"The Financials Are Precarious At Best"
Jodi Cobb of Drew Valley discusses why Brookhaven should not become its own city.
Brookhaven Patch talks about the issue of cityhood with Jodi Cobb, a Drew Valley resident who is opposed to the idea:
Patch: So tell us about some of the organizations that are opposed to Brookhaven cityhood.
Jodi: No City Brookhaven is a registered Ballot Committee with the State Ethics Commission.
I can only speak for our committee. Mrs. Mary Ellen Imlay is our Chair. She unofficially shares that duty with Co-Chair Mr. Chuck Konas. I serve as Treasurer. Our lead consultant is Mr. Scott Rials.
We are not officially affiliated with any other groups that are opposing the city, but I know there are a lot of organizations and hard-working individuals who share our goal of defeating this at the ballot box on July 31.
Patch: What are the most common questions that people have been asking you?
Jodi: Why do we need a city? How much is this going to cost me? Who started this idea? Will it help the schools? Will the major proponents of the city be running for office if the city passes?
Patch: So why should Brookhaven not become its own city?
Jodi: The financials are precarious at best. The UGA’s Carl Vinson Institute of Government (CVI) did their feasibility study for the potential new city using the 2011 property tax digest resulting in a surplus of $135,000, less than one-half of one percent of the total budget.
The DeKalb County 2012 property tax digest came out last week showing home values dropping 6 to 8 percent. That will certainly turn the slim surplus into a deficit.
BrookhavenYES claims we won’t need as much revenue as the study says because Dunwoody didn’t, but we don’t believe this because the area and demographics in the proposed city do not compare to Dunwoody.
There is also an element of blind faith that a great number of people aren’t willing to buy into. Most people also don’t buy into the comparison with Dunwoody.
Buford Highway is obviously not Perimeter Center; neither is Peachtree Road. Buford Highway is critical to the commercial tax base for the potential new city, yet the commercial businesses on the stretch of Buford Highway in the proposed city limits does not even begin to compare with the commercial businesses of Perimeter Center. It will be decades before any real change comes to Buford Hwy.
Peachtree Road certainly has potential for added tax revenue but that will take major investments by big developers and at what cost to controlled development.
In addition, there are height restrictions on both Buford Hwy and Peachtree, due to PDK Airport, so no high-rise office buildings or hotels like Dunwoody has. We are already seeing the Brookhaven Livable Centers Initiative (LCI) being challenged with Walgreens, Savi Market and Chase Bank. If the city needs the revenue will it be a developer “free for all” in the future, completely destroying what the local residents here worked so hard on with DeKalb County when they created the LCI?
Public safety is another issue. The CVI study budgets for only 53 police officers. That’s one officer for every 929 people. The CVI used Dunwoody, Johns Creek, and Smyrna for their examples. Dunwoody and Johns Creek have poverty rates of 4.6 percent and 3.2 percent respectively. Smyrna’s poverty rate is 13.7 percent.
The potential new city of Brookhaven will have a poverty rate of 12.25 percent, much more in line with Smyrna, yet the ratio of police budgeted for is more closely aligned with Dunwoody and Johns Creek. Further, the Bureau of Justice recommends one officer for every 559 people, which would mean the potential new city should have 88 officers, 35 more than budgeted for.
One police officer adds about $50,000 to a city’s budget Using the 2011 CVI numbers, the city could only hire 2 more police officers with its surplus of $135,000. Using the more realistic numbers from 2012 with the deficit they produce, Brookhaven will need to lay off officers before the city is even formed.
The BrookhavenYES campaign promotes the idea that Dunwoody has approximately the same number of residents as Brookhaven would have at night, but during the day that population swells to 100,000, so Dunwoody’s police force has a lot of crime to deal with, especially at the mall. But the majority of the folks going to shop, dine or work in Dunwoody are completely different from those on Buford Highway and surrounding areas.
On the other hand, Buford Highway has a very high crime rate, including drug gangs and shootings, not exactly like going to the mall. Here in Drew Valley we hear gunfire at night. Proponents of the new city say the numbers in the feasibility study are just “suggestions” for how the elected officials could make expenditures and the potential new government could spend the revenues any way they see fit. Does this mean they would have to pull funds from other departments to make up the millions of dollars needed for the city to have an adequate police force? What department has to give? Parks & Rec, Roads & Drainage, Planning & Zoning?
The promise of a property tax cut is interesting in that it is approximately $5.00 for every $100,000 of assessed value. Even taking into account the additional $10,000 in homestead exemption being promised, the total tax savings is far less than the increase in franchise fees on our GA Power and land line phone bills that will occur with a new city.
I did the math on my own house and I will save $5.18/year in property taxes but will incur an additional $74.76/year in franchise fees. I have two land lines - one personal and one business - and I work from home, so my bills may be a tad bit more than others. Nevertheless the promise of savings just doesn’t add up. These additional fees/taxes will certainly hit the business community hard as well.
Many question the wisdom of capping the millage rate in order to give voters control of their own taxes. While that may be a good idea in theory, many of these new cities are finding it is choking their ability to provide promised services now that revenues have dropped.
