.

Some Candidates Are Descendents Of No City Brookhaven

In this new entry into The Forum, a neighbor says Brookhaven needs elected officials who will start the city on the road to prosperity.


Is Yes and No about Brookhaven over? For most anyway, it's time to build a prosperous Brookhaven; time to let go of the old DeKalb status quo. However, some candidates are direct descendants of No, who have not completed the evolution into Brookhaven.

Phase 1: Nobody Vote

The No City leaders and DeKalb County government would have been happiest if nobody but the legislature had voted on Brookhaven.

From January through March they tried to deny your voice in choosing your local government by blocking the very opportunity to vote. They attempted to convince your state government to move against HB 636 which called for the referendum to incorporate Brookhaven within DeKalb County. They presented a
campaign of misinformation and doubt to the legislators. They delivered petitions to the governor. And they even coordinated with your own elected DeKalb officials and DeKalb's highly-paid county lawyer/lobbyist, trying to kill the bill before it reached you, the residents.

Thankfully, the state legislature saw through their selfish campaign. The 'Brookhaven bill' passed both the House and the Senate overwhelmingly and the referendum was set for July 31.

Phase 2: Everyone Vote No

Simultaneously, the No City leaders were publically spreading their negative anti-Brookhaven message.

Various versions of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt appeared on yard signs, in negative flyers and in unfounded accusations on blogs. They attacked anyone and everyone who dared suggest a City of Brookhaven could serve its residents better and more efficiently than DeKalb County status quo provides.

From February through July, they bombarded you with their desperate message of doom, a message built on half truths and misrepresentations. Thousands of their yard signs implored, 'No New City' and 'No City Brookhaven.'

They dressed their anti-Brookhaven opinion and half truths to look like a newspaper and threw it into your yards. Employees at DeKalb County, the very entity that taxes us so steeply, provided their list of "Items To Support Brookhaven Opposition" via email.

Phase 3: Vote for someone who voted No

After July 31, their seven-month barrage of doubt and dire predictions for our new city went quiet and their no-city web site went away. However, two of the No City naysayers, Sandy Murray and Jim Eyre, are trying to sway your vote once again.

Sandy Murray and Jim Eyre both were heavily involved with the No-City efforts, fighting Brookhaven incorporation every step of the way. They told you a city is a bad idea; the city can't be a success; the city can't have lower tax; the city can't afford police; the city will be broke; the city is another layer; the city will be divided; blah, blah, blah...

And now they are telling you to trust them to build our new city by electing them to be among our first representatives for Brookhaven's fledgling years. Why would we want to do that; to take a step backwards in the evolution of our new city?

This is not to say people who did not support Brookhaven can't change to become productive city supporters. Of course people learn and change over time. There is room enough for differing opinions in Brookhaven. But this first election is too critical to take a chance on any candidate who so ardently tried to
prevent Brookhaven. Especially in the presence of so many qualified Brookhaven supporters and believers.

Opportunity for Brookhaven to Thrive

We have an exciting opportunity in our city of Brookhaven.  Five elected local officials (mayor plus four city council members) will represent the citizens, overseeing a city manager with a small staff, who in turn will hire the public safety (police) department. Most other city services will be provided by private companies who will be contracted through annual open competitive bidding.

The elected officials will be our neighbors, living among us with the consequences their decisions. The employees of the contracted providers will be accountable to us every day for their performance. It will be an efficient model following the successful examples of Sandy Springs, Johns Creek, Dunwoody and Milton. The mayors and city council members of those cities embrace and understand the new reality of the public-private city model.

Indeed, officials from each of those cities are ready to share their experience and advice as we build Brookhaven.

For best results vote for those who believe and support your right to vote. We need five public servants known to be ready to leave the old status quo; known to relish the opportunity and the challenge of building Brookhaven from the referendum up. A mayor and city council should be of people who know the facts and who we know already believe in Brookhaven. Not people who fought your right to vote.

