There will be no further attempt at cityhood for Brookhaven if this vote fails. Chamblee and Dunwoody have already declared their intentions to incorporate the northern parts of the proposed Brookhaven footprint. What's left will remain forever isolated and part of unincorporated DeKalb, since it will lack the size needed to justify the city. This is a 'one shot' opportunity. Let's not lose it. Vote YES for Brookhaven.

Fair comment. I support a budget and open books. But I think many of silent majority folks are not happy with the lack of improvements & lack of money spent to improve the community at large. New librairies, sidewalks, bikepaths, parks etc. Not just new things but better but maintenance, too!

While the south end of the proposed City may not have been sufficiently included in the discussion before the legislation was introduced I think they have been involved now. And the legislation has changed as a result.

This legislation morphed out of a bill introduced by Mike Jacobs that would have given Dunwoody the ability to annex land inside 285 without having to go through the typical legislative process.

Many of us inside 285 in the unidentified but potentially annexed Dunwoody area did not like the bill for reasons including concerns about cherry picking or an identification with Chamblee. A survey was done and it turned out that the clear winner that seemed to make Chamblee Supporters and Dunwoody supporters happy was a city of Brookhaven.

So to Mike's credit (which I don't say often - sorry Mike!) he modified the legislation from a Dunwoody Annexation bill to a Brookhaven City bill because that was the clear preference up here

Why is the Northside apparently more interested in becoming a city? Its disconcerting living in an unincorporated area surrounded on three sides by Cities (sandy Springs to the west, Chamblee to the East and Dunwoody to the North) And I think that's why you will see if this fails it will fail on the south side but pass on the Northside. Then what will happen is Dunwoody will come in and take the rest of the Perimeter CID area and enough of the Residential area to justify taking the rest of the CID

The Dunwoody Crier recently stated an interesting piece of information. Apparently the appraised value of the DeKalb Perimeter CID area inside 285 is almost as high as Dunwoody's portion. They said its appraised at 200 million and Dunwoody is 222 million.

So if Brookhaven fails the question will be do they split the north side between Chamblee and Dunwoody? I kind of think its to small to do that. And the CID portion inside 285 would probably go to Dunwoody so the numbers alone would make it tempting to jump to Dunwoody.

How much will they annex? I'm thinking everything between the 3 cities and north of Windsor Parkway.

Will that represent a windfall to Dunwoody? While they haven't broken that number it looks like because of the CID this area represents a higher commercial to residential area than the entire Brookhaven area. Plus Dunwoody gets the ball fields and what I believe is the only public pool in North DeKalb. So I think that scenario could hurt DeKalb's budget more since they will lose a greater tax base as a ratio of costs.

Another interesting aspect is what happens with the Chamblee Annexation to 85? Will failure of the Brookhaven vote assure failure of the Chamblee Annexation? What happens if that succeeds? and the north side goes into Dunwoody? Then its the rest of the proposed city will be isolated or in a peninsula of cities.

Eric, the only problem with your thesis is the break-even at best for Dunwoody in terms of revenue to service expenses.
Anyway, Dunwoody has spoken and they don't want you. At the same time, we who are South of Peachtree don't care, as long as nobody attempts to force an Opposed City upon us.

Steve, personally I'd prefer not to be annexed into Dunwoody so that would be good news. However, why was the bill for Dunwoody Annexation proposed? Why did Chamblee's Mayor come out after that bill say Chamblee might want the area? Was Bob Dallas really pushing for Dunwoody to move on annexation entirely on his own? http://www.thecrier.net/news/article_9694d728-30ad-11e1-b978-001871e3ce6c.html I believe the settlement of distribution of HOST funds have changed the dynamics.

