No, but I smell you burning...

THIS is your big hullaballew Hamburger?

Weaksauce.

The county is on record as saying that Brookhaven will cost the county $25 to $27 Million in revenue if Brokhaven happens. And that was based on 2012 numbers (see AJC article on March 27, 2012 http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/dekalb-not-ready-for-1399806.html ) That number also doesn't include franchise fees that the new city will collect that the county cannot and it also doesn't include revenues from Town Brookhaven.

The county has the ACTUAL revenue numbers. They don't need CVI to do a forecast...all they need to do is be transparent and honest.

That's not charcoal, that's the machinery building the soapbox racing track in south DeKalb at a cost of $100,000 while Briarwood folks were left hanging.

Annie G.
Ms. Boyer is on the ballot this time.
Make it the last time her name appears and see how things change!

The UGA study revenue projection was based upon the 2011 property digest and values as of “July of 2011” – see page 16 of the study at http://www.brookhavenyes.org/brookhaven_finalstudy.pdf This projection does not include Town Brookhaven property taxes and other commercial developments receiving an abatement in 2011, that begin paying taxes in 2012 and 2013. CEO Ellis needs to check his facts before making statements.

The AJC did an article last week about Dekalb values inside 285 increasing - http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/some-dekalb-homes-see-1453530.html Even Jeff Rader acknowledges a “substantial increase” in 2012 property tax valuations - http://northdruidhills.patch.com/articles/rader-so-your-tax-appraisal-was-came-in-high

Learn the FACTS at http://www.brookhavenyes.org/faq.php and vote YES on July 31.

Oh Jeff. For that to come from you is really a testament of your understanding of the Study. Nothing more to say. I am absolutely appalled you don't even understand what you just said.

Mr. Carl, makes you wonder if Mr. Jeff has real accounting credentials or just plays an accountant on the forums . . . Details do mean something.

Please pass the yellow mustard!

So the CEO says:"The feasibility study uses 2010 numbers"
CFO, Joel Gottleib says in the CVI : Dekalb's Tax Assessor and CFO provided 2011 numbers

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad that this is the leadership some would have us keep.

Carl and Burger's best comeback to this clear attempt to confuse and obstruct is to insult Jeff Keller and the Brookhaven Yes! folks again.

"“I am concerned that citizens now have incorrect data,"-CEO
"The county would have to shoulder $22 to 25 million in additional burden for Brookhaven and $5 to 6 million for Chamblee. It’s a loss of revenue that could be in the neighborhood of $28-30 million." - CEO's office
www.reporternewspapers.net/2012/05/03/county-bracing-for-new-budget-troubles/

It's the same old story...the more lies you weave, the easier it is to get caught it their web.

Mr. William, from the Vinson study: ***Based on 2011 Preliminary Property Tax Digest Data. Just a little detail, and does not include in changes to the preliminary tax digest.

A revised Vinson study will surely answer our questions!

Please pass the yellow mustard!

One Commisisoner cannot vote money into existence, but nice try Eddie!

The artificial numbers supplied to the nice people at Carl Vinson to provide their best case, overly optimistic, implausible pretense that an Opposed City could be invented in Brookhaven has been blown to pieces.
Of course, since the County did not order or pay for the study, the CVI isn't beholden to them to present any more accurate representation of the facts.

However, there is (was) an outfit called 'C4ND' that might gain a little tiny bit of credibility if they were to pony up a little cash (nothing in politics happens for free) and ask for an 'update'.

This is NOT a situation where holding one's breath in anticipation is advised.

City Yes, let’s be clear: I am not happy with our existing county government. First off, I want the CEO style of government changed; it is not in our best interest. I wonder why Rep. Jacobs, Rep. Taylor, Sen. Millar, C$ND, Brookhaven Yes and all of their supporters did not organize for the purpose of making changes to our existing government instead of wasting all this time, money, and effort in pursuing a new city.

The new city is more government. We have county government and if passed the city will create another layer of government to be dealt with. Plus, as time goes by we see more evidence that the Vinson study is flawed. A new city created on defective data will ultimately demand increased taxes and fees that will be required of all of us. No thank you!

No new city for me!

Just smell’in the charcoal . . .

City Yes
As an expert in local government and city hood feasibility see if you can muster this equation on another layer of government:
WITH CITY: You, City, County, State, Federal = You + 4 Layers
WITHOUT CITY: You, County, State, Federal = You + 3 Layers
We do not need more layers of government to oversee. We particularly do not need a city layer made up of Brookhaven YesMen - who have shown a complete lack of professionalism and the no desire to do what is best for the collective agenda over the personal agenda. Hey man. It's as simple as telling the truth, buddy.

An enlightened citizen might realize that the chances for a Government to work within its means is much more likely with Brookhaven than what DeKalb Government has proven for years and years with its poorly run bureaucracy.

Ham - the voters in south dekalb will continue to elect people who "redistribute wealth" and take from our area to build water parks, and other per projects for their voters. Our only way to gain control is not elections as we will always be outvoted by south dekalb; it is by taking control over our own area.

My 'assumption' would be not just NO but HE## NO!

Why should the County and it's myriad of citizens risk a penny on the fools errand of an arrogant few?

Mr. Stan, then the door opens as to whether the rest of the county should be able to vote on cityhood?

Please pass the yeelloww mustard!

As a Scientist - notice my unusually large cranium - are we seeing an example of the BrookhavenYes - aspiring city leaders - wanting to exercise their version of local control? Meaning hyper locally controlling what information the citizens have to form their opinions on? Something like - "We don't want them to know the real story - with real numbers - or they may just be smart enough to figure out that this city will not work". This just goes to PROVE that this is not about presenting real facts to the citizens. It's about presenting VERSIONS of flawed information to suit the personal agenda of our State "Representative" Mike Jacobs and his BrookhavenYes colleagues.

William, it is just disappointing to see folks fall for the County tricks.

Mr. Dean, what makes you think this is a county trick?

