II, Section A, paragraph 2: “The method of payment shall be on a reimbursement basis.....For invoicing, J&B Construction and Services, Inc. will include documentation showing proof of payment in the form of a canceled check or check register and completed reimbursement form that includes the amount requested, amount remaining and specific line items that relate to contract Budget.....”

Article V, Section F. states that “Requests for payment shall be accompanied by proper documentation....For purposes of this section, proper documentation includes: “Reimbursement Request Form supplied by HCD, copies of invoices, receipts, other evidence of indebtedness, budget itemization and description of specific activities undertaken”

Article V, Section H, states “Unexpended funds shall be retained by Augusta.” This supports the nature of the contract as being cost reimbursable because had the contract been a Lump Sum, the full contract price payment would have precluded the existence of any unexpended funds.

Appendix B, Reporting Requirements, contains this statement: “Report will contain actual/estimated costs/date, issues and concerns”

**Payments were made based upon the Maximum price, instead of reimbursable costs

The progress payments made against the contract were based upon the original estimate, plus 3 change orders, and less contingency allowances, resulting in a total contract adjustment of $1,874.28, so that the total contract payments were $270,806.74. **(View Final Payments Document Here)

In response to Ms. Mathis' Georgia Open Records Request Act inquiry, The Augusta Housing Department provided no billing support that evidenced that the billed costs were actual costs as defined by check stubs, check registers, paid vendor and subcontractor invoices, or payroll registers for contractor employee-performed work.

When this writer contacted Mr. Shawn Edwards, Neighborhood Stabilization Program Manager for the City of Augusta to inquire about the required billing support, he initially indicated that the City was only getting the reimbursement form from the contractor and was making payments based upon the agreed-upon contract price, contending that the contract price was the proper basis for payment, not reimbursable costs.   A follow up request is in process for Augusta to provide the actual cost back-up it might possess. This report will be updated if contradictory data is provided.

**The Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development has already cited Augusta for deficiencies like those in evidence for 1120 Florence Street.

James D. McKay, Regional Inspector General for Audit, Atlanta Region, issued an audit report in 2010 which included the following: During the review, we identified two concerns regarding internal controls and entering obligations before contracts were fully executed.

The City did not have internal controls in place to perform continuous and routine monitoring of its obligation process to ensure that its obligations were processed as intended and were valid. We discussed this matter with the City during the review, and the City agreed to develop monitoring procedures.

The City entered its NSP1 obligations into the DRGR database in June 2010 for its LH25 set-aside activities. At that time, the obligations were not valid because the contracts for those obligations had not been signed by all parties. However, the City obtained the required signatures and fully executed the contracts in August 2010, ahead of the September 5, 2010, deadline. We discussed this matter with the City, and it agreed that its obligations were not valid until the contracts were fully signed and executed by all parties.

The failure to secure evidence of reimbursable costs, while paying out contracts based upon the maximum price, would appear to be a 1120 Florence Street manifestation of the first exception that HUD  noted.

The second failure is definitely found to exist with the 1120 Florence Street units, as the contract was signed in June, 2011 **(View Signature Page Document Here), three months after the initial contract payment. **(View Line to Draw Document Here)

The Office of Management and Budget circulars governing the NSP1 funds include the following.

OMB Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments (05/10/2004) HTML or PDF (58 pages, 216 kb),

OMB Circular A-110, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non-Profit Organizations (11/19/1993) (further amended 09/30/1999, Relocated to 2 CFR, Part 215

OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit Organizations

There are indications that the reimbursable cost could be materially less than the maximum price in the estimate and adjusted contract price.

The contract pricing detail on page 4 shows a charge for a central air system with a 15 Standard Energy Efficiency Rating (SEER). **(View NTE Estimate Document Here) The unit installed was observed to be a Nutone Model  NT4BD.This model is shown by the manufacturer as a 13 SEER Heat pump, capable of reaching a 14 SEER if paired with a variable speed air handler.  The cost differential between a 13 SEER and 15 SEER is significant, because of the rigorous ductwork, blower, and air handler upgrades to achieve the higher rating. Having the HVAC contractor invoice, as required by this contract, and inspection of the installed system would settle this question.

The paid-out contract price included a line item entitled “Administration.”  In the absence of clarification, “Administration” would be an indirect cost which would be covered by the 15% Overhead and Profit allocation against all of the direct cost in the estimate, meaning that inclusion as a marked-up direct cost overstates “costs.” The overage would be $13,800, according to page 2 of the price estimate. **(See NTE Price Estimate Document Here) This single factor would be 5% of the total contract value.

Using prices from Lowes in comparison to the estimate provides a mixed picture. The estimate prices for bricks and blocks would be a savings, but the prices of wallboard, lumber, mortar mix, concrete, roofing felt, and access doors seem to indicate losses. (These are current prices and can only be used as points of reference, as the actual contractor costs would govern.)

