Recordings of the presentation, after the break!
Both groups were given exactly one hour before the HGAC, and included public comments, both pro and con.
Briarcliff
Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver (D), Decatur, led off the presentation for COBI as sponsor of HB 665, and was followed by COBI President Allen Venet, and Board members Herman Lorenz and Keith Hanks.A recording of the The Briarcliff Presentation, approximately 1 hour long.
Lakeside
The LCA bill, SB 270, was presented by Sen. Fran Millar (R), Dunwoody, assisted by Kevin Levitas.A recording of the The Lakeside Presentation, approximately 1 hour long.
And (a rather sedate) RandyRand was there! I hope he said 'Hello!' to Snookie!
Starting with the Briarcliff presentation, Mary Margaret Oliver didn't wait long to play the diversity card. She purposely misled the committee by implying that the cities that recently formed in DeKalb (Dunwoody and Brookhaven) were not diverse like Briarcliff. She said Briarcliff would be diverse because it would be one-third non-white. However, the 2010 Census proves that Dunwoody is also one-third non-white. The North Atlanta CDP, which covers roughly the same areas as Brookhaven, in the 2010 Census was about 40% non-white. The actual city is also at least one-third non-white, based on my own calculations from the Census maps.
ReplyDeleteLee May sounded nice, but that was because he had to be. He couldn't act like Vernon or Burrell because their tactics didn't work out so well. However, I don't trust Lee May and the BOC to do something that's efficient and effective. I think he and Kathie Gannon would like to devise something along the lines of that recent horrible school board map by the DeKalb House delegation with the north-south district lines.
So Emory's spokesman makes it official that Emory doesn't want to be part of Lakeside, but he is noncommittal about Briarcliff. I would really be interested in Emory's reasons for their dislike of Lakeside. I know they probably won't say much more about their reasons, but it would be nice to know if they actually want to be part of Briarcliff or go with Atlanta.
It's amazing to me that during both Tucker and Briarcliff's hearings not one committee member asked why Tucker and Briarcliff can't agree on a solution to the Northlake dispute. If a Tucker/Briarcliff option is best and both groups seem to support each other why can't they come to an agreement? Is it because the committee members don't care about that conflict and already know how they're going to vote, or is it because they aren't on the ball?
The "sidewalk" guy was right about the fact that DeKalb County government won't solve anything in a one-year cooling off period.
I love how the guy who lives in VICTORIA ESTATES complains about cityhood creating economic segregation. The other woman who lives in Victoria Estates does not think the current cityhood process is inclusive. Really, I love the fact that people from this wealthy and white neighborhood are so worried about economic segregation and inclusiveness.
The last guy from Woodland Hills also trots out the diversity card, saying that Lakeside doesn't want his neighborhood because it's too diverse. However, the Census map shows that his neighborhood is only one-third non-white. I really get a kick out of these people who think their area is more diverse than somewhere else, facts be damned.
Wow! Frank Auman made the claim that Tucker was willing to concede all of Northlake ITP to Lakeside in exchange for Lakeside excluding everything OTP. So then why can't Tucker do the same for Briarcliff or at least come to an agreement on splitting up the area? I think that's one of the most glaring problems with their supposed complementary city proposals.
The House Governmental Affairs Committee meets tomorrow, Wednesday March 12 at 1pm in Room 606. I haven't seen this mentioned elsewhere, yet. Not even by any of the cityhood groups. I think they all have their supporters riled up to attend the big church meeting tonight with Governor Deal.
ReplyDeleteOn the agenda is SB270 and HR1330, Howard Mosby's bill to create a joint study committe to study the mess that is DeKalb. Mosby is on the Governmental Affairs Committee so that may be why his resolution is even being considered. His proposed committee seems to be a tactic to stall. A majority of the DeKalb delegation is opposed to further cityhood. Some of the commissioners and the current CEO say they are okay with cityhood, but I don't completely believe them. The committee will clearly be biased against cityhood based on the selection process, and it would probably end up proposing a bunch of ideas and reforms we've heard a thousand times over. Why should this be any different than the $300,000 study the DeKalb BOC comissioned to tell them what they should already know. DeKalb officials love to form groups and pay for studies, but they usually show no interest or ability to positively implement anything.
I saw the Agenda for this meeting last night (Monday) so, like you, I would have expected a big hullabaloo over this. The Agenda does NOT state that it is a hearing only, such that it is possible a vote to approve SB 270 could be held. It'll be interesting to see if more members of the Committee show up than was the case for the city hearings.
DeleteWhat is fascinating is that, as of 8:30PM, Tuesday night, none of the 3 incorporation groups have announced the hearing on their websites or their Facebook pages. Someone in Smoke Rise had posted the notice on its Facebook page several hours ago, with no reaction. I wonder if the chairman of the Committee, Rep. Amy Carter, asked all the incorporation groups to keep this meeting on the down low, NOT make a general announcement, and NOT bring a crowd of rowdies to disrupt the proceedings.
We shall see.
I think you may be right about Rep. Carter's desire to have a meeting on the down low.
ReplyDeleteI just read an article in the AJC which states that a vote is scheduled for tomorrow's meeting:
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/dekalb-city-border-dispute-reaches-governors-race/nfBCb/
I don't know if that's accurate, but I assume it is because there isn't much time left in the legislative session. However, since the writer, April Hunt, also stated that Rep, Carter did not return her messages about the scheduled agenda, I have to wonder how she knew a vote is scheduled for that meeting.
The article also states that Lakeside and Tucker met today to try and work on a deal on boundaries.