Alan,
It seems that most everyone that actually takes the time to investigate the information come away ready and eager to vote pro city. There are of course a percent of the population that don't really understand what this means to our community and just popped up there no city sign a year ago without ever really figuring out what is going on.
And then you have a few that have their interests and not that of their community in mind.
I do believe there are some that have genuine concerns but think that is a very small minority.

I echo what you are sharing. I was a NO camper from the beginning simply because I thought the effort would lead to higher taxes. So, I stayed away from the debate until a neighbor asked my wife six weeks ago if she could drop by a NO camp sign. My wife said yes because of our discussions.

A few days passed before we received the sign and I stumbled across the Brookhaven Patch. What an adventure it contained. I read every back article and stayed current on new ones. During this time I quickly grew tired of the emotional vitriol of the NO camps. It was ridiculous and I found myself questioning their motives and tactics. I read horrible comments by three posters from the NO camp who posted continuously ad infinitum.

I kept culling through information from both NO & YES camps and concluded that I could not maintain a NO camp vote. I decided that I would cast my vote as YES to the city of Brookhaven, an area I love living within. At that point I began adding commentary, which of course led to very intense & headed discussions with 2 of the 3 most prolific city haters from the NO camp.

I can't say I'm pleased about every comment I've made; however, it's been cathartic nonetheless. It's tough to find oneself in a position of standing against those who are dishonest & extremely deceptive (the NO CAMPS). Sometimes it's a lonely proposition. Even still I had to take a strong stand.

Nice letter Alan! The opponents lost credibility very early when they tried to kill the bill in the legislature - to deny the rest of us our vote. Three main groups of opponents exist: a) No, because Mike Jacobs, et al; b) No, we prefer DeKalb's status quo; c) No seems easier or safer (catch all). The problem for those groups is their ideas and activities consume great amounts of oxygen, producing excess intellectual waste. They shun those who don’t contribute negative energy. Negative mental churning increases, toxic byproduct has no escape. Except for occasional spontaneous (triggered by microphones) superheated release at public forums, their plight worsens. Ideological hypoxia occurs at the core, confusion and panic sprout, leading to more fervent activity and waste. They try to recruit more people to bring fresh oxygen into their vortex, even as their hypoxic condition results in extremes such as: personal attacks; paranoid cynicism; dread of being left behind; even blatant dishonesty. One sad outcome is chronic hateful misery and agitation which causes extended distraction from the fundamental goal: improving local government through downsizing to smaller more efficient local representation. It’s possible for suffering naysayers to recover a healthy state of optimism if they survive long enough to experience the event they fight so viciously – a new city. Here's hoping a speedy return to health for as many DeKalbNoCityers as possible in the City of Brookhaven.

Alan,
Believe what you will, the FACTS are clear:
Through either higher taxes, franchise fees or both, it WILL cost you more to live in the Opposed City than in Unincorporated North Dekalb County.
There WILL be less police protection if the Opposed City passes.
There WILL not be an effective parks budget as the money will be consumed for essential services.
Woe be unto us if the gentlemans club on Buford Highway decides to move across the freeway. Taxes will skyrocket.
If you live in Ashford Park, you will get to vote for Mayor and a member of the grand cyclops. However, that will be perfunctory as the majority will always be north of Peachtree.
The bill should have been killed in the Legislature due to the many discrepancies in the CVI study, however the One Party State does not like to call question upon the capabilities of it's own. Look at how peachy that has been working at the state level since 2003!

But you are a grown person and free to make whatever horrible mistake you deem necessary.

@Eddie E.
“Believe what you will, the FACTS are clear:”
Labeling your delusions as facts (even all caps) does not make them so. City taxes will not be higher than UNIC County; city police will provide more protection; city parks will be improved. Those issues were worn out weeks ago, time to move along to the next level with the other DeKalbFightsCity automatons.

@Eddie E.
“Woe be unto us if the gentlemans club on Buford Highway decides to move across the freeway. Taxes will skyrocket”
You seem overly concerned about losing Pink Pony. I haven’t visited sine the mid-90s, but I’ll bet there is enough folding money in one day’s worth of lap dances in Pink Pony to pay for a whole park’s worth of wheeled toys for children. You may be able to confirm that since you are knowledgeable about their taxes. Regarding taxes, if PP moves to Briarcliff maybe they will drop the ‘gentleman’ requirement so you if you should decide to visit, you won’t have to wear Groucho beaglepuss glasses to slip in past the bouncer. Then your precious tax dollars will continue to help your beloved DeKalb maintain its bloat. Win-win. Time for VIP room?