The contract estimate shows the “cost” per square foot on page 6 to be $79.73 **(See NTE Estimate Document Here), exclusive of land costs. Review of the real estate transfer shows the lot to have cost Augusta $12,000, taking the total square foot “cost” to $83.24. By comparison the sales prices of new homes in Grovetown, which include the developers overhead and profit on top of construction costs,  are in the $76 to $82 range. This would indicate as much as 10% savings could be had by complying with the reimbursable cost standards of Augusta's contracts.

KEY QUESTIONS - Since there are dozens of similar Augusta contracts within the Laney Walker Bethlehem development project, wouldn't the savings from enforcing the contracts as written save between 5% and 10% of construction costs? Wouldn't the cost savings justify obtaining comprehensive, detailed costs? Based upon the $37,500,000 committed by the city to these developments the savings would range from $1,875,000 to $3,750,000.

Isn't Augusta in danger of having to repay $100,000's of thousands of dollars, if HUD finds the city out of compliance with its payment of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program contracts?

If Augusta's contractor's can save money by changing suppliers and methods, isn't it worthwhile to help them do so under the cost reimbursable contracts?

More to come.

- Al Gray


Below are the pdf documents referenced in this story:

Dee Mathis 1120 Florence GORA Request 1120 Florence Street NTE Price Estimate 1120 Florence Street Contract 1120 Florence Signature Page 1120 Florence Final Payment 1120 Florence Draw 1
***Do you have a story idea, a tip, or would you like to write for City Stink? Then please contact us at: citystink@gmail.com***

Share this on Facebook by clicking the icon below

Laney-Walker Overlay Do-Over

Dec. 26, 2011

The following documents were sent to us by Dee Mathis and Michael Sheil concerning the re-application process for the W-4 Overlay Zoning District in Laney-Walker. Not much has changed from the last time and it appears as though they will not be notifying residents of the wider Laney-Walker area about future plans for the entire neighborhood. The W-4 node is just one small portion of a much larger area that will include several overlay zones. For now it appears the project developer, APD Urban Planning and Management LLC, is focusing their efforts on just the W-4 node. But as we have told you in previous stories, the master plan call for a much larger area to be affected by new zoning regulations. We do hope that the city and the developer will begin notifying the residents of the wider Laney-Walker/Bethelehem area to include them in the process for their future plans.

SKMBT_C35311122116090

Mislayed Overlay: The Video and Paper Trail on the Laney-Walker Overlay District

Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011

By Al M.Gray

Dee Mathis and this writer were placed on the agenda of the November 15, 2011 meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission to speak in opposition of the Laney Walker Overlay Zoning District. After our impassioned presentations, the motion to pass the overlay failed 4-6 and a motion to postpone to the January meeting carried 8-2.


Below are videos of Al Gray and Dee Mathis Speaking at the Nov 8th commission.

Earlier this week, a decision was reached by Augusta Richmond County to resubmit, re-notify, and re-hear the application for the much smaller W-4 Foundry Overlay, which the applicant for the overlay, APD Urban Planning and Management LLC, asserts was the intent of the failed attempt to pass an overlay.

We applaud this decision.

This latest development came after a meeting that Ms. Mathis and I attended with ARC officials last Tuesday, November 29, 2011. APD, the Housing Department, and the Planning and Zoning Departments insisted that the people of the W4 Foundry Node were properly notified and that the application as approved by the Planning and Zoning Board only referenced permitted land uses for that node. Our position was that upon receiving her notice in early October, Dee Mathis called P&Z inquiring about getting a copy of the Application and in response got a 40 page package with the application and clear indications that the overlay district was the 100's of acres, broader Laney Walker Overlay District instead of the small Foundry Node. *(please see the pdf files at the end of this article)


We also cited a direct email response from Lois Schmidt (see at the end of this article) to Ms. Mathis' inquiry after the application passed the Planning and Zoning Board on November 8. This response was labeled “Information provided to Ms. Mathis 10.8.2011” This also showed the larger Laney Walker map. Therefore it was our contention that the application was improperly changed inside of the 30 day notification period, which rendered the notification given invalid and incorrect.


Also, we noted to the city/county planning officialdom, that it was clear that the original application intended to address the wider Laney Walker Overlay district, because Augusta Today members had video from the October 18, 2011 informational meeting at the Tabernacle Baptist Church showing that the big Laney Walker overlay was widely discussed and presented, with APD's Warren Campbell referencing rolling out the larger overlay while standing in front of a map showing the Laney Walker zone with the smaller W4 District highlighted. (It is noted here for the sake of honestly reporting that he went on to say that the presentation was immediately focused on the W4 Foundry node.)  *****see video below:

We noted that the only folks notified of the informational meetings were residents of one corner of the Laney Walker district, while city/county officials and APD were clearly discussing the whole Laney Walker District, in particular Pine Street which lies in the center of the Laney Walker District. You can see the map and the discussion HERE. (see video below)

Not previously addressed to date is that the W4 Foundry node itself seems to have changed in configuration.

