.

About the Brookhaven Voting Districts

Precincts south of Peachtree Road voted in favor of cityhood. City council districts ensure equal representation for all neighborhoods.

This is a quick response to the anonymous poster Brookhaven South-er.

If you look closer at the precinct returns for the July 31 Brookhaven referendum, you will find that there were areas south of Peachtree Road that voted in favor of the City of Brookhaven.  Specifically, the precincts that vote at Briarwood Park and Cross Keys High School voted majority yes.  Six out of nine precincts in my State House district voted yes, as well.

More importantly, the current voting districts were created as a result of concerns that started on a neighborhood message board with postings by a leader of the cityhood opposition movement.  These concerns were then brought to my attention by residents of that neighborhood, Brookhaven Fields. 

The districts are designed to ensure that power is not concentrated in one part of the city.  It’s clear they will achieve that goal.  There is nothing nefarious behind the set-up of the city council.  To the contrary, its structure was precipitated by comments from a leader of the cityhood opposition.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

John Q Public November 03, 2012 at 09:57 PM
I am an officer and a gentleman jilted by my miniature crappy self serving state rep personal agenda silly boy.
Mike Jacobs November 03, 2012 at 10:08 PM
I have never used taxpayer funds for any such thing. As for soliciting business from constituents, you must be talking about the property tax appeals I handle as part of my law practice. I sent a mailer soliciting business to 30,000 addresses throughout Fulton and DeKalb. To the extent it was sent to addresses in my State House district, it was incidental. As for representing my constituents, 58% of House District 80 voters supported cityhood. 6 out of 9 precincts voted yes. 2 of them are south of Peachtree. And 1/4 of House District 80 is in Sandy Springs. They like cityhood, too. J. Max Davis and Rebecca Williams can think for themselves. I have no puppets.
Eddie E. November 03, 2012 at 10:56 PM
Yo Genius, Tim was in charge BEFORE the ill-timed referendum. IT is a shame that it took so long for so many people to wake up!
Eddie E. November 03, 2012 at 10:58 PM
Mikey, So two precincts not in your district supported the referendum? Yet all the others did not. Where is the error in 'Brookhaven South-er's' logic?
John Q Public November 03, 2012 at 11:04 PM
Mr non representative, You tell stories little buddy. You solicited you constituency for your private business and you know it. You have $2500.00 to both Rebecca Chase Williams and $2500.00 to J Max Davis. Discretionary funds and money you raised for your reelection campaign. Mike, 75% of the districts in your fairyland VOTED NO. Spin it how you will. Are you ready to admit to all of us yet that voting yes for cityhood was a tax increase? Are you willing to admit that the city IS IN FACT another layer of government? And as far as JMax thinking for himself, why are you constantly consulting with him? We see You going over to his house all the time with your other puppets JD Clovkadale, Jeff Kellar, etc. You lied to us fella. Plain and simple. Lied. Sleep well micro Mike.
Eddie E. November 03, 2012 at 11:16 PM
Mikey, I'd really like an answer. You must remember, I worked to get you elected, during your first two terms.
Eddie E. November 03, 2012 at 11:17 PM
Bill, I have those numbers. I don't want to try to attach it here, but if you don't have my email, call the shop on Monday.
Booyah November 03, 2012 at 11:46 PM
JQP you're words and actions are despicable. Talk about puppets and it brings visions of Zanny Murray being manipulated by Tom & Ann Cousins and Mary Ellen & John Imlay. A full 1/3 of Zanny's campaign is financed by two powerful families.
HamBurger November 03, 2012 at 11:56 PM
Ms. A Resident, how about laying off of Mr. Tim. If you don’t like what is going on here the Patch, post an editorial piece about it. Conversely, you may want to consider avoiding the Patch. Working within the limited capabilities of the Patch I do not think he has done a bad job and looking back on the past year I do not think he has shown preference one way or another. I do not know his personal thoughts on cityhood, but I am told publically, he made efforts to appear neutral. Remember, Mr Tim, unlike Dick Williams and Rebecca Chase Williams, has remained very neutral. The William’s? Not at all with the Crier or The Georgia Gang. Special hamburger anyone?
HamBurger November 04, 2012 at 12:00 AM
Mr. Dallanger, thank you for letting us know that you see no conflict in potential city vendors: 1 – Contributing to the efforts to form a new city. And 2 – Contributing to candidates and past employees that are candidates for elected office in Brookhaven. Sir, you are an excellent “pay to play” team player! Please pass the yellow mustard!
John Q Public November 04, 2012 at 12:02 AM
