House pushes back on changes to LaVista Hills-Tucker maps

Posted by Dan Whisenhunt March 31, 2015
The Georgia State Capitol. Photo by Ken Lund, obtained via Wikimedia Commons

The Georgia State Capitol. Photo by Ken Lund, obtained via Wikimedia Commons

Time is running out for bills proposing a vote on the creation of the cities of LaVista Hills and Tucker.

Last minute wrangling over map boundaries that were supposedly settled months ago are threatening to scuttle both proposals.

On Tuesday, March 31, the state House rejected an amendment to the map added by the state Senate that would’ve moved about 2,000 residents from the Livsey precinct in Tucker’s map to LaVista Hills. The House also backed the original version of the Tucker bill.

The House took several votes on the amendments, but it wasn’t always clear to the average spectator what specific amendments were being considered. State Rep. Karla Drenner, D-Avondale Estates, said it wasn’t much clearer for people voting on the map amendments.

“Actually, all of us are confused quite frankly,” Drenner said. ” … What confused me is we had an amendment on our desk that I thought was the fix, but I wasn’t.”

State Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver, D-Decatur, said the bills are most likely headed back to committee to resolve the differences.

“We are on the way procedurally to a conference committee,” Oliver said via email.

Mary Kay Woodworth with LaVista Hills YES said that’s her understanding of the situation as well.

“Both LaVista Hills and Tucker will now go to conference committee. Likely decided tonight who is on the committee,” she said via email.

State Sen. Fran Millar implemented the changes regarding the Livsey precinct. If he continues to insist on keeping those changes in the map and the House keeps rejecting them, it will make passage of the bills more difficult before the end of the session. The last day is Thursday, April 2.

Prior to the House vote Tuesday, State Rep. Tom Taylor, R-Dunwoody, said the Livsey precinct had been added as the result of a poll conducted via telephone.

“A large number of folks wanted to come into that district, Rep. (Mike) Jacobs and I supervised a poll over the weekend, did about 900 calls: 60 percent wanted to come into LaVista Hills,” Taylor said.

State Rep. Scott Holcomb, D-Atlanta, who represents part of the area that includes LaVista Hills, said that poll called into question why the House bothered to try and settle the map boundaries with a subcommittee in December.

Drenner said Tuesday’s vote was ultimately a defense of the work the House did to try to settle the issue to avoid last-minute haggling.

“What you saw was people standing up for the House and what the House had done with regard to this issue,” she said. “And what would it be like for Day 39 (of the Legislative session) if we’re not fighting about DeKalb politics down here?”

About Dan Whisenhunt

Dan Whisenhunt is editor and publisher of

View all posts by Dan Whisenhunt

  • DH110

    The House had to stand its ground. They would’ve undermined their own authority had they not backed the original subcommittee’s borders.

    With that done, moving forward, what is this “fix” Karla Drenner speaks of?

    • RAJ

      The “fix” for the Southern border was OK, neighborhoods got what they wanted but Tucker was the problem. They should have said OK we just roll with this one and move on, but on the other hand you can’t blame them. Some degree of upper house hubris at the Capitol. Roll this into Transportation Bill issues in conference committee tomorrow and see what you get. I’ll have to sweep the floor of the Capitol for any good info Wednesday. Wish me luck. Homemade beef stew, burnt hoagie roll and plonk wine for supper….ugh!

  • Russell Carleton

    Isn’t the path of least resistance here that the Senate quietly agrees to the original HGAC borders and politely stamps both bills?

    • Hugh Bean

      Depends on the source of the resistance.

      I can’t see the more powerful party here being the one wiling to lose face.

  • MAC

    I agree totally and I’ve said all along that it would be unreasonable, illogical, and unfair to sacrifice the cityhood prospects of a 100,000 due to wrangling over a neighborhood of 2000. In reality, we’re talking about 60% of 900 respondents from a RECENT (this past weekend recent) Jacobs’/Taylor phone poll being used to justify the current legislative stalemate. In other words, 540 pro-LVH voices (from a neighborhood of 2000) fueling this jeopardy. Preposterous. And curious that those 540 voices have been touted by legislators and proponents as THE voice and will of the Livsey neighborhood. I’m just saying…

    The HGAC provided in December a boundary compromise and roadmap designed to avoid Tucker and LVH being precisely where they are mere hours before the close of the 2014 legislative session. No matter the outcome, going to conference committee was the right thing to do, not so much for House ego, as ensuring that procedural integrity has been and is maintained. Checks and balances.