One other quick issue is the about the potential new city of Brookhaven not being another layer of government. Not sure about anyone else, but five more politicians making decisions and new laws sure seems like more government to me.
Patch: Every metro Atlanta community that has recently voted on the issue of incorporation has passed those referendums. Do you believe that Brookhaven voters will buck this trend?
Jodi: Yes I do, just like 85 percent of the voters did when the proposed city of South Fulton was rejected with their own referendum in 2007.
Patch: If we become a city, will you support it?
Jodi: I have been active in this community for many years, serving as president of the Drew Valley Civic Association (DVCA) for two terms; (due to personal reasons I had to retire last year after being elected for a third term). I am still a member of the DVCA’s Zoning Committee. I have also served on DeKalb County’s Community Council/District 2 for many years. I have organized candidate fairs for the DVCA during election years and a clean-up of Briarwood Park, among other things.
Obviously I care about my community. If the city referendum does pass on July 31 then I don’t see my involvement in the community changing and while I can promise I will never run for public office, I will continue to hold the politicians' feet to the fire and stand up for what I believe, always hoping to make our wonderful Atlanta neighborhoods in this area even better.
Tom Gilmer
7:47 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
This is great. Thank You Jodi. And Thank You too Tim. This is exactly on point. I am so glad there are people like you and the nocitybrookhaven.com campaign who are leading a clear, concise, factual and organized effort against the incorporation of Brookhaven. We are NOT Dunwoody. We DO NOT have the financial base they do, we have a lower median income than they do and we have an almost 300% higher poverty rate than they do. Additional franchise fees which offset any tax savings and the fact we will be losing the HOST credit make this very precarious indeed. Please everyone, go to nocitybrookhaven.com and nocitybrookhaven.blogspot.com and get the facts.
Jeff Kellar
12:03 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
I do not understand how a financial surplus of over $1 million, that was allocated to parks, could possibly suggest a "precarious" financial condition. See UGA feasibility study at http://www.brookhavenyes.org/brookhaven_finalstudy.pdf for the FACTS.
The $1 million surplus btw, was AFTER the millage rate cap of 3.35 (down from 6.39), and AFTER the properties east of Clairmont Road were removed from the proposed city boundaries – see Appendix H on page 55 for Parks Data, and the Supplemental Analysis on page 66 for the removal of properties east of Clairmont Road.
Rather, Dekalb's 2010 budget deficit of $84 million might be considered as "precarious"; as would its 2011 bond rating decrease to junk bond status; as would its 26% property tax increase during 2011 - the largest tax increase in Georgia history.
Who do you trust more to spend your tax dollars - yourself and your neighbors, or the politicians and bureaucrats in Decatur? Vote YES on July 31, and go to http://www.brookhavenyes.org/study.php for the FACTS.
Jeff Kellar
12:19 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
For the record, Dunwoody's 2012 tax base is only $22 million, see http://www.dunwoodyga.gov/2012%20Approved%20Budget%20-%20Downloadable.pdf for details.
The tax base of the proposed city of Brookhaven is $28 million before the millage rate cap, and $25 million after the cap. Learn the FACTS at http://www.brookhavenyes.org/study.php
Jeff Kellar
3:25 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
if you'd like a yard sign to show your support for Brookhaven Incorporation, go to
http://www.brookhavenyes.org//contact.php
mcatl
7:09 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Get the skewed lies more like it!
Joe
9:11 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
That is well presented, Jodi, thank you.
The budget concerns notwithstanding, one point that is always loudly and proudly touted by those in favor of they city is that with a "Yes" vote, our tax dollars will be spent closer to home. To me, that seems to be the only/one of the only points that is credible. Dekalb is opposed to the City, because it will lose control of portions of our tax revenue. So....has anyone in either of the opposing camps sat down with Dekalb and tried to extract a commitment from them...one of those pesky contractual commitments...whereby if the new City is not approved by voters that Dekalb would agree to spend some percentage, say 100%, of the tax revenues from what would otherwise be Brookhaven IN Brookhaven?
I know that doesn't fit Jacobs' goals, but if that takes away the best argument from the YES crowd, that seems like a good way to go.
Carl Childers
10:12 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
Good points. Dekalb County, as flawed as it is, reached out to the Citizens For North Dekalb where they declined to work with the County in the very beginning of the cityhood study. I have confirmed this with 2 Commissioners. Unfortunately, working with the County was not part of their initiative. There was only one initiative once Dunwoody declined allowing their neighborhoods to join Dunwoody - as the area would not generate enough revenue to make it feasible. So voila, creation of a City of Brookhaven to avoid annexation into Chamblee began.
I fully support working with the county as a large, organized citizens group who are advocating smart governance. Why didn't we at least try this in the beginning. There is still time to do that now - after all we will still be in the County - City or Not.
Greg Trinkle
9:19 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
While I am not necessarily against cityhood, I have grave concerns about the financials and the ability to support it and how the city will be run. When I first read the CVI, I realized it was not a true study. It was designed as a propaganda tool. So the pro city groups are asking us to vote on a concept. Voting on a concept and “trust us, we know what is good for you” is not going to work on me. I am more than capable of analyzing the facts and making my own decision on what is best for me.
