Pirkle opposition: Be careful what you wish for
In the coming weeks, there is going to be another large anti-warehouse controversy that revolves around a proposed development on Josh Pirkle Rd. in the Braselton-Hoschton area. Braselton has formally turned down annexing the property for the project and Hoschton informally told developers it’s not interested, either.
Now, developers are attempting to get the property rezoned before the county government. That has been met with fury by area homeowners who don’t want warehouses in their backyards.
Therein lies a conundrum. The Pirkle property, which is currently agricultural, is probably going to be sold either for warehouses, or for a large, high-density subdivision. Both developments bring problems. It’s very unlikely the property will remain rural agricultural given its location and value for development.
So, which kind of development would be better, or the “least-worse” outcome?
That’s the real issue county leaders will have to decide in the coming weeks. If warehouses get the ax, then the property will likely be marketed for cheap residential housing.
Meanwhile, the citizens opposing the warehouse development plan need to get their act together. There appears to be more petty infighting with some of the opposition than a cohesive plan to stop the project.
Earlier this year, I ran a column of “advice for NIMBYs.” Here’s some of those points repeated that opponents to the Pirkle development need to keep in mind:
Don’t say that you moved to Jackson from Atlanta to get away from growth. I’ve heard dozens of people make this argument over the years. But if you moved to one of the fastest-growing counties in the state to “get away from growth,” then you made a mistake. What did you expect to happen? It’s a silly argument and has zero impact on rezoning decisions. Rezonings aren’t about you or where you moved from — they’re about balancing the legal rights of various property owners and the infrastructure surrounding the proposed rezoning. You shouldn’t expect to come here and magically slam the door behind you.
Don’t complain about “traffic.” Everyone hates traffic, but the roads you drive on aren’t your private pathways. The fact that you drive on those roads yourself adds to traffic. Others have a right to travel on those roads, too. Don’t make an emotional issue out of this; if traffic is your argument, then provide data, not emotions.
Look at a map. If you live within a mile or so of I-85 (as the crow flies) then you are within an obvious zone that is likely to be developed for commercial or industrial use. That’s even more true if you live where there is water, sewer and road access. If you live in that zone, then you’re likely to be near commercial and industrial development. Don’t expect that to change.
Don’t say that there are too many warehouses already and that no more should be built. You’re not an economist. Neither you nor the local governments are in a position to dictate what is “enough” of any kind of development. Such pronouncements are pure socialism. If there are too many warehouses, developers will stop building them.
Don’t say there aren’t enough employees to fill warehouse jobs. It’s true that locally the unemployment rate is low. But employment runs in cycles and isn’t stagnant. Over time, people change jobs. People relocate for jobs. Students graduate and need jobs. And the free market will push wages up to attract more workers if a labor shortage is prolonged. If there aren’t enough workers, warehouse developers will go elsewhere. It’s up to the free market, not local governments, to sort all of that out.
Don’t accuse local governments of “just wanting the tax money.” Of course they want the money, in large part because you live here. What you as a homeowner pay in taxes doesn’t cover the cost of your kids’ local school expenses, or your law enforcement, or the maintenance of your roads. Without commercial and industrial development, your residential taxes would skyrocket. Local governments have an obligation to seek a balanced tax digest to help pay the cost of residential growth. There is no shame in that.
I don’t envy county leaders who will have to make a decision about the Pirkle Rd. property rezoning. Warehouses on the site would bring some negative consequences to the surrounding area, but so would a high-density, large residential development that could exceed 1,000 homes.
In addition, there is the consideration of the landowner’s legal rights. Those who could be affected by development in adjacent property certainly have rights, but so does the landowner who is wanting to sell his property for development. The Pirkle family owned that land long before any of the neighboring subdivisions were built. That somewhat negates the argument by area homeowners that “we were here first.” No, the Pirkle family was there first and probably didn’t like those subdivisions being built next to their farm 30 years ago.
The Pirkle farm is a piece of beautiful property. I hate to see it developed at all and wish it could stay a pristine part of the area’s rural history.
But I don’t own that land. The Pirkle family does and they have a right to sell the land for its highest potential use, which would be for industrial development.
Those opposing warehouses on the Pirkle property may win this battle and stop this proposed warehouse project. But that is unlikely to stop the eventual development of the Pirkle property.
Opponents, be careful what you ask for; the alternative you get may turn out to be even worse.
Mike Buffington is co-publisher of Mainstreet Newspapers. He can be reached at mike@mainstreetnews.com.
Therein lies a conundrum. The Pirkle property, which is currently agricultural, is probably going to be sold either for warehouses, or for a large, high-density subdivision. Both developments bring problems. It’s very unlikely the property will remain rural agricultural given its location and value for development.
So, which kind of development would be better, or the “least-worse” outcome?
That’s the real issue county leaders will have to decide in the coming weeks. If warehouses get the ax, then the property will likely be marketed for cheap residential housing.
Meanwhile, the citizens opposing the warehouse development plan need to get their act together. There appears to be more petty infighting with some of the opposition than a cohesive plan to stop the project.