Mike, So what's your answer? When are you going to admit that voting yes to cityhood means a tax increase? When are you going to admit that cityhood is IN FACT another layer of government? When are you going to admit that your disclosures show loadsoif special interests, lobbyists and PAC groups and that you yourself have taken donations from potential city vendors? Answers? Lets here it Mike.
Eddie E. November 04, 2012 at 12:05 AM
Mr. Burger, Dick Williams was not 'neutral'? Say it ain't so! It's bad enough that Jim Galloway let his former working relationship with mr. williams cloud his judgement on reporting the TRUTH about the referendum and the shenanigans since, but if mr. williams didn't deserve it, well that's downright journalistic malfeasance ain't it?
Brookhaven Maven November 04, 2012 at 02:06 AM
Mr. Jacobs -- I take exception to your saying the 80th District is YOUR district, as quoted from the original blurb: "Six out of nine precincts in my State House district voted yes, as well." The 80th District is the PEOPLE'S district, and you are merely a temporary public servant ... a small fish in a big pond. Regarding your comments about how the decision was made in drawing the district lines, I am still in disbelief that you had the temerity to split my neighborhood (Sexton Woods) into two cities. If the logic you used in guiding the drawing of the council districts is anything like what you used to draw the city limits, then I am certain those district lines aren't done at all well. My neighbors and I cannot help but be apprehensive about how we will be treated by the new city, or whether we will even be recognized as being a part of it. What do you think will happen when one of us who lives in Brookhaven calls 911? We have heard horror stories about other new cities not having their 911 calls routed to the right agency. Should we expect Chamblee, DeKalb or Brookhaven to respond? I, for one, sincerely hope either Chamblee of DeKalb gets our calls, because I just don't see Brookhaven PD having a clue where we are! Everyone I've talked to casually is surprised to find that Sexton Woods was not kept intact, and that we are not going to be part of the annexation option. -- The Maven
John Q Public November 04, 2012 at 02:26 AM
Maven, Your neighborhood and most others were included in happy town because they need your property tax revenue. They started with a small circle and expanded and expanded until they achieved a footprint that they think will generate enough income to have the happy town Jacobsville. It's all about what J Boy and Mikey can get get on our nickel.
HamBurger November 04, 2012 at 02:47 AM
Ms. BM, think about this for a moment . . . You are at the intersection of I-85 and Clairmont at the Waffle House. You make a 911 call on your cell phone. Who comes to assist? Chamblee? Brookhaven? DeKalb? I suggest you get your carry permit, learn CPR, and you have a defibrillator with you at all times. WTF? So much for fragmented government! Please! Pass the double cur yellow mustard!
HamBurger November 04, 2012 at 02:50 AM
And, from what I understand, Chamblee will now be controlling I-85 from Clairmont to I-285? Is this correct? Hey! We just want to make sure our revenue stream continues? Please! Pass the double cur yellow mustard!
John Q Public November 04, 2012 at 03:02 AM
There is some published assistance suggestions such as: http://theotherbrookhaven.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-brookhaven-series-post-1-brookhaven.html?m=1
Brookhaven Maven November 04, 2012 at 03:14 AM
To John Q @ 10:27 -- Well, it's just not right! My neighbors a couple of streets over from me live in the city of Chamblee, and they get to blow their leaves out to the curb for city pick-up loose. On the other hand, I will have to bag mine. My neighbors have a REAL downtown and a 100+ year history. I have Towne $embler or Northeast Plaza as a downtown, and zero history. My neighbors get old-folks tax breaks, but I haven't heard anything about my getting anything. And so it goes. -- The Maven
Brookhaven Maven November 04, 2012 at 03:28 AM
To BahHumbugger at 10:47p -- My bet is on DKPD showing up first. They have more patrol cars in the area than Chamblee. They are also accustomed to being first responders in that part of town. Regarding carry permit, etc --- I have one for my registered small weapons, thank you. I've had my CPR certification since 1970. I carry a first aid kit in my car trunk. None of those things will be useful to my elderly widowed neighbor if someone breaks into her house when I am at work. She and many others depend on rapid response from official police / fire / rescue in an emergency. I would expect Chamblee PD or DKPD to respond. Who gets the bill for that? -- The Maven
HamBurger November 04, 2012 at 03:23 PM
Mr. BM, nothing better than a prepared citizen . . . Please pass the yellow mustard!
Eddie E. November 04, 2012 at 04:17 PM
BM, You make a good point at the end. Let's hope the pointless discussion of handing off 911 service to a for-profit system that has yet to prove it's functionality disappears by December 18.
Eddie E. November 04, 2012 at 04:19 PM