If someone in Hampton Hall, an intelligent individual with a strong business background (not a silly hamburger griller) started looking at the Vinson study, saw red flags (not peeling red paint), and with further research discovered a deficient report being utilized to promote a successful city, would anyone listen? No!

If this same citizen analysis was third party verified and presented by DeKalb County, would it get Rep. Mike Jacobs attention? It certainly would. And, for Rep. Jacobs not to respond to it would be problematic.

Want to quell any doubt that the Vinson study is accurate? Provide an updated Vinson study based on accurate information.

Rep. Jacobs’ response or lack of will be very telling. Rep. Jacobs . . . Rep. Jacobs . . . Where are you?

Sir! Sir! Savor that charcoal smoke . . . Don’t just stand in it! Ready for that special hamburger?

Burger-

Does the county need CVI to tell them how much revenue they are going to lose from the formation of Brookhaven?

Obviously not!

The CEO has outsmarted himself on this one...those who sew deceit always get caught in its web.

The county is on record as saying that Brookhaven will cost the county $25 to $27 Million in revenue if Brokhaven happens. And that was based on 2012 numbers (see AJC article on March 27, 2012 http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/dekalb-not-ready-for-1399806.html ) That number also doesn't include franchise fees that the new city will collect that the county cannot and it also doesn't include revenues from Town Brookhaven.

The county has the ACTUAL revenue numbers. They don't need CVI to do a forecast...all they need to do is be transparent and honest.

Burger-

You are all about 'working with the county'.

Have you asked the county to release the actual revenue numbers? Wouldn't that be easier than using estimates that you and the rest of the 'no city' crowd used to claim were inaccurate?

We know the answer...of course not!!! Why would we ask the county for the actual data when we know that wouldn't help our cause?

Don't let facts get in the way of a good opinion, Burger.

FACT: THE COUNTY HAS THE ACTUAL REVENUE NUMBERS!!!! All they need to do is put them together, sign an affidavit, and release them.

The county is on record as saying that Brookhaven will cost the county $25 to $27 Million in revenue if Brokhaven happens. And that was based on 2012 numbers (see AJC article on March 27, 2012 http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/dekalb-not-ready-for-1399806.html ) That number also doesn't include franchise fees that the new city will collect that the county cannot and it also doesn't include revenues from Town Brookhaven.

So put the actual revenue numbers into the magical algorithm the CV uses and see what pops out.
Then use the real numbers from Peachtree Corners on startup costs.

What does that give us? An opening deficit of about $500K?

What about the CEO? He has the ACTUAL REVENUE NUMBERS!!! Why not get the actual numbers before the vote instead of just an estimate?

Mr. W. Burrell Ellis, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
DeKalb County Government
330 W. Ponce de Leon Avenue, 6th Floor
Decatur, GA 30030
404-371-2881 Executive Office
404-371-6291 Fax

The county is on record as saying that Brookhaven will cost the county $25 to $27 Million in revenue if Brokhaven happens. And that was based on 2012 numbers (see AJC article on March 27, 2012 http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/dekalb-not-ready-for-1399806.html ) That number also doesn't include franchise fees that the new city will collect that the county cannot and it also doesn't include revenues from Town Brookhaven.

The county has the ACTUAL revenue numbers. They don't need CVI to do a forecast...all they need to do is be transparent and honest.

Mr William,
Why are you against getting the FACTUAL information to your neighbors? What is wrong with them knowing how the ACTUAL numbers impact the CVI Study? Also - post ANY link to ANY information you want. That WILL NOT change the content in the CVI Study nor be a factor in any revision. Slam away as you will. This is our chance to know the truth. Why do you want to deprive your neighbors of this? Why would BrookhavenYes and Mike Jacobs NOT want you to have the truth. I can't imagine they would want to deprive the community. Surely, they have more character than that. We will see I suppose now won't we?!

True or false, Carl....the county has the actual revenue numbers.

Simple question, sir.

Mr. William, Mr. Baggett was sent the latest tax digest back in May. At the same time, a request was made to update the Vinson study, the cornerstone for selling citizens on a new city, and publish the results.

This is easy . . . Rep. Jacobs will pick up the phone and call Mr. Baggett who will factor in the revised data, run the report, and all will be well. No worries!

Special hamburger?

Burger-

Why would the county send the tax digest to CVI instead of just releasing the actual numbers to the citizens?

Why ask for a forecast/estimate when you already have the actual data?

This is such a blatant attempt to obscure and deceive.

The county has the ACTUAL DATA.

I ask again, Burger...have you called the county and asked them to release the actual revenue numbers?

The county is on record as saying that Brookhaven will cost the county $25 to $27 Million in revenue if Brokhaven happens. And that was based on 2012 numbers (see AJC article on March 27, 2012 http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/dekalb-not-ready-for-1399806.html ) That number also doesn't include franchise fees that the new city will collect that the county cannot and it also doesn't include revenues from Town Brookhaven.

The county has the ACTUAL revenue numbers. They don't need CVI to do a forecast...all they need to do is be transparent and honest.

Mr. William, the county has released the digest. I have a copy. You can get one too. Here is the link for 2011 and back:

http://web.co.dekalb.ga.us/PropertyAppraisal/TaxDigest.html

They will send you the current digest via e-mail if you ask for it.

Smell’in the charcoal!

How bout you call one of these guys and ask them to use revise the basis for the City of Brookhaven. It started with them. They should own it. Good, bad or indifferent. This is their creation.

Ted Baggett
706.542.6252
baggett@cviog.uga.edu

Mike Jacobs
(404) 826-8660
repjacobs@comcast.net

BrookhavenYes
President: J Max Davis
jmax@jmaxdavis.com
Phone: 470-213-0268

Simple questions get really unsimple answers. So interesting....

I assume Burger you haven't asked for the 2012 revenue numbers from the county and will not do so. Your claims that 'we should just work with the county' are now proven to be what they are...hollow and deceptive. (by the way, the link you provide doesn't have 2012 digest numbers or separate the numbers for Brookhaven....LOL...even when you think you are being clever, you show the county's true colors for transparency!!!!)

