There have been occasions on these public online surveys where the same person[s] will vote repeatedly on the same issue just to confuse the public. "Food for thought!!"--Tom Reilly

Most of these respondents don't even live within the proposed boundaries, I say let's have a vote that counts. The folks that live within the proposed boundaries have the right to vote on city hood. What is the big deal? If the people want it let them have it.

The big deal, JR BADIBOI, is that there is a piece of land included in the proposed city boundaries that is in dispute. If Jacobs & Co. removed the Plaza Fiesta parcel, I think you'd find that those living in surrounding areas wouldn't be opposed to the vote.

@Mike Jacobs - I do not live in the boundaries of the city, and I signed the petition.... So my question to you: are you implying that only those that live within the boundaries of the proposed city are stakeholders in this issue? Surely that is not the case, as you held a meeting with those you deemed to be "stakeholders", i.e. DECA representatives and Chamblee representatives, who do not live within the boundaries of the proposed city.

As Justin Turner pointed out, many of us live in surrounding areas and would be negatively impacted by the creation of Brookhaven as the proposed boundaries are currently drawn. We have as much right to voice opposition as anyone else.

What exactly is that you have done about officials and employees of the Mexican Government (operating from offices within our own neighborhood) registering voters for our elections?

Likewise their either fabricating or being given voter registration forms?

http://bit.ly/nkqBuS
http://bit.ly/odEZbI
http://bit.ly/nWDzCU

Havin't you read his latest post?

He is "we of the Patch" too.

Absolutely no regard for "conflict of interest" at all.

Drew Valley, which comprise a quarter of the original map of the proposed city, was never asked anything. I guess we just didn't matter since we were not in Rep. Jacobs' district.

The people impacted by this issue (both within and outside the currently stated boundaries) should know that Rep. Jacobs is on the Board of the committee (C4ND) that is pushing the Brookhaven cityhood issue. Many see this as a conflict of interest and wonder why Rep. Jacobs is so eager to hurry this process through the legislature.

If so he should have refused telling them to take the matter to their respective county commissioners to both author any proposal and, if necessary, bill and proceed from there.

"Rep Jacobs is supporting the people who put him in office."

He is?

@Resident 30319 - a referendum that allowed all stakeholders to vote on the issue would be a better way to decide... unfortunately, this is a case of one man (Rep. Mike Jacobs) getting to decide who actually gets to vote. I would direct your attention to the Mike Jacobs quote below, and remind you that Mike Jacobs is/was a C4ND board member. I am appalled at how such a blatant conflict of self interest is permissible in our state legislature.

Rep. Mike Jacobs (9/30/11, Brookhaven Patch): “The citizens group ultimately may roll the study area back, and I ultimately may decide to go with a smaller set of boundaries.”

Yeah, but Jacobs was on the board of the group pushing for this initiative. Seems like a conflict of interest to me.

"My understanding is that a legislator had to sponsor a bill..."

"Sponsoring" is one thing.

"Authoring" quite another.

"Authoring" and "sponsoring" still another.

Meanwhile there is this matter of the Mexican Government registering voters.

@ Mike Jacobs - In the spirit of transparency, I respectfully request that you/C4ND provide residency information of those individuals/entities that donated to the C4ND "charity"

Per C4ND Website:
"Citizens for North DeKalb, Inc. is licensed as a charity by the State of Georgia"
"Citizens for North DeKalb is a non-profit corporation that simply provides information regarding municipal options"

To Justin Turner's request, I add that you explain on whose or what authority did your committee commission the Vinson Institute Study with all particulars of just who paid for it or, if unpaid, any and all committments for payment including by whom.

"Legislators are not supposed to be neutral on the issues."

While their districts may not, their representatives certainly are.

"We are elected to vote 'yea' or 'nay' and set public policy."

A representative is elected by his or her constituents to represent their respective district as a whole. It is they, the constituents, who describe and decide the "public policy" to be represented, set and legislated by their eventual "yea" or "nay" vote in the person of their representative.

It is not "the job" of a representative to involve him or herself in any committee, much less proactive one, representative of only a faction of his or her constituency, much less again, "author" any bill perceptibly representative of that committee or faction only to, in effect, predispose the will of the constituency.

And predispose it has and does. That 'which side of a street is to be included or not in any new city' is worse than ludicrous given there has been no mandate to have any new city at all. No public mandate to have even commissioned any study for a new city.

