Tucker responds to LaVista Hills plan

Posted by Dan Whisenhunt November 18, 2014
A map of the proposed city of Tucker, obtained via http://tucker2015.com/

A map of the proposed city of Tucker, obtained via http://tucker2015.com/

Supporters of creating a city of Tucker have released an official response to the proposed city of LaVista Hills, a city that would combine the maps of two previous cityhood efforts: Briarcliff and Lakeside.

“The map released (Monday) of the newly created proposed City of LaVista Hills clearly defines how difficult it was for Tucker 2015 to negotiate reasonable boundaries with Lakeside and Briarcliff that would create two healthy and sustainable cities in North/Central DeKalb,” the release from Tucker 2015 says. “For some Tucker residents and businesses, the cityhood process has been especially trying because they have been drawn in and out of an ever-changing map of a self-created city, throughout the more than year-long effort that has consumed our neighborhoods, while continuing to voice support to remain part of the Tucker community.”

The state Legislature set a Nov. 15 deadline for the three groups to work out a compromise.  While Briarcliff and Lakeside found a workable solution to their differences, they were unable to reach an agreement with Tucker. The House Governmental Affairs Committee is supposed to appoint a five-person panel to resolve the boundary dispute. So far there’s been no official word on who will serve on that panel.

“We believe that the State Legislative Leadership will bring about a solution that is fair and respectful of our long-recognized and welcoming Tucker community, a community that has thrived and worked together for more than a century, and that they will share our vision for a successful city that will benefit Tucker and surrounding areas for generations,” the Tucker 2015 release says.

While some elected officials have said Tucker did not submit a map, the supporters of that city said their map is unchanged from the one it proposed prior to the start of the most recent round of negotiations.


About Dan Whisenhunt

Dan Whisenhunt is editor and publisher of Decaturish.com. https://www.linkedin.com/in/danwhisenhunt

View all posts by Dan Whisenhunt

  • EyeDekalb

    I live in this “Tucker” map, on the western edge, and I do not appreciate them pushing their Tucker agenda on my property. They need to back off. I am inside the perimeter, in Rehobeth. Stop the land grabbing, Tucker. You guys come off so arrogant about Lavista Hills, but are just as greedy, maybe more. Take 285 and beyond, but hands off MY home.

  • Tripper

    They’ve cut my property in half, leaving me in a wedge of Unincorporated Dekalb against the Gwinnett County line. I guess I only get to be in Tucker if I’m grilling out or getting something from the fridge.

  • Tom Doolittle

    One of the problems with Tucker 2015 is embodied in this article. It really has little of a human face and has the appearance of not being a public representative. What we’ve learned since Brookhaven’s rush to cityhood is a city’s final ability to govern is tied to its legitimacy to promote and campaign before it becomes one.

    This is now not academic or philosophical, nor only a personal opinion. Nor does one have to be a fan or foe of forming new cities to formulate and discuss the issue this way. It’s playing out in real results.

    Brookhaven is having MANDATE problems while the original campaign in the NorthCentral corridor spawned three cityhood groups and now two annexation challenges–all from a questionable MANDATE to represent (not just a finite public, but an uncertain one).

    The legislature’s lack of defined process is the root of this–and now the unprecedented step of drawing new city boundaries–with no local lawmaker responsible. We no longer have our cityhood promoters to blame or credit the results of any possible referendum. The state of Georgia “owns” it.

  • EyeDekalb

    Allow me to repost my book review. “A Tale of Three Cities”

    This whole thing is like a bad novel. On the right, Lakeside power mongers who are arranging the unseemly marriage of two completely unrelated areas, North Decatur and Pleasantdale, in order to gain the numbers to self appoint themselves Conservative King. Damn the peasants.

    On the left, self righteous Tucker, shooting themselves in the
    foot, demonizing everyone who lives 2 miles from them under the false flag
    of erasure of community, and encouraging blind patriotism to a group of
    backroom biddies who control the business community holding
    their citizens hostage and devaluing their real estate. All while
    duping the masses into fighting a paper tiger–since it in fact
    **their own citizens** that are the ones who want to be part of this new
    city. (It Is only because of this citizen support that they are in
    Lakeside map. It’s the same reason Medlock is NOT in the map …it’s all
    about support. Tucker’s enemy is themselves.)

    Fact check: none of these areas lose “history”
    no matter what happens. Look at Virginia Highland or Grant Park. All
    remain 100% defined by their history despite being in the Atlanta
    municipality. The whole history/main street thing is a red herring
    designed to keep the housewives “roaring” and waving Tucker flags while
    monied interests move chess pieces. Another fact. Those of us who were around before 2012 remember Tucker Civic Associations’ published map that
    stopped at 285 — before the sanctimonious obfuscation campaign
    began in 2013 (check the waybackmachine on the innerwebs, or Google map “Tucker GA” to see official census boundaries, minus the spin.)

    Meanwhile, poor orphan Briarcliff, the protagonist, tragically falls
    on their sword and gives up the good fight, the inclusive map that took in poor and rich, Democrat and Republican, Scottdale and Oak Grove and everything in between — and had the only chance of gaining mass support in the end.

    It’s a real page turner! Scratch that. It’s compelling as road kill…don’t want to look, but somehow you just gotta….

  • SammyJ

    Does anyone really expect the legislative committee to come up a comprehensive plan with rational boundaries?

  • HB

    Both Tucker and Lakeside groups have subtley insulted one another, and that’s to be expected I suppose. But the residents of each are showing different colors. As a Tucker resident up to a year ago, it’s been embarrassing to see so many current Tucker residents reveal themselves as so petulant. They’re ranting about their history, which is fine–but not if you’re going to completely ignore everyone else’s history whenever it serves a purpose. (Newsflash: Stone Mountain and North Decatur have history too, back to the Civil War. No one’s is more valid than the other.) It’s so one-sided too. I have not seen one, literally not one, insult to Tucker *residents* on our intown community boards, but it makes me sick to watch Tucker residents dissing intowners–just for living inside 285. I’ve seen people say Dont eat at xxxx, that’s in nasty Lakeside territory. As if those restaurant owners are to blame. I wish some folks would grow up, and apply even logic to all considerations, even if it doesn’t benefit you.

Receive the Daily Email DIgest

* = required field