I assume Carl will not answer a simple 'true or false' question. Again, proof is in the pudding. Why be afraid of answering a simple question if you want the FACTS?

The FACT is...the county has all of the revenue numbers. They want a forecast because, as has been stated and confirmed by Ms. Cobb's (of nocity) research through the Drew Valley project, CVI's revenue forecasts are conservative.

The county is on record as saying that Brookhaven will cost the county $25 to $27 Million in revenue if Brokhaven happens. And that was based on 2012 numbers (see AJC article on March 27, 2012 http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/dekalb-not-ready-for-1399806.html ) That number also doesn't include franchise fees that the new city will collect that the county cannot and it also doesn't include revenues from Town Brookhaven.

The county has the ACTUAL revenue numbers. They don't need CVI to do a forecast...all they need to do is be transparent and honest.

Hamburger, thanks for the link.

Does the county have Brookhaven split out, so we know the actual 2012 revenue DeKalb will lose to our new city?

Money that gets paid twice.

The Opposed City would cost the rest of the County immediately (just like Dunwoody cost all of us to keep up service levels) and the ENORMOUS STARTUP COSTS would cost those in the Opposed City Borders.

WHAT A DEAL!

Mr. William, as I said above, you can ask for the 2012 digest and they will send it to you.

Mr. Dean, no. When I asked for the tax digest I was using the numbers for other purposes. However, ask them and see if this information can be sent to you. When I need something county related, Rader’s and Gannon’s staffs have been very responsive.

The information sent to Vinson in May was updated information of that used for their initial report. To quell all question about its viability, Vinson should incorporate the 2012 tax digest into a revised Vinson study . . . Or, is there a problem doing this? Rep. Jacobs?

Please pass the yellow mustard!

Burger-

Was the information sent to the CVI in May the same information the CEO's office is quoted on in May?

Because the CEO sure didn't think there was any quesiton about the revenue numbers on May 3rd...

"Burke Brennan, a spokesman for the DeKalb CEO, said the creation of a city of Brookhaven and the expansion of the city of Chamblee would have a substantial impact on DeKalb County if approved by voters this year.

“The county would have to shoulder $22 to 25 million in additional burden for Brookhaven and $5 to 6 million for Chamblee,” Brennan said. “It’s a loss of revenue that could be in the neighborhood of $28-30 million.”

http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2012/05/03/county-bracing-for-new-budget-troubles/

That's May 3, 2012. From the CEO's office. And it doesn't include revenue the city would collect in franchise fees and from Town Brookhaven.

What a tangled web we weave!?!

Mr. William, you are confusing the tax digest and the findings of a private citizen with regard to the flawed Vinson study.

Those are some mighty fine looking thin sliced onions and pickles!

William,
I realize it might be confusing, but relying on a flawed work product from CVI (primarily because of flawed input) and flawed reporting from a special interest publication is bound to leave you with a flawed interpretation.

Doesn't it?

The interview was with the CEO and the CEO's office....are you trying to claim the CEO's spokeperson making statements on the record for the CEO's office is not speaking for the CEO? How absurd!

The lengths that the CEO and others will go to to distort the truth is amazing!

Burke Brennan, a spokesman for the DeKalb CEO, said the creation of a city of Brookhaven and the expansion of the city of Chamblee would have a substantial impact on DeKalb County if approved by voters this year.

“The county would have to shoulder $22 to 25 million in additional burden for Brookhaven and $5 to 6 million for Chamblee,” Brennan said. “It’s a loss of revenue that could be in the neighborhood of $28-30 million.”

http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2012/05/03/county-bracing-for-new-budget-troubles/

Not if the forecast they want is historically conservative...which has been the case in each city feasibility study prior. The county has the actual numbers so why ask for a forecast?

The county has released their own numbers. It's public record as they attempt to budget for the possibility of an incorporated Brookhaven.

The county is on record as saying that Brookhaven will cost the county $25 to $27 Million in revenue if Brokhaven happens. And that was based on 2012 numbers (see AJC article on March 27, 2012 http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/dekalb-not-ready-for-1399806.html ) That number also doesn't include franchise fees that the new city will collect that the county cannot and it also doesn't include revenues from Town Brookhaven.

The county has the ACTUAL revenue numbers. They don't need CVI to do a forecast...all they need to do is be transparent and honest.

Be nice to the OU students that Ms. Mesch is recruiting when they come to your door. They need the $10 per hour!

Eric, applying a lawyers keen sense of logic to a political operatives motives and writings is not working. Pol ops (polyps) are paid to churn out 'messages' and twist the words of anyone who is not in agreement with their points of view.

The messages I hear are:

CVI study is flawed, inaccurate, and is being willfully kept out-of-date,
Brookhaven will be a giant HOA, and everyone will be subject to whimsical laws,
And then 'red herrings' are tossed in for good measure.

Fact is, the CVI study is written conservatively, and while Brookhaven does not have Perimeter Mall like Dunwoody, the CVI study does not include Brookhaven Town revenues. Studies are needed for lawmakers to enable legislation; as such they are a 'snapshot' of financial variables at one point in time.

Unlike Dunwoody, Brookhaven does not have ONE HOA that has provided years of careful, considered homeowner protection on zoning and governance issues. Brookhaven has several established HOA's and they all have a stake in this matter.

Do your own research, believe half of what you hear, little of what you read (including my statements).

Rep. Jacobs is an easy guy to speak with and is hugely accessible. Be polite, business-like and you'll get answers to your questions.

But be nice to the OU kids, please...

Eric,
With all due respect, until you are the one preparing the CVI study WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE CITYHOOD FEASIBILITY your numbers don't mean anything. THEY created the study. THEY should revise it.

A BROOKHAVEN AREA CALL TO ACTION:
What is wrong with the Carl Vinson Institute revising the CVI Study to use the ACTUAL PRESENT tax digest? What is wrong with us having up-to-date numbers? Why does Mike Jacobs and BrookhavenYes NOT want you to have the truth?