Again, how is you're sitting on, or having sat on, a committee clearly representative, at best, of only a faction of the district you were elected to represent and authoring any bill, much less, a predisposing bill representative of the committee, not a "conflict of interest"?

I drive my car through Drew Valley and other parts of Brookhaven and have not had to repair car as a result. Leisurely activities affected?

I somewhat agree. Though I have different solutions.

In any case, any effort to form a new government, or expand any government, must be free of any perception for even potential for "conflict of interest." Not only on the part of any representative obligated to the whole of his or her district but also any particular committee that would allow membership of a representative obligated to the whole of his or her district.

Moreover, no perceptibly mere name change of a committee can remove the perception of the public trust having been ignored or even violated.

Any government can only be as trustworthy as the forms and procedures conceiving it. Merely being new, or expanded, is no guarantee of making things better.

Wear and tear on my vehicle comes from the lack of maintenance on roads such as Dresden Drive that have at least three metal plates covering pot holes with rebar sticking up from them. People literally weave around these all day creating a hazard and distraction to oncoming traffic.

My leisurely activities are affected when it is a haul to get to a decent park when I am surrounded by plenty of park land.

Some folks are high maintenance.

"Quick question:" Aren't the main zip codes for the Brookhaven area under study only 30319 and 30341??--Tom Reilly

Now that's 320 signatures out of >450,000 residents within the boundary of the proposed city, right? At this rate, I would say you have alot of work to do to get to a statistically significant response.

@GuruLikeDrucker - I assume you meant to say "320 signatures out of >45,000"... as there are not 450,000 people living within the boundaries of the proposed city.

Either way, you make an interesting point... because the "320 signatures" exceed the amount of people actually polled by Rep. Mike Jacobs, and definitely exceeds the ~30% "majority" of those polled that were actually in favor of Brookhaven Incorporation.

So in short, based on your comments, I would say that those pushing for incorporation have even more work to do to validate their claims that there is a majority of people in favor of this expedited incorporation.

@ Justin Turner
You missed the more telling statistic from the Murphey Candler Home Owners Association poll ( you refer to as the "Mike Jacobs poll"). In that Poll 78.4% of polled residents want to either join a city (60.1%) or had no opinion (18.3%), while only 21.6% were opposed to the cityhood option. I would say that is overwhelming support for some form of cityhood.

Hi, Pat!! I was reading the formal Brookhaven City study last night. I thought that the study area referred to some 45,000 people as inhabitants of the proposed city area. Lately I've been hearing [and reading] that the population count is 450,000. Who's right??--Tom Reilly

Relative to the original Brookhaven poll: a very, very small number of people inside the original proposed boundaries were polled as compared to the affected population. Even many people inside the revised boundaries still don't know much about this issue. Relative to the commercial areas included in the revised boundaries: it is a fact that, had no opposition occurred, C4ND would have included the additional cherry-picked PDK and Century Center parcels dropped, as well as the Fiesta Plaza parcel currently included. The apparent reason for including the parcels was to obtain the revenue that made the study look better. Since the neighboring residential areas were excluded and the associated costs therefore also were excluded, it was hard to come to any other conclusion. Relative to voting: if all the affected residents both inside and outside the proposed boundaries could vote, then voting would be fair and equitable. However, when a select few with motivations still open to question try to exert their will upon other citizens without due process granted to all affected, then opposition is not only justified but obligatory.

@GuruLikeDruker - Not sure I would use "overwhelming" to describe your combined ~60% which are in favor of some form of cityhood, as this is just slightly above 50/50.... and is arrived at by combining three distinctly different groups (from a response standpoint). And I certainly would not use the 60% as justification for CREATING A NEW CITY OF BROOKHAVEN, when approx. half of the 60% were in favor of joining other cities that are already established.

Also, If I were to apply similar logic to yours, I could counter that there you missed the more telling statistic that an "overwhelming" ~51% of respondents were not in favor of CREATING A NEW CITY... or better yet, ~69% of polled residents were either not in favor of creating a new city (~51%) or had no opinion (~18%).

In short, we could debate all day on how to interpret the afforementioned poll. However, one thing that can not be refuted is the mathematical fact that the total of 209 petition signers that live inside the proposed boundaries absolutely exceed the total of 70 poll respondents in favor of Brookhaven Incorporation (30.8%), as well as the "overwhelming" total of 136 poll respondents that support some form of cityhood.

