.

Which Is The Greater Risk?

The latest entry into The Forum says there are fewer unknowns on one side of the cityhood issue than the other.


Those in DeKalb County opposed to incorporating a city of Brookhaven would have you believe that the risk is too great. That there are too many unknowns.

Who will be on the city council and who will be mayor? Will revenues be strong enough to sustain the level of service? Will the police force be sufficient to protect us? Will our taxes and fees rise?

But what of the unknowns of the status quo? What happens if the referendum fails and we remain unincorporated? The opponents are correct; we know more about the status quo, and there are fewer unknowns.

We know the long history of the dysfunctional relationship between the DeKalb CEO and the County Commission. We know that dysfunction leads to inaction and inefficiencies.

We know our elected DeKalb officials, and we know they do not live in Brookhaven. We know that even if our commissioner’s opponent wins the next election, he will still only be one vote of seven on the commission, and still have to represent nearly 135,000 voters, stretching all the way to Tucker and Smoke Rise.

We know DeKalb’s bond referendums and revenues have shifting priorities; and the Brookhaven library has not benefited from those bonds.

We know DeKalb’s property tax digest has weakened and the county will be forced to either raise taxes or reduce services. We know the ease with which taxes can be raised when there is no need for voter approval. We also know that property values in the Brookhaven footprint are stronger than the county as a whole and will likely recover more quickly.

We know the reported discussion about consolidating DeKalb’s north police precinct south to Memorial Drive, potentially leaving our area without a facility.

And we know that our parks budget will remain insufficient for DeKalb to maintain and improve our beautiful greenspace.

So I agree with the opposition, we do in fact, know more about the status quo.  But which is the greater risk for Brookhaven?


