ad

10 Comments

  1. 1

    Toff

    Well said.

    Bottom line is this thing is rushed and requires a lot more time to be given the proper kind of due diligence it requires.

    I am in opposition simply due to the geography. The combined entity makes no sense and Chamblee would lose its identity. The current council has made great strides and I think most of the Chamblee neighborhoods recognize the progress and are excited about all the slated developments and improvements.

    It’s time to say thanks but no thanks to our LVH neighbors.

  2. 2

    Yuppie Pundit

    Residents were polled when they went to the ballot box to elect his/her city council member. That’s what representative democracy looks like.

  3. 3

    Yuppie Pundit

    Wonder if there are Civil Rights Implications as to why current residents don’t get a vote? It would be logical if existing citizens had a straight yes/no vote certain prejudices could bubble up.

    Decatur rarely brings annexation to a vote and certainly nothing like the scale Chamblee has done to grow, becoming a larger voice of influence regionally in the process. Ironically Decatur has plenty of land to the south of the city limits and north if it wanted to annex.

  4. 4

    Paul Tribble

    Jordan, et. al: Thank you for giving voice to many of my concerns regarding this annexation proposal. I’m currently vacationing in Florida and haven’t had the time to really sit down and express my thoughts and concerns. My sincere hope is that the Chamblee Mayor & City Council will listen to our concerns and vote against annexation at this point in time. More time is needed to adequately assess the viability of this annexation proposal. Let’s take our time and do it right.

  5. 5

    RAJ

    See article on lazy people in Brokenhaven!

  6. 6

    Save Tucker!

    Please remember that, unlike a new city forming, annexation requires the approval of the DeKalb delegation first. If this is a bill in the House, please make your thoughts known to the state Representatives in DeKalb who would have a vote on it. If it is a bill in the Senate, same goes. With very few Republicans in either the House or the Senate in DeKalb’s delegation, this political wrangling should be called out for what it is … an attempt to privatize our tax dollars and gain votes for Dunwoody’s city schools amendment. It is not in the best interest of either the Chamblee or LVH residents as they do not constitute a “like minded” community. It is yet another vendetta against Tucker, which may not be feasible if they are not allowed to try to woo the other portion of Northlake’s commercial into their city. Tucker was already saddled with the bulk of the residential, esp. apartments, in the area without even being given (by the House committee on boundaries) the territory that is in their own zip code and has always been called Tucker. The Sam Moss Center, for one, was named for a Tucker resident in honor of his long standing commitment to the community and the startup of organized sports in our schools. If this has nothing to do with the schools, then why would Lavista Hills care if it is in Tucker’s map? It doesn’t pay taxes because it is a government owned property. If Chamblee wants to be fair, then wait until Tucker is official and open honest negotiations (publicly) with them to ensure no one is harmed as a result of this idea of a Chamblee expansion. And, does anyone know that Mary Kay Woodworth was on the steering committee for the Tucker-Northlake CID? Why would she be helping the business community (supposedly) on one hand and then turning around and undermining what they want on the other?? Shady. Plus, her husband and a Chamblee city councilman are in the same industry, hotels. The councilman’s hotel is where the last CID meeting for public input was held as a matter of fact. One hand washes the other while the taxpayers are just used as pawns in a rich man’s game.

  7. 7

    Flubber

    This issue was never discussed in the last election, so it wasn’t an issue we voted on. Try again.

  8. 8

    Save Tucker!

    Annexations are not typically larger than the city itself. I wonder if this even meets the legal definition of an annexation area. They used a referendum vote when only 11 people in Clarkson voted; now the same method is suggested for a widespread land grab? Why are there five different ways to annex, but the government only uses one of them?? And why do these special citizens get an open line of communication with the state legislature even after failing to pass their city after three years of trying? Shouldn’t they keep quiet for a while??

  9. 9

    Drucker

    Maybe it’s time for the Post to start blocking comments from IP addresses of those who regularly post counterproductive or off topic posts.

  10. 10

    The Brookhaven Post

    Perhaps.

Comments are closed.