@ Justin
It’s really simple, 78.4% of polled residents either voted to to join a different city (any city) or had no opinion, 21.6% preferred to remain unincorporated. "Not in favor of creating a new city" (a term you fabricated), was not an option. Feel free to run your own poll in these neighborhoods using terms that fit your desired outcome, you obviously have a gift for “spin” so I’ll be interested in the results. Those of us that created this poll put a lot of time and thought into it and were very careful to design the poll in such a way that we could use the response to direct our energy toward the initiatives that had the highest level of support in our neighborhood. It was obvious from the results that our neighbors were not happy with the status quo and the “new city option” had the highest level of support. The undeniable fact is that many of our neighbors would support a city option. Based on our experience and the results of this simple poll, we believed that a new city offered the best resolution for creating unity and overcoming the stigma that some of our neighbors attached to the Chamblee and/or Dunwoody labels. Only then did we offer our support to Mike Jacobs and the Brookhaven compromise. Regardless of how you prefer to spin the results, there is enough support in these neighborhoods to pass this legislation. FYI, I was one of the people that responded Dunwood… but I assume you know where I stand now.
GL Drucker

It seems to me that the only justification that some folks would accept as conclusive that people inside the boundaries are 'for' the city of Broohaven would be a full scale accounting of the area.

Of course, the same folks are against a referendum.

Go figure.

@ GuruLIkeDrucker - Actually, i was not attempting to "spin" anything... I was simply using the same flawed logic that you used in combining respondent groupings to justify "YOUR ORIGINAL SPIN"... to show that an alternate "spin" could be made the other way. Hence my statement "we could debate all day on how to interpret the afforementioned poll". And to your point, there may be enough support in "these neighborhoods" to pass this bill... but the real question is whether or not there is enough support in all neighborhoods within the boundaries???

Would also note that I am not against citizens getting to vote on this issue... I just want Rep. Jacobs to amend the boundaries to exclude disputed commercial property, otherwise I will continue actively oppose of the incorporation bill.

Also curious as to which C4ND board member you are... and wonder why you, Bill Hightower and Stan Segal never post under your actual full names?
("Only then did we offer our support to Mike Jacobs and the Brookhaven compromise.")

"I just want Rep. Jacobs to amend the boundaries to exclude disputed commercial property, otherwise I will continue actively oppose of the incorporation bill. "

At least we are getting to the brass tacks of the matter instead of messing around with all of this other hullabaloo.

I don't see the issue with the property we are talking about. Those commercial properties are directly across from Drew Valley and Ashford Park. They would benefit from more police, better code enforcement, and better public works (and even better zoning). Having those areas in a city of Brookhaven would be beneficial not just to residents of Brookhaven, but to the neighbors in unicorporated DeKalb. On top of that, the neighbors in Chamblee and unicorporated DeKalb would be receiving that benefit without having to pay the taxes for such benefits.

I've seen the same affect with Dunwoody's improvements at the Georgetown shopping center and Chamblee's recent annexation of Savoy Dr. Those areas are much better off for being in cities and the neighborhoods surrounding them...in Chamblee, Dunwoody, and unicorporated DeKalb have been better off for it.

@ William (aka Bill Hightower, C4ND Board Member) re: "At least we are getting to the brass tacks of the matter instead of messing around with all of this other hullabaloo."

First - It has never been a secret that the removal of the disputed commercial property is an issue, as it has been made known many times (online & in public forums)... unless it was a secret to Jacobs/C4ND, which would imply they have have just not been listening all along.

Second - To imply that debate/discussion about other issues/grievances besides this one is simply "messing around with all this other hullabaloo" further exemplifies that you and your C4ND cronies have no respect for the opinions of those who do not simply fall in line with your agenda.

Perhaps you should tell Ronnie Mayer that he should stop "repeating himself" at every meeting he attends (to paraphrase Resident 30319)... as it is nothing but "hullabaloo"

Justin-

1) I'm not sure why me being a member of the C4ND board is such a big deal to you. I've never 'commented' on behalf of that group. I've always been about giving my personal opinion and being pretty upfront on where I stand. I'm proud to have served on that group and to have been a part at the effort to raise funds for the study. I think getting the feasibility study done and getting that information to the public was a very important step in the process of whether or not folks in the study area should support or be against incorporation. I'm proud of the time I gave to that effort...feel free to continue to mention it.
2) Your statement was pretty clear. It isn't that the commercial property is 'an' issue for you. It is that it is 'the' issue for you. I didn't ever say that is was the only issue for anyone else, but did respond to the fact that it is, by your statement, the only issue driving your opposition to the vote.
3) I never disrespected your opinion or told you to fall in line.
4) I did, however, lay out a thoughtful (IMO) analysis of why I disagree with you about the discussed property being included in the boundaries. You did not respond to those points.