Choose candidates who clearly understand that we need collaborative effort to start Brookhaven properly in the modern model for lasting success. That is why I voted early for J. Max Davis for Mayor and Rebecca Chase Williams for City Council District 1.

See you 'round the city,

Clayton Conarro

Vote J.Max November 04, 2012 at 01:53 AM
He has a thriving legal practice with several employees. I was one of his clients this past summer. He is not a bankruptcy atty. He does very well. He specifically keeps people out of bankruptcy. He has never practiced bankruptcy. He has not lived with his mom or dad since high school. His brother lives with his mom to assist her. Rachelle That posted the made up gossip and is a silly little schoolgirl. John q. is another little sniping snit fabricating myths. I spoke to J. Max earlier today and recounted Rachelle That's gossip. He was a little concerned that his mother would have ever had conversation with someone so vile. His mother will let him know who Rachelle That is so he can keep it away from her.
HamBurger November 04, 2012 at 02:37 AM
Mr. Davis, for a fee, states that in many cases he can resolve debt ridden individuals from their obligations to pay said debt based on just how accurate the information the debt holder has in their possession. In most cases, these individuals are probably better off going bankrupt. Mr. J. Max Davis’s legal solution, by eliminating one debt but not others, can simply prolong the misery of the hopelessly indebted when they actually should seek full bankruptcy which may be less expensive in the long run. Have you seen J. Max Davis’s fee schedule? But, there is a cost to living in Brittany! Please pass the yellow mustard!
Vote J.Max November 04, 2012 at 02:49 AM
You are exactly wrong silly little burger. Very,very, few of his clients end up in bankruptcy. I know. He doesn't just deal with one debt. His services are a welcome alternative to those not qualified or not wanting to welch on their debts. You just can't help but try and warp your view of the real man to fit what your damaged and cynical biases require. He really is a good man and I am sorry you and others will have to wait learn this over time and adjust your miserable viewpoints. cynic
Jack of Kings November 04, 2012 at 03:24 AM
HamBurger-- you really go beyond the pale with your hate fixation of Mr. Davis. Your have more than 350 posts slamming J.Max since your first post in February. Now we find out that you --YOU- are an expert in bankruptcy law and you know all about Davis' business. As long as you hide behind an anonymous name--you are pretty brave on risking slander and libel charges. I hope that the casual reader here who never posts realize that you have an agenda not based on fact--but based on opinion, gossip and maybe deeply seated resentment from some past interchange with Davis that you cannot let go. Hoping you get help soon. Anyone who spends three hours a day on this site needs help.
Swami November 04, 2012 at 04:50 AM
Gotta agree with Phil here burger. As a lawyer in Dekalb and have been in court a few times when jmax has argued these cases. It is impressive and his clients love him. It obviously is a business model that works as he has been doing it for years. You should probably not stick your neck out on this one. On another note just watched my Tide roll and had a good day with my picks. My picks for the election. J.Max. 54 Murray. 34 Danese. 10 Shepherd 2 District one don't really know as well as I live in 3 but... RC Williams 40 Cole. 31 Fitzpatrick. 22 Meaders. 7 Dist. 2 Eyre. 47 Mitchell. 43 Hurst. 10 Dist 3 B. Mattison 31 Anthony. 23 Bawcom. 20 Quirk. 18 Russo 4 O'donnel. 3 Podgor. 1 Dist 4 Witt. 55 Gebbia. 42 Lord. 3 From signs , talk, mail, video from debates and reporter paper, and other information here and there. Oh and the Patch too. Numbers probably off but my general sense was spot on for the city vote pre- election. Have fun !
Swami November 04, 2012 at 04:54 AM
Amendment for dist 3 Stevens 1 Podgor eighteen votes
Erica M November 04, 2012 at 07:09 AM