    • guest2

      There are 2000 residents. 900 calls means they probably called every household.
      The article doesn’t use the term “respondents” so you can’t say for sure 900 answered, but it sounds like a pretty complete effort.
      Drenner had a sense of humor about it. It all seems to be an ego fight between the Senate and House. But the Senate has the better argument-will of the residents vs. the will of 5 appointed lawmakers, one of whom didn’t agree with the result.

      • Mark Snyder

        The calls were “robocalls” and only 195 people participated. This is from an article in today’s AJC: “Taylor and Rep. Mike Jacobs, R-Brookhaven, conducted a survey over the last few days indicating that 57 percent of residents in the community wanted to be in LaVista Hills, 24 percent chose Tucker and 19 percent didn’t have a preference. The survey gathered 195 responses, representing about 10 percent of people who live in the neighborhood.”

        • Mark Snyder

          Unless Taylor and Jacobs paid for robocalls out of their own pocket, one has to wonder who funded this. Interestingly a LaVista Hills leader owns Rosetta Communications that conducts robocalls. In the flier that Jacobs and Taylor handed out to House members yesterday there is no verification of who conducted the survey. That flier also misrepresents the numbers (as did Taylor from the House floor) by stating that “The survey reveals that, of the voters had a preference, 71% of them preferred to be incorporated into LaVista Hills. Only 29% of the voters who had a preference expressed a preference for Tucker.” Yet the flier goes on to show the breakdown this way, “LaVista Hills – 112 responses – 57%, Tucker – 46 responses – 24%, No Preference – 37 responses – 19%.” Ummm based on even basic third grade math 57% is not 71%, and adding the no preference to the LaVista Hills yes pot isn’t, how shall I say it – honest.

          • guest2

            While it may be misleading depending on how it was worded, it is correct to say that 71% of people who expressed a preference preferred LVH (112 divided by 112+46=71%).

          • Mark Snyder

            Percentages are fascinating but here’s the reality – 112 people out of 2,000 said they preferred LaVista Hills. 46 people chose Tucker, and 37 had not preference. 2,000 minus 195 means 1,805 people had no say. Yet the survey was used to try and influence a process that Rep. Jacobs himself authored, and Rep. Taylor agreed to. All of this was done without consulting Rep. Scott Holcomb who not only is one of the bill sponsors but who represents the area in question. Misleading is the kindest of words that can be applied.

          • guest2

            Holcomb voted FOR the senate substitute. Millar had previously said that Holcomb agreed with him.

          • notapunk

            How many actual households are in the disputed area? Does the “2,000 residents” include children? Households would be a much better indicator of how many voters we might be talking about.

          • guest

            How many people answered the phone?

          • RAJ

            Same is true of all these neighborhood surveys; they mostly represent the interests of the leaders of the civic associations and a small group of active respondents rather than the entire neighborhood. Really can’t tell anything unless we actually go to the polls in November and vote.

    • guest2

      And what probably happened is that Millar got a lot of feedback from his constituents and so moved them. Jacobs/Taylor probably came in after the fact to see what the residents really wanted as opposed to those who had contacted Millar.
      I find the House stance the preposterous one, that some kind of deal decided by people outside the area trumps the desire of the residents. This is not a move that impacts the financial viability of either city. But again, some of the House people may have been voting against because of the silliness of the mapping issue impacting part of Medlock and Mason Mill.
      What doesn’t get mentioned is that LVH did have area taken away. The Senate map took away the area west of Briarcliff near Executive Park that was in the House map.

    • Russell Carleton

      From what I read, there weren’t 900 respondents, but their response rate was in line with most of the previous community surveys on the topic. As was pointed out on the floor of the House, a “remain unincorporated” option was not presented. Still, if we’re starting from the assumption that this neighborhood is going to one or the other, it was pretty clear that they preferred LVH.

      I have to say that I’m not comfortable with how this has gone down. I have my reservations about the cityhood movement, but I’m guessing that if the process behind the changes from a couple weeks ago had been cleaner, the votes would have been there to pass the map(s). If there’s a vote taken in the next few days, it won’t be about the cityhood issue on its own merits. It will be about a proxy turf war between the House and Senate with the cityhood bills caught in the middle.