I live in Drew Valley which borders a low income/high crime area. It is a credit to Dekalb Police Force that this has not filtered into my neighborhood. To assume that you can have the same amount of police resources with Buford Highway as you need with Brookhaven, Candler Murphy, or Dunwoody is naive. I have never seen any concrete proof/documentation that the city will be able to police this as well as Dekalb currently does. If this city does come to pass, and this crime problem does come about, will Brookhaven/Murphy Candler neighborhoods willing to vote a tax increase for a problem that is out of sight/mind for them?
Steve Walker
11:54 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
Greg, I not only live IN Drew Valley but ON Drew Valley Road and have for 30 years. I don't know where you live in the neighborhood but you must be blind if you think that the Dekalb County Police have kept Buford Hwy crime from entering into our fine neighborhood. In fact just very recently a rash of burglaries broke out on Drew Valley Road. The perpetrators were coming into the back yards of neighbors homes via the Apartments (the low income/high crime area you refer to) breaking into homes and stealing belongings. These folks were finally arrested and were armed and dangerous. While Dekalb County Police made the arrest, it was our Neighborhood Watch program that provided the information and descriptions for the arrest. Spend just one day on my part of Drew Valley Road and you will change your mind about Dekalb Police keeping undesirable activity from filtering into our neighborhood.
William
9:27 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
Jodi-
Respectfully, I want to make one point. I was on the board of Citizens For North DeKalb and got to know the CVI study pretty well. Obviously, I'm not an expert, but I feel that your police information is misleading.
Here is why: You aren't comparing apples to apples. You can't take the number of police officers Smyrna has and the cost per officer that Dunwoody has and then say 'see, we can't afford that many police officers.'
If you want to make an accurate comparison, you have to use the actual department budget.
Here is the budget for Smyrna's police force:
Smyrna- $6.6 Million (91 officers)
The study sets aside a budget of $5.56 M for police in the City of Brookhaven.
That's a difference of roughly $900,000. Minus the surplus and you have roughly $800,000.
A city of Brookhaven could take that $800,000 from the parks budget and fund a police force with the same characteristics of Smyrna and still spend more than TWICE as much as the county is currently spending on parks in our area.
So, just so we are accurate, the CVI study says Brookhaven could spend as much as Smyrna on police and still spend twice as much on parks as DeKalb does. I respectfully disagree with the idea that the financials are 'precarious.'
Joe
10:12 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
William, Jodi's statement about the budget being precarious is a "big picture" statement...getting into the weeds about the police is not the point. "Precarious" means dependent on chance circumstances, unknown conditions, or uncertain developments. That's according to the dictionary, not me. That PERFECTLY describes the proposed budget. When one thinks of all the moving parts associated with starting a new city from scratch, the idea that a .3% cushion between breakeven and deficit isn't a precarious position is a bit odd. When you do your budget at home...let's say you have $5,000 a month to spend...would you ever cut it so close that every penny is spent, except for $15? I doubt that very much.
When developing a budget, especially for a new business, it is FAR more likely to miss expenses than it is to miss revenue.
A POINT THREE percent cushion is VERY precarious.
William
11:54 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
Joe-
Comparing the budget numbers is the big picture and frankly, the discussion gets into the weeds when you try to project the number of police officers as so many 'no city' folks have tried to do by mixing apples and oranges.
My only point is that when talking about the viability of a city, you don't only have 'unknowns' or 'uncertainties'. This isn't the road less traveled. (many would say a county government providing municipal services to 600,000 over 250 sq miles is such a road...but alas, I digress) There are many great and thriving cities in our region that we can look to for actual guidance on what we should expect to budget. That is hardly an unknown or chance.
I agree with Jodi that it is prudent to consider Smyrna considering the similarities in demographic make up. That is my point...they spend $6.6 Million on police and have 91 officers. To say that Brookhaven couldn't afford a police force with the same budget as Smyrna based upon the CVI study is just misleading. Again, I think you are entitled to your opinion about what 'might' happen. However, the facts are not really open to our interpretation.
Tom Gilmer
11:54 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
William,
From page 17 of the CVI Study: (found here... http://nocitybrookhaven.com/Resources/CVI%20Brookhaven%20Feasibility%20Study%20and%20Supplements.pdf)
"The expenditure estimates below are based primarily on expenditures incurred by
comparable governments to provide services similar to those contemplated to be provided by a city comprised of the study area. In calculating these estimates, CVIOG first established two primary comparable governments, the cities of Dunwoody and Johns Creek. These cities were selected based on several factors. Both cities are new, Johns Creek was officially incorporated in December of 2006 and Dunwoody in December of 2008. Both cities are located in the north metro Atlanta area and are close in population to the study area. Dunwoody, like the study area, is wholly contained inside the limits of DeKalb County. Because the two main comparison governments had lower poverty rates and, therefore, might not have comparable crime issues, an additional comparison city, Smyrna, was added for purposes of comparing costs for operating a police department. Smyrna’s population, poverty rate and median household income are very similar to the study area, and its location in the metro Atlanta area all makes it a good city for purposes of comparing police services. Profile data for the study area and the comparison cities is given below in Table 5."