Hi Clayton - as requested, I read your article. Sorry, I don’t agree with this opinion. I feel it disenfranchises a great portion of our new city, which as you can read from the blogs is already at a great divide. A blanket statement about the Yes or the No side simply can't be made. They each had a right to approach the Legislature and state their case, the No's lost. They each had a right to start a coalition, the Yes's won. A Representative Republic was served well. My point is that one should question candidates’ qualifications and ability to realize visions...and integrity in campaigning is a good indicator, too. J.Max is impressive by his ability to create a vision, then unite and lead voters, not his vote- he created a City and whether people have embraced it or not, that's a huge accomplishment. He’s a long time resident, respected by neighbors, well versed in County Govt and the C. Vinson study. Jim Eyre has spent countless hours volunteering for the betterment of Brookhaven, is a long time resident, a well-respected civic leader and is well versed in County Govt and the C. Vinson Study. The idea that his cautionary No vote makes him less qualified than say, Mr. Mitchell, a barely 2 yr resident with no civic ties to Brookhaven other than a yes vote is kind of laughable. And bless Larry Hurst, he was a reluctant yes, what camp do you place him. Bottom line, I feel confident that no one will destroy the City for an “I told you so” moment.
Booyah November 04, 2012 at 01:22 PM
I agree that Jim Eyer does not have an agenda to destroy the city. The problem is that Jim is a 'my way or the highway' kind of guy and will not build coalitions with other council members. Jim just doesn't play well with others who disagree.
Eddie E. November 04, 2012 at 04:14 PM
OK I'll try again. I prefer the hard-headed guy I know who has worked hard to improve life in this district to the one who has done nothing but invent a new layer of government here.
Kathie " SOC" Coy November 04, 2012 at 04:31 PM
"The problem is that Jim is a 'my way or the highway' kind of guy and will not build coalitions with other council members. Jim just doesn't play well with others who disagree." Bingo. As complicated as it can all get it really boils down to this. As a voter I want someone who is going to be open minded and listen to the residents in his/her district. Jim has proven time and time again that he is NOT that man.
Eddie E. November 04, 2012 at 04:39 PM
So you want to give District 1 full authority over all decisions? Because voting for anyone other than Jim guarantees just such a condition. The 'vision' of those who decided this new layer of government is absolutely necessary (possibly because it gives them an opportunity to elective office they would never have otherwise earned) is just as flawed as it was when mikey had his first public meeting at the church.
don Gabacho November 04, 2012 at 04:43 PM
"There she is being against the creation of the city on election day and yesterday she says she wasn't ."----Is that Sandy Murry in the pic? Sort of like, having been against a rigged baseball game she, like others, must be prohibited from playing baseball ever again. She, even among candidate, is not alone in this. The difference? As opposed to the other no-city candidate, she appears to have decided to fight fire with fire. Not necessarily the best idea. Not when the source for the combustion remains.
Brookhaven4u November 04, 2012 at 05:08 PM
You are completely out of line. Jim does work with others and has shown so many times. Did Russell Mitchell work with Ashford Park Civic Association or Drew Valley Civic Association during his time at CNDB? Why not? Were the people of district 2 not worthy of their input? What is with the budget of 53 police officers in the CVI study? District one is sure to be fine, but our communities will be the one that suffers from the police shortage is Russell Mitchell is elected. Our District 2 Council member first and foremost needs to represent the residents of District 2. Russell Mitchell turned his back on this community in the past. How can we trust him going forward? If Russell Mitchell is taking donations from vendors that he will have to sit and judge on? Don’t even try to equate legal with ethical. One has nothing to do with the other. What is worse, Russell Mitchell taking the donations or acting like it is OK? He obviously has an agenda and that does not coincide with the best interests for the residents of District 2. We need a good leader for district 2 that will represent our communities first and foremost. We don’t need a representative whose priority is attached to J. Max/Mike Jacobs puppet master.
Booyah November 04, 2012 at 05:23 PM
If Jim Eyre is elected you can expect every council vote to be contentious, even mundane decisions. That's just his nature. And Eddie you're wrong about District #1. If Jim is elected and he causes a council to be split philosophically 2-2 then we wind up with a strong mayor system. The Mayor will get to make all the decisions, not District #1. We need to vote for council members who have the skill to listen and find value in opposing points of view. I've worked closely with Jim for many years, and he will bludgeon you to death with numbers, even if they are wrong. Jim's major flaw is his inability to listen and compromise.