@Eddie E.
“If you live in Ashford Park, you will get to vote for Mayor and a member of the grand cyclops. However, that will be perfunctory as the majority will always be north of Peachtree."
Rub your eyes. Have another clear look at the city map. There are 4 council districts. South of Peachtree there are 2 full districts (2, 4) and part of district 3. How can you claim 2+ districts are ‘perfunctory’ compared to 1+ district? Before you answer, the districts are drawn based on population, not geographical size. District 1 is bigger because it has fewer people per acre. Each district will elect one city council member who lives in the district to represent approximately 12,000 people. That is much more representative than the 130,000 or more people per DeKalb Commissioner.

Maybe you will consider runing for council to represent your district?

This Yes effort is as much about becoming a city as it is for the political ambition of J Max Davis Jr. You can research it.

The man who would be king.

The No city picnic is very very funny. CCC would not let the masses of the people in! Let alone MEI have to meet with the working class, unless it was not some tax write off benefit she could host off of paces ferry to show she supports the little people! What a piece of work...If I believed in some higher being at least I would have the satisfaction of pure judgement day for some of these who walk the streets holier than thou....

Another confession: I, too, was initially against a new city when I first heard about the push because I assumed that the local management infrastructure MUST, without a doubt, be more costly overall than leaving everything with Dekalb. That was my knee-jerk reaction.

But after doing more research and seeing real-life "guinea pig" cities nearby and their experiences, I shifted to YES. It is a "tribute" to the well-documented overstaffing problems in the County government that has made a votte for YES even possible. If the County government was better managed--a City would have NO CHANCE of passing.

But when you realize that outsourcing will be a major component of the new City--a component that has made all the difference in Dunwoody and Sandy Springs--it is clear to me that a new City of Brookhaven will be a major improvement.

Alan,

I respect your opinion, but it sounds like you are voting Yes for Brookhaven because you feel BrookhavenYES has run a better campaign than the No City groups. BrookhavenYES has done a good job having open meetings and garnering community support -- I get that.

What about the other big issues like local control, police protection, taxes and finance, zoning, etc? It's scary that your reason for voting yes mentions none of these issues. I hope that you are voting yes because you feel you'll be better off in a City of Brookhaven and not just because you feel the Yes side has run a better campaign and had more family days.

"for me, transparency and openness go a long way."

That seems like a very good reason to vote yes for the City of Brookhaven.

Transparency and openness are also easier to accomplish at a more local level that the City of Brookhaven would provide for Zoning and Development, Roads and Sidewalks, Parks and Police.

Just another layer of govt......just what we need. Or in other words crap on top of crap!

The complaint filed by Brookhaven Yes concerning the disregard of campaign laws by DeKalb County officials has elicited this response from Burke Brennan, Chief Communications Officer of DeKalb County: It's a "last-minute stunt." So, asking our officials to abide by the law, and calling them on it if they don't, is a "stunt." Read back over the comments on this forum and note the sarcasm and nastiness of most No City proponents, and a clear picture emerges.

Latest polling information, based on feedback from our volunteer field network is:

57.65% NO with the remainder YES or UNDECIDED.

Respondents concerns with the new city in no specific order are as follows:

- New city concept sold hard with confusing facts.
- Out of date and incomplete data being used to promote cityhood.
- Distrust of the new city promoter motives (MJ) and manner in which the cityhood concept was developed in neighborhoods around Silver Lake and north.
- Lack of commercial property in new city.
- Concerned petty politics will continue in new city with the select few BY folks running new city.
- Distrust of Brookhaven Yes key supporters, their election to city offices, and manipulating city government for their benefit.
- Do not want another layer of government. Had rather work to change existing government.
- Bothered that CVI Study was not linked to HB 636 for cityhood guidance and development.
- Feel cityhood issue should have required more time for development.

Some respondents were very strong in stating their distrust of cityhood promoters and the short timeframe for issue vote.

Many were not impressed with the last minute shenanigans of the Brookhaven Yes folks. The WSB-TV piece with J. Max Davis showed how little he knows about the southern portion of the city. Anyone have a link to that video?

Special hamburger and Cheerwine?