Conversely, Smyrna has only 2,000 more citizens, a similar poverty rate, and THEY HAVE 91 Police Officers.
William
12:29 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Tom-
I think I answered this above, but the comments were not being updated/approved.
The point is that the budget for Smyrna was $6.6 Million in 2011. (It was $6.5 in 2010 and is $6.42 M in 2012) (page 27)
You are correct to point out that this is 91 officers. (page 30)
The budget for police in a city of Brookhaven in the CVI study is $5.56 Million. (page 30)
The number of officers in the CVI study is 53.
Clearly Smyna isn't using ~$50K per officer if they have 40 more for only $1M to $900K more in spending. That's the point. You and the other 'no city' people are using apples to oranges comparisons when talking about adding police officers to the number in the study to match Smyrna.
There is plenty of room in the budget found in the CVI study to fund a police force the size of Dunwoody's or Smyrna's or something in between, which seems about right for a city of our size and make up.
Just an FYI...
Smyrna is 25% bigger than the proposed city of Brookhaven in size. (16 sq miles to under 12 sq miles)
Smyrna has roughly 5% more population than the proposed city of Brookhaven. Smyrna has poverty rate that is a 12% increase of the rate in the proposed city of Brookhaven.
Yet, you could reasonably make the argument that there is room in the budget to fund a police force the same size as Smyrna's ($6.6M to $6.4M) in the CVI study by only making minimal adjustments in other areas.
Justin Turner
9:27 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
Thanks Jodi for providing insight on why some residents inside the proposed city boundaries are against the incorporation referendum that has been "railroaded" through by Mike Jacobs/C4ND.
Marty
10:12 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
This is a good example of the irrationality of many opponents of incorporation (side note -- why did people stop using "incorporation," which describes the process and is actually a word, in favor of "cityhood"?). How is remaining under the thumb of DeKalb County -- whose government has shown for years that it does not care about this part of the County -- going to improve safety? I, for one, would gladly pay a little more in taxes to actually receive some services than the way things are now -- e.g., most of our local tax dollars being diverted to other parts of the County and there being essentially no police presence, among other things. The only thing I can think of that I am happy about with respect to County services is trash pickup.
Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but this is not as simple an issue as the "no city" folks seem to imply. The decision to incorporate should not be based solely on cost, but also on whether incorporation will improve the area. After living in unincorporated DeKalb County on and off for over 30 years -- including many years in what is now the city of Dunwoody -- I think it's pretty clear that the County government doesn't care about what goes on in this part of the County, so I would like a local government that is beholden to the people in THIS area and will have a vested interest in serving and improving THIS area.
bhavenliving
9:29 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Amen Marty! I would also gladly pay extra taxes to improve the community. (although, with a new city, we would pay less for better services) It may not be improved overnight but at least by incorporating, we are taking immediate action, which is much more than DeKalb County can say.
SOCIOLOGY 101 - by enforcing code violations, improving our parks, and maintaining our roads, we become less of a target for criminals because it will be visibly obvious that we take pride in our community and won't put up with their criminal activities. We must reinvest in our backyards - both literally and figuratively- to make this happen!
I don't think that anyone can argue that our ties with DeKalb County is not a win-win relationship. We support their bottom line but they don't support us and haven't for some time. If you are like me, instead of just living with the facts, I would rather challenge the status quo. If it is broken - fix it! We have been patient enough with DeKalb County, it is time to take action and I believe that a City of Brookhaven is the only way to do so.
William
11:54 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
One other point, and again please take this with all due respect, the idea that Brookhaven will generate more revenue than estimated is because the CVI's methodology is conservative in its revenue projections. That's prudent...as opposed to some governments (ahem...DeKalb) who historically overstate revenues as a way to not make as many preliminary budget cuts. (It has nothing to do with a comparison of Brookhaven to Dunwoody.)
All of these projections of revenue by CVI were made PRE-Recession...think about that for a second...these projections were made in 2003, 2005, and 2006!!!
Dunwoody- $18.8 Million projected: 2010 Actual $26.1 Million
Johns Creek- $45 Million projected: 2011 Actual $45 Million
Sandy Springs- $66.5 M to $73.1M projected(estimated a "low" and "high" range): 2011 Actual $81.2 M
Milton $14 Million projected: 2011 Actual $18.1 Million
Again, I appreciate everything you have done and continue to do for our community. However, I have to disagree with your presentation of this information. The CVI projections on revenues are conservative because of the methodology. The fact that a city of Brookhaven is still being projected as feasible based upon the 2011/2010 tax digest as compared to the other cities that were feasible and have thrived based upon the 2003, 2005, and 2006 digests only gives more credence to the idea that Brookhaven will be able to weather any storm and will thrive as things improve.
Joe
12:47 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
On the subject of revenue conservatism in the CVI study, let me share a brief experience I had as an entry-level financial analyst in a Fortune 100 Company 30 years ago. I was asked by my boss to meet with the CEO. That was quite a phone call for a 22-year old on the job for three months. I went and met the CEO. He explained that he wanted me to prove in a new corporate jet. He described the why's and when's and what's, and asked me if I understood. I said "Yes, Sir." He asked me what I was going to do, and I said "I am going to run a financial analysis on the viability of an investment in a new corporate jet". He banged the desk with his fist and said "I don't want any GD analysis! I want you to PROVE IN the GD jet!"