Write the Ted Baggett at the Carl Vinson Institute, YOUR ELECTED State Rep. Mike Jacobs, BrookhavenYes President JMax Davis and DEMAND THEY UPDATE THE STUDY WITH REAL NUMBERS.

Ted Baggett
706.542.6252
baggett@cviog.uga.edu

Mike Jacobs
(404) 826-8660
repjacobs@comcast.net

BrookhavenYes
President: J Max Davis
jmax@jmaxdavis.com
Phone: 470-213-0268

True or false, Carl....the county has the actual revenue numbers.

Simple question, sir.

The county has the ACTUAL revenue numbers. They don't need CVI to do a forecast...all they need to do is be transparent and honest.

Also - The Criers, Rebecca Chase Williams has gone on record admitting this "is above my pay grade". She ain't no count!

William,
YOU yourself know the number to call. You posted it a minute ago. YOU call them and ask them. At least DO something for yourself, man.

Carl the fact is throwing out the 10% number is misleading. If DeKalb wants to argue that the numbers are dramatically different then tell us why!

Saying the CVI doesn't provide a good basis for going forward because properties have been revalued is inaccurate at best. Lower the Real Property Taxes by $350,000 and you've adjusted the Vinson numbers. If its a different number then tell me why you think it should be a different number.

I know the opponents are getting the numbers from the county so they can tell us. I would love to have an honest debate based on analysis of facts.

These numbers are out and according to commissioners have been provided to the opponents, so why hasn't the opposition put forth there number if the $350,000 is incorrect? Is it because they are waiting until the last minute so that they can do misleading numbers like the 10% decline nonsense.

The Vinson

Eric-

It's all a misinformation campaign designed to scare people because that nasty ol Vinson institute will not re-do its study.

Funny, the CEO sure didn't think there was any quesiton about the revenue numbers on May 3rd...

"Burke Brennan, a spokesman for the DeKalb CEO, said the creation of a city of Brookhaven and the expansion of the city of Chamblee would have a substantial impact on DeKalb County if approved by voters this year.

“The county would have to shoulder $22 to 25 million in additional burden for Brookhaven and $5 to 6 million for Chamblee,” Brennan said. “It’s a loss of revenue that could be in the neighborhood of $28-30 million.”

http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2012/05/03/county-bracing-for-new-budget-troubles/

That's May 3, 2012. From the CEO's office. And it doesn't include revenue the city would collect in franchise fees and from Town Brookhaven.

Mr. Eric, I think you are a little off with your numbers . . .

Special hamburger and Cheerwine?

Ali,

CVI was right on point as to Peachtree COners, but the officials YOU elected decided to go above and beyond what was needed and that's what has you looking at higher numbers. That will not happen with City of Brookhaven because taxes are capped.

Peachtree Corners taxes are capped as well. The elected officials are deciding to go right up to that cap despite promises made during the city hood campaign that the full millage would not be required. To paraphrase our mayor - the feasibility study was just to prove that the city was feasible so the legislature to put it on the ballot; it is not a budget. All I am saying is you all would be better served focusing on the Charter. That document is what will allow the politicians who ultimately run the city to tax and spend. Vote based on how you feel about the constraints and allowances there. The feasibility study is just a theory. The Charter will determine your reality.

Ms. Anne, do we have any idea just who Brookhaven Yes will be running for elected office? I certainly would like to know before July 31 . . .

Please pass the yellow mustard!

Annie G.
The childish 'tax cap' is the final nail in this leaky coffin.
Not enough money to start, not enough money to run, not enough people who want to be strapped to a bad idea.

Just Say NO!

The tax cap is precisely why many Brookhaven voters will vote for cityhood. Ever growing bureaucracies like DeKalb Government can't be allowed to raise taxes at a whim like they did to us last year (26%)

Seems like the folks who are concerned that revenue wouldn't be sufficient in our new city would try to get that info from the county to make a valid point, otherwise its just hot air, isn't it? More FUD from the anti-Brookhaven folks spoonfed from the County.

Carl-

If you or I knew how to get transparent and honest answers from the County, we might not be talking about incorporation at all.

The TRUTH is...they have the info. You know It. I know it. Hopefully all the folks reading this thread know it. For the CEO to say "“I am concerned that citizens now have incorrect data" when he has access to all of the data we need is duplicitous, at best.

All they have to do is provide that information to the citizens in a transparent and honest manner.

True colors, Carl. They can't be hidden.

Dean,
FUD
-Carl

William,
FUD
–Dean

Burger-

Do you care about getting a new CVI analysis or do you care about making sure everyone has the actual revenue numbers?

If it is the latter, then that's easy...just ask the CEO to provide the information.

Does the county need CVI to tell them how much revenue they are going to lose from the formation of Brookhaven?

Obviously not!

The CEO has outsmarted himself on this one...those who sew deceit always get caught in its web.

The county is on record as saying that Brookhaven will cost the county $25 to $27 Million in revenue if Brokhaven happens. And that was based on 2012 numbers (see AJC article on March 27, 2012 http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/dekalb-not-ready-for-1399806.html ) That number also doesn't include franchise fees that the new city will collect that the county cannot and it also doesn't include revenues from Town Brookhaven.

The county has the ACTUAL revenue numbers. They don't need CVI to do a forecast...all they need to do is be transparent and honest.

William, its very interesting how no one wishes to respond to your very valid point about the public comments by the CEO's office that the revenues shifted to Brookhaven would be between $22 million to $25 million which doesn't include the 2.8 million in Franchise Fees.

Good point on the real desire for the Vinson request since people on both sides say they are conservative on revenues.

Eric,
CVI did the feasibility Study. Not the county.
Why not give Ted a call and ask him HIS thoughts? You genius you.

Ted Baggett
706.542.6252
baggett@cviog.uga.edu

Eric,
Maybe rep jacobs and the wizards at C4ND would like to step forward and ask the County for whatever is needed to bring the CVI study into current reality. After all it is THEIR study make with THEIR variables and attempting to reach THEIR conclusion. IT was NOT proffered as a result of any generally agreed concepts from a broad coalition of any of the various neighborhoods involved.
Of course, it was the only way to make mikey's presentation of his tax bill at the first meeting pan out like he had promised.
And, just in passing, it was WRONG.

