The original posting on the Patch can be found here. (As usual, a spirited comment thread follows the editorial on the Patch.)
The editorial follows after the break.
Why Briarcliff/COBI Has Swayed Me
1. Briarcliff and Tucker initiatives will be able to co-exist peacefully and cooperatively, respecting each area's history and sense of place.
2. The Briarcliff map is based on simple, real boundaries that we already identify with, as opposed to LCA's map which appears to have been randomly drawn around the personal homes and interests of their city planners. LCA's map includes parts of Tucker that should stay within Tucker (assuming residents there agree), and more importantly, excludes Emory, Medlock and North Druid Hills, an area that is an integral part of our community by profession and affinity. It also appears to have a good deal of Gerrymandering at play. I can not conscientiously support being in a city that is exclusive and political by definition, and I would not want to vote in another layer of that kind of leadership.
3. Briarcliff study was 99% funded by citizens and neighborhood groups, not by lawyers and lobbyists as appears to be the case with LCA. Thus, its borders, being more definitive of our actual community, will be far more successful when it comes down to a vote.
4. Briarcliff's leaders have shown themselves to be responsive and community-focused.
As of today, I can no longer keep considering throwing my support to the LCA. Briarcliff emerges as the reasonable, more responsive, and more inclusive choice for our area.
(Though please...reconsider the name Lavista Hills or Oak Grove. Briarcliff is not an established area, but Oak Grove is. Plus, it is the geographic center of the Briarcliff map, and has an existing village that defines our community. If I have to give up my beloved "Decatur" postal address, please consider something nicer than the harsh-sounding Briarcliff.)