The moral of the story is that the results of an analysis are greatly influenced, if not controlled, by the people asking for the analysis. Who asked for this analysis? The people who wanted the new City "proven in".
William
3:50 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Joe-
I appreciate the story, but I don't quite get the point you are making with relation to the CVI. Would it make any sense if 'pro' city folks were directing the study to show lower revenues over and over and over again? How does that help them? The answer is, of course, that it doesn't.
Just in case you missed it...
Projections of revenue by CVI were made PRE-Recession... 2003, 2005, and 2006)
Dunwoody- $18.8 Million projected: 2010 Actual $26.1 Million
Johns Creek- $45 Million projected: 2011 Actual $45 Million
Sandy Springs- $66.5 M to $73.1M projected(estimated a "low" and "high" range): 2011 Actual $81.2 M
Milton $14 Million projected: 2011 Actual $18.1 Million
Joe
5:00 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Point is really simple. If a group goes and gets a study done, pays for it, it comes out the way they want it to come out, supporting their position. Or, it comes out against their position and it never sees the light of day, They go get another one, and repeat till they get one that supports their position, Just like when you asked you Mom if you could go to Tommy's and play and she said no. Then you asked your Dad. That's the point.
Maureen Chalmers
11:54 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
thank you, this is one of the best articles I've read on this subject. Until recently we had not made up our minds about this issue but now feel we have no choice but to vote NO. The financials is our #1 concern, however, the other is another layer of government. So our question is, why are we in such a hurry to do this? Why is this being pushed so hard so fast? Residents need more time and better comparisons than Dunwoody or John's Creek.
Annie G
11:54 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
I think it is scary an irresponsible of the opposition to cite to empty police numbers without much else. First, neither the CVI nor the city charter say we will have 53 officers – that's up to elected officials, but the CVI, based on various cities and the county estimated 53. Second, through open records, watch sheets show that in the area at issue, we only have 3 patrols at any given time (not counting the off-duty officers we have to pay in several neighborhoods to stay safe). Even with just 53 officers, we would have 7-9 patrols at any given time following traditional shifts which is more than double what the County currently gives us. The cap on taxes is a legitimate, valid worry/argument, but not the police argument.
Steve Walker
12:06 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
I too live in Drew Valley and have so for 30 years & am a member of the DVCA & active in support of my Community. Jodi & I must know two different sets of County officials. While I do not attend every meeting that she does, we do go to many of the same meetings and hear the same rhetoric from the County. But rarely is any of it acted on. I know you all have heard it over and over but its true, Dekalb County spends our tax money in South Dekalb and very little in our area. While I do not believe everything the B-haven Yes coalition says about cityhood I also do not believe everything from Jodi's post either. Even if cityhood proves to be break even when compared to the current Unincorporated portion of our tax bills, I would rather see my tax $$ spent in my local area for svcs that effect my everyday life in the neighborhoods that I live in. Everybody on these blogs harps on taxes. Fact is it only effects a small percentage of your overall taxes which is the Unincorporated County portion. If you want to talk taxes get the School Tax which THE major portion of your tax bill changed. It should be a USER based system instead of on the backs of home owners many of which have no kids in the school system. I am sure a new City of Brookhaven will not start off being perfect. Nothing is, but voting YES will give each and every one of us the chance create a much better place to live with representatives that are your neighbors and care about the communities in which they live
Tom Reilly
12:06 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Hi, JodI!! My total respect for your time, effort, and mathematics--not to mention the nice picture that was taken of you!! Let me try to put some additional perspective on the situation: You wrote about being "challenged with Walgreens, Savi Market, and Chase Bank." Let me add to the growing list the Marist School, Concorde Fire, Ravinia Chinmney, and Electronic Sign issues--all of which have reflected on Commissioner Elaine Boyer and her gaggle of friends/associates. Add to the mix the inertia of several members of the Dekalb County Board of Commissioners, Planning Comission, and Board of Zoning Appeals. Taste the final result: A blend of ignoring the rules, ignoring the evidence, and ignoring the constituents which has resulted in the most corrupt, incompetent governing system I've seen in my nearly SIXTY YEARS of living in Dekalb County. The City of Brookhaven offers a chance to make this right again. With millions of dollars, thousand of people's quality of life, and decades of change at stake, who can afford NOT to explore this option??--Tom Reilly
Tom Gilmer
3:14 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
We also cannot afford to embark on an experiment with flawed and inaccurate information.
Sandy
12:23 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Hi Marty - I understand your concern, but have you read the bill (HB 636 - http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2011_12/pdf/hb636.pdf)??