don Gabacho November 04, 2012 at 05:26 PM
"There are several reasons some people voted against cityhood, including all the misconceptions and misrepresentations from no-city"---PkCk The hardcore city enablers were even rabid in their repression of any concerns regarding the very formation of an unelected commission/interim government to serve for a so-called transition period for purported reasons that the same transitions and reasons that could, and should, have been reserved for the public officers to be elected. Similarly, repressed the concern for the very sovereignty, much less integrity, of the referendum and tomorrow's elections: both local and national. Similarly, the very propriety of the citizens of City of Brookhaven having been denied the legal option of townsship (which would have required no new police department and bevy of judges) and, similarly again, the valid concerns of citizens being denied the option of electing not only who is going to police us but also judge us.
Erica M November 04, 2012 at 06:36 PM
A Resident, See, I'm a small business owner in the construction industry - work with a lot of men and sometimes these blonde curls aren't taken too seriously. When JIm and I disagree, it becomes a discussion and I don't always lose...which is really something since he has a superior knowledge of all things municipal. He listens. I've seen him go toe to toe with a real estate attorney over a spot zoning debacle - he was brilliant. Did he play nice, not in eyes of the owner, but he was defending the harmony of lifestyle for a disabled resident and an entire street within AP over a noisy start-up business. He won, using his knowledge of codes and laws and the conviction that long time residents take precedence. I kind of admire people with strong convictions and I really admire people like Jim, that have that plus an open mind. So you see, these opinions you write as definitive statements - he is this, he is that, aren't very helpful as I can give you multiple and actual examples proving otherwise.
Bill Lowe November 04, 2012 at 07:05 PM
"My way or the highway" is almost how I would describe the Brookhaven Yes/C$ND/Jacobs/Milar crowd. It is closer to "Our way, because it is the only way and we know what is best for you, so shut your hole and play along or else." You do realize that if the sales people of the city had of offered up some concessions that the city may have gained a much higher level of support from the community and actually strengthened it. But because of their "Our way, because it is the only way and we know what is best for you, so shut your hole and play along or else." attitude, they effectively destroyed the community that used to be. Some of the simple concessions were: A name change to something descriptive of the area while preserving the brand/mystique of Brookhaven. A slower process---for instance holding off the vote until the general election or even better waiting a year to allow people and the community to come together and learn about the benefits of cityhood instead of being forced into a decision. If these simple concessions had of been made by those making the sale, do you think that support for the city would be higher? Do you think that the campaigns would be nicer? Do you think that there would be less anger towards your neighbors? Brookhaven is fast on its way to New Government: How not to create it....from the experts.
Booyah November 04, 2012 at 07:20 PM
@Erica, we clearly have different experiences with Jim. I also have specific examples where we were involved in zoning and planning committees together. I found him to knowledgeable, but completely unprepared to modify his position on an issue, despite good arguments and opposing points of view. I'm not questioning his knowledge, I just have a different personal experience on Jim compromising. I've not seen it happen.
don Gabacho November 04, 2012 at 07:24 PM
Even in light, in at least one case, the call for a new police chief "experienced" with Spanish-speakers (code for subjecting them and all citizens to the authority of persons whose dual-citizenships, and thus irredemable potential for conflict of interest, should, as any other pubic office holder, disqualify them---also---from any position of the Public Trust. Even while the same hardcore enablers endorsed for a election in DeKalb county a judge who is a "founding member" of the GA Association of Latino Elected Officials which promoted, and promotes still, voter registrations here featuring officials and employees of the MxGov illegally having and using still untold numbers of our own registration forms. In light of which, candidates having been against the city, as authored and chartered, should serve as a reason to vote for them. Not vote against them.