Yesterday, December 6, 2011, Ms Mathis and I were subjected to a very one sided "report"“ in the Augusta Chronicle in which P&Z continues to insist that this application was handled correctly throughout, suggesting that Ms Mathis and I are property rights zealots whose unreasonable demands must be mollified, lest ARC suffer costly litigation. Neither of us were interviewed for the story.

Summary

We believe that we fully documented that the Application was for the greater Laney Walker Overlay District and that the Application changed in midstream to the smaller W4 Foundry Node. We believe for the ARC Commission to have passed the “Laney Walker Overlay,” as it appeared on their agenda, instead of the “W4 Foundry Node Overlay”, would have been a grand mistake.

Wiser heads saw this evidence and prevailed, hence the decision to do the Foundry Node Overlay over and pass it in February. Now we have presented it to the public. We also hope Augusta and APD very quickly notify all of the Laney Walker residents and hold meetings with them, now that their future plans have been revealed.

Don't try to set the Augusta Chronicle straight by posting this article. Links to the new kid CityStink.net are prohibited by the South's Oldest News Paper.

We congratulate  CityStink.net for providing an outlet that presents the whole story, complete with links to source documents. We congratulate Augusta Today's team for videoing events that the rest of the Augusta media missed.

The Mislayed Overlay might just LAY the foundation for a new age of reporting in Augusta and the surrounding area. In the new media age, the people can see the evidence and judge for themselves.

Isn't that wonderful?

The Paper Trail
Below is the email Dee Mathis received from Lois Schmidt from Planning and Zoning followed by the .pdf files referenced in the article revealing the wider Laney-Walker Overlay District:
PZEmailSenttoDeeMathis

Below are the .pdf's of the documents Dee Mathis received by email :

Info Sent to Ms. Mathis 10.8

Overlay Packet 

*****Do you have a story idea, a tip, or would you like to write for City Stink? Then please contact us at:  CityStink@gmail.com***

Share this on Facebook by clicking the icon below

Mike Sheil: The Truth About the Laney-Walker Overlay Zoning District

Michael D Sheil

The Laney-Walker Overlay: What is to Be Done?
-by Michael Sheil

What is the deal with the Laney-Walker overlay? We hear from all sides– it's a land-grab, it's a blessing, it's an imposition, it's a protection, a necessity even. What then is it exactly?
In trying to answer that, let me start with the zoning amendment that authorizes it. That amendment was voted on and approved by the Augusta Commission this past Summer as Section 25-E of the Richmond County Comprehensive Zoning Code.  It's a text rich in possibilities, and I will post the whole of it below, but for now I will extract only a few key points.

25-E-1:
- "The purpose of overlay zoning is to provide additional protection and/or guidance for specific areas through regulation and/or incentives that are applied in addition to the base zoning requirements."
- "They could also be used to protect the character of neighborhoods, commercial districts, and corridors. They could guide development more carefully than base zoning by identifying future urban zones and mixed use areas…"

What it is important to note here in the very first paragraph of this section of the zoning code is that this new type of overlay district can not only make the underlying base zoning of the affected district more restrictive (as is the case generally with overlay zones), but it can also make the underlying zoning LESS restrictive. The Laney-Walker revitalization plan calls for mixed-use development. This is not a fact that is being hidden. It would be truer to say that it is a fact that is being shouted from the rooftops. Business and professional uses would be mingled with residential uses. There are no two ways about it, and this is what makes it all the more striking that the representative for the private developer proposing this overlay has been giving assurances both publicly and privately that the overlay would do nothing to affect the base zoning of the area. 


The Department of Planning & Zoning gave the same assurances, so did the senior staff attorney for Richmond County. This is true enough in itself–last week's proposal would not have changed the current zoning of the neighborhood–but it would be disingenuous of them to maintain that the ultimate aim of the overlay is to leave the current zoning untouched. Mixed-use means mixed-use. The proposal last week called for limiting the allowed uses in one area of the Laney-Walker neighborhood to certain enumerated types.  "No liquor stores and pawnshops," is how they were selling it. The proponents of the overlay say that this restriction is necessary to "protect the community."


What is harmful in that? The harm (if it can be called that, "red flag" may be nearer the mark) is that the area on which the overlay was to be imposed is currently zoned almost entirely single-family residential. There is no need to protect the area from "harmful" business uses–the current zoning already absolutely forbids them. Restrictions on the business uses only makes sense if the area is to be opened up for commercial development. That is, the "mixed-use" development that the city has been so busy denying and affirming at one and the same time. Lately though, this affirmation has been wrung from Planning & Zoning–

"There is an area on Railroad Ave which I believe is the old foundry and zoned B-2 [business] which they are concerned about. Also, if their efforts are successful and the area takes off, there is the possibility that properties on Wrightsboro Rd could be rezoned."
It's not much of an admission, but after all the previous denials, it's a start. Re-zonings are, of a necessity, part of the plan. There are some who would refer to (and condemn) this sort of re-zoning as "spot zoning."

