tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934041074178717925.post3768467544259947032..comments2023-06-29T03:32:26.874-07:00Comments on The City of Tucker Initiative: The Optimistic CartographerUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934041074178717925.post-51234006276750136192014-03-09T13:19:36.919-07:002014-03-09T13:19:36.919-07:00Since I'm using this entry as a bit of a catch...Since I'm using this entry as a bit of a catch-all, I will also note that SB95, Fran Millar's bill to make the CEO officially non-partisan, has passed the senate and will probably be passed in the house. I have seen only one mention of this bill in the AJC and nothing about it in any local DeKalb publications. It's a pretty big change and one that could actually do something good for the county. Also in the bill is a way for the BOC to appoint someone to a vacant commission seat, in this case Lee May's.Gary M.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934041074178717925.post-76776652206847695362014-03-09T13:07:40.502-07:002014-03-09T13:07:40.502-07:00Also HB 1130 was filed for Avondale Estates' a...Also HB 1130 was filed for Avondale Estates' annexation proposal. It's the same as I had been hearing with the new boundaries extended out to Katie Kerr and Columbia. Then the expansion northward to include the commercial and industrial off Laredo and most prestigiously of all Your DeKalb Farmer's Market and its $1million of taxable property.Gary M.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934041074178717925.post-62256106926662180852014-03-09T11:15:18.663-07:002014-03-09T11:15:18.663-07:00HB 1128 was filed for Clarkston's annexation a...HB 1128 was filed for Clarkston's annexation attempt. Interestingly the bill only includes Area 2, which is the sliver of unincorporated OTP next to their existing city limits and the industrial areas off Church Street ITP. I wonder if they are waiting/were told to wait on Tucker's outcome, or if they are rethinking the wisdom of adding all those apartments off Brockett Road. The bill has Republican co-sponsors so I expect it will pass.Gary M.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934041074178717925.post-62856216329051521742014-03-01T16:13:39.039-08:002014-03-01T16:13:39.039-08:00I agree about north of 78. However, if there is n...I agree about north of 78. However, if there is no cityhood for Tucker then it would be worth it for Clarkston to pursue it, especially with the surgical center, motels, and potential park.<br /><br />I disagree about part of the area ITP. The office and industrial off Church Street is mostly in Clarkston's 30021 zip code (strangely the map created by Clarkston for their proposal you posted above with the larger annexation idea has the incorrect zip code boundaries). The Creekdale and Venetian Estates neighborhoods north of East Ponce are also already in 30021. I think that's a fair reason to attempt to annex them. <br /><br />There's no strong argument at the moment for the others areas ITP to be part of Clarkston. If given a choice, I think residents would prefer Briarcliff to Clarkston. However, if only Lakeside passes then those people may be more interested in Clarkston since Lakeside doesn't seem to want them. <br /><br />I looked at Clarkston's Facebook page and found a map with a link to their city site:<br /><br />http://clarkstonga.gov/index.php/i-want-to/get-resource-documents/category/36-annexation-information<br /><br />The current proposed annexations are for Area 1 and 2. In other maps I've seen Phase 1 and 2 with sub-areas. So it appears for now that all they're aiming for is the Brockett Road corridor northeast of the city, the sliver of unincorporated OTP and the office and industrial ITP.<br /><br />I read that Michele Henson may be the one to push legislation for them. Also read that Steve Henson thought the current smaller Clarkston annexation proposal had a good chance of passing both chambers. <br /><br /> Gary M.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934041074178717925.post-68916428512515345472014-03-01T11:28:46.967-08:002014-03-01T11:28:46.967-08:00I agree that the areas south of the Stone Mountain...I agree that the areas south of the Stone Mountain Freeway and east of I-285 are appropriate areas for Clarkston to annex. However, to reaffirm my argument, Clarkston has no strong argument to go north of the freeway or west of 285. The residential areas to the north will always look to Tucker or Briarcliff (assuming that happens), while all areas west of the Perimeter should be included in whatever happens to work out best for Scotdale, which, in my opinion, would be Briarcliff.The Tucker Initiativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10524121039629805430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934041074178717925.post-15009921851133315642014-02-28T09:12:20.054-08:002014-02-28T09:12:20.054-08:00People have contacted both the current mayor, Ted ...People have contacted both the current mayor, Ted Terry, and the city manager, Keith Barker, and were told Clarkston is only pursuing the Phase 1 and 2 annexations. However, no one can explain why the larger areas were even considered or placed on a map. <br /><br />I think it makes sense for Clarkston to have a plan in place for the larger annexation. No one knows what the eventual outcome of the cityhood battles will be, and their expanded map would fit nicely (for them) with a city of Lakeside or Briarcliff. I think everything on their map south of 78 would be good for them.Gary M.noreply@blogger.com