hmm November 04, 2012 at 10:54 PM
Makes one wonder why the powers that be would select Sandy Murray over Larry Danese for the alternative candidate to J. Max. Then again Larry probably wouldn't let them do some of the sleazy stuff Sandy apparently has no problem with. Sandy Murray's campaign is the only Mayoral Campaign to dive into the cesspool with misleading flyers and doctored photographs.
hmm November 04, 2012 at 11:02 PM
Bill you have got to be one of the most sniveling people in town. You've always trashed Brookhaven yet you've signed that piece with the one sided data supporting the Chamblee Annexation. The Brookhaven name issue is stupid. So what a few millionaire homes don't want to water down the name. Get over it. What other name works as well.
Jack of Kings November 05, 2012 at 01:42 AM
ANY delay on voting for the City would have resulted in Dunwoody going after the Perimeter Summit commercial area and annexing it. And then the City would not have been viable. Mike David, Mayor of Dunwoody, said that was Dunwoody's plan-- if the CIty did not pass they would go for those commercial properties. Sure--it would have been nice to have had the luxury of waiting until a vote in 2013---but the window would have been closed. And most of the NO CITY folks knew this. Strategy--try to delay the vote and Dunwoody would make it infeasible to have a City one year later. I wish we had a viable option to take more time to prepare...but we did not.
Eddie E. November 05, 2012 at 02:37 AM
residue, Well, I guess this is a place where we disagree.
Eddie E. November 05, 2012 at 02:41 AM
Bill, It would have been nice to stretch this process out and determine what was BEST for everyone, but that was never the intention. At the same time, I am surprised that the former yessers are shocked that their candidates aren't being welcomed with sweets and flowers. And B4U, read the Police RFP, there is NO suggested number of Police officers.
Brookhaven4u November 05, 2012 at 10:56 AM
Phil this is so untrue. There was plenty of time to try to do it the right way. To use a BrookhavenYes, "Fear Mongering ways of a Yeser"
John Q Public November 05, 2012 at 11:19 AM
Phil. Such the clairvoyant. And so full of wisdom. Thank GOD himself you are here in Brookhaven with us.
HamBurger November 05, 2012 at 12:34 PM
Mr. Ferdinand, how quickly we forget the Brookhaven Yes (and sister Brookhaven Ballot Committee) mailers and robo calls . . . Please pass the yellow mustard!
Mark Graffagnino November 05, 2012 at 01:41 PM
Phil is exactly right. There was another reason for not waiting until 2013- if we had then the NO strategy would have morphed from "what's the rush" to "the CVI study is out of date and needs to be redone". And raising another $30,000 for a CVI study was not going to happen. You will remember that they even tried that "study is out of date" tactic when the study was 9 months old. And frankly, if someone was not engaged enough to get educated about cityhood in the 9 months between the study and the vote, with all the various meetings held around town, forums, op-ed pieces, etc., then they were not going to be engaged whether it was 2 years or 5 years until the vote.
Frisco November 05, 2012 at 03:31 PM
Swami, your analysis is interesting, I am glad to see you have done your homework. I hope that the people of Brookhaven look at the candidates qualifications very closely and don't base their decision to vote for a candidate based on the number of yard signs they have placed. I think the yard signs have gotten out of hand and should be on the agenda for our new officials to address.
don Gabacho November 05, 2012 at 07:06 PM
""Fear Mongering ways of a Yeser"--Brookhaven4u As in fear and loathing in Zombieland. It has been amazing how he and other B'Yes Sirs have gone to protect the MxGov, and not Brookhaven, much less Georgia and the USA, in even the episode of this cityhood. To even threaten others with Mx's so-called police (including stateside): Ex: Under the subject "Police Chief Hopefuls Need Not Apply...Yet " don Gabacho 1:37 pm on Wednesday, October 3, 2012 "'JD Clockadale, the commission member who co-chairs the police committee said,...'” Welcome to corporatist governance." Phil 2:03 pm on Wednesday, October 3, 2012 don Gabacho--Maybe you need to turn things around and move back to Mexico to keep an eye on THEM. Instead of THEM keeping an eye on you. THEY will never suspect that you would be that clever. Make sure you keep the light timer on so they think you are still in the house. Welcome to corporatise governance, por favor.

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