BM, And, to their credit, Chamblee just rolled back one of the most absurd zoning decisions in the City's history. It only took 7 years to correct the problem and without substantial citizen input, I doubt the mayor would have accepted just how wrong he was in the initial decision.
patrick November 04, 2012 at 09:32 PM
Bill Dist. 4 has Buford Highway,many people on Buford are not voters,,that just might be A reason for the low number.
patrick November 04, 2012 at 09:44 PM
I am sorry that Maven can not understand that Rep. Jacobs Was Elected in 2010,defeating Sandy 2 to 1 to be the State Rep. from Dist.80 at the same time the Georgia Dem. were working to give Dist. 81 a sorry State Rep{ who is leaving,being replace by Chris B.}Thank you Eddie for telling everyone your political views,,But more important is Thank You Rep.Jacobs for your work to make our city.
Brookhaven4u November 04, 2012 at 10:55 PM
Here comes the politician. Completely misleading statement. Precincts do not amount to Districts. So while individual precincts may have voted for the city, he completely ducks the question of which City District voted for incorporation. Only District 1 had a majority vote for cityhood. District 2, 3, & 4 voted against Mike Jacobs Cityhood. Briarwood Rec. Center voted 310 to 289 & Cross Keys voted 231 to 212 for cityhood. Notice the small # of total voters. Mike would like you to think that equal population in the districts prevents one district from dominating. This is an absurd assumption considering that District 1 has a disproportionate # of registered voters. Consider that Montgomery Elementary voted 970 to 448 for the City. This is just 1 precinct in District 1, yet has more voters than some entire districts. If council person outside wants to accomplish something in his district, he has two choices. Negotiate with District 1 (Compromise) or get the two other districts to compromise with him. All negotiations will start with district 1. This was no accident, but the intent of our CNDB founding fathers to keep District 1 all powerful.
HamBurger November 05, 2012 at 12:42 PM
Mr. Patrick, and this is by design. As with fragmentation of troublesome voting groups in districts #2 and #3. Remember, your district #1 overlords are in control and power must remain in district #1. We want our city to be as we want it! Don’t you ever forget that! Please pass the yellow mustard!
FreddieK November 05, 2012 at 03:33 PM
Mike Jacobs - keep believing that all the voices here are simply the minority and that your constituents really believe in you and think you don't lie. You bring such disgrace to your title and some of that will remain long after you leave office. That stinks.
don Gabacho November 05, 2012 at 05:10 PM
"...I have never used taxpayer funds for any such thing."---State Representative Mike Jacobs Then whose or what's? "As for soliciting business from constituents, you must be talking about the property tax appeals I handle as part of my law practice." While also a member of the State Legislature. "I sent a mailer soliciting business to 30,000 addresses throughout Fulton and DeKalb. To the extent it was sent to addresses in my State House district, it was incidental." "Incidental"? Is it "incidental" also that you still refuse to respond to the question on the very propriety of your having been on the so-called "citizens" committee that initiated Brookhaven's cityhood, authored by you, and supposedly petitioning the legislature of which you are a member--also? Is it also "incidental" that you refuse still the obligation of your public office to protect and defend the Constitution of the US by refusing still to bring the MxGov to task for having and using our own voter registration forms?
don Gabacho November 05, 2012 at 06:09 PM
Moreover, is it "incidental" also that we still await your long-overdue cite of the Constitution of the State of Georgia's prohibition of "townships," as you did post to this forum, to, in effect, deny citizens that option.
don Gabacho November 05, 2012 at 08:02 PM
Patrick, try and understand this in light of Jacobs' having declared, for the cityhood of Brookhaven, that the Consitution of Georgia prohibites townships and would require a referendum to enact it while: Do note "A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT To amend Title 36 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to local government, so as to provide for preclearance of new townships under Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended; to provide for a short title; to provide for the requirements for the creation and funding of such townships; to provide for township councils for such townships; to provide for powers, duties, and functions of such township councils; to provide for officers, meetings, elections, and... to prohibit certain conflicts of interest...," "Georgia State Constitution: Section 2, Paragraph II: Object of government. The people of this state have the inherent right of regulating their internal government. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people; and at all times they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. " http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/GAConstitution.pdf

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something