Carl because I don't think the CVI study is flawed and the am comfortable with the estimates that any potential decline in Real Property Tax revenue would at most be $350,000.

Ok Carl I answered your question. So now will you answer the question of why the CEO's office recently used the 22 million to 25 million number (which is before the 3.3 million - I left off the 500k cable fees before- in franchise fees).

Eric,
Why don't you ask the CEO?
Mr. W. Burrell Ellis, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
DeKalb County Government
330 W. Ponce de Leon Avenue, 6th Floor
Decatur, GA 30030
404-371-2881 Executive Office
404-371-6291 Fax

Ms. Anne, I guess it would be inappropriate to ask what those asterisks in the Vinson study mean and what the final data relating to those asterisks was and how it ultimately affected the Vinson study?

Care for a special hamburger?

You have no idea what you are saying.

Ms. Anne, so, it is not about founding a city on a sound financial basis, it really is about just getting the Hell away from DeKalb County? It does not really make a difference how flawed the data supporting this new city is, just as long as it works as a vehicle to sell folks on creating one?

That certainly is some fine South American charcoal!

So many experts. PS, I am a phenomenal reader. Thank you. The difference between us is that I comprehend what I read. Note the very large cranium. I also take notes, and ask questions to those who know more than I do on a topic. As a matter of fact, I just read a very interesting article just now. http://nonewcity.org/2012/06/05/step-5-admitting-to-ourselves-and-others-that-we-are-not-dunwoody/

Ditto on tax point Annie. If anything, I think BE is getting bad counsel by broaching this topic with Soapbox Derby fiasco and BOE facing an additional $10 million shortfall. Better yet, maybe it is good counsel. Deflection? Pretty much got a no-confidence vote today it appears.

From what I know on TB, tax revenue won't really come in til year 10, if I'm not mistaken...trickling in by year 7, 8, 9 before becoming a full river in year 10. Nonetheless, it certainly will help and be consistent going forward from there.

I wouldn't say all of DC is a joke, but things like this push me even farther on the Brookhaven gauge.

Mr. William . . . You are getting a little too excited . . . Calm down . . . Relax . . . Rep Jacobs will be taking care of things soon and all will be well . . .

Let me turn on some soothing music for you and get you a special hamburger and a Cheerwine . . .

Numbers like $2,252,101 in revenue from Insurance Premiums in an area that has a 12% poverty rate and an unknown illegal population. Or $241,034 in Law Enforcement-Confiscated Money based on a population ratio instead of what type of organization it takes to achieve confiscation amounts of that kind. Or $1,961,669 in revenue from Fines and Forfeitures based on a population ratio in an area that has a 12% poverty rate and an unknown illegal population. Just wondering?

You have no idea what you are saying. Apparently you have not taken into account my large cranium. Remember - I'm a scientist.

Enuff Govt Already thank you!! I appreciate someone pointing to specifics about what they think is wrong with the study.

I don't agree with you comment about 12% poverty rate and unknown illegal population hurting fines - actually it probably works the other way since these two groups tend to end up paying more fines because the law ends up putting them into the court process more often. Both of these groups don't want warrants out for them so they do in fact pay their fines. Unfortunately undocumented folks in particular courtesy of the State Legislature are hit with a whopping $600 fine for driving without a license. Since our area is a major cut through to Buckhead and Perimeter Center it maybe that using population under counts the fines since its traffic counts not population that results in traffic tickets. Have you been on Peachtree Road in Brookhaven? Or Ashford Dunwoody Road? or Buford Highway? Wow talk about speeding.

Do we take over the abutting 85 section? We don't get 285 because Dunwoody got it.

As to insurance premiums its a ratio to the unincorporated areas population and its derived from property and casualty insurance and life insurance. DeKalb's (incorporated and unincorporated) poverty rate is above 15% and the unincorporated area is probably higher, either way its safe to say 12% is well below the unincorporated and DeKalb's total average.

Eric and the rest of you geniuses,
You may find this useful.
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/localtraining

Eric,
Two simple questions:
Are you saying that it will benefit our area to become a 'speed trap for illegals' because maybe the county isn't catching enough illegals. Are you really comfortable that we would be looking to finance the little, toy, tiny Opposed City with a revenue source that would obviously quickly shrink (and massively change the district 4 population numbers).

Where do you derive (or is it more like divine) these insurance numbers?

Mr. Eric, will citizens get a “no ticket” card?

Man, I told you, ketchup is for French fries!

Eddie if you had the ability to read things for what they said instead of for what you want to believe they say you would easily recognize that I most certainly am not saying that I want the city to target undocumented folks for traffic fines.

in fact I suggested we may get more fines from speeders commuting to work from other parts of the region, not from fines for driving without a license. The license example was given to refute the misconception put forth by Carl that undocumented folks don't pay fines.

Need more specifics on your insurance questions, it was a response to Carl's assertion that they are high because we have a high poverty rate. if its DeKalb's 15% poverty rate - here http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/13/13089.html

Eric,
I find it amusing that some parts of the CVI study (those that underpin your contention) are held to quite tenaciously while the errors that discredit the Opposed City can be swept aside as if they were just small rounding errors.

I have read and reread the study carefully. I am well aware it is a product derived from the INFORMATION PROVIDED and is in no way a full, thorough or complete evaluation of the revenues and expenses of starting up a little tiny toy city (their own disclaimer points to this and the Peachtree Corners Fiasco cements it.)

Therefore, I am more than convinced that given the inadequate overview using flawed revenue and expense numbers is not valid. In any case it is not sufficiently convincing to embark on a project that I ALREADY SEE ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO SUPPORT.
The flutters of a handful of neighborhoods do not move me to favor such a permanent, expensive and dang near irrevocable mistake!

Cherry picking a statistic here and a contention there do not make it any more appealing, it is just another method for obfuscation.

