No Longer Undecided; Voting Yes For Brookhaven

A new entry into The Forum explains the deciding factors in his decision on cityhood.

I have spent a great deal of time listening to both sides of the issues. 

The “BrookhavenYES” group has sent fliers. The “NoCity” campaign has sent fliers. 

The “BrookhavenYES” group showed up at the .  The “No City” campaign showed up at the Reporter debate. 

The “BrookhavenYES” group has held two town halls - one at and one at Montgomery Elementary. The “No City” campaign held none.

The “BrookhavenYES” group has held open and public neighborhood meetings and advertised the meetings with fliers and emails, advertised with local press and posted publicly on their website. The “No City” campaign has not.

The “BrookhavenYES” group posts the bios of its members. As of this writing, the “No City” campaign has posted no bios. 

For me, transparency and openness go a long way.

What also goes a long way is family focus. “BrookhavenYES” recently held a . I attended with my family. What I saw was hundreds of people engaging in family fun, people actively reaching out to connect with their neighbors and a sense of community that neither DeKalb County nor the “No City” campaign has attempted to foster. 

Ever see a “No City” ad for a family picnic?  Ask yourself “why not?”

I know what a "YES" vote is endorsing. What is a vote for "NO" endorsing? It seems as though a “No” vote is a vote for DeKalb’s inefficient, broken government. 

A “YES” vote, based on the “BrookhavenYES” community focused approach, is a vote for the citizens in our community.

The choice is simple. Vote “YES” for the city of Brookhaven and build the community  we want. Vote "NO" for continuing DeKalb's and the “No City” group's dysfunctional government.