Stan Segal

Max June 07, 2012 at 03:59 AM
"DeKalb County Chief Operating Officer Richard Stogner defended the land clearing, telling investigative reporter Jodie Fleischer that the CEO authorized it. ... Stogner indicated the bills would be covered by existing parks and recreation bond money, previously approved by voters. However, the CEO only has authority to approve payments up to $50,000. More expensive work requires the commissioners' approval....We would go on probably and keep on doing what we're doing," said Stogner, at first indicating crews were trying to keep the project 'on schedule'. When pressed, he acknowledged there was no specific schedule for completing the work. " So look at your new residential property assessment. I mean really look at it. Check out the two values that are added together to come up with your assessed value, land and building. Notice the land value is going up? Yep, biggest real estate down market in 30+ years, but the County is appraising the land values up? Why? To pay for nonsense, my friends. "How does it profit a Man to live in a sterling city, while forfeiting gain to a pewter County." Move while you still can. http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/dekalb-co-clearing-land-project-commissioners-say-/nPNWN/
Carl Childers June 07, 2012 at 04:28 AM
Richard.
HDM June 07, 2012 at 04:28 AM
That is your buddies in DeKalb County Gov., Eddie. Rotten to the core.
Bill Richards June 07, 2012 at 04:32 AM
Good job stan
Eric H June 07, 2012 at 04:46 AM
"The rejects from Dunwoody were afraid that they would be annexed into Chamblee," Bill , nothing could be further from the truth and I'm disappointed that you would buy into this false talking point. Tell you what I won't dismiss you as merely being a jilted wannabe Brookhavenite if you don't try to justify your opposition to the city by buying into the false talking point that this is merely a movement by jilted wannabe dunwoodyites. And note i'm the one who defended your right to have a say even though you don't live in the proposed city because i recognize others are effected - though now i'm questioning that choice.
Eric H June 07, 2012 at 05:00 AM
I can't believe they are tearing down trees, building a huge asphalt parking lot for trucks and soap box cars and creating more staffing requirements to run soapbox contests! Come on this is insane.
don Gabacho June 07, 2012 at 06:40 AM
"Don, I operate from an innocent until proven guilty model, I have a hard time believing we have dishonest citizens pushing for incorporation just for a $20K/year city council job." --- Dean Matthews :-) I find it "hard to believe also." There is far more at stake here than a new city. "I mean, I understand the fear of change but spreading rumors isn't helpful." That public office holders are even pushing for a referendum when the Mexican Government, from our own neighborhood and within the imposed city, is being provided, having and using our voter registration forms is certainly no "rumor;" and is a "change" to "fear." You must think it "honest" for any public office holder to---for any reason---demonstrate such contempt for their own oath of office to not first bring that government in our midst to task. You must think it "honest," that such allowance must have to do with only some extra, but mere, "$20K/year city council jobs" and not the obvious ramifications of the allowance for all elections and referendums just past---and still to come. You must think it "honest" that the signal these public office holders, and their supporters, sends that government---and ourselves---by not first bringing that government to task must be an "improvement." That office holders who stoop to such contempt for their own oaths of office to protect such allowance must be even trustworthy with the personnel security of those who oppose it. How "honest" of you!
don Gabacho June 07, 2012 at 06:47 AM
What the heck does that mean, "don"? "don Bacacho"? Dunno. You tell us what that means.
don Gabacho June 07, 2012 at 06:54 AM
"He had a problem with “folks” that he felt did not belong in his park coming from other areas playing basket ball so he started removing the hoops." "Ronnie Mayer did that"? And wasn't arrested for vandalism?
don Gabacho June 07, 2012 at 06:57 AM
"Know so much about the opposition, so clandestine of you. Brookhaven NO: strip clubs and bars!" --- not one of 60 You must mean BY's "Pub 71."
Eddie E. June 07, 2012 at 12:04 PM
Piffle Is this supposed to elicit some sort of visceral reaction that deludes me into believing it has anything to do with a new Opposed City? Or is it just more whining that amounts to 'He got his pet project, why don't I get my pet project.' We can all agree there are things at the County that need modification. That said, where is any new evidence (or at this point, any evidence) that inventing a little, toy, under-funded city with no real objectives other than 'I got mine' will solve any real and existing problems?
Eddie E. June 07, 2012 at 12:06 PM
It's easy to make that charge. But you are presenting the equivalent of 'the sky is falling' over and over and over again with no plausible or effective 'solution'.
not one of 60 June 07, 2012 at 12:22 PM
The sad fact that Eddie and Hamburger don't understand is that we don't get pet Projects in Brookhaven, we get NO Projects, which some think is ok, I think it sucks
Eddie E. June 07, 2012 at 12:36 PM
Yo genius (that should probably be your nom de moron), When there isn't enough money for an adequate police department in the Opposed City Plan, where does the money for any so called 'pet project' come from?
Crayola June 07, 2012 at 01:51 PM