"The powers of this city shall be construed liberally in favor of the city. The specific mention or failure to mention particular powers shall not be construed as limiting in any way the powers of this city. These powers shall include, but not be limited to, the following:"
Then it goes on to mention many services BEYOND the 5 services on the BrookhavenYes website, including "Garbage fees. To levy, fix, assess, and collect a garbage, refuse, and trash collection and disposal and other sanitary service charge, tax, or fee for such services as may be necessary in the operation of the city from all individuals, firms, and corporations residing in or doing business therein benefiting from such services;"
As a resident of Brookhaven for 6 years, I'm hesitant to rush into such a "forever" incorporation without taking the time to understand it fully. Personally, I wouldn't get married after 3 dates either, but perhaps that's just me.
-Sandy
Thomas Porter
12:23 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Jodi: Thank you for your concise analysis.
While I do not support the idea of a city, and, the impetus to create a city may have come from the County's lack of desire to support the northern areas, I think a great opportunity was lost forever in negotiating with the County for better support, BEFORE the decision has become so imminent. At this point the County is saying "lets hold up on expenditures in the north until we see what the vote is"; if cityhood passes, then it's "OK no further expenditures there", if it doesn't pass then it's "Well, they're never going to get a city now, we can continue as before".
That strategy eludes me. Why didn't the proponents negotiate with the County before it has come to this crux?
Greg Trinkle
12:44 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Marty, it would seem to me that the Pro-city uses points that might be construed as slightly irrational. What happened to the CVI study that showed $29 Million with a $2.5 Million surplus? Was this not once a Pro-city infallible CVI Study? Oh wait, now it is a $25 Million with $150 K surplus. Red light, rational person should find that very alarming. I thought the Pro-city promoted lower taxes? Was not the Pro-city rallying cry of doing More with Less? Just a small omission by Rep. Jacobs/Pro-city crowd that we lose the Homestead Exemption Refund, thus the net result is a tax increase. Why can’t Pro-city come out with the slogan we will do More with More of your money? I find that very disturbing that Pro-city failed to disclose or flat out lacked the competence to know about the loss of the homestead rebate. Don’t try, nobody from Pro-city admitted to the loss of the Homestead Refund until after it was pointed out to them. I agree that you have a right to your opinion. And I have no doubt that you truly believe the City is the best for everyone. I as a rational person might want more than just your belief in the concept of this proposed city that I live in. The best the Pro-city has is a CVI study based on another city with completely different demographics. A rational person realizes that the CVI study is not relevant to proposed city I am living in. What if anything factual can you point that the proposed city will do things better than the county?
Steve Walker
1:10 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Greg we don't lose the Homestead exemption, we lose the HOST credit. The homestead exemption is doubled from $10,000.00 to $20,000.00 to make up that difference.
Annie G
2:38 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Because the CVI study projected such a large surplus (like folks here have said, our tax dollars go to tax DeKalb), the city charter was adjusted to give us back the tax raise we got from county last year. Hence, the surplus is less as the charter provides for money enough to cover the cost of operating the city. That's all. No red light, no mystery.
Tom Gilmer
3:21 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Hi Annie. What data have you been reading? The surplus is down to $135,000 - that is one half of one percent of the budget.
See the March CVI revision here:
Page 66. http://nocitybrookhaven.com/Resources/CVI%20Brookhaven%20Feasibility%20Study%20and%20Supplements.pdf
The charter is a BEST CASE SCENARIO just as is the CVI Study.
Steve Walker
12:55 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Again, I have lived in Drew Valley for 30 years and Briarwood Park has been an issue for the neighborhood that whole time. We have been promised improvements for years but nothing happens. Ellis held a joke of a community meeting there Saturday,a week ago. The County folks were unprepared for the large turnout and the meeting was a fiasco. It was an "appearance" to try and thwart Brookhaven during an upcoming election cycle for Ellis and Gannon. He tried to bring Brookhaven and taxes into the conversation but was booed by the crowd as they stated they were there to hear about the park not his politics. They repeatedly referenced a 10 year park plan but when asked to produce it by the Briarwood Park Revitalization Project, an effort by surrounding neighborhoods, they could not or would not. By the way more maintenance work was done around the park in preparation for his visit to spruce it up than has been done in years.and years. Ellis also had a sign installed that I hear costs $1300.00 each and he has over a hundred posted around the county $130,000.00 with his name and his Dekalb Works advertising on it. Remember everything you hear right now from Dekalb County in this area is based on election year politics, and we all know how that plays out ..........
Steve Walker
3:22 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Hamburger, Where are you ?? Out chowing down on a bag of Krystal's I hope !!!
HamBurger
4:41 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Mr. Steve, little ole Mr. HamBurger is here just reading and watching. I am hurt that you would even suggest that I would stoop so low as to have fast food!
Ms. Cobb has some very valid points that folks seem to be glossing over. Mr. Porter, with his 12:23 comment, asks a question many of us have asked before. It is amazing that folks put so much faith in the flawed Vinson study and Mr. Joe with his 12:47 comment sheds light on how this study was assembled. Greg’s 9:19 comment that the Vinson study is a propaganda tool says it all.
Thank you, Ms. Cobb, this is a very nice summary for folks to think about and research further on their own.
Excuse me, I have to light that lump charcoal and prep my special hamburgers!