The overlay issue does not involve only businesses moving into the area, but also certain changes in the residential zoning, too. The overlay would authorize what it calls "low-density multi-family" zoning in the area. This would constitute a change as the area is, I repeat, almost entirely single-family now. The "low-density" part is there to soften the blow, I think. Again and again, city leaders have said that this overlay is to protect the neighborhood form "unwelcome" development,  yet the restrictions against unwelcome development are already there, and in fact are stronger now (the current zoning) than they would be under the proposed overlay. You simply are not allowed to put businesses and multi-family housing in a single-family residential area. Attempts to re-zone in that way (or even disagreements about permitted uses in a residential area) are usually met with vociferous denunciations:

Summerville Daycare Approved

"A daycare in a residential zoning violates county and state zoning requirements. You all need to get the facts before judging. We will lose this one the first day in court……" [huh?] (Comm. Joe Bowles)

"Austin, I guess your okay with your double standard of when the law is good and when its not?
As for a parochial school getting special treatment, that because it's a school, not a 14 hour a day business. Also last I checked parochial schools free up $$$$$ for our public schools.
If we want to talk about why Summerville has high property values it's because of planning not BS friendship zoning exemptions!" (Comm. Joe Bowles)

Augusta Commissioner Joe Bowles

"Chris, you completely are missing the basis of Summervilles case. The reason we have taken a decent area and made it better is through our master plan and adhering to it since 1977. That's why we have the property values we have, and now we have another area that is considered commercial. THIS IS KNOWN AS SPOT ZONING AND DETRIMENTAL FOR ALL NEIGHBORHOODS, NOT JUST SUMMERVILLE [emphasis added]. It sets a dangerous precedent that could spread and erode what Summerville residents have built!" (Comm. Joe Bowles)

All these quotations are from one of the Augusta commissioners who voted in favor of the overlay proposal last week, by the way. It would be a good idea, apparently, just so long as no one is proposing it in his neighborhood. There are some other aspects of the proposal that make this something I'm sure he would want to see implemented in some other neighborhood than his own. For one, the bulk of the new housing being built by the private developer (that is, the private developer who was hired by the city to redevelop the Laney-Walker area for the city), as I was saying, the bulk of the new housing is low-income government-subsidized housing. The agreements the city has entered into with the developer for building all this low-income housing can be found in the online records of the Augusta Commission, so I won't dwell on that too long. I will say, though, that revitalizing an area by moving low-income housing into it (and then restricting the surrounding homeowners' rights based on that low-income housing) seems a little counter-intuitive to me, but I'm no expert.

There is good reason to be suspicious of the Laney-Walker overlay plan. Maybe the fact that the zoning code's overlay amendment was drafted specifically to fit the Laney-Walker overlay proposal (a fact admitted by Planning and Zoning), maybe that fact made the developer (and the city) a little lazy regarding fitting the proposal to the law (and that's the oversight that has sent the proposal back to the drawing board). Whatever the case, the developer and the city government have been intentionally misleading regarding the clear implications of mixed-use development, when that is where the conversation with homeowners should have started. Until the city/developer can honestly approach it that way, I'm against this plan. As for their often stated concerns about "protecting the community", the best way to do that now is to respect the current zoning.**


Related Articles:

• Deke Plays Favorites and Who Really Represents Laney-Walker
• Dee Mathis Wins Battle Over Overlay Zone
• Where Does your Commissioner Stand on Property Rights and Due Process?
• Commission Set to Vote on Overlay Zone Today

***Do you have a story idea, a tip, or would you like to write for City Stink? Then please contact us at:  CityStink@gmail.com***
Share this on Facebook by clicking the icon below

Overlay Zone: Deke Plays Favorites and Who Really Represents Laney-Walker? (videos)

Mayor Deke Copenhaver  Nov. 21, 2011

November 21, 2011

Augusta, GA

By The Outsider  

                                         

As we told you last week in City Stink: Dee Mathis Wins Battle over Overlay Zoning District, the Augusta commission decided in a 4-6 Vote to table the Overlay Zoning District until the first commission meeting of 2012.

We thought it might also be informative to give you some of the dynamics at that Nov 15th commission meeting involving the Overlay District vote and how the mayor showed blatant favoritism to one side and pushed the envelope of parliamentary procedure and protocol.

Double Standard
At the beginning of the meeting, Dee Mathis, a homeowner in The Laney-Walker neighborhood, and Al Gray, a property rights advocate, each gave  5 minute presentations before the commission urging them to deny approval of what they said was a flawed and incomplete application for the Overlay Zoning District. It would be the only time they were allowed to speak. Following the proper protocol for citizens speaking before the commission, both Mathis and Gray went through the proper process with the clerk of the commission to be on that day's meeting agenda.

The problem is that the overlay district vote was not on the regular agenda until an hour later into the commission meeting well after Ms Mathis and Mr Gray gave their presentations. When the item finally did come back up on the agenda for a discussion and a vote, Mayor Deke had a little surprise for everybody.

