ad

9 Comments

  1. 1

    Bob Swaysman

    So Tom, what do you think: should the LaVista Hills movement lie low for a year, let the legislature work out new rules that might be favorable to a smaller area of incorporation and try again next year with a more focused map? Or fold up its tent and let some other group make a run at cityhood again at some future point?

  2. 2

    RAJ

    Don’t know what Tom is thinking, but the city he is trying to draw in North Central DeKalb probably would not meet with DOJ approval. It’s important to note that in drawing city-hood maps(I have some experience)we sometime find a clash between our current mandate for diversity and that all important “community of interest” that we all seem to long for. This all takes me back to my extensive graduate work in Sociology(Honors)at a well known SEC football power house. Do we need to redefine and refine our definition of “community of interest” in a digital society and apply the new definition to a digital city of LaVista Hills( Briarcliff). With respect to any city in North Central DeKalb it would be more likely that “communities of interest”would form as NPU’s(Neighborhood Planning Units)based upon a financially and politically feasible large city. City council districts could form the basis for such NPU’s.

  3. 3

    Russell Carleton

    Let’s assume that you’re right. A smaller city would not be Day 1 feasible, but that the idea of cityhood would be popular in the smaller area, let’s just say the precincts in which the . That sort of assumes that the people in the area would see the Day 1 non-feasibility and be fine with that, but let’s just go with that for a minute.

    Now, you’re basing the case for a city on the hope that the city would somehow “flip the switch” on economic development and it would all work. This is what’s known as “wish-casting.” There’s a reason that you need Day 1 feasibility.

  4. 4

    Nancy Merles

    How long will the contortions of these segregationists continue? Statistical masturbation to justify a very bad concept. Tom, I want you to start paying for your next car based on a pretty artist’s conception of it, with the promise that once all the parts are manufactured and assembled, it will be really spiffy. After all, other people drive spiffy cars.

    Most folks, regardless of proximity to an exit on 285, want their new cars drivable on day 1. Feasibility on day 1 is THE most important test of whether a new city should be formed. Economic feasibility is not a “constraint” – it is a requirement.

  5. 5

    Bob Swaysman

    Isn’t that exactly how people bought Teslas?

  6. 6

    RAJ

    Russell. Special thanks for your interest in the city-hood movement in NCD during the past year! Tom and I frequently compare his “cloud thinking” with my “lineal thinking”(I’m a map guy after all)and usually come to a mutual understanding. The longing for a small intimate societal existence is genetic. Humans are HUMAN after all,so when Tom told me to find a Sociologist to explain the isolation of neighborhoods in NDC I almost had to laugh. However we are all part of a larger society and city-hood provides the opportunity for neighborhoods to participate with one another in some small way to improve their quality of life in delimited areas. Very simple when you think about it, but this was never adequately explained by LaVista Hills Alliance/Yes.

  7. 7

    RAJ

    Point well taken Nancy, and in addition to the required feasibility study it might be suggested the proponents of city-hood submit a three year budget as well. Georgia Tech has a computer program to suit this important need. Some of the suggestions that came out of the House and Senate Study Committees,which I attended, seem to be less useful!

  8. 8

    MAC

    Interesting commentary, but didn’t LaVista Hills come into existence from two “communities of interest” (Lakeside and Briarcliff) in the first place? I mean, wouldn’t rethinking a smaller iteration of LVH on the heels of the lost election be like returning to something akin to either one of those very communities of interest, which due to feasibility questions found it necessary to join forces to ensure a greater chance of cityhood success anyway? Finally, what of those commercial and residential areas bordering with the new City of Tucker? The Northlake Commercial corridor stated emphatically that it didn’t want to be split between two cities when the LVH-Tucker boundaries were being debated this time last year. It’s easy to see the possibility of annexations to Tucker sooner than a new cityhood proposal can be formed and created. And though “no referendum is required” legislatively, I doubt if the pending reforms will loosen on that point. It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds.

  9. 9

    save tucker!

    The Northlake Commercial corridor spoke? How?

Comments are closed.