This site is dedicated to the examination of and eventual formation of a new City of Tucker in north east DeKalb County, Ga. Our main purpose is to serve as a clearinghouse for any and all information, data, maps and arguments, both pro and con, regarding forming a City.
Comments are welcome on this blog, with little restriction and no requirement to register. However, all comments will be moderated with respect to a few rules, as follows:
All comments shall:
Be considerate of others
Be on topic
Not engage in personal insults
Not have any personal information
Lively debate and opposing opinions are welcome, but please behave courteously and responsibly.
If you would like more information on incorporation issues, comment directly to the administrators, or to submit you own article for posting, use our email account at:
Tucker 2014 is the prime advocacy group for Tucker's incorporation. More information can be found at http://tucker2014.com/
Thank you for your interest in the City of Tucker.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Kevin Levitas: 'F*** Y**, Briarcliff!'
Kevin Levitas Former LCA co-chair
Kevin Levitas is STILL upset, and STILL refuses to take responsibility for LCA's failure.
In the comment section of a COBI Facebook article, Kevin Levitas, former co-chair of the Lakeside City Alliance (and former state representative and former Democrat) makes no bones about his feelings regarding the City of Briarcliff Initiative's role in the recent cityhood hearings in the House of Representatives. In his comment, Mr. Levitas belittles COBI's efforts over the past year, and insults every DeKalb citizen who supported COBI's proposal. We can only shake our head at this shameful fingerpointing and blame game that the LCA has presented to its adoring public.
Mr. Levitas's comment, and a response from COBI board member Keith Hanks, after the break. In this reposting, I have edited the comments into a cleaner outline version, for readibility's sake. These comments can be a challenge to find in the Facebook system.
Former co-chair of the Lakeside City Alliance
Comment posted to COBI Facebook page article advertising April 22
April 21, 2014
I comment here only because I do not want to see our community divided
once again by a needlessly competing cityhood group. The existence of the Briarcliff group this
session played into the hands of anti-city forces and helped prevent our
community from getting the opportunity to vote for self-rule.
If you decide to attend this meeting, the facts to know and the
questions to ask the Briarcliff group are these:
1. No Seat at the Table.
i. The simple truth is that negotiations at
the Legislature regarding cityhood did not and would not next year involve the
Briarcliff group—period. (If you would like information about what—or more
precisely, who—doomed the bill to allow a vote on cityhood this year, please
read this article: http://zpolitics.com/a-snake-in-the-meadows/).
ii. Those of us who were present at the
Legislature this session can attest that the Briarcliff group was given a
one-hour hearing as a courtesy by a new chairman, and that is it—no vote and no
serious consideration. Lakeside and a third cityhood group were part of
end-of-session negotiations with House leadership to move forward the plans of
these two groups, but Briarcliff was DOA at the Legislature and not any part of
Questions for Briarcliff:
i. Did the Briarcliff group have a
legislative champion in the Legislature this session? If so, who was it, and
what steps did he or she take towards passage of the Briarcliff proposal?
ii. Who was/were the sponsor(s) of the
2. Lack of
i. Druid Hills. The Briarcliff’s group’s main
source of funding and “support,” the Druid Hills Neighborhood Association, is
now engaged in serious annexation discussions with the city of Atlanta. Druid
Hills was involved with Briarcliff because it appeared to be the only cityhood
option for that area at the time (Druid Hills was not part of the Lakeside
ii. The Northlake Area. The focus of the
Briarcliff plan is the Emory/CDC area, made evident by the group’s own advocacy
documents and statements as well as the lack of any Briarcliff board
representation in the entire Northlake area. The inclusion of Northlake was
nothing more than a source of revenue for the group’s plan to create its own
“Cambridge” (Briarcliff’s term) with non-taxable Emory University as its base.
iii. Emory. A major obstacle for the Briarcliff group was
and is that Emory wants nothing to do with any city, other than possibly the
city of Atlanta. Emory relies heavily on its Atlanta branding for marketing
purposes, and Lakeside experienced firsthand how Emory acts to protect its own
interests, including leveraging its strong lobbyist ties at the Capitol to
remove from cityhood maps any commercial areas and adjacent neighborhoods
(including Victoria Estates) that Emory considers within its own sphere.
i. Druid Hills.
1. How much of the funding for the Briarcliff
feasibility study came from the Druid Hills neighborhood, including the Druid
Hills Civic Association?
2. Does the Druid Hills neighborhood support
“Briarcliff 2.0?” If so, on what do you base this conclusion?
