The Future of DeKalb County

How the Proposed New Cities Will Transform DeKalb County

This map incorporates the decision of the House Governmental Affairs Committee regarding the final boundaries for the proposed City of Tucker and the proposed City of LaVista Hills. Also shown are the current annexation plans for Decatur, Avondale Estates and Stone Mountain.

The talked about annexation of Druid Hills by the City of Atlanta is also included, although it has little change of ever happening. That proposal will have to be approved by the DeKalb Delegation of the General Assembly as a Local Bill, a remote possibility given how this proposal will devastate the DeKalb County School District.

Both the proposed City of Stonecrest and the City of South DeKalb are also indicated, although neither proposal is likely to be considered in the next legislative session. The city limits for South DeKalb have been adjusted from their current proposed map, in deference to the future annexatioin interests of Stone Mountain, Pinelake and Clarkston.

The recently approved annexations for Doraville and Brookhaven are fully incorporated. Note the islands now found between Doraville and LaVista Hills, as those voters recently rejected the Doraville annexation. Will they be forced into LaVista Hills? That seems to be Sen. Millar's intention.

And the Saga Continues . . .

The Brookhaven Post has been diligent in its pursuit of the truth behind the Executive Park and CHOA request to be annexed into Brookhaven. On October 17, Tom Doolittle, a contributor to the Brookhaven Post, published an account of the DeKalb Delegation public hearing, held on October 13th in the Brookhaven City Hall. The article includes several videos of the meeting, the viewing of which is its own reward. His article can be found HERE.

The Post provided a follow up article today, found HERE, which includes maps provided by the property owners of the proposed annexation, as well as a composite map assembled by The Post. 

Smaller versions of those maps are reproduced here. (After the break.)

Brookhaven Meddling . . . Again?

Brookhaven Considers Annexation South of I-85 to Include Executive Park & Children's Hospital of Atlanta

The City of Brookhaven is considering applications from Executive Park and the nearby Children's Hospital of Atlanta for annexation into the City.  As those properties under consideration are exclusively commercial, they can be annexed by Brookhaven using either the 100% method or the 60% method, both procedures allowing annexation solely by a vote of the Brookhaven City Council. The state legislature is not involved, and a referendum by residents (there are none) would NOT be required.

The annexations, if they proceed, will have a potentially serious impact on the proposed City of Lakeside/Briarcliff. I say potentially due to the fact that this area was NOT included in the proposed City of Lakeside until the very last map, engineered by Rep. Mike Jacobs (R), Brookhaven, which would be version 7 for Lakeside.  It was NOT included in the feasibility study for Lakeside. This area has always been included in the proposed City of Briarcliff proposed boundaries and feasibility study.

This is an interesting twist for Brookhaven for three reasons. First, when Dunwoody first formed, they had initially sought to include major commercial properties south of I-285, but backed off when complaints were noted that they would be depriving any future city south of I-285 from potential revenue. Dunwoody deferred to the then non-existent possiblity of a City of Brookhaven, at that point merely a twinkle in the eye of Rep. Jacobs. Second, Brookhaven found itself in a serious kerfluffle when it tried the same play with Century Century, after Chamblee had already been allowed to pursue annexation of the area by the state legislature. Brookhaven eventually backed away from that battle. And third, when the City of Lakeside's first map was issued, both Brookhaven and Chamblee pundits objected to Lakeside jumping I-85 to include revenue-rich commercial properties. Lakeside immediately deferred to those concerns.

What Do You Do When The Hired Expert . . . Isn't So Expert?

YOU SPEAK UP!

GSU Presentation to the DeKalb Operations Task Force

At the recent DeKalb County Operations Task Force meeting, held on July 16, 2014, a presentation to the Committee On Municipalization / Annexation was made by Dr. Laura Wheeler, a Senior Research Associate with the Fiscal Research Center of the GSU Andrew Young School of Policy Studies.

During her presentation, which was marred by a computer failure which kept her PowerPoint presentation from being displayed, Dr. Wheeler made several statements that some in the audience knew to be incorrect or misleading. This was disappointing to hear, considering the supposed expertise that Dr. Wheeler, and by extension, the Andrew Young School, was expected to bring to the proceedings. What is worse is that the committee members, believing her to be an expert in these matters, were highly inclined to believe that everything she referenced was true and correct. Given the minimal level of their understanding of the issues before them, and my impression that these committee members are not inclined to do their own homework, this does not bode well for the entire process.

A audio recording of the meeting can be found HERE. This is the only accurate documentation of what was said in the meeting as it was not televised or recorded by the County.

Herman Lorenz, of the City of Briarcliff Initiative, was in the audience and was equally troubled by what he heard. As Herman is one of the most knowledgeable and well-read individuals in the entire incorporation debate, his words should be heard and appreciated. His understanding and expertise on many of the issues before the Task Force would seem to go well beyond that of their hired 'expert'.

Operations Task Force - Meeting of the Committee On Municipalization/Annexation

Please note that only 5 of the 8 appointed committee members bothered to show up. (The list of committee appointments can be found HERE.) Commissioner Stan Watson, Rep. Mike Jacobs and BoE member Jim McMahan were absent. I would further note that Commissioner Watson has not shown up to ANY of the Task Force meetings.

Herman's comments, after the break.

Second Verse, Same as the First!

Clarkston Gets Its Re-vote on Annexation

The annexation in Area 1 is now scheduled for a "re-run" election on Tuesday, November 4, 2014, Election Day in the United States.

We've been closely following the proposed Clarkston annexations for a while now and earlier this week noted how the annexation question had inexplicably disappeared, given the tie vote in Area 1, and Clarkston's intent for a second vote. Having asked the question earlier this week, we now have the answers.