Out of the blue, the mayor says that he has received a letter from Pastor Aline Scott of the Laney-Walker Neighborhood Association in support of passing the  overlay application. Though Ms Scott was not on the agenda to speak, Deke calls her forward to give a presentation nonetheless. After Ms Scott's "impromptu" presentation, the Mayor gives some commentary about those in opposition being "resistant to change". (See video below: click play button for excerpt):

Later on, in the following video, Commissioner Wayne Guilfoyle (Dist 8) raises some concerns over the proposal because of conflicting information. Dir of Planning and Zoning, George Patty, then attempts to answer some of his questions. Then, once again, the Mayor gives "surprise guest" Pastor Aline Scott a second opportunity to speak. Pastor Scott makes an incorrect statement that the current zoning laws in Laney-Walker don't restrict "anything". That is not true. Most of Laney-Walker is currently zoned single family residential, so in those areas it is prohibited for someone to put in commercial or industrial uses. But notice how the mayor continually vocalizes his agreement with Pastor Scott. After she concludes speaking for the second time, Commissioner Alvin Mason rebuts the mayor's earlier remarks about opponents just being "resistant to change". (See video below: click play button for excerpt)


No Rebuttals for the Opponents
It is important to note that the Mayor never allowed Ms Mathis nor Mr Gray a second opportunity to speak before the commission to rebut the points made by Pastor Scott and George Patty, a privilege afforded Pastor Scott, who was not even on the meeting's agenda to speak. Also, the Mayor never asked if there were other residents in the commission chambers who were in opposition to the overlay vote. In a preceding non-related zoning matter, the mayor asked for a show of hands of who was there in opposition and support. But the Mayor conducted no such informal poll when it came to the vote for the overlay district for Laney-Walker. Considering that Ms Mathis and Mr Gray made their presentations more than an hour earlier at the beginning of the meeting, the arguments they raised seemed like a distant memory; whereas George Patty and Pastor Scott were able to make their arguments right before the vote was taken. But in the end a majority of  commissioners did have  long  memories and sided with Ms Mathis' and Mr Gray's arguments.

Who Really Speaks for the Laney-Walker Neighborhood?
The mayor brought Pastor Scott forward as the representative of the Laney-Walker Neighborhood Association. It is important to note that a neighborhood association is not the same as a home-owners association. The Mayor also failed to mention that there is more than one Laney-Walker Neighborhood Association.  The association Pastor Scott represents meets at Dyess Park. A different association meets Antioch Baptist church. Was this other Laney-Walker neighborhood association solicited for their opinion on The Overlay Zoning application? Also, emails forwarded to CityStink.net show that Commissioner Matt Aitken was aware that there is more than one Laney-Walker neighborhodd association prior to the Nov. 15th commission meeting. In Dee Mathis' presentation, she begins to talk about this email from Matt Aitken and that is when the Mayor hushes her up saying that her time to speak was over.

Was Pastor Scott giving the official decision of the neighborhood association she is affiliated with or just her own personal opinion? There is no mention of any other members of this neighborhood association signing the letter of support for the overlay that pastor Scott had sent to commissioners. Also no one else from this neighborhood association spoke before the commission, only Pastor Scott. Was there an official vote by the board of directors of this neighborhood association to support the overlay vote? If so, when did this occur and do meeting minutes exist documenting such?

"Won't You Be My Neighbor?"
After Pastor Scott makes her first presentation before the commission Mayor Deke then prompts her to "state for the record" her home address, ostensibly to show that she indeed represents and speaks for the Laney-Walker neighborhood. But listen to her answer. It is very revealing. (See video below:click play button for excerpt):


Where is 28 Park Place Cir. Augusta, GA 30909?  It turns out that Pastor Scott isn't neighbors with Ms Mathis or anyone else who actually resides in  the Laney-Walker district. When we pulled up the address she gave the commission on Google Maps, this is what we found (see map below). Coincidentally, Pastor Scott is actually neighbors with Mayor Deke Copenhaver, who lives just across Skinner's Mill Rd at 75 Conifer Cir. Well it's a small world after all.

More to come.


View Larger Map

Where Does Your A.R.C. Commissioner Stand on Property Rights and Due Process?

The Sensible Six

The following six commissioners stood on the side of individual property rights and the rule of law by voting against an incomplete Overlay Zoning District application for Laney-Walker/Bethlehem at the Nov 15th Augusta Commission meeting that could have impacted individual property rights throughout the county. They wanted more caution and a more thorough and complete process that included homeowners. 

Corey Johnson (D2)                 Grady Smith (D10)                        J.R.  Hatney (D9)

Wayne Guilfoyle (D8)                      Al Mason (D4)                            Bill Lockett (D5)

The Foolish Four

The following four commissioners voted in favor of the incomplete overlay zoning application. They sided with the private out of town developer and against long time homeowners in the Laney-Walker area and property rights advocates. These four wanted to rush through an application that was incomplete and would likely not withstand a court challenge. These four commissioners voted against property rights, due process and the rule of law.