Mitchell Thomas
3:29 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
There is really no good arguments against a new city here, either! Bascailly - she is just saying "I don't know" or i don't trust the financials. dekalb county commission does not want this to happen at all! that should be reason to support it alone.
What I do know is: Dekalb has major issues. And leaving our governance in their control (south Dekalb majority) is a real mistake!
Dean
8:39 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Exactly right Mitchell, Brookhaven incorporation will remove a bit of power from DeKalb's wasteful, bloated and downright crooked bureaucracy.
Joe
8:55 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Dean, the phrase "wasteful, bloated and downright crooked bureaucracy" applies to many/most/all governmental entities. The new City, if it happens, will be the same, eventually if not initially. To think that we are going to have a frugal, trim, and openly transparent and honest bureaucracy in Brookhaven is naive, in my view.
Dean
9:01 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Joe, we have a much better chance at good governance with a Sandy Springs/Dunwoody type of government than we do with an unfettered DeKalb County.
Joe
9:20 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Exactly. It is not a guaranteed; it is a chance. A chance that can go either way. And based upon a quick look around, it's not a matter of "If", it's a matter of when.
Dean
9:28 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Brookhaven won't be worse than DeKalb County, the worse bloated, inefficient government in the area, citizens here are envious of what Sandy Springs, Dunwoody and the other new northside cities have accomplished...we want that.
Vote YES.
Tom Gilmer
4:04 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Mitchell,
Would you buy a 25 million dollar business without a second opinion with questionable financials? All because you are mad at someone and unwilling to organize and approach the issue and try to improve it before takling drastic measures? Look, Dekalb County TRIED to reach out to C4ND and they declined.
Dean
8:39 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Sure, like the County has "tried" to plunder our area for years and years to fund south DeKalb.
"E Pluribus Unum"
8:10 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Jodi, thank you for clarity. The whole idea of creating a new city just doesn't pass muster. It's a RR job and pipe dream. It will not produce the benefits that many have touted. IMHO, this is an example of how an influential few can hijack our political and legislative processes without understanding and input from the greater community.
"E Pluribus Unum"
8:19 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Mitchell, what are you REALLY saying? It sounds like you are trying to isolate yourself from demographics at the expense of raising taxes and lowering services in the name of a new city. Go figure.
Bob Roche
9:49 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Dunwoody, Milton, John's Creek are very different examples than the proposed city of Brookhaven. All three have a much higher per capita income, a pool of professionals from which to choose elected officials, and, at least in Dunwoody's case, a strong, longstanding homeowners group and civic organizations.
Apart from the financial questions, there are other important issues.
Another layer of government means another layer of politics. As a former State House candidate and Doraville City Councilman, I can speak from experience. We have all seen ugly political campaigns, and a handful of people can easily drive out good people and dominate a city's politics.
Also, it is much cheaper to influence a city council than a county commission. Developers would much rather work with a compliant city council than a county commission responsible for 800,000 citizens.
Bob Roche
9:50 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
I understand the frustration with the level of police coverage in the county, but here in Doraville we have the opposite problem. The police department has been allowed to grow far beyond the needs of a city our size (and many of our police operate outside our city limits), yet the majority of our elected officials refuses to even consider reducing it to an appropriate size. (In fact, the City Council recently reduced the hours at the library while hiring more police staff.) Don't get me wrong, we have great people working for the police department, but please be aware another layer of government means another layer of ambitious government officials looking to build their own empires. There is always the risk of runaway spending which negates even the best financial projections.
The question remains, why the rush? If it is a good idea now, it will still be a good idea next year when people have had the opportunity to gather more facts, discuss the pros and cons, and arrive at a rational decision.
After all, it took years to create Dunwoody - they didn't rush into cityhood, and they did it right!
Kim Gokce
10:08 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
We have to get over our Buford Hwy myths and phobias. The corridor certainly is home to more crime reports than Silver Lake but what is the _RATE_ of crime per capita? Buford Hwy in the proposed Brookhaven incorporation area is of a population density many, many times higher than Peachtree, Johnson Ferry, Ashford Dunwoody, etc. So while our North Precinct officers prefer to work Buford Hwy it isn't because there are horrible criminals over-running the area, it is because that is where people live. Take a look at the map of the proposed council seats - it was nearly impossible to draw because the overwhelming weight of the populations centers along Buford. Now back to the YES! or NO! debate ... thank you.
Joe
9:00 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Nobody knows. In order to do that math, you divide crimes by the number of people. We got the crime number. But the number of people living along Buford Highway? Unknowable. I will tell you there a a hell of a lot few voters and citizens on Buford than there are people.
Greg Trinkle
8:45 am on Friday, May 18, 2012
Kim, I respect your point. There is obviously in the proposed city an area that has a higher crime rate. I live in Drew Valley and my Neighborhood is affected by this area. Lets say the city passes, the point being, I really like my neighborhood. I love walking all through it (And Ashford Park makes my route). I see many joggers, bikers, People walking their dogs, mothers with strollers, etc. That will not change if/when the day the city gets formed. Buta 1 or 2 years down the line, what happens if the police force loses control of this area? I realize that my neighborhood could easily be overrun and no longer a safe area to be outside. Will the Neighborhoods areas of Brookhaven/Murphy Candler (By far the biggest registered voting blocks in the new city) be willing to vote (Give up their tax decrease) more taxes to fix a crime problem that does not exist in their neighborhood? Same for transferring budgets from Parks to Police or vice versa? For the services the new city will provide, will I not be trading a Dekalb Politician that lives in Decatur for a city politician that lives in an neighborhood that does not border this "Higher crime area"?