      • MAC

        Russell, I appreciate your chime in. I think Marks responses below give us a little more clarity about how the recent poll was actually conducted, and they also make a powerful case for how fuzzy and elusive the oft-repeated “will” of the residents is in this matter.

        Using your same turf war metaphor, it’s equally possible to argue the flipside, that the House and Senate are the ones truly caught in the middle of a turf war being waged between two cityhood prospects with two different visions of cityhood. The legislature is involved, not because they want to be, but rather, they were dragged into the mix because the two groups couldn’t settle their own affairs over the boundaries. Look at the polarizing dimensions that the mere conversation takes and has been taking for years.

  • MAC

    Excuse me, the 2015 legislative session…early-morning posts.

  • Northlake Resident

    The issue is that the subcommittee that came up with the “solution” for the boundaries: a) were made by people that have no ties, involvement or knowledge of the community; and b) a majority of the 2000 people that live the Livsey voting precinct do not want to be in Tucker – do they not get to have their voice heard and be represented?

    • MAC

      Northlake Resident, I hear you loud and clear. I just think it’s important to note that while the conflict before us comes down to Livsey, the rest of the map that has both Tucker and LVH with one virtual foot across the cityhood line is a product of the “solution” the two groups couldn’t come up with themselves. Those legislators with, as you say, no ties, involvement or knowledge of the community were invited into this mess and asked to devise an impossible solution because the cityhood leaders lacked the skill, wherewithal, or acumen to come up with a solution on their own.

  • HB

    I’m an old-school Repub,but would be thrilled to see Fran Millar go down in disgrace, just for being such a partisan d***. And I’m totally ok with Livsey being in Tucker myself. But the other part of me (the old man that’s been around long enough to remember America before these childish partisans who hold government hostage), that part of me wants to side with democracy.

    I hate watcing Tucker lose all their initial integrity in this process. Why can’t they gracefully accept the fact that the Majority of citizens in Livsey want something different? Not just a statistical plurality, an honest to God real majority. Imagine the FUROR they’d feel if some other area stepped in and blocked their decisions for their own homes. Why do the Tucker leaders advocate stealing people’s rights and squashing voices from their own area? I’ve got issues with LVH, but at least they are letting individual neighborhoods have their in-vs-out say, unlike Tucker. But if I lived in Tucker still, I’d be livid. Livid that they are so blatantly denying the wishes of the homeowners in their own area.

    And to MAC: Lady, a sample of that size is not “preposterous.” Most elections run on a smaller sampling than was in play here, this is basic statistical theory.

    • MAC

      HB, interestingly, I’m not in disagreement with a good portion of what you’ve stated, though there are a few earlier posts that give a little more dimension and texture to the polling samples of which we are speaking. My “preposterous” labeling applied neither to the sample nor to statistical theory–which I can give a flip about (“There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics”) –but rather to the absurd notion that the cityhood objectives of the many can be threatened to failure by the “will” of the few. That’s what I find preposterous. Clarified, I stand still firmly by that notion.
      I return to the idea of the many versus the few. Let’s accept for the sake of argument that your view of the Tucker cityhood leadership is accurate. Those few leaders don’t define and in no way rob the integrity of the masses of Tucker residents who cooperatively and enthusiastically support cityhood. None of the cityhood leaders (Tucker or LVH) were elected by the residents, so they don’t represent an elected, representatively selected voice of their respective communities. Cityhood movement leaders emerge as volunteers who do untold sums of thankless, unpaid service, and unavoidably make themselves the targets of public ire, criticism, and attacks–whether deserved or undeserved–for the purpose of securing boundaries and putting the mechanisms in place for a new city. Messy stuff.
      Cityhood business is messy business, and cityhood entities, from leaders, to residents, to legislative supporters, to opponents, have ALL shown their messy, less than polished sides. The true test is how our communities will heal, what type of leaders our cities will elect, and what type of cities we will craft when we get through this messy moment, which hopefully, will be very soon.

      • HB

        See, my issue here is this Livsey business, the will of those homeowners — is not “the few”, nor is the “some” who are guaranteed to be dissatisfied. It’s that Tucker is trying to override the *majority* of that area’s wishes, by any definition or measure. Not some. Most of the people.

        And the day “they” come after YOUR property, by advocating for going against the will of the majority, you’re setting yourself (ourselves, all of us) up for loss of our own rights the day some other entity wants do something with your home.