Now let me say I found my way to another thread and I am deeply concerned about the commenter by a couple of people who say they are for the city of Brookhaven regarding Buford Highway. Stuff like that makes me rethink my inclination to want to be in a city where we could better implement smart growth transportation and land use policies. This thread is alarming - though who knows who the poster or posters are http://brookhaven.patch.com/articles/city-of-brookhaven-neighborhood-meetings#comments

Eric, et al, before y'all get too wound up about being divvied up between Chamblee, Dunwoody, Doraville and Atlanta like the last pot of the night in a poker game, I would urge you to become familiar with the annexation laws in Ga...you might find the following link to be of some help-
http://www.gmanet.com/MDR.aspx?CNID=20717
There are a lot of stipulations governing how annexations are done, having to do with population density vs. acreage, etc... As a general rule, you get to vote on whether or not to be annexed...

Thanks Bob, yes I'm aware of many of the annexation requirements, including the need for a vote of those that would be annexed. And I apologize for not being clear.

But what I'm saying is that their is a clear desire to be in a city in the north side of the proposed city of Brookhaven. I think being literally painted into a corner by cities on 3 sides of us has helped, as has the bad parks, and seeing Chamblee and Dunwoody in action (and Sandy Springs). While I personally would prefer not to be annexed into Dunwoody, I think if it was Dunwoody or unincorporated Dekalb Dunwoody annexation would easily win a vote on the northside. We've done community surveys and of course Mike did a phone survey that was legit.

Mr. Eric, have you read HB 636? If so, would you be kind enough to share your thoughts regarding this bill?

Hamburgers come in all varieties . . . But there is only one Mr. Hamburger special hamburger!

Just curious; I don't get this feeling of "disconcerting living in an unincorporated area surrounded on three sides by cities". The county provides municipal services. Some will say better some will say not but I don't see how a peninsula makes a difference. Doraville has had peninsulas for years or take a look a Smyrna. It has multiple peninsulas and islands. If Chamblee wins DECA's annexation vote then they will have a peninsula stretching down Clairmont to I-85. If Dunwoody annexes down to Johnson Ferry then they'll have a peninsula.

Mr. Eric, regarding your 6-1, 2:39 post discussing how far Dunwoody would annex south, comments have been made by others that Dunwoody is only interested in the CID inside I-285 and they are not interested in the residential areas. I assume the thinking is greater tax base without service liability.

Excuse me, I have to go start the charcoal for my morning special hamburgers!

True we would be a peninsula of Dunwoody, though they have so much Cash its hard to argue the taxes would not be lower or the services much better. Plus since the city is more compact and we do border the Southern Edge of the CID its not like the area is far is as Isolated as it is in a bigger county. And again I'd prefer not being in Dunwoody but the fact is the area north of windsor is pretty Republican and there are a lot of people who like the idea of being in Dunwoody over Unicorporated.

Regarding the legislation i've read it, its vauge but that's basically the template used for the other recently formed cities.

Regarding only taking the CID - that would be a huge hit to DeKalb, losing the tax base but not losing the single family homes which is exactly my point. As Mr. Martell pointed out there are numerous requirements for annexation. Relevant here though not covered in that link is that Dunwoody can't just incorporate the commercial edge, they need natural boundary or a highway boundary or a residential boundary. True they could take just Byrnwyck and Oak Forrest/Nancy Creek Heights though I think they would go to at least Marist.

But that would be a huge hit to DeKalb, as the Crier article pointed out surprisingly the assessed value of the CID inside 285 in DeKalb is 200 million which is almost equal to the assessed value of the CID outside 285 (Dunwoody) which is 222 million.

Mr. Eric, the 2011 DeKalb Tax Digest shows the Perimeter CID valued at $842,732,095. Looking at an aerial map overlaid with the CID area I think the Crier numbers are incorrect for the Lake Hearn/Perimeter Summit CID. Or, did they undervalue the area north of I-285? I have not had the time to do a tax roll analysis of LH/PS to verify this. Do you have further insight? Do you know the source of their numbers?

Man! Those are the dillyest dills I have ever had!