Alan Powell

Scott Phillips July 29, 2012 at 11:05 AM
Bill, I have no doubt that J. Max has plenty of aspirations, and leadership in the new city may likely being one of them. What I don't believe is that our problems with DeKalb county are a "make believe" issue that he alone, or with a few of his freinds, worked up for nothing more than personal gain. If helping to solve a problem and improve our community happens to advance his, mine, my next door neighbor, or your cause, so be it. That is no reason to discount the need for better, local and accountable public services. Besides we will all have a few months to vet out the candidates before the November elections come along and I am sure we will have plenty of quality folks to choose from.
not one of 60 July 29, 2012 at 12:17 PM
not one of 60 July 29, 2012 at 12:17 PM
not one of 60 July 29, 2012 at 12:17 PM
http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2012/07/28/newest-area-cities-are-still-smelling-like-roses/ first one must be elected Mr. Dick.
not one of 60 July 29, 2012 at 12:18 PM
not one of 60 July 29, 2012 at 12:21 PM
The No city picnic is very very funny. CCC would not let the masses of the people in! Let alone MEI have to meet with the working class, unless it was not some tax write off benefit she could host off of paces ferry to show she supports the little people! What a piece of work...If I believed in some higher being at least I would have the satisfaction of pure judgement day for some of these who walk the streets holier than thou....
Jack of Kings July 29, 2012 at 01:34 PM
Another confession: I, too, was initially against a new city when I first heard about the push because I assumed that the local management infrastructure MUST, without a doubt, be more costly overall than leaving everything with Dekalb. That was my knee-jerk reaction. But after doing more research and seeing real-life "guinea pig" cities nearby and their experiences, I shifted to YES. It is a "tribute" to the well-documented overstaffing problems in the County government that has made a votte for YES even possible. If the County government was better managed--a City would have NO CHANCE of passing. But when you realize that outsourcing will be a major component of the new City--a component that has made all the difference in Dunwoody and Sandy Springs--it is clear to me that a new City of Brookhaven will be a major improvement.
Eddie E. July 29, 2012 at 01:59 PM
Bill, I think 'poobah' is what he seeks in this one.
Eddie E. July 29, 2012 at 02:00 PM
Scott, Do the English language a favor and refrain from placing 'J Max' and 'leadership' in the same volume much less the same sentence.
Eddie E. July 29, 2012 at 02:03 PM
pk (whatever anonymous poster) You clowns amaze me. Voting math involves registered voters. You drew a bogus 'district' primarily inhabited by people who are nor even Citizens much less registered voters. The majority of primary voters (republicans, teabaggers and other fascists) live in the northern area. It is clear to everyone (including the Justice Department) why this was drawn the way it was so let's spare the server the effort of recording any pollyanna explanations.
Eddie E. July 29, 2012 at 02:06 PM
The revenue numbers are astounding. Look it up! But I know it was provided to you during the C4ND discussions. Without that revenue the Opposed City would never have passed muster with the contortions that went into developing the CVI study.
Jordan Fox July 29, 2012 at 03:21 PM
Alan, I respect your opinion, but it sounds like you are voting Yes for Brookhaven because you feel BrookhavenYES has run a better campaign than the No City groups. BrookhavenYES has done a good job having open meetings and garnering community support -- I get that. What about the other big issues like local control, police protection, taxes and finance, zoning, etc? It's scary that your reason for voting yes mentions none of these issues. I hope that you are voting yes because you feel you'll be better off in a City of Brookhaven and not just because you feel the Yes side has run a better campaign and had more family days.
Scott Phillips July 29, 2012 at 03:33 PM
Good one Eddie, Iv'e only spoken with him once and he seems like a nice enough guy. If the city passes I don't doubt we will see his name somewhere out there and I will need to do a bit more digging to find out what he's all about. For now I tend to have a neutral to favorable view of him but will keep an open mind if/when it comes time to make choices about who will best lead the community.
Molly Brown July 29, 2012 at 03:42 PM
I don't get this obsession with Pink Pony, boys... Property taxes are the only revenues impacted upon incorporation. The revenue from sales is unaffected. Property taxes for this property are the same as a similar property.
Eddie E. July 29, 2012 at 04:15 PM
Scott, You should get to know him better. It would explain his dismal electoral record to date.
Eddie E. July 29, 2012 at 04:17 PM
Molly, The only reason I mention it is it IS THE SINGLE LARGEST TAX REVENUE GENERATOR IN THE BUFORD HIGHWAY CORRIDOR. No Pony, no money, no city. Along with property taxes there are huge license fees that would transfer to a municipality. This was known from the beginning.
Molly Brown July 29, 2012 at 04:28 PM
How much is the license fee? Does that include the $100,000 'slush' money paid to Dekalb somebody mentioned yesterday. Are you actually expecting anyone to believe that ONE business is responsible for the success or failure of Brookhaven? Too weird, whatever.
Eddie E. July 29, 2012 at 05:14 PM
Molly (or whoever you really are), Your strawman whining makes no sense. If I were wrong, one of your 'vaunted leaders' would be questioning the validity of my logic. Doesn't matter, it will be in print tomorrow and available for handouts at the polls on Tuesday.
Eric H July 29, 2012 at 06:01 PM
"for me, transparency and openness go a long way." That seems like a very good reason to vote yes for the City of Brookhaven. Transparency and openness are also easier to accomplish at a more local level that the City of Brookhaven would provide for Zoning and Development, Roads and Sidewalks, Parks and Police.
patrick July 29, 2012 at 06:29 PM
Eric, you are 100 percent right, but you left one key item out, Local control by those who live And govern our new city. I just hope the everyone will remember who never wanted this vote,when we vote for Local leaders for our new city.
Larry July 29, 2012 at 07:43 PM
Just another layer of govt......just what we need. Or in other words crap on top of crap!
Eddie E. July 29, 2012 at 11:28 PM
Larry, Stating the obvious gets you chided here. Thick skin is a useful trait!
Dr. Jeff July 30, 2012 at 12:52 AM
Daddie old man Eddie... Still reciting from your out of date NO CITY PLAYBOOK.
Dr. Jeff July 30, 2012 at 01:11 AM
Eddie...you know good and well that you can't distribute anything or talk about campaign issues at the polling place. I guess you must be thinking about your fantasies of wanting to live in the old Soviet Union. By the way, I'm submitting an on-line complaint to the GA Secretary of State about NO CITY's distribution of campaign literature, in the form of your flyer, to voters "at the polls on Tuesday".
Dr. Jeff July 30, 2012 at 01:12 AM
Dr. Jeff July 30, 2012 at 01:17 AM
And Larry... A thick skin with tons of grease & wrinkles like Daddie Eddie has will certainly help to keep you on edge.
C. O'Keefe July 30, 2012 at 04:37 PM
The complaint filed by Brookhaven Yes concerning the disregard of campaign laws by DeKalb County officials has elicited this response from Burke Brennan, Chief Communications Officer of DeKalb County: It's a "last-minute stunt." So, asking our officials to abide by the law, and calling them on it if they don't, is a "stunt." Read back over the comments on this forum and note the sarcasm and nastiness of most No City proponents, and a clear picture emerges.
HamBurger July 30, 2012 at 10:55 PM
Latest polling information, based on feedback from our volunteer field network is: 57.65% NO with the remainder YES or UNDECIDED. Respondents concerns with the new city in no specific order are as follows: - New city concept sold hard with confusing facts. - Out of date and incomplete data being used to promote cityhood. - Distrust of the new city promoter motives (MJ) and manner in which the cityhood concept was developed in neighborhoods around Silver Lake and north. - Lack of commercial property in new city. - Concerned petty politics will continue in new city with the select few BY folks running new city. - Distrust of Brookhaven Yes key supporters, their election to city offices, and manipulating city government for their benefit. - Do not want another layer of government. Had rather work to change existing government. - Bothered that CVI Study was not linked to HB 636 for cityhood guidance and development. - Feel cityhood issue should have required more time for development. Some respondents were very strong in stating their distrust of cityhood promoters and the short timeframe for issue vote. Many were not impressed with the last minute shenanigans of the Brookhaven Yes folks. The WSB-TV piece with J. Max Davis showed how little he knows about the southern portion of the city. Anyone have a link to that video? Special hamburger and Cheerwine?
HDM July 30, 2012 at 10:59 PM
There you are, burgerboy. This place just wouldn't be the same without your constant misinformation and attempts to scare the community. Voters will not be fooled.
Danny Marshall July 31, 2012 at 04:24 AM
I'd co-sign that statement on transparency. Well said Allan. Free consultative advice for the no-city crowd: the last talking point I'd pull out of my tool belt would be anything regarding transparency / openness. Re: local control - preach on Patrick. At least I'll know whose neck to ring out when they put a fake "One Brookhaven Works" sign up at Blackburn when the weeds are higher than my knees. Oh, wait.


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