Matt Aitken (D1)                   Joe Bowles (D3)                         Jerry Brigham (D7)                   Joe Jackson (D6)

And Deke

Though the Mayor didn't get to cast a vote on the overlay zoning district proposal, he lobbied very hard for its passage. He even brought in a  Pastor Aline Scott to speak as a resident of Laney-Walker in favor of it. But Pastor Scott was not even on the agenda to speak before the commission. And pastor Scott does not reside in Laney-Walker. In fact, Deke allowed Pastor Scott and the developer rep. seeking the OZD to speak more than once, a privilege he did not afford the opponents of the OZD who actually bothered to go through the process to get themselves on the agenda for that day's meeting.

Augusta Mayor Deke Copenhaver

Contact your Commissioners and the Mayor and tell them how you feel about their position on property rights and upholding due process and the rule of law: Contact Augusta Commissioners and Mayor

Related articles: 

• Dee Mathis Wins Battle Over Overlay Zone
• News of the 'Burg: What Does the Opportunity Zone Really mean for Harrisburg?
• Urban Redevelopment or Land Grab?
• Open Letter to Planning and Zoning Regarding The Overlay Zoning District
• Matt Aitken: Like a Deer Caught in the Headlights

***Do you have a story idea, a tip, or would you like to write for City Stink? Then please contact us at:  CityStink@gmail.com***

Share this on Facebook by clicking the icon below

Matt Aitken: Like a Deer Caught in the Headlights.

Matt Aitken (Dist 1 Comm.)

CityStink.net Commentary
Augusta, GA
By: The Outsider

Seriously, where did this guy come from? Matt Aitken has been District One Commissioner for two years now and it just gets worse and worse.  Too many brain cell killers in the early years? Is there a better excuse for just not knowing what is going on? I'd plead the brain cell killers.  In An Augusta Commission meeting yesterday, Aitken found himself so totally out of touch with the 2012 budget proposal that he did not even know that there were employee layoffs associated with it. When Chris Thomas from WRDW asked Mr Aitken about his yes vote on the budget, he was completely oblivious: Watch the video here: 


Had he read the proposal? My bet is,"No," yet he voted to pass it. Does he prepare for Commission meetings or just votes accordingly? Might as well not waste the government paper on printing out his agenda book. If I were to vote,"Accordingly," I would be smart enough to make my handlers look good. Wonder how," They," are feeling today? Reckon they got the right boy elected to do their dirty work?

Prior to the budget vote, Commissioners heard both sides of the of the Laney Walker District Overlay Zone argument. I watched Mr. Aitken as he rocked in his leather rocking chair and seemed disinterested.... By the way, I'll give him best dressed Commissioner and First Place for rocking.... I think he was still reeling from an earlier interview request from a reporter from CityStink.net who asked him if he minded answering a few questions.  He replied,"You must be from that City Stank." Perfect answer, cause his handling of his constituents really, "Stanks." 


As Commissioners continued to heatedly discuss the Laney Walker matter, Aitken was totally disengaged until Commissioner Mason asked him to speak on the subject. Mason said," We have yet to hear from their Commissioner." 


Aitken stammered around as he always does and then in his best deep intellectually sounding voice, he began to talk about,"Moving Forward and Growing the city."  If I have to hear the words,"Growing the City,"one more time, I will have to run against him for District One. Seems like that was all he knew to say in his campaign three years ago, and here it was again today. 


"Growing the city," means get out of the way and let certain Cabal-connected "developers" make some money here! In all seriousness, Matt Aitken, Commissioner for the Laney Walker District proceeded to vote to allow an Overlay Zone for the Laney Walker area without attending ONE public hearing, finding out what it was about, making sure that his constituents were well informed, and assuring that all documents for the application were in order. 

Matt Aitken: "No Comment!"

He knew that this Zoning change was causing unrest in his district yet he chose to ignore it. Cha-Ching for the developers! As it turned out, other Commissioners listened carefully to arguments from both sides and made the right decision to hold off on the Overlay until all residents understood the ramifications and the proper documents were filed in the proper manner. One has to wonder if Mr. Aitken receives text messages during Commission meetings from Mayor Deke that say,"Dont Cave or we'll rescind your pardon." One has to wonder what pressure this must put on this man so that he continues to make decisions for his constituents that are so unpopular...And if this weren't enough....


Just recently as noted in CityStink.net, Commissioner Aitken was responsible for putting an item on the Augusta Commission Agenda over a year ago that eventually made all of Harrisburg an Opportunity Zone.  All of this was done without a public hearing as required by law. If this was such a great thing for Harrisburg, why was it carefully hidden until it was done? Mr Aitken, this is where I draw the line. Are you that afraid or your puppeteers that you will not do what is  right and follow the correct procedures under the letter of the law? Poor Matt Aitken was on the road to personal recovery and now obviously has gotten side tracked by the Augusta Cabal.  What a shame this is for a man who was doing so well.