Earlier this year, I ran a column of “advice for NIMBYs.” Here’s some of those points repeated that opponents to the Pirkle development need to keep in mind:
Don’t say that you moved to Jackson from Atlanta to get away from growth. I’ve heard dozens of people make this argument over the years. But if you moved to one of the fastest-growing counties in the state to “get away from growth,” then you made a mistake. What did you expect to happen? It’s a silly argument and has zero impact on rezoning decisions. Rezonings aren’t about you or where you moved from — they’re about balancing the legal rights of various property owners and the infrastructure surrounding the proposed rezoning. You shouldn’t expect to come here and magically slam the door behind you.
Don’t complain about “traffic.” Everyone hates traffic, but the roads you drive on aren’t your private pathways. The fact that you drive on those roads yourself adds to traffic. Others have a right to travel on those roads, too. Don’t make an emotional issue out of this; if traffic is your argument, then provide data, not emotions.
Look at a map. If you live within a mile or so of I-85 (as the crow flies) then you are within an obvious zone that is likely to be developed for commercial or industrial use. That’s even more true if you live where there is water, sewer and road access. If you live in that zone, then you’re likely to be near commercial and industrial development. Don’t expect that to change.
Don’t say that there are too many warehouses already and that no more should be built. You’re not an economist. Neither you nor the local governments are in a position to dictate what is “enough” of any kind of development. Such pronouncements are pure socialism. If there are too many warehouses, developers will stop building them.
Don’t say there aren’t enough employees to fill warehouse jobs. It’s true that locally the unemployment rate is low. But employment runs in cycles and isn’t stagnant. Over time, people change jobs. People relocate for jobs. Students graduate and need jobs. And the free market will push wages up to attract more workers if a labor shortage is prolonged. If there aren’t enough workers, warehouse developers will go elsewhere. It’s up to the free market, not local governments, to sort all of that out.
Don’t accuse local governments of “just wanting the tax money.” Of course they want the money, in large part because you live here. What you as a homeowner pay in taxes doesn’t cover the cost of your kids’ local school expenses, or your law enforcement, or the maintenance of your roads. Without commercial and industrial development, your residential taxes would skyrocket. Local governments have an obligation to seek a balanced tax digest to help pay the cost of residential growth. There is no shame in that.
I don’t envy county leaders who will have to make a decision about the Pirkle Rd. property rezoning. Warehouses on the site would bring some negative consequences to the surrounding area, but so would a high-density, large residential development that could exceed 1,000 homes.
In addition, there is the consideration of the landowner’s legal rights. Those who could be affected by development in adjacent property certainly have rights, but so does the landowner who is wanting to sell his property for development. The Pirkle family owned that land long before any of the neighboring subdivisions were built. That somewhat negates the argument by area homeowners that “we were here first.” No, the Pirkle family was there first and probably didn’t like those subdivisions being built next to their farm 30 years ago.
The Pirkle farm is a piece of beautiful property. I hate to see it developed at all and wish it could stay a pristine part of the area’s rural history.
But I don’t own that land. The Pirkle family does and they have a right to sell the land for its highest potential use, which would be for industrial development.
Those opposing warehouses on the Pirkle property may win this battle and stop this proposed warehouse project. But that is unlikely to stop the eventual development of the Pirkle property.
Opponents, be careful what you ask for; the alternative you get may turn out to be even worse.
Mike Buffington is co-publisher of Mainstreet Newspapers. He can be reached at mike@mainstreetnews.com.
You do make some valid points. One mistake-the extended Pirkle Family sold some of the land to be developed into Deer Creek Farms subdivision to the developer years ago, so I don't think that they were opposed to homes next to their farm land, as they made money from selling the land. We knew this would be developed in all probability one day, but are not looking forward to a development that potentially can harm us, that's all. None of us dispute the fact the he has a right to sell his land. Just not a right to harm so many while doing so. Us poor peons pay taxes too, you know. Jackson County is in such debt they need this right? Sure would help that bottom line and that cannot be denied. That's not emotion-just fact. So I guess that makes it okay-a need for money? How about government not spend too much and not run amuck for once? That makes more sense to me for sure. Have some heart for us poor unfortunate souls that will have to hear the noise, breathe the fumes and listen to those backup beepers non-stop.
I appreciate your perspective and points made in this opinion. Let's look at at it from the perspective of over 400 homes that will be impacted negatively by 2.8 million square feet of distribution warehouse and the over 4,000 semi trucks it will bring daily into our backyards.
Two planning staffs that are educated in such matters as zoning and planning, that also attend Continuing Education courses in zoning and planning have recommended denial of this project. Two planning commissions that deal with such issues monthly have voted for denial of this project. One town council voted unanimously to deny this project. A very well written Comprehensive Plan for the County suggests this would be Offensive Zoning with detrimental conditions. So from a lay persons perspective six groups with far more knowledge than us clearly indicate this project would have a negative impact on our lives and the community.
Many of us have spent considerable time researching the dangers of diesel exhaust and sound. We have also spent time researching the financial consequences of living next to toxic environments. We have sent all of our research materials to the County Commissioners. This is about protecting the weakest of our citizens, children, the elderly and those with chronic illness, from having to bear the financial and medical consequences of greed.