Patch Poll: Brookhaven's Temp Offices In Dunwoody
Does it bother you that our new city will have its temporary city hall outside city limits? Take our Patch poll and share your opinion.
On Monday, Patch reported the Brookhaven Commission had recommended the new city's temporary office space be located in Dunwoody. In its first meeting, the Brookhaven City Council approved the measure.
It was a topic that got quite a bit of attention from our readers:
- "This is not uncommon. Sandy Springs, Johns Creek and Dunwoody all took temp space outside of City limits in an effort to control costs and get in quickly."
- "The Old Kroger can be redesign inside for the Permanent City Hall. But couldn't they find space closer for the temp city hall?"
- "This is simply counter-intuitive and "wrong" in spirit. The city is supposed to draw its people together, instead, it has been located to provide a short commute for co-Mayors Davis & Jacobs."
- "This is ridiculous. There is plenty of space on Buford highway although likely not as 'attractive as Dunwoody and of course the space that another poster suggested - the old Kroger/Harris Teeter shopping center.. I find this disrespectful to the citizens of Brookhaven."
- "I'm ok with folks venting about a non-Brookhaven City Hall - I don't like it either but I do understand it is necessary to get the City moving."
- "First order of Brookhaven Business, move to Dunwoody. Unreal."
So Patch took a drive to Dunwoody on Tuesday afternoon to get a glimpse - at least from the outside - of Brookhaven's home for temporary office - 200 Ashford Center North, near the intersection of Ashford-Dunwoody and Mount Vernon roads.
Looks like a nice place, and we understand from Monday night's city council meeting, the offices already have data lines and cables for IT connections and the like. The commission's Jed Beardsley even told the city council there was a nice little cafe nearby for city employees.
So Patch wants to know: Does it bother you that Dunwoody will house our new city's offices, even on a temporary basis? Does it send the wrong message to our citizens, even though Dunwoody and Sandy Springs did the same thing during their startup phases? Or is this simply, much ado about nothing? Take our Patch poll and share your comments.
Road Scholar
8:55 am on Wednesday, December 12, 2012
One of the first things done is to define an ethics policy BEFORE they start selecting consultants. NO GIFTS and return any election donations from the finalists.
Eddie E.
12:02 pm on Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Makes me long for the 'good old days' before Citizens United,...back when it was the LAW.
Barb Halaburt
12:02 pm on Wednesday, December 12, 2012
If they did their due diligence and searched Brookhaven first, I'm ok with temporary digs in Dunwoody. I'm going to be positive and give my new reps benefit of the doubt and assume they did! Let's move on and let them get their work done - they have a tremendous task ahead of them.
Chris Horner
3:25 pm on Wednesday, December 12, 2012
People who want to complain will ALWAYS find something to complain about. These same people would've been complaining about our new city leasing TEMPORARY space in Harris Teeter for 50% more than we could've been paying in Dunwoody...
Sometimes you can't win...haters gonna hate...
"E Pluribus Unum"
3:25 pm on Wednesday, December 12, 2012
If due diligence was performed, I'm fine with the temporary move. I am more interested in where the permanent locations will be for city hall and police station. Hit a couple of home runs with those decisions and everything will smooth out. NOTE....the old Harris Tettter location is NOT a home run. That would be considered striking out and swinging at a wild pitch. Sorry for the sports analogy folks.
don Gabacho
4:57 pm on Wednesday, December 12, 2012
"If they did their due diligence and searched Brookhaven first, I'm ok with temporary digs in Dunwoody. I'm going to be positive and give my new reps the benefit of the doubt..."---Barb
Hate to burst your bubble but have no "doubt" that "they" should be referring to the Governor's commissars---oops---non-elected commissioners who were empowered to search.
Not the "reps."
So much for government by 'assumption.'
No?
Low and Behold
4:57 pm on Wednesday, December 12, 2012
I prefer saving money over a short term and largely meaningless symbolic gesture of housing the county manager and 3 or 4 other staffers inside the city limits for the next year. ITS JUST TEMPORARY! The Governors Commission pursuant to the Charter and the legislation covering the Commission has executed its role in a very admirable fashion and there is no reason to doubt that their recommendation is based on the facts as they exist.
Furnished, wired, and ready with little more than a dusting with the appropriate amount of space, for the appropriate amount of time at the right price? That does narrow the field.
For the permanent facility the City will be able to negotiate a "build out" (renovation) allowance with the landlord in exchange for a longer term lease.
brookhaven atlanta
5:06 pm on Sunday, December 16, 2012
After nearly 2 years of pro-city people bleating about "local control" and "keeping our tax money in Brookhaven", now we have our very own city hall in.....Dunwoody! These are the same people that complained constantly about having to drive to Decatur for county business. Fun fact: Brookhaven City Hall is further away from many areas in Brookhaven (nearly 9 miles) than Decatur is (6.7 miles). Plus we have the added bonus of spending rent and tax dollars in another city.
Don Green
6:33 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
So they move to Dunwoody into Class A office space, this is not what I call fiscal responsibility. They could rent space in Northeast Plaza, and have their council meetings in Briarwood Park. This is why I opposed the creation of yet another government to support.
don Gabacho
1:37 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
""This is not uncommon. Sandy Springs, Johns Creek and Dunwoody all took temp space outside of City limits in an effort to control costs and get in quickly.'"
Common or not, incorporations essentially driven and legislatively mandated by the same pack of politicos as Brookhaven's incorporation.
As it is, and despite as they have had it: The mere potential for hindering anyone governed by the seat of their own governance being located---for any duration---outside their governance's own jurisdiction can not be legal.
That is, short of compelling war or natural, but temporary, catastrophe.
Even with the consent of others governed, no resident's access to, and even scrutiny of, their government can be hindered by such.
And, conversely, no government having such allowance to so distance and even isolate itself from their own accountability by the governed.
No matter how even casual the enablers' regard for rule of law has been when, for only one example, "All incorporations are using the same temporary suspension of state law which requires any new city's boundaries to be at least three miles (5km) from any existing city."
Read more: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/273525#ixzz2FQAqwgkJ
Why shouldn't any resident of these cities and City of Brookhaven just as casually "suspend" these cities's, including Brookhaven's, claim of having any credance and legitamacy at all?
Any force of law?