        We can not stand idly by shooting our democratic system in the foot, *just because this time* it seems to benefit us. Again, I don’t give a whip about if Livsey joins LVH. Hell I think they should be in Tucker. But it ain’t my call, and it shouldn’t be yours either. There really is no way to justify the decimation of the system as Tucker (and Sen MIllar for that matter) is aiming for.

        • MAC

          My friend, you’re really personalizing a matter that for me is, quite simply a series of contributions to a fascinating public conversation. However this cityhood business pans out, I, like most people, am going to shake it off and keep it moving. Most, except the bitter, angry sulkers, will move on to the next controversy, the next political hot topic, since one is always being cooked up in the oven. The system won’t crumble. It won’t fall apart. We would be having a different conversation (or not even chatting at all) had the House simply passed the bills with the Senate amendments. You wouldn’t be making the apocalyptic argument that the “system” is being decimated if the outcome turned out the way you think that it should.

          At the end of the day, the perception of who is most unfair, most undemocratic, most in violation of the rights of others really isn’t a fixed truth. In nebulous matters like these, it often comes down, as you well know, to the eye of the beholder. I’ve heard your same arguments penned by a different set of beholders.

          You’ve got your bone to pick with the Tucker leadership. We get that. Knock yourself out. That sentiment has nothing to do with me. You’re totally correct, the pending decision under the gold dome “ain’t” my call.” It “ain’t” yours either. Thank goodness for that because it gives us the luxury of demonizing the outcome that doesn’t float our individual boat. Let’s be clear. No matter how you slice this pie, someone is going to walk away dissatisfied. Can’t be avoided. And you know what? As much as your ire (and that of others) targets “Tucker’s integrity,” the reality is what’s happening at the Capitol is out of their hands as much as it is yours and mine. The two groups put that fate in the hands of others for the same reasons that you and I know all too well and have learned from our blog sparring: that a meeting of the minds is just not always possible despite your best and most sincere efforts.

          • HB

            I’ve don’t see any purpose arguing it anymore. You aren’t grasping my point, and have misunderstood my stance to boot. This is not about what I or you want. I don’t like Millar’s tactics, and I actually hope his attempt to move Livsey fail and they become part of Tucker. But this is not my boat to float–I’m looking at a bigger picture, even if it’s not to my liking. This isn’t “nebulous” either, it’s about hard numbers. A factual majority that Tucker doesn’t seem to care about, or think is pertinent to the integrity of a process I risked my life for. It’s a bigger picture in play here. Go ahead, be proud about denying those folks their voice. I’m done.

    • Mark Snyder

      This whole thing started because of the FUROR Tucker felt two years ago when a group of 3-4 people (as they tell the story) sat around a kitchen table inside the perimeter and drew a map that came outside the perimeter carving out chunks of an area that for 100+ years has been Tucker because they needed the Republican votes to make their City referendum pass. Tucker has been fighting that destruction of the long-standing community ever since. Folks in the Evansdale area where told their children would no longer go to Lakeside High School if they didn’t support the City of Lakeside (now LaVista Hills). Folks in the Midvale area were told their kids could go to Lakeside HS (instead of the current Tucker feeder pattern) if they supported LVH. And folks in Livsey who live less than a mile from Main Street Tucker have been pulled into the mess because one woman who used to be an active volunteer with Tucker school and civic organizations suddenly felt sad that she was in Tucker and so ran a petition drive that was divisive and unscientific. The move by Sen. Millar to include Livsey is to reward her as a good soldier in his cause – unfortunately to get to her house he has to pull in thousands of others. The support for Tucker in the Livsey area was documented by the House legislators during the panel process and is in large part why the House panel left it in Tucker when they drew the boundaries that all sides agreed to. If Rep. Taylor and Rep. Jacobs were suddenly trying to do the will of the people in that area, why do it 11th hour and without public notice so all could participate? And why allow Tucker residents to spend an additional $15,000 of hard earned money to fund an updated Feasibility Study if the boundaries were going to be changed once again. Through all of this, the Tucker community has sadly had to fight hand to hand combat with a group that for whatever reason wants to see it ripped apart from all sides. By carving out the heart of the Tucker commercial and key residential areas it is well understood (and stated by Sen. Millar) that vultures from surrounding cities will simply pick apart the body from the edges. Please do not question the integrity of a community that was simply struggling to preserve itself – it’s like accusing a man who fought to save his arm from an attacker of a lack of character because he wanted to remain whole.

