Voters narrowly reject LaVista Hills, approve Tucker in DeKalb cityhood votes

Posted by Decaturish.com November 3, 2015
Allen Venet (center) talks with fellow supporters during the Lavista Hills viewing party at Sprig on Tuesday. Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Allen Venet (center) talks with fellow supporters during the Lavista Hills viewing party at Sprig on Tuesday.
Photo: Jonathan Phillips

This story has been updated. 

By Dyana Bagby, contributor

Voters rejected a proposal make LaVista Hills a city on Tuesday in a photo finish with just less than 200 votes deciding the race.

But the proposed city of Tucker cruised to an easy victory.

Unofficial results from the DeKalb County Election Office show 6,925 voted against the cityhood measure while 6,789 voted in favor — a difference of 136 votes.

“We ran a very grassroots campaign against a political machine and won,” said Marjorie Snook with DeKalb Strong, the volunteer group opposing LaVista Hills cityhood.

Allen Venet, with the LaVista Hills YES group, said he and other supporters were disappointed with the final result.

“We are very disappointed, but we are also proud that our efforts contributed to a vigorous debate about critical issues for DeKalb County,” he said in a statement to Decaturish.

LaVista Hills would have had over 65,000 people and would have been bordered on the north and west sides by I-85 and bisected by I-285.

Snook said the LaVista Hills campaign did turn “very ugly” in the last few days, which, she believed, turned off voters and resulted in some of them voting against the cityhood referendum.

Melissa Montgomery (center) and Jon Fidler react as they watch poll results during the Dekalb Strong viewing party at Melton's app & tap on Tuesday. Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Melissa Montgomery (center) and Jon Fidler react as they watch poll results during the Dekalb Strong viewing party at Melton’s App & Tap on Tuesday.
Photo: Jonathan Phillips

On Tuesday, for example, news broke that a mailer offered a new reason for incorporating: protecting the proposed new city from being annexed by Atlanta.

The mailer featured a picture of Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and stated, “Atlanta Wants to Annex You.”

“Your senior property tax exemption is in danger,” the mailer stated.

“I think what [Tuesday’s] vote says is the community is more interested in working together with all of DeKalb rather than trying to split off into some kind of enclave,” Snook said.

Snook said she and others with DeKalb Strong want to work with those in favor of the cityhood movement in the future and heal differences.

“We know there were very well intentioned people working in the cityhood movement,” she said.

Next steps include going to the Georgia legislature in the next session to call for DeKalb County reforms, including a close look at the county’s charter and finding places where it can be restructured, Snook added.

Those seeking cityhood, such as the LaVista Hills Alliance and LaVista Hills YES, cited DeKalb County corruption as a reason to incorporate. DeKalb Strong agrees there is plenty wrong with DeKalb County. LaVista Hills supporters and DeKalb Strong have publicly urged DeKalb Interim CEO Lee May to resign following an investigation revealing numerous government wrongdoings.

Questions about who could vote in the LaVista Hills race were raised Tuesday after several people voting on the issue were turned away at some DeKalb County precincts.

The issue appeared to be related to split precincts, according to Maxine Daniels, director of Voter Registration and Elections for DeKalb.

According to 11 Alive, some voters were accidentally excluded from voting on LaVista Hills