Related articles:

• Matt Aitken Will Have Poor Record to Defend
• Matt Aitken: Like a Deer Caught in the Headlights
• Dee Mathis Wins Battle Over Overlay Zone
• News of the 'Burg: What Does the Opportunity Zone Really mean for Harrisburg?
• Urban Redevelopment or Land Grab?
• Open Letter to Planning and Zoning Regarding The Overlay Zoning District

***Do you have a story idea, a tip, or would you like to write for City Stink? Then please contact us at:  CityStink@gmail.com***
Share this on Facebook by clicking the icon below

Dee Mathis Wins Battle Over Overlay Zone at The Marble Palace...For Now (Videos)

Dee Mathis Claims Victory at The Marble Palace

Augusta, GA

Dee Mathis and her allies reigned victorious after the Nov 15th Augusta commission meeting in halting approval of a proposed overlay zoning district for the Laney-Walker/Bethlehem neighborhood. You can read more about the background over this here: CityStink: Commission Set to Vote Today on Overlat Zone.

Bringing a flock of supporters, Dee Mathis was joined by veteran property rights advocate, Al Gray, in making oral presentations before the commissioners as to why they should deny approving the application for the overlay zone as submitted by the developer.

In the end a majority of commissioners, in a 4-6 vote, sided with Ms Mathis and Mr Gray and denied the application. A second motion was approved that would have the commission revisit the overlay proposal at the first scheduled commission meeting in January 2012. You can watch videos of the proceedings at the commission meeting below.

Al Gray's Presentation :

video courtesy of Kurt Huttar

Dee Mathis' Presentation:




video courtesy of Kurt Huttar

More Video from Later in the Meeting when the Vote was Taken:


video courtesy of Kurt Huttar

Related Articles:

• Commissioners set to vote on overlay zone today
• Urban Redevelopment or Land Grab?
• Open Letter to Planning and Zoning Regarding The Overlay Zoning District

***Do you have a story idea, a tip, or would you like to write for City Stink? Then please contact us at:  CityStink@gmail.com***
Share this on Facebook by clicking the icon below

Commissioners Set to Vote on Overlay Zoning District Today for Laney-Walker/Bethlehem

 Will Dee Mathis and her allies be able to stop the Overlay Zoning District?

Augusta, GA
Today is the day when Augusta commissioners will vote to either approve or halt a controversial proposed overlay zoning district for the Laney-Walker/Bethlehem neighborhoods in inner city Augusta. CityStink.net was the first in the media to tell you about the concerns over the overlay zoning proposal on October 6th in Urban Redevelopment or Land Grab?

Laney-Walker homeowner Dee Mathis got wind that the Augusta Planning and Zoning Department was planning to quietly approve an Overlay Zoning District for her neighborhood on October 3rd. Ms Mathis nor any of her neighbors had previously heard about this proposal and none of them were notified prior to the Oct 3rd meeting. Ms Mathis and property rights activist Mike Sheil, showed up at the meeting and challenged the legitimacy of the proposal moving forward because property owners had not been properly notified. Ms Mathis and many of her neighbors wanted more specifics about how the zoning changes would affect them and the use of their property. There were also concerns that the overlay zoning district would introduce commercial zoning into areas that are now zoned residential and impose architectural review guidelines on existing property owners. Because of the challenge by Ms Mathis and Mr Sheil, the vote by Planning and Zoning was postponed until Nov 7th.

Dee Mathis, Laney-Walker Homeowner

The Dog and Pony Shows

In the mean time, Planning and Zoning began to notify the affected property owners by mail and a series of informational seminars were scheduled to supposedly give residents more specifics. Dee Mathis kept requesting  all of the details of the proposal that would actually be voted on, but instead got mostly "vague" concepts and pretty water color sketches.... but not a lot of specifics. As you are probably aware, when dealing with Augusta government it's always important to get the specifics in writing.

The seminars were not much more informative. Critics referred to them as being more "Dog and Pony Shows" than being informative and offering  specifics. It became obvious to homeowners like Dee Mathis, that the seminars, conducted by the private developer requesting the overlay zone and The Augusta Housing Authority, were mostly propaganda sessions designed to mislead residents with pretty water color sketches that had little to do with what would actually be voted on in the application.

In fact, Dee Mathis and a group of allies found glaring inconsistencies, vague language, and an application that was essentially incomplete. How could an incomplete application be approved? Well, according to the law, it shouldn't. But that didn't stop the Planning and Zoning Department from giving their seal of approval to the Overlay Zoning District on  November 7th, despite the objections raised by Ms Mathis and her allies. However, for the overlay zone to go into effect, it would need approval  from Augusta Commissioners. And that is where we are today.