Ok Eddie E. (or are you logged in as Carl Childers now) fine don't acknowledge what you did and lets move on and discuss your new comments. If you've read the study then I would welcome a discussion about specifics instead of your generalized complaints and unsubstantiated claims.

Btw if Brookhaven with a population larger than Dunwoody is a Toy City what does that make Chamblee that had around 10,000, and then 16,000 after the annexation and will potentially go to 27,000 with the annexation of the southern parcel?

Eric,
In this case, 'Toy City' would be an effective description for the Opposed City not because of population numbers but because of the flights of fantasy present in the hopeful assumptions for adequate revenue, the 'Poppinsesque' pretense that fewer Police will be necessary just because they are 'our' Police and not those from the 'Evil Dekalb County', the whole thing has become somewhat of a game, like little girls in the front yard pouring imaginary cups of tea for one another.

Another thing, this whole bogus 'well I'm not really committed either way so let's all just pull together because this is what the folks up in my neighborhood want' nonsense is wearing thin. You are not in any way making persuasive points yet you seem to feel they should draw massive applause from all assembled.

I'm on this thread to identify the ample shortcomings of the proposal for an Opposed City. I don't have massive umbrage against the County (heck, I like this administration better than the last two) and I have yet to read anything that modifies the information I have been gathering for myself since early 2011.

Eric,
By the way, I am just me.
Ask somebody, they know who I am and you can drop by and chat.
I don't know Mr. Childers, Mr. Burger, Mr. ENUFF, Mr. Unum, et.al., but my hat is off to each and every one of them.
But I am just me and I'm sure they are all caring individuals as well.

"because of the flights of fantasy present in the hopeful assumptions for adequate revenue" This is what passes as specifics? Are you referring to the CEO's absolutely baseless assertion that the tax digest decline could hit the Cities' revenues by 10%? Which btw a 30% drop in the tax digest would be necessary to reduce overall revenues by 10%.

"'Poppinsesque' pretense that fewer Police will be necessary just because they are 'our' Police and not those from the 'Evil Dekalb County',"
Nope sorry that's not the reason, the reason is because we have more than Dunwoody and they have a greater police presence, the reason is that we will have more patrols than DeKalb provides. DeKalb unfortunately has built up such a bureaucracy that they have to many on the force not actually on the streets. So while they may have a higher ratio that doesn't translate into police protection.

"their own disclaimer points to this and the Peachtree Corners Fiasco cements it."
What disclaimers? The ones that say these are estimates or forecasts? Sure, how else are you going to do it? Yes Peachtree Corners a much smaller city that has had a very odd mix of services to provide has blown past their expenses but not past the expected revenues - perhaps that's the problem? And the millage cap did stop it because the one they had was the one that provided the large surplus.

"Another thing, this whole bogus 'well I'm not really committed either way so let's all just pull together because this is what the folks up in my neighborhood want' nonsense is wearing thin. "

well after reading the very helpful Drew Valley piece and the CEO drivel today I'm about to put the Yes Yard sign up. I've never said you should vote for it because there maybe more support on the North Side.

" "You are not in any way making persuasive points yet you seem to feel they should draw massive applause from all assembled." "
Shoot I didn't think you could see the applause sign i carry around with me.

I'm not trying to get personal here but can you tell me generally what your line of work is. I'll tell you mine. I'm an attorney. I'm just trying to get a line on the way your reading comprehension and logic path works. Not saying yours is worse or better than mine - different folks tend to just function differently based on their career.

I have no doubt you are Eddie E. I just am pretty certain you are also Carl Childers

Or should I say,

I just am PRETTY CERTAIN you are also -- Carl Childers

Mr. Eric, you would be astounded by the number of folks that have no clue about this forum that have rallied their neighbors on their own against any effort to incorporate a new city per the boundaries decided by Rep. Mike Jacobs. Forget about the folks that have the visibility you see daily, it is the folks that are not vocal publically and do not have signs in their yards that you need to worry about. This is a grassroots movement and the participants are rapidly finding each other to vote against a city that they do not want.

Now, take that back to your leaders and let them know they are in for a real fight at the ballot box . . . Also, you need to put your “YES” sign up too.

Special hamburger?

By the way Hamburger I didn't hear you applauding to my last comment, I'm hurt.

Mr. Eric, I applaud you. I just hate to see tears in a grown man’s eyes over some silly, ill-conceived city.

Now, get hold of yourself and dispatch yourself to your leaders and tell them of what you have learned. Tell your leaders J. Max Davis, Rep. Mike Jacobs, Mr. Stan, and Mr. Jeff that we maybe a loose confederation of “NO” folks, but we are strong and unified in our beliefs.

You know, you need to add just a little more yellow mustard to that special hamburger !

Eric-"it probably works the other way since"...I'm going to disagree. I would say those here illegally would rather post their bond , change their name and melt back into the population rather than take addition risk by continually interacting with the court; a one and done. Warrants are out for them, I think the Sheriff's Office has a back log of a couple hundred thousand warrants. Traffic counts = traffic tickets, again I'll disagree. Traffic tickets would be the result of productive officers. Life Insurance....I would say the largest population block in this proposed city is illegal and probably buys the minimum in insurance if any at all....a couple threads down in regards to police.."built up such a bureaucracy that they have to many on the force not actually on the streets"..what is this based on? I have spoken to numerous officers and officials and I seen some of the numbers for their work product. To attain the high numbers they have to be on the streets. The north precinct year end report said they wrote over 33 thousand tickets and arrested over 6,600. There is also that double digit drop in crime rates. The avail info doesn't lend support your theory, IMHO.

Hamburger...Good on. So where's my kleenex!

Enuff Govt, thanks I appreciate the reasoned response. This is the stuff I enjoy. And I hear you. True on Life Insurance and undocumented workers. Though its not just life insurance but property and casualty insurance and we have high values on that - thus the reason we getter a higher HOST share of taxes than even Dunwoody. I would also note that much of the 12% poverty rate is the undocumented population and generally those in the poverty level aren't buying insurance anyway and our poverty % is lower than DeKalb's.