Yea yea yea, I agree the line used by all the recently formed cities that they were "merely" seeking a "right to vote" I find to be somewhat annoying because it gives short shrift to the other citizens in the county or neighboring areas. But shoot the Democratic areas of Georgia I sometimes think only exist to be beaten and abused by a state legislature and government is so heavily tilted to one party that there is not even one statewide elected Dem. So what, that's life.

But Shannon didn't claim a voting rights violation and that wasn't the main thrust of her claim. Yes there is a usual cast of characters involved in the city-hood movement but Shannon's point is very valid, its bigger than that.

the No Brookhaven group also has a cast of characters and "outrageous statements" That mailer full of half truths didn't mail itself after all, nor did the professional political consultants who designed and mailed it to frequent primary voters provide their services free of charge. But yes the No City group is bigger than that and they do raise valid issues.

So lets focus on the issues at hand. Which have, little to do with the infiltration of pink slime into our Hamburger meat ;-)

Mr. Eric, OUCH!!! Blasphemy sir, blasphemy!!! By the way, the best parts of unincorporated DeKalb have characters with character!

Man! Please pass me a special hamburger with thin sliced onions, dill pickles and extra yellow mustard! Fast!

Ms. Shannon, words do mean something and you intimated that city opposition folks “tried to take away your vote”. You neglect to discuss how little information was disseminated about the new city movement to the entire geographical area considered for a new city. There were plenty of folks on the south side of your proposed city that were blindsided by this movement.

Regarding the opposition folks, you may not know us, but we are many and we are resentful that C$ND and Rep. Jacobs was not more forthcoming in the development of his new city. We resent that a flawed study has been used as the cornerstone for the purpose of selling folks on a new city.

As far as DeKalb County goes, why did you folks not garner support to make changes to our existing government? Not to mention our school system? DeKalb is not going away. If your city passes vote, we will still be voting for DeKalb Commissioners AND Brookhaven city elected officials. Clearly, this is a duplication of government.

The Brookhaven Yes bunch may not be politicians but there certainly were a bunch of politicians hawking this city in the meetings I went to. You must have left early . . .

Living in Rep. Jacobs dreamland are you?

Excuse me, I have to go light the lump charcoal for my special hamburgers . . .

Hamburger likes to pretend that citizens of Brookhaven could make a dent in DeKalb bureaucracy, when we all know how the numbers game works in DeKalb Government. Many of us have tried to influence decisions with no heed paid to out opinions.

By the way Hamburger, do you own a bar in Brookhaven?

Mr. Dean, the problem is that the greater ND area has never organized for the purpose of letting our existing county government and BOE know how we expect our money to be spent and these government entities be managed. When was the last time you and your neighbors attended a BOC or BOE meeting in person? Anyone can dial in the county cable channels, pop open a PBR and eat some nasty fast food while watching a late night county cable re-run. Just when did you and your neighbors attend in person? Did you sign up to speak before these two groups during their regular meetings? Did you express your dissatisfaction with how things are run?

You didn’t. You elected to run from your existing government into the Jacobsville dreamland based on the questionable Vinson study and an all encompassing HB 636 allowing for some serious undefined government control.

Imagine . . . You sign up to speak before the BOC or BOE. When you are called, 350 of your fellow citizens come to the front of the room showing support as you speak. With reasonable, repeated demands and a show of support, you would eventually garner plenty of attention and desired results. But you and the rest of the BY crowd have not tried.

Fortunate for you, I do not own a bar in Brookhaven. If I did, I would take you to the restroom and give you a shampoo in the first available toilet . . . You are blindly following an exceptionally selfish group of people.

Want a special hamburger? NOT!

No, you didn't say anything about a voting rights violation, but you did say:

"I became involved when opponents of incorporation tried to take away my right to vote. "

Exactly how did that take place?

Seems like the usual MO for the Yes folks is to make an outrageous statement like that... or like "the new City will not be another layer of government". When I hear stuff like that, the switch goes off.