Clarkston had filed a petition against the DeKalb County Board of Registrations and Elections, after their refusal to allow a re-vote on the annexation of Area 1, as they maintained that the tie vote, under Georgia law, constituted a rejection of the referendum, normally requiring 50% + 1 Yes vote to pass. But as seen Clarkston's petition (which can be found HERE) they cited two reasons which justified a "Re-Run" of the vote.

1) The Bill Was Poorly Written

The local bill for annexation, HB 1128, allowed for separate votes for annexation in both Area 1 (Part 2-B) and Area 2 (Part 1-A).  Area 2 failed to pass; Area 1 was tied 35-35.  In HB 1128, you will find the following language:

Whatever Happened With the . . .

Clarkston Annexation?

Clarkston had considered annexing several areas surrounding the City, and ultimately chose to formally pursue annexation of two specific districts, one to the west, crossing over to the far side of I-285, and a larger one to the northeast. The grand annexation plans were covered in this article, The Optimistic Cartographer. The vote for annexation was held in the May 20 primary, and ultimately failed, as explained in The Voters Say No to Clarkston.

Or did it?

Each area voted in separately considered votes, meaning either area could be approved by the voters without the other. In the vote, the area to the west was voted down by the overwhelming vote of 9 No to 5 Yes. The vote in the area to the northeast, around Brockett Road, was tied at 35-35. Under Georgia election laws, for the referendum to be approved, a 50% plus 1 vote is required. A tie represents a No decision, and the referendum fails.

Or does it?

After the election, Clarkston announced that there would be a runoff election to reconsider the vote on annexation in the Brockett Road area, in approximately 4 weeks. But no second vote was held in that time frame. Although surprised a runoff was even being considered, I thought it odd that they wouldn't wait for the already scheduled July 22 runoff date, particularly since the annexation was not scheduled to actually take place until the end of the year.The first supposed date for the runoff came and went without a sound. Presumably, the re-vote WAS scheduled for the July 22 runoff date.

Or was it?

There was no other notice or other activity in Clarkston, on its webpage or on the local FaceBook pages regarding a re-vote on annexation. No campaigning, no yard signs, no rallies. A quick check on election day at the Jolly Elementary precinct confirmed that no vote on annexation was scheduled that day. It's a mystery.

Or is it?

Inquiries at the Clarkston City Hall revealed some, if not all, of the truth. Although the exact sequence of events remains unknown, apparently the DeKalb County Elections Board refused to schedule the runoff vote for annexation as was requested by Clarkston. We can only presume this was due to the 50% plus 1 requirement for voter approval. As far as the Election Board was concerned, the referendum lost, and did not qualify for a revote. A recount maybe (with only 70 votes, we already know they tried that), but not a revote. Case closed.

But wait. There's more.

Voters Say NO to Clarkston

Only 84 Voters Participated in the Clarkston Annexation Referendum

 The City of Clarkston, largely in response to the possibility of new cities close to or adjacent to Clarkston, had developed an annexation plan for two separate areas adjacent to the City. Their interest in annexation prompted both city movements for Briarcliff and Tucker to adjust their proposed borders in deference to Clarkston's interest in those areas.

The referendum vote on the annexation was held this past primary day, May 20th. The two proposed areas were considered separately, which allowed for an up or down vote for each unique area, the two were not tied together. For whatever reason, finding the results initially proved to be something of a challenge, but they are easily found today.

Both areas were voted down in the referendum. A total of 84 voters participated in the referendum, 14 in Part 1-A (6% of a registered 231 voters) and 70 in Part 2-B (from a total of 2,122 registered voters - a paltry 3% participation). The labels assigned to each area can be confusing as the map drawn by Clarkston conflicted with the published study, and none of the references were used in the bill approved by the General Assembly.  Part 1-A (Area 2 on their map) is the area to the west of the City, crossing I-285, and Part 2-B (Area 1 on their map) spans Brockett Road, to the City's northeast. Part 1-A was voted down in a 9 No to 5 Yes landslide, while the vote for Part 2-B was TIED, remarkably enough, at 35-35. In a tie vote, the No vote should prevail, as Georgia requires a 50% + 1 clear majority to be approved. I suspect Clarkston may be preparing a case to challenge the results.

Map and  formal results, after the break.

Emory Has a Plan!

Emory and Atlanta, Sitting In a Tree, K - I - S - S - I - N - G

Well, maybe not so much - yet.  But word on the street is that Emory is certainly exploring the option of being annexed by the City of Atlanta, and have had informal talks to that end. And they already know pretty much how they can go about it.

The recent incorporation debate between the City of Briarcliff Initiative (COBI) and the Lakeside City Alliance (LCA) certainly got Emory's attention, to the point they began to internally evaluate just what their identity was, and what impact possible incorporation would have on that identity. It certainly did not help when the proposed Lakeside southern boundary was bouncing around hither and yon just north of the Emory campus. When the surprise Lakeside map that was issued only after approval by the Senate committee, Emory was shocked to see the new southern boundary actually divided the Emory Campus in half. At that point they made it clear to St. Francis of Dunwoody that that was absolutely unacceptable and they demanded that the Emory campus, and the adjacent neighborhoods, be left out of the LCA plan.  Regarding COBI and the City of Briarcliff, they were officially neutral to that proposal, as they realized there was little room for negotiation with COBI. However, that doesn't mean they did not speak privately with certain legislators in the General Assembly to make sure they privately understood Emory's position. But, by that point, the question was moot as it had become clear that Briarcliff would go nowhere as long as Lakeside remained a possibility.