Now....with apologies to Eddie E., I'll understand if you don't applaud, time to get on my soapbox! I hope people appreciate the struggle our undocumented neighbors go through simply to try to make a better life for themselves and their loved ones. If they were offered a pathway to legal status they would jump at the chance. Unfortunately some polticians have played to fears and scuttled immigration reform efforts. Botttom line right now they risk their lives to come to this great country. Its a very dangerous trip be it the elements or the criminals they must face. Once here they are not eligible for Welfare or Unemployment have social security and medicare taxes taken from their paychecks though they cannot collect it. Property taxes are paid via the apartments and of course they pay the HOST and SPlost and other sales taxes.

Mr. Eric, the immigration issue is a thorny one and I have no answers.

However, I want to point out that several folks I know that have followed the rules to legally enter America, some with great difficulty, are quite angry when it is suggested we turn a blind eye to our immigration laws. The anchor baby issue really gets them worked up. Additionally, just using Mexico as one example, study how they handle illegal immigration in their country.

Please pass the yellow mustard!

Mr. Hamburger I've heard people say that before.

The problem is that if you are from central america and do not have an immediate family member or employer to sponsor you there is no legal route into this country. I suspect your friends either had a parent or fiance or 21 year old or over child or had special skills there and an employer willing to sponsor them - or they came in under the Reagan Amnesty program.

As to Anchor Baby nor sure what that means since several years ago the rules were changed and only Children over 21 can sponsor a parent. In other words crossing the border and having a child does not open the door to legal status since the baby is under 21.

And yes its almost impossible to earn citizenship in Mexico, but its certainly easy to visit there and conditions for immigrants seeking to work in Mexico is much better.

Actually Mexico's economy has improved somewhat and now immigration from Mexico (documented or undocumented) is basically at zero (as many people leaving as entering). As a result many folks from Honduras and neighboring countries are now entering Mexico to work.

There's also the issue of our aging population. The main threat to Social Security is that are declining work force aged population in ratio to elderly is straining the system. Immigrants are of working age and thus the best way to increase the work force. Or we could do Santorums way of making white people have more babies.

"Or we could do Santorums way of making white people have more babies." Eddie E, that's sarcasm. While Santorum basically said that I repeat it to mock him.

Eric,
I digress from my Hero, Mr. Hamburger in that I feel there is a solution....Arrest the employers of illegals, try and convict them for the felony of hiring illegals, auction off their stuff to citizens who will obey the law and eliminate the attractant.
To those in the Dun-Jilted crescent, this does mean that you will either have to clean your own house and maintain your own lawn, or pay CITIZENS a legitimate and living wage to do it for you.

Eddie E. If you make it a Felony to hire undocumented workers, would you also be in favor of some sort of pathway to legal status or are you instead trying to force a "voluntary" deportation of several million people (Many of whom have been here since Children) by further changing the rules midstream.

BTW I didn't hear you applauding!

It will be OK Burger, you can still make money with an honest business in Brookhaven, you won't even have to "grease the wheels" at county anymore.

Mr. Dean, forget about me, what are your thoughts on those forty-nine business owners?

Please pass the yellow mustard!

Hamburger. I think I liked your Gabacho character better. Did you finally find out the true translation and change characters to save face? Seriously, bring him back and you could give him a catch phrase. Something like... pass the black beans! Bring back Gabacho and put HamBurger on the back burner.

Mr. GuruLikeDrucker, I also enjoy the “French Idiot” as he says those that know him best call him. However, I do not run in the same social circles as he does, much to my regret. There are several of us out here that would to share a feast and some adult beverages with him.

To many, his posts may border on gibberish at first glance. However, words do mean something and to those that pay attention, there is a message.

Thank you for the compliment, but he is not me . . . By the way, the best Cuban is at the house . . .

Special hamburger anyone?

How is bringing the financial reality into focus (rather than adhering tenaciously to the constant obfuscation and redirection) in any way defined as a PLOY?

Because the 10% number is false

Mr. Eric, we all know about those articles now, they have been presented previously. However, if you look at the online voting totals for both sites, you will realize just how little traffic they receive. Very nominal news sources at best and almost unknown two years ago. Folks, other than those in district 001, were for the most part clueless until late last fall. This is why everyone is so angry with Rep. Mike Jacobs.

Hey! Anyone seen Rep. Mike Jacobs?

Please pass the yellow mustard!

Ok, fair enough Hamburger. And if cityhood fails that may well be the reason. Which while understandable is unfortunate.

At least I know Don Garbacho can't vote against it since he lives in Ansley Park in the City of Atlanta or maybe he will use one of his fake voting cards he got from the Mexican Consulate - I've got about 50 of those. Right now i'm voting 40 for yes 7 for now and 3 to write in city of North Atlanta.

Mr. Eric, actually, the unfortunate thing about this whole city movement has been that Rep. Jacobs did an exceptionally poor sales job, developed a deficient cornerstone to base the new city on, and his HB 636 is a wide open charter allowing an unknown government to rule the lives and property of a citizenry with enough sense to see through this amateurish move towards cityhood.

And, just who will be running for the elected offices?

Those are the crunchiest and dilliest dills I have ever had!

Mike Jacobs is hiding behind Max Davis.

And singular, non-contextual quotes from some point in the past are certainly more important than an open, public, raucous debate.

Right?

Ha! Next time you are over, check to see if I have a grill. Or some meat in the fridge. Sorry, but I do enjoy a good burger, but prefer that someone else make them. I am too impatient for a grill, and sometimes impatient for someone else to make my food.

And without replying to other posts that contain some of my previous writings that are missing critical pieces of context.....Yes, I did write those wonderful lines above.

I am actually for cityhood if it is done the right way. The right way is: Making sure that all avenues of resolving the problems are exhausted before you move forward. Lots of preplanning and communication. Making sure all of the areas involved want to be a part of the new city and you actually have the support before you start running laws across the government desks. Creating a budget and providing numbers that will actually be used. Making a list of priorities for people to see what will happen in the first few years of cityhood. All of these things should be done before a public vote, some before legislature has been introduced.