Again, I'm not sure why you and others seem to take disagreement as a personal attack and spin it into some form of blatant disrespect for your opinions. It isn't my intention or my goal. I wish you nothing but the best even though we disagree on this issue.

@ William (aka Bill Hightower, C4ND Boardmember)
1) I continue to identify you as a board member so that people reading will know that you, as a member of C4ND, are directly responsible for the issues/grievances that I and many others are pointing out. I also don't want people to mistake your comments, or Stan Segal's comments, as being from someone who is "unbiased" or a "neutral observer". For example, I want people to know that your reply to Julia on 1/19: "I'm sure you will disagree and find a reason to send everyone from the DECA facebook page over here to comment"; is coming from a C4ND board member, which makes it sound hypocritical coming from somone who has engaged in trying to "rally" support for his own groups agenda.

2) Then I apparrently misinterpreted your "hullabelloo" comment as being directed towards all the other issues/grievances against Jacobs/C4ND. I will however point out that while this is the driver for my opposition to the bill being passed, I still take issue with how Jacobs/C4ND has managed this whole process (lack of communication, lack of transparency, lack of inclusion of all stakeholders despite promises to do so, Jacobs conflict of interest, Jacobs making multiple contradictory statements, Snide/Dismissive comments made by Jacobs/C4ND board members, advocating/pushing specificaly for Brookhaven Incorporation instead of adhering the C4ND Mission)
3) (see above for continuation)

@ William (aka Bill Hightower, C4ND Boardmember) - Continued from Below
3)See #2 re: misinterpretation of your comments: however I will include some dismissive quotes from C4ND Board Members. (a) Mike Jacobs: "Julia ...I doubt that you have talked with more than five people on that subject"; (b) Stan Segal (reply to Julia Sellers Post): "If someone said the sky was blue, this group would argue whether it was the sky or the outer atmosphere"

4) Response to your points: "the neighbors in Chamblee and unicorporated DeKalb would be receiving that benefit without having to pay the taxes for such benefits" - To this point, I would tell you that my taxes will go up to make up for the shortfall created by Brookhaven ciphoning off a disproportionate amount of the tax base... so if Jacobs/C4ND claims are valid, you'll be enjoying lower taxes while I will pay higher taxes... for a benefit that we both will presumably share in.

As for your last comment, I do not take these comments as personal attacks, as I recognize that this is politics... but I will certainly reference them where applicable.

I would also note that given the announcement today by Rep. Elena Parent regarding a bill for Chamblee Annexation of DECA and disputed properties, I have nothing more to discuss with you on this issue, so long as Rep. Jacobs sticks to his word.

If your neighborhood decides it wants to be annexed into Chamblee, I'll support it full force and will not ask for a moratorium on annexation or a delay on your right to vote.

I hope that if your neighborhood is behind an annexation, they will also get behind the benefits of having Brookhaven and a larger Chamblee working side-by-side in the future.

William, in response to your comment below, I am glad to hear that you will "support it full force" if DECA decides to annex into Chamblee. However, we will NOT have that option if the businesses along Buford Highway are taken by a city of Brookhaven. That is the problem. It is very simple. By taking those businesses, you are robbing my community of the option to incorporate. I don't think that I can make my comments any more clear. I have been posting this over and over and over, and your group apparently cannot wrap your brains around it...You are acting like it is the first time you are hearing this argument. We would like to preserve our options for annexation. In order to do so, we would need those commercial properties along Buford Highway. I mean, come on, Plaza Fiesta is NOT Brookhaven. Have you ever even been there? I have actually shopped there many times. I find it hard to believe that the yuppies that showed up at the capital on Tuesday in support of HB636 would ever set foot in any of the shops at Plaza Fiesta.