What Will Commissioners Do?
Commissioners will take up the Overlay Zoning District at today's 5pm BOC meeting at The Marble Palace. Inside sources are telling CityStink.net that Dist 1 Commissioner Matt Aitken (who represents the bulk of the proposed Overlay Zoning District) plans to vote in favor of the OZ. Commissioner Jerry Brigham (Dist 7) has  made public statements indicating that he would likely support it as well. So will this vote fall along mostly racial lines with white commissioners voting in favor of imposing  an overlay zoning district in a mostly poor , and black inner-city neighborhood at the behest of a private out-of town developer? What about the "cafeteria" sometimes-leaning-libertarian Mayor Pro-tem Joe Bowles? Will he side with the property rights activists and the rule of law? Or will he fall in line and side with the private developer and approve restricting property rights and approve an incomplete application with inconsistent and vague information that would likely not withstand a legal challenge? Where do minority Commissioners Mason, Lockett, Hatney, and Johnson all stand on the Overlay Zoning District?

The Dee and Al Show
Dee Mathis will be joined by ally and property rights advocate Al Gray at today's commission meeting. Both are on the agenda to speak before the commissioners in opposing approval of the ordinance. Ms Mathis has also been organizing her neighbors and supporters on Facebook to pack the commission chambers today at 5pm to stop the overlay zone. Al Gray is scheduled to speak first.

Property Rights Advocate, Al Gray

Mr. Gray is no stranger to these sorts of battles. He successfully challenged a similar overlay zoning district in Columbia County for the Evans Town Center area. Though not a resident of Richmond County, Mr Gray is coming out to lend his support and knowledge to Ms Mathis and the residents of Laney-Walker/Bethlehem in fighting against this proposal. For Mr Gray it boils down to the simple issue of protecting individual property rights and following the rule of law.

CityStink.net received the following press release from Al Gray regarding today's vote:

PRESS RELEASE!!!! PRESS RELEASE!!!!: 

Property rights activist and overlay zoning district veteran Al Gray has the following comment on the overlay motion coming before the Augusta Richmond County Commission Tuesday night.

-----------------------------

The Augusta Richmond County government has been caught with its pants down so often Sheriff Strength could arrest them all for indecent exposure, yet it is poised to execute a plan initiated by a private entity that fails its own ordinance in uniformity, required notices, and completeness. This malignant plan as it is being executed is a dagger to the private property rights of every Richmond County landowner from McBean to Warren Road. Richmond County citizens are being told "trust us" yet again. They say this...."Trust our plan. We don't know the details, but we MUST pass it to before you find out what is in it."

When these overlays came to Columbia and Lincoln Counties, they were met with public hostility to the point that there was nearly a riot at the Columbia County Planning Commission in 2000. (Reporters at the Columbia News-Times of that day can attest to this as can Columbia County Commission Chairman Ron Cross who was seen on the front row waving his fist and being decidedly loud in defense of property rights.) The overlay ordinances had to be scaled back to meet public acceptance. The Evans Town Center Overlay was thrown out in Superior Court for lack of notification, yet many Laney Walker residents had not been notified as recently as October 25. In Lincoln County, negating a corridor overlay was a key campaign issue in Chairman Wade Johnson's victory in 2008 and the proximate cause of the firing of his Planning and Zoning Director.

We trust that residents throughout Richmond County are acutely aware of the many recent failings of its government and have ample reason to be terrified at what lies in store for their most precious property rights at the hands of these failed "leaders."

I suggest you all wake up. Now.

Al Gray
_________________________________________________________________


What Will Happen Next?
Inside sources are telling CityStink.net that the commission will likely approve the overlay zoning district proposal at today's meeting. However, commissioners could be swayed by a large turnout of residents in opposition at today's meeting. Dee Mathis has been making the rounds of local talk radio and has been busy getting the word out. Also, the property rights and rule of law arguments made by Mathis and Gray may also have an impact on some commissioners. 

However even if the proposal does pass today, Al Gray doesn't see it as a defeat but rather just the beginning: "The vote is (really) meaningless as the matter violates notification, common purpose, and completeness requirements of the application." 


Most opponents believe that the ordinance, if passed in its current form, could not pass a legal challenge in the courts.


CityStink.net Coverage
CityStink.net video correspondent, Mary Dits, will be covering today's commission meeting and will have a full update on The Mary Dits Report, So stay tuned to CityStink.net and we will have Mary's video coverage online as soon as it is available.

Mary Dits, video correspondent CityStink.net

What to Know if You Plan to Attend:

• What: Augusta Commission Meeting 
• Where: Augusta-Richmond County Municipal Building, 530 Greene St, Room #803
• When: Today (Tuesday Nov. 15th) at 5:00pm

**Advisory** You are encouraged to arrive early if you want a seat in the chambers. Protest signs are not permitted inside commission chambers. Opponents of the Overlay Zoning District proposal are planning to wear GREEN to show solidarity.

Related articles: 

• Urban Redevelopment or Land Grab?
• Open Letter to Planning and Zoning Regarding The Overlay Zoning District

***Do you have a story idea, a tip, or would you like to write for City Stink? Then please contact us at:  CityStink@gmail.com***
Share this on Facebook by clicking the icon below