None of this has happened.

I am definitely not Hamburger. I am only me, for now.

I have unofficially excused myself from this discussion because I feel it is over. I may write up an article for the Patch, if they will accept it from a nearby resident that lives outside the city boundaries. Will be an article that is sure to irritate a great many people on both sides of the fence.

Sorry I provided the link with the full quote, which I don't think dramatically changes anything but here is the full post so as to make sure I don't mislead by just quoting these lines . "I would only vote for the annexation option because of the island effect " Bill Lowe
"It is good for DeKalb to have clean lines to patrol and essentially "locks in" the growth of the other cities." Bill Lowe

8:03 pm on Saturday, March 31, 2012

Not hypocritical. This is a reactive annexation because of the Brookhaven city lines. The area to be annexed into Chamblee will be surrounded by Doraville, Chamblee, and Brookhaven if Brookhaven becomes a city.

If Brookhaven fails to become a city by public vote in July, then it is also possible that the Chamblee Annexation will fail as well.

I like being a part of unincorporated DeKalb and don't have any major gripes with DeKalb County. I would only vote for the annexation option because of the island effect with I-85 being the crossing point into the neighborhoods for DeKalb county services. There would be few patrols of any Dekalb services when we are surrounded by other cities....Even police cut through traffic will diminsh to next to nothing if Brookhaven forms.

Part 2 to follow

Part 2
This is such a small area to be annexed in, it is not a huge financial loss to anyone except to those that feel that the DECA area is a part of Brookhaven...and that loss is all make believe. It is good for DeKalb to have clean lines to patrol and essentially "locks in" the growth of the other cities....Much like Brookhaven will be locked in, with no where else to expand to.

Elena Parent did her job very well with the annexation bill. She came to the public neighborhood meetings and listened and agreed with our concerns. She kept the legislation local without having to rely on party affiliation to get it passed. Mike Jacobs could have done the same thing with Brookhaven.

Spam is a very versatile meat(substitution) byproduct. It should not be refridgerated, but stored at room temperature....takes less time to cook that way.

Don't have any spam in the house either, although it has been here for limited time periods.

I like spam. But hate unsolicited commercial email.

Probably because ethical, transparent and responsive government is just a ruse.

They just want to be in charge of whatever government emerges, having been defeated in attempts to join the current government.

E Pluribus Unum, you would think that we would have had an immediate response stating that a revised Vinson study would be forthcoming. Rep. Jacobs did not wake up yesterday and find out about this, he has known for days, right after the Vinson folks contacted him regarding DeKalb County’s request. The hatred for DeKalb County is so great that they will do and say anything to create their new city instead of make positive changes to their existing government.

Mr. Bill, in his 11:19 post points out a path that competent, concerned citizens would follow in creating a new city and observes that this path was not taken. The truth is the entire push for cityhood by a select few has been absent of a process designed to insure the success of a new city and this is the way their new city will be run if the vote passes July 31. Vote for a new city and this is just a small sampling of what you will be getting from your unannounced elected officials.

Excuse me, I have to go start prepping my special hamburgers!

Or, it could be that the contributors at C4ND are a bit tapped out (remember, this was the entity that actually 'purchased' the flawed CVI Study).
They should publish a list with contribution amounts so other willing citizens can show their solidarity, step forward and pony up for an ACCURATE study.

But I still won't be holding my breath.

Mr. Hamburger,

More concisely, the entire process has been at best a handful of 'meetings' where the 'yessirs' took a few minutes to 'instruct' those in attendance what would occur.
This process began to derail at the Oglethorpe meeting held by Rep. Parent last June, in which representatives of the GMA, ACC, and the County were present to provide INFORMATION, describe OPPORTUNITIES and suggest potential ALTERNATIVES.
None of this kept with the 'resistance is futile' nature of the yes folks. At a Legislator's Town Hall meeting just before the start of the session, a certain unnamed Senator mentioned to a certain unnamed but omnipresent Commissioner's chief of staff "yep, it's just that Dunwoody Train comin' at 'em and they just don't know it yet".

If the intent is to enforce a pre-determined outcome on an unsuspecting populace, apparently there is no need to spend time educating, listening or adjusting, after all, 'we have been given our instructions!'.

Don't you think, referring to the interviewer and reporter as Mr O'Hayer and Ms Weinman would be a bit more respectful ?

Good stuff. Except at the end of Part 2 when she talks about islands and Deca. She forgot to mention the Chamblee Annexation vote that will wipe out the peninsula that Deca would be in if Brookhaven became a city. And that the relevant commercial base was dropped.

Yes its the diversity that gives me comfort that this won't be a city, if it happens, run by one group of folks.

I agree, the ethnicity, political leanings and other orientations of citiznes in Brookhaven will lead to a diverse, multi-cultural, world class city.

EPU,

Clear as a bell.
I am still waiting on the C4ND donor lists to see who is behind this, but of course the end of June will tell us who and how much is forcing this plan (gosh those cheesy mailers remind me of the cheesy Jill Chambers mailers). Who is behind that curtain?
And last, to point's 1 and 2 again, call it what it is, 'Just Say No to Jacobshaven!'

Happy to Oblige E Pluribus: Why Cityhood in under 20 words.
User friendly delivery of services covered, Better Parks, More sidewalks, Sustainable Land Use and Development Practices, Increased Property Values.

Yea guilty on being verbose, round about in that I try to acknowledge your guys points when you make them vs. spurious attacks or snide comments. I wish people would actually respond to the point at hand more often. Oh well it is what it is.

I agree Hamburger and Enuff have made some valid points.

Why is Peachtree Corners more telling than the other 5 Vinson Studies?

Will be interesting to see who "ponied" up for Brookhaven No ;-) (note I have no problems with legally operating clubs and believe in grandfathering if rules are changed).

More personal attacks.

Why can't you stick to the issues Eddie?

Personal attacks do no one any good.