1)I think it is arguable, based on the facts about that commercial property, whether or not it is the make or break for you to pursue cityhood. I believe based upon the CVI study that this area is not a tax revenue cow...I think it is closer to revenue neutral. However, the net revenue of Century Plaza, which I believe testimony last week put that value at around $1.5M in NET revenue, makes annexation or incorporation a viable option for the 1,500 or so residents in the combined DECA areas regardless of the triangle of land on the east side of Clairmont.
2) So I would say, respectively, it isn't that no one is hearing you, rather it is a disagreement about the facts and a difference in opinion. Generally, the opposition group in DECA has painted this as a 'tax revenue grab.' The facts and numbers about the parcel say otherwise. The actions to draw Century Plaza out of the boundaries say otherwise. This parcel, with its multiple night clubs, needs proper local zoning, local code enforcement and local policing...whether it is by Chamblee or Brookhaven....and the zoning, code enforcement, and police of this parcel affects Drew Valley and Ashford Park, just like the businesses on the West side of Clairmont.

As far as the ignorant shot at me and others who support HB 636... yes, I have been to Plaza Fiesta. I go there on occasion when I need 'authentic' ideas about loud western wear and the bakery has some delicious treats. I drive my 9 year old Honda Accord with the two car seats in the back...standard yuppie transportation, I'm sure.
You probably don't know that my upbringing included my single mother driving me from Decatur to the Burlington Coat Factory at 'your' shopping center when I was a young child because that was one of the most affordable place to find deals on coats in the area. I believe that was prior to it becoming the Oriental Mall and then later the Plaza Fiesta (late 90s?). I also have many fond memories of 'special' nights out at the 57th fighter group as a kid and have enjoyed the latest re-opening tremendously.

I don't mind discussing the facts, but the ignorant assumptions about people that you have never met undercut your credibility. I have a decent amount of familiarity with the shopping center...certainly enough to discuss it...but frankly, my connection to the center doesn't matter. What concerns me is the nexus of that center to Drew Valley and Ashford Park and while I can look at a map and agree that these areas are also close to Clairmont Terrace and DECA, I can't agree that any of these neighborhoods would be better off with this center staying in DeKalb county. I hope Chamblee annexation makes this issue moot.

"This parcel, with its multiple night clubs, needs proper local zoning, local code enforcement and local policing"
IF the business is legal now it will be legal under a city. Are you and other pro city under the impression that the current crop of minority businesses would somehow be dealt with and run off with by zoning? Just curious because this theme seems to run through a couple of post?

What is your problem?

Just as the State of Georgia is a State of the United States, the "County of DeKalb" and any city, established or proposed, is not a County or City of Mexico. Yet officials and employees of the Mexican Government have been registering voters for our elections.

How does your having lived "fifty-nine years" anywhere qualify you to supersede a matter as that?

Tell us why the very sovereignty of our own elections must be less important than even "Plaza Fiesta"?

And, please, do offer an explanation rather than simply demand to vote anyway as no one except proponents of this City of Brookhaven and this City of Chamblee's expansionism post.

We are, after all, an electorate of the free and, most hopefully, brave.

Do you "see" the officials and employees of the Mexican Government registering voters for our elections, as photographed and promoted by the Georgia Association of Latino Officials (of which there are none), identified as such?

If not by title, at least by name"?

They are doing so 'incognito.'

http://bit.ly/nkqBuS
http://bit.ly/odEZbI
http://bit.ly/nWDzCU

"Vamos a ver lo que la futura nos trae/let's see what the future brings us."

You must mean "take a ride to the future being forced upon us without even our knowledge much less consent.

You must mean surrender to utter surreptition in the disguise of---How did you put it?----"culture"?

@ Tom Reilly - While "yuppies" was probably not the appropriate term for "Slow It Down" to use, the point is still valid with respect to the self-appointed few that have DICTATED the boundaries of the proposed city... i.e., how many of the original 12 board members had actually ever stepped foot in PLAZA FIESTA (not Fiesta Plaza) prior to drawing up the 2nd boundary map, or will ever step foot in PLAZA FIESTA in the future.
I will thank you though, for your validation/confirmation that the afforementioned commercial property IS NOT "Brookhaven", per your statement "keeping things on as factual basis, which includes that while recognizing that 'Fiesta Plaza is [definitely] not Brookhaven'..." And you are absolutely correct in that people do need a government responsive to playing by the rules, going by the evidence, and appreciating their constituents.

Unfortunatly Rep. MIke Jacobs does not act in this manner. Maybe you can convince him that "Plaza Fiesta is definitely NOT Brookhaven"... as I am guessing that you are in his good graces.

"Time to vote folks."

Why? When officials and employees have been "registering voters"?

Why are you allowing it?