Kim Gokce
10:24 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Jodi: Never say never! :)
Kim Gokce
10:27 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
One last attempt at getting the post right ... Sorry about that! I want folks who truly care about their community, incorporated or not, to follow the DeKalb Co review of a sustainable neighborhoods initiative. The Buford corridor, roughly approximated by the Cross Keys HS attendance area (wow!?), is on the short list of communities that will be considered for investment. This is a no-brainer and of great benefit to our community and to the County. Cross Keys/Buford Hwy is one of the great assets of north DeKalb and is long overdue for major investment. If you agree, please check out: http://championnewspaper.com/news/articles/1649emory-university-to-focus-on-renewing-two-communities1649.html and let you elected official know you care about this deeply ... and here is my letter of support: http://www.crosskeysfoundation.org/images/20120512-supportcpacsletterofintent.pdf
Mitchell Thomas
9:31 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
I think it would be very interesting to see the details of every:
Director
Assistant Director
Deputy Director
Senior Manager
And all paid positions for every job that supports unincorportaed Dekalb.
Police/Fire/Planning/Code Enforcement/Saniatation/Public Works and so on!
I think we shall then see just how expensive and bloated Dekabl is; and, how much of our tax money is being used to support these very high paid positions. Just like ashford neighbors breaks down the new city costs - lets really see what we are paying and to whom. Open Records Law anyone! Are we really getting what we pay for.
Also one thing i notice here on many of these posts is that people seem to think this is Elena and her people against Jacobs and his people. What it really should be is what is in the best interest of the Community. I am an Independant.
Greg Trinkle
8:51 am on Friday, May 18, 2012
While I plan to vote no, if the city does come to pass ( And I suspect the voting blocks in Murphy Candler/Brookhave will prevail), I would love to see a city for the "Services contracted out to the private service" make sure none of the elected city officials are the benefactors of these contracts.
HamBurger
1:25 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
If you feel as many do that you do not want the Brookhaven area to become a city and would like to express your opinion with a yard sign or a bumper sticker, just let these folks know.
http://nocitybrookhaven.com/yardsign_sticker.html
Dean
2:27 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Similarly, if you'd like to show your support for Brookhaven Incorporation visit this site:
http://www.brookhavenyes.org//contact.php
Mark Graffagnino
8:47 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
And especially if your neighborhood needs a pawn shop.
"LESS Zoning, LESS Code Enforcement. NO new city, PawnShopsYES."
Mitchell Thomas
9:17 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/dekalb-top-brass-reviewing-policies-after-rash-off/nN62r/
Jim Eyre
2:03 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
it appears there is corruption at ALL levels and locations of government...
http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/dunwoody-city-attorney-under-1438091.html
Mitchell Thomas
9:19 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Great place we enjoy! And send our tax dollars! Still waiting on the job description and salaries of all unincorporated delakb "employees"! You can't even make this stuff up it is so ridiculous! Lock your doors Brookhaven we need serious help!
Jim Eyre
2:07 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
you're line of commentary is getting very tiring...ALL DeKalb positions are public record and easily found in DeKalb records if only you take the time to provide for yourself rather demanding others to do the same.
Kim Gokce
10:08 am on Sunday, May 20, 2012
Greg:Your particular concern about public safety priorities of a new city I also share about ALL priorities. Because I have painfully watched the rejection and dedicated neglect of our Buford Hwy schools as a consequence of a very political education system, I fear the same is possible in other areas of civic and public priorities. This already happens in the existing political infrastructure and I see little to expect change to that calculus with a city government. The change to the proposed city districts (reduced and removing at large seats) and understanding the mayoral voting policy somewhat ameliorated my concerns (mayor breaks ties only). In speaking with Rep Jacobs on this subject, he was optimistic that the DVCA/APCA district and the HillsDale/Pine Hills area would produce the leadership on "Buford Hwy" issues in a four district model. My remaining concern is that the mayor position will perennially be a district one seat due to the voting turnout among higher demos there. He is more optimistic than I that our districts will find balance in our common interest - history has been very different. I hope to be proved incorrect.
HamBurger
11:10 am on Sunday, May 20, 2012
Mr. Kim, your concerns are well founded. Folks on the southern end of the city will have very little to say in the overall direction of the city. Buford highway will be the new city’s play toy for legislative experimentation to the point that other areas out of the city will be more attractive for business. The golden potential on Buford Highway will be lost on the new city.
Please pass the yellow mustard!
Kim Gokce
11:54 am on Sunday, May 20, 2012
Well, as a practical matter, our districts will have 50% of the voice on all votes in city counci of the proposed city. If anything, our vice is amplified versus two other districts. Those two districts have more voters, ours have more people - thus the amplified representation.