Published on: 08/10/07
The public meltdown of the Milton city government should be a reminder to voters that smaller government isn't necessarily better government — even in Fulton County.
The new city, incorporated only last year, has been a model of dysfunction almost from the start. Certainly, it can't be what voters in this north Fulton community of 20,000 had in mind when they bolted from control of the Fulton County Commission.
The antics of Milton's mayor and council are similar — if on a smaller stage — to the turmoil that has strained the credibility and effectiveness of the county commission. Milton's decisions, like those of the commission, are often decided on acrimonious 4-3 votes.
The division within the council is apparent in almost every decision — from deciding whether the city attorney works for the mayor or the city manager to whether sewers should be extended to the southeastern part of the city. Last week, the council held an 18-hour closed-door meeting about the city manager, who is blamed for missing a state deadline that cost the city $900,000 in tax revenue.
Famously, Milton's mayor and council also tried to meet privately with a management psychologist for group therapy, until someone pointed out that would violate the state's Open Meetings act.
Council members did manage to agree on rejecting a plan to rezone a five-acre tract of land from agriculture to mixed use, reflecting the community's intention that Milton remain a blend of subdivisions, horse farms, country clubs and mansions. But creating a city simply to say no to new development is, and always has been, a shallow approach to government.
As Sandy Springs residents learned, the process of setting up a city, levying taxes and deciding what services to concentrate on takes time. Sandy Springs fought for the right to do so for three decades, and when its time came, it was ready.
Milton clearly was not.
— Mike King, for the editorial board