1. 1



  2. 2

    Enuff Govt Already

    Its a tax increase! They promised no new taxes!

  3. 3

    Melanie Pollard

    It’s a tax increase for multi-use dwellings so it’s appropriate since those developments impact surrounding communities heavily. What I’d love to see is stormwater fees based on ACTUAL usage. We have no water that leaves our lot except the water that trespasses into ours. We pay the same amount as the new 3X homes that release 1,000’s of gallons of water into the street but pay the same. The city is permitting over-development BEFORE the stormwater management is in place. How will they fund that? Charge more to live in a building that creates more stormwater and have developers install curbs and drains at the front and/or charge residences for the stormwater they release to the street. Retention ponds are not great for single home since they actually TRANSFER the burden of stormwater management back to the homeowner, and if they fail, to the surrounding community. When they fail, it’s a civil matter. According to a Forensic Hydro engineer we hired who has about a dozen certifications, 99% of ALL retention ponds he has surveyed over decades have failed. And when they fail, if it’s HOA or single home, you have to go to court which means spending $10-$15K to break even if you’re lucky. I’m actually OK with a stormwater tax increase. I hope we can see more responsible development. Every tree that comes down represents more stormwater that someone will have to pay for.

  4. 4

    Thomas Porter

    First thing that comes to mind is “Yeah! Stick it to the new apartments under development”, then, the reality that those most affected will the aging/lower income apartments whose rents will rise, or, the property owners will say screw it and redevelop the properties. The question is: is that what we want, we’re about to lose a cool aspect of Buford Highway IMHO.

  5. 5

    Eddie E.

    How will that change the cost of necessary infrastructure improvements that were ignored by the original Brookhaven administration?

    The work has to be done and the money won’t fall from the sky.

  6. 6


    Correct, sir. Things cost money. Usually, for such large appropriations funded by bonds, a vote is taken to ensure we get the lowest possible borrowing cost from Wall Street, or any other municipal bond underwriter. They believe if a citizenry has voted for a project, the majority at least, is on board, and our leadership can negotiate for a lower interest rate, I’m describing the difference between General Obligation bonds, or investment grade municipal debt vs. Revenue Bonds, or projects supported by special tax increases for real-estate adventures aka high yield, or junk.

    In it’s current form, the Peachtree Creek Revenue bond will be supported by a variable hotel/motel tax increase generating @$800K-$1M based on existing motel/hotel revenue, that is by definition variable. A 20 year, $25M bond issued at 5% (high yield interest rate currently attached to a revenue bond), would cost a total of $1.98M per year costing a total of $39.6M over the life of the loan. Issued at 30 years, and the annual payment decreases to $1.62M and costing a total of $48.6M.

    If the bond was voted upon and passed, we could issue a General Obligation bond. Coupled with the achievement of a Fitch (AA-) rating DeKalb County currently enjoys, the interest rate could be as low as 3.5%. That would reduce our annual payment $250K for either maturity, and reduce total interest costs by $7M over the life of the loan.

    So we’re left with a couple of questions. Why won’t the city council put the PCG bond on the November ballot with the D2 and D4 elections? Where will the additional $600K per year come from to support the PCG? Would our citizenry vote for a Parks bond for $35M, or a Stormwater bond costing a whopping $40M (Bates Mattison estimate)?

    Happy Memorial Day weekend, all you gifted and talented people out there reading the Brookhaven Post, and volunteering your time and talent for our city.

  7. 7

    Thomas Porter

    I have to agree with Chad, any reasonable person (or transparent governance) would agree: the City Council should put the PCG bond on the November ballot with the D2 and D4 elections.

  8. 8


    The greatest irony of this beautiful “gift” to D4 is that most that live next to it vehemently oppose it.

  9. 9

    Get Over Yourself

    Then they should demand a vote from their D4 representative who is up for re-election. It’s easy for you people to talk all high and mighty, and then turn off your computer.

  10. 10

    Eddie E.

    Well, then, let’s request a referendum from the Council to affirm this decision be placed on the next scheduled Municipal Election Ballot.
    No reason to waste money on a special election.

  11. 11

    Eddie E.

    And Chad, if we were to do that wouldn’t we be paying fees to the scurrilous money changers involved in such things?

  12. 12


    You can “demand” all you want but that doesn’t force anyone to do anything.

    I don’t think it’s “high and mighty” to advocate against people potentially unfairly loosing their businesses and homes.

  13. 13


    Have you looked at the proposed maps for the Peachtree Creek Greenway? Replacing some of the businesses on Buford Highway is already part of the plan.

  14. 14


    You think our rich city will purchase both of those commercial properties for sale on Buford Highway that border the creek?

Comments are closed.