Eddie E. said "That said, where is any new evidence (or at this point, any evidence) that inventing a little, toy, under-funded city with no real objectives other than 'I got mine' will solve any real and existing problems?" Ummmm, Chamblee, Dunwoody, Sandy Springs to name a few.
HamBurger June 07, 2012 at 01:51 PM
I think Brookhaven recently had North Druid Hills repaved and a complete traffic light/cross walk signal upgrade on Peachtree Road from Redding Road to North Druid Hills. Or, maybe I dreamed that? Please pass the yellow mustard!
not one of 60 June 07, 2012 at 01:56 PM
North Druid Hills is a State Road, I am talking about subdvision side/local streets! GA DOT and FED money pay for main arterial roads! Go to ARC transportation spending!
not one of 60 June 07, 2012 at 01:57 PM
Eddie = Dekalb worker de jour! LOL! working hard again Eddie!
HamBurger June 07, 2012 at 02:10 PM
not, North Druid Hills is a state highway? Maybe you should tell DeKalb County. Or, you could just stop making false claims. http://www.co.dekalb.ga.us/publicwrks/roads_drainage/pdf/pavingList.pdf Want a special hamburger while you read the list?
HDM June 07, 2012 at 02:17 PM
Gabacho: Chicano pejorative term for an English-speaking, non-Hispanic
not one of 60 June 07, 2012 at 02:17 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_State_Route_42 Anyways Hambergur: Ask your Boss where the money comes from: ARC!
not one of 60 June 07, 2012 at 02:21 PM
Look at the funding type Hambergur: NOT COUNTY. Why don't you stiop lying in every post. Hambergur: Supports 26 percent + tax increases & 1 million dollar + soap box derby's in south Dekalb! The turth HURTS!
HamBurger June 07, 2012 at 02:45 PM
Not, conceded, that portion of NDH from Peachtree to Briarcliff is state and the remainder is county. The funding is from the GDOT. LMIG funding can be for local projects. Please pass the yellow mustard!
not one of 60 June 07, 2012 at 02:47 PM
This is the best poster yet! Loves me some of you! LOL!
not one of 60 June 07, 2012 at 02:49 PM
True that Hamb! At least know it costs 400K to repave a mile; and instead of more paving we get dog and pony shows = soap box derbys! Anyways really encorage people to support local dollars stay local! Really nothing more than that here!
Eddie E. June 07, 2012 at 03:43 PM
Chamblee is over 100 years old and came into being when everything else was forest and pasture. Sandy Springs was Eva's dream (and many other's nightmare). When will it's finances pan out. Dunwoody (a blank spot on my map). Which is it artificially low taxes or meeting the Police Chief's requests for additional officers and equipment? For the second two, what were the real problems and what has been solved? None of these have any bearing on the artificial map of the Opposed City. By the way, can you identify any proposed city that the CVI has EVER found unlikely to succeed? Are you aware they are not the only such entity in the state and that the alternatives HAVE determined limited feasibility?
HamBurger June 07, 2012 at 05:18 PM
Hmmm! MeThinks the other shoe is getting ready to drop . . . Please pass the yellow mustard!
don Gabacho June 29, 2012 at 08:42 PM
"Gabacho: Chicano pejorative term for an English-speaking, non-Hispanic."---Dean Wrong. While living in Mexico, from time to time, people would ask me my name. I would reply "don Gabacho" and we'd all have a good laugh; and get to know each other. Likewise, with the illegals here---back home. The origin is not "Chicano." Originally "gabacho" referred to Frenchmen and now Gringos or very rarely any white male foreigner (to Mexico). In a way the phrase translates as 'don Gringo' and, as all so-called "pejoratives" in Mexico (as anywhere else), can be meant in good-natured humor. As in Mexico, as among the illegals here at home, the nick-name stuck; along with its ironic and attractive humor. Too bad Dean you don't understand it---or say you don't---while the illegals certainly do. BTW: MxGov personnel here, as the very same personnel when in Mexico, call me something else. When I tell the illegals, they again laugh---and want to buy me beers! Even meet their sisters.
don Gabacho June 29, 2012 at 09:03 PM
"...as all so-called "pejoratives" in Mexico (as anywhere else)..." ---don Gabacho On second thought, I take that back. Mexicans love challenging each other with "pejoratives." It's part and parcel of the Mexican Stand-Off where one side or the other, at the instant of the stand-off's climax. is the first to exhibit the manliness of laughing it off or---as you do appear---go berserk.
don Gabacho June 29, 2012 at 10:28 PM
"Unfortunately, that's about all I've seen in the "discussions" on this site: personal attacks & FUD."---Reid That's partly true. When it comes to Spanish and especially Mexicanisms, Americans are instructed, while they realize it or not, the MxGov's official, and virtually always self-serving, versions. Most unfortunate is the inroads that that government has made, via their approved proxies, in US Spanish classes, ESL classes and even translations in our own courts; where, in every case, an American such as myself, by having actually lived in Mexico and has learned better, is not only denied teaching but also denied explaining official MxGov documents in our own courts. Likewise, challenge such testimonies (outright perjuries) as has occurred in our own nearby courts in regard to, for example, the real "esteem" of Latin America's "Estimados Notarios Públicos" (Esteemed Public Notaries). Though never appearing literally in any document or, for that matter, any conversation with the potential of being overheard, try and find, much less learn, a certain, quite shocking and destructive meaning for the word "paracaidista" anywhere in the US.

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
See more »