      • Hugh Bean

        Then it’s a shame Tucker turned around and violated neighboring communities. They had the option of simply incorporating Tucker, rather than trying to rope in the more valuable properties in Northlake and Stone Mountain. They chose the low road.

        These actions dishonor the Tucker community.

        • Mark snyder

          Northlake is Tucker and always has been. The businesses in the area made that clear when they joined the Tucker Community Improvement District (now the Tucker – Northlake CID). The LaVista Hills leadership hasn’t set foot in the mall in years yet they’ve fought tooth and nail to claim it for the commercial revenue it brings. And Tucker took no part of Stone Mountain. The areas on that side of the map were unincorporated DeKalb. And they not only associated with Tucker but they feared being annexed into the City of Stone Mountain with its grossly high taxes and struggling budget. Unless you’ve been at the table for the countless discussions Tucker has had with citizens across our map please do not presume to speak truth.

          • Hugh Bean

            Just to be clear, now that we’re on the road to a referendum:

            “Northlake is Tucker and always has been.” Nope, Atlanta address. Has been since the mall was built. But then again, you could have checked?

            “Tucker took no part of Stone Mountain.” Except the Stone Mountain Middle School District. And the Stone Mountain CID. And Smoke Rise. Find me someone who grew up in Smoke Rise (and who is not a Tucker board member) who does not say they grew up in Stone Mountain.

            “with its grossly high taxes and struggling budget.” Anyone tempted to believe this could make a phone call to the city office or the Stone Mountain Downtown Development Authority, or review publicly available documents.

            “the countless discussions Tucker has had with citizens across our map.” Yeah, I’ve been there. You mean like when Tucker wouldn’t even show up to discuss the matter with the Stone Mountain CID?

            That a Tucker supporter would assert that attendance of a marketing session is somehow a prerequisite for “presuming to speak the truth” is a hopeful sign for those of us who oppose cityhood.

    • Huh?

      Hb what neighborhoods are getting to choose if they are in the Lavista hills map? Not mine. I have a board member from each briarcliff and lakeside just down the street from me and not once in 3 years as have they asked the neighborhood what we wanted. Not once!!! Of course we are smack in the middle of this thing next to lakeside hs but still not once in this process were we asked if we wanted to be in a city. No surveys. No meetings. Nothing. So this is what I have to say to the Livsey people. Tough s$&t you got put in tucker. These homes are a tax drain and police drain to begin with. For those itp briarcliff was better financially for us but we got screwed and stuck with these otp babies. We already are going to have to cover with our taxes dollars for enough of these otp people. We don’t want want 2000 more. When is what’s good for the majority of us itp going to be taken into consideration? People itp don’t want these people in our city. They belong in tucker where they chose to buy a home. I like tucker a lot so I’m not sure what their problems are. They probably deserve to be a city more then us. If the livsey people don’t want to be in tucker my advice to them is move. No ones keeping you there and the good people of tucker deserve better anyway.

  • RAJ

    Woke up this morning seriously urinated(have to be careful or I’ll be banned from posting again)and decided to stay away from the Capitol. Guess that all the votes have been traded on the big stuff and the city-hood votes will take place tomorrow as planned after the “conference” committee meeting. I’ll have a lot to say if the bills don’t pass, just can’t “pull on Superman’s cape”; I know the price for that little mistake! Pass or not what we missed while posting was the House voted to create a “Study Committee on City-hood and Annexation” that will be meeting during the summer to discuss “process”. The membership is not fully fleshed out yet and some underhanded stuff is already in the works. I will be at the meetings but keep in mind that State Government at the Legislative level is exempt from open records, open meetings laws.

    • DH

      Eh…are you saying you’re a bed wetter?

      • RAJ

        10 weeks at the Capitol… first year!

  • Leafmore resident

    I feel hijacked in this whole debacle. Not once has our area in Oak Grove been polled. Our neighborhood email lists are silent on the matter. Weirder still is that I understand leaders from Lavista Hills live in the area. I wish we in Leafmore could join Medlock and Mason Mill in abstaining, at least for now, from being in the city border, pending further information and seeing who we will really be dealing with. On the outset it looks like a bunch of conservative power seekers with ulterior motives but Im willing to be shown otherwise. But with no info forthcoming to this neighborhood, how can we know one way or another?