1. Why do you think that Emory wants to be
included in Briarcliff?
What has Emory told you about being
included in the proposed Briarcliff boundaries?
3. No Path
i. Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver, Briarcliff’s
purported bill sponsor this session, sits on the House committee with
jurisdiction over cityhood bills, but even she abandoned Briarcliff during this
year’s session. Instead of moving to
pass Briarcliff’s bill, she instead attempted to move a different group’s
cityhood plan located outside the Perimeter—miles from her own district—simply
to stop Lakeside.
ii. Of course, Rep. Oliver was never really a
supporter of the Briarcliff plan. She was instead using her sponsorship to try
to defeat all cityhood plans by muddying the waters. At a neighborhood gathering in February of
this year, made the following statement, as reported by a Victoria Estates
iii. Mary Margaret Oliver stated that she is
prepared to put a substitute Briarcliff charter/map into the Lakeside bill if
Senate Bill 270 [the Lakeside bill] comes across into the House, but only
talked about doing so to block Lakeside, not to promote Briarcliff
iv. Although she played only a bit part in the
cityhood discussions at the Capitol, her plan was clear. Other evidence of the lack of true support for
the Briarcliff proposal includes Rep. Oliver’s previous votes and speeches
against passage of both the Dunwoody and Brookhaven bills as well as the
introduction of House Bill 22, her strong anti-city legislation
v. By contrast, Rep. Mike Jacobs, author of the
Brookhaven legislation, has committed to the Lakeside group that he will
introduce a bill next year to allow a vote on cityhood. According to Rep. Jacobs, that bill will
include only the Lakeside map with no boundaries changes.
i. Does the Briarcliff group have a
commitment from a legislator to sponsor a bill on its behalf next session?
ii. What specific plans does the
Briarcliff group have to be a factor in the upcoming legislative in the coming
4. Putting an
End to Obstruction.
i. Briarcliff could continue to serve the
very limited role of remaining a hindrance to passage of a cityhood bill at the
Capitol. This is precisely what anti-city forces hope will happen. They would
welcome Briarcliff’s continuing to work against Lakeside.
ii. From its beginning, a primary motivation of
the Briarcliff groups has been to stop Lakeside’s efforts, rather than to
actually create the opportunity for citizens to vote on self-rule. One of its
board members admitted as much in the following quotation, while claiming at
the same time that he is now pro-city:
came to the conclusion that the best way to oppose Lakeside was to support
Briarcliff. At that point I joined the Briarcliff effort and have devoted
significant time and energy to that cause.
So, opposing Lakeside by supporting Briarcliff was my primary
The existence of
competing cityhood groups played a role in the inability to get a cityhood bill
approved by the Legislature. Would the
Briarcliff group be willing to fold into Lakeside or to disband if that
improved the chances of a cityhood bill being passed during the next
If you do decide to attend the advertised meeting, please use it as an
opportunity to ask the Briarcliff group to do the helpful thing: fold into and
support the one group inside the Perimeter that has the best chance of success
at the Capitol.
Response from Keith Hanks
COBI Board Member
Comment posted to COBI Facebook page
April 20, 2014
Kevin, as a board member I'd like to thank you personally for including
Briarcliff as part of the "Kevin Levitas Post Legislative Session Tour of
Rage.” It is a real honor to get this
level of attention from you. We thought this was only reserved for the AJC and
GOP House leadership.
The good news is you wouldn’t take such extensive time to write this if
you didn’t see Briarcliff as a legitimate challenge. So I guess that settles the faux cityhood
movement claims you’ve been spreading.
More good news, we had not been public about this (wanted it to be a
surprise), but might as well give a preview now. Over the last few weeks we’ve have multiple
conversations with Lakeside and Tucker and we’ve extended invitations to both
groups tomorrow evening to have the floor. Each group has the ability to discuss their
thoughts on cityhood for 5 minutes each. Seemed like the right thing to do and
something people have been asking for. We
saw this as an opportunity to start ending the community being so divided. Even though it doesn’t appear you’ll be taking
a leadership role in Lakeside moving forward, as a Co-Chair of the original
Lakeside group that invitation extends to you.
When it comes to either ‘folding or disbanding’
I’m assuming you’re referring to the “Lakeside way or the highway” approach? I’m going to take the high road and follow up
with you individually. Because you initiated it with your Tour of Rage, I’ll
end with this . . . if you want to see a city in the near future here, it’s
time to back off the rage, genuinely learn how to work with others, and eat
some humble pie.