Ms. Sandy, is it a bird? Plane? A HUGE BIG OLE YARD SIGN? Does it say NO?

Special hamburger with thin sliced onions and pickles and plenty of yellow mustard anyone?

Yes it said NO City! It was on the big electronic sign.

Oh so now the No City Group is supporting those horrible billboards that the County ineptly allowed! ...... Sorry I couldn't resist some Saturday Afternoon friendly ribbing.

Though seriously how come other areas are able to do decent sign ordinances.

Dr. G. Well said I have been leaning towards your sentiments. Though my big concern is who will be the folks in a position of power. I do worry about that. On one hand I see great value and benefit in a branded community that is provided a vehicle to work together. On the other hand I don't want to buy a vehicle that's just going to run over people that don't think, live or act like the simple majority.

Very salient statement, Dr.Greenbaum, Brookhaven will be a real boon to our area.

DeKalb created a very restrictive sign ordinance a few years ago to limit billboards. The sign/advertising promptly flooded the permit office with applications and then sued. After a settlement was reached the sign/advertising company got the case reopened and the Peachtree sign went up following a judge's consent order. The Brookhaven Peachtree Community Alliance might have better info.

I am amused at the entire hubbub regarding the electric sign. I do not find it objectionable as it tends to blend in with the adjacent building and is approximately the same height. Very comical that this sign is frequently mentioned yet no one says a thing about the other three billboards less than half a mile north.

Cities and towns with exceptionally restrictive sign laws drive me crazy. Some go so far as to dictate the colors acceptable demanding changes in nationally known logos. Years ago, before GPS was available, I passed by places I was looking for in Charleston three and four times because the signage was hard to locate and in some instances logos changed.

Man! That certainly was a tasty special hamburger!

dekalb sign ordinance and enforcement = non existant. tickity tackity, rickty rackity. it reminds me how tacky the 96 olymoics were in atl. one big county fair...if thats what you like, keep it as it is....

Enuff has most of this right, but the permit flood came just a day before the more retrictive sign ordinance was to go into effect - there were a couple hundred. The suit followed, resulting in a negotiated agreement on numbers of signs and locations. Case closed. "Somehow" the case was reopened and additional signs were allowed by the courts. Generally, Commissioners agreed to sign locations in areas where other signs already existed. The sign location of Sandy's post was "requested," and Commissioner Boyer allowed it. It never was a zoning issue, as the site is properly zoned to allow signs. This sign was in District 1, but is now in District 2. The county wants to get this sign relocated and has talked to the owner, but it is all about traffic counts. Our sign ordiance lags the state of the art, and needs to be revisited.

You guys are making me go way back in time. The sign ordinance goes back to the Liane Levetan days and was sat on for far too long.

I forget all the steps to final creation of the ordinance but do know that there was what I think was an unauthorized act by a county official that allowed several Billboards that had the name in small print on the bottom of the billboards of the operating business on the premise where the billboards were. This was largely a fake premise. But even if true the approval still violated the code because the businesses kept their real business signs up. Nevertheless the approval led to the less than positive settlement. Here's a test do you all know the county official who signed the approvals? And the connections to the party getting the approval?

Eric - Go ahead. Scare us. I know that at the time, Bob Lunsten was fighting some signs in Dunwoody and Larry Danese fighting two near Blackburn/cambridge square. As a last official act - or near last - Vernon had Patrick (Ejike) issue some permits near Georgetown to aggrivate some Dunwoodians. There are like 5 of them around there.

Say what, nope I'm talking farther back in time. Patrick, while I could find fault, was allocating a settlement based on an approval by someone before him.

Taxpayers, not Ellis’ re-election campaign, have paid $4,000 on the eight temporary signs so far. That figure is expected to double when another eight are put up later this year and could swell to $40,000 if the county erects signs at the 82 upcoming water/sewer projects, according to records obtained by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.