    Leafmore has way more in common with Emory areas than OTP. I cant see how being separated from Medlock and Mason Mill does anything but hurt our future property values by giving us an old school suburban association that is no longer popular with those of us in the younger demo. Mark my words, being saddled as Lavista Hills will turn many new buyers away unless they come out as decidedly progressive on infrastructure and zoning, but they havent made one peep toward that direction, so Im more than skeptical.

    • guest

      You do know the people who are putting this together don’t automatically get to run a city, right? Nothing will hurt your property values as long as you are in the Oak Grove school district and the school stays as highly-regarded as it is (and has been for decades). IF LaVista Hills becomes a city, the residents will have another election to vote in — each district will elect someone to represent them on the city council and they will elect a mayor. Those are the people who will set the tone for what kind of city it will be and what policies will be put in place for infrastructure and zoning. You get up to two opportunities to go to the polls if the legislature passes HB 520 and it is signed by the governor — once to say yay or nay to a city and, if it passes, the opportunity to elect representation. Those are the only polls that really matter.

      • Briarcliff Woods East Resident

        I’m right there with you Leafmore. I can almost throw a rock (ok it would be a long throw but they live close) from my house to the homes of two of the people leading this thing and not one survey, not one email through the neighborhood email list, not a meeting nothing. Where was our neighborhoods input on this city? The TRUTH is there are special interests with big pockets pushing this. Ask yourself. These Lavista Hills people have lobbyists, robo calls, signs, studys they had to pay for. Can anyone remember a fundraiser being held since last year on this thing? Where is the money coming from? They won’t tell us which should make us all very suspicious.

      • Leafmore resident

        Sure, I understand about the elections. But my skepticism is driven by witnessing all the backroom shenanigans we’ve already seen from Millar and company. And like BW resident says, where has ALL that money come from. Not us citizens. Someone’s expecting some favors, and you know they will see to it they get paid. Sigh, just like Dekalb. Just started off on a shady foot.

        Good old Briarcliff cityhood was about the people and the real community, and that was an effort I’d have supported. But the nice guys got trumped by the monied interests (where ARE they getting all their funds?) and bam, old boy network takes the reins….again. I suspect the only reason they took all those Evansdale homes was to assure a vote victory. Certainly not for our benefit (if millar really cared about us he’d have petitioned for the businesses, not the residents there. .Sure, good for his vote count, but really bad for our taxes. If LVH was really about the community, they’d have petitioned for the intown votes, not OTP. I just have a bad taste in my mouth, that I wish I didnt feel, because I did want a city…just not like this…

  • MAC

    Evansdale Parent, your voice is certainly welcome. Anti-cityhood voices like yours have admittedly been crowded out by the dominant Tucker-LVH polar chatter. Nearing the final hours of the legislative session, today very likely will tell us whether cityhood moves forward…or whether you (and others who see this issue as you do) will get your wish and all this expensive and testy madness is put to an end–at least for the time being.
    Not everyone supports cityhood under the notion that taxes will be lower. From what I’ve heard, some people are willing to pay a little extra, even for a semblance of greater control, security, and local voice. For others, supporting cityhood is at very least, a symbol of empowerment, which is important when people feel powerless. The simple act of walking into a voting booth and voting YAY or NAY for cityhood at the ballot box provides some people with a needed sense of empowerment and self determination.
    I was trying to digest your point about the absurdity of a “walking distance” city. Is that to say the idea that two cities are within walking distance from where you live is absurd? If so, it might not be so absurd to someone not so strategically centered between both cities. Or do you mean that the size/area/span of the two proposed cities is absurd? If so, I’m a dedicated walker/runner, and it’s a pretty long walking haul from 285 to Tucker’s eastern border to the Gwinnett county line, and the same for LVH to the Atlanta-city line to the west. As far as population size goes, Tucker would be comparable to Peachtree City’s 35,000 residents and LVH would be comparable to Alpharetta’s 62,000. And there are TONS of big-name cities throughout the state that are much smaller than both. Thanks!

  • Mark Snyder

    Oh you’re right! The Northlake businesses could have joined the LaVista Hills CID. Oh…wait….

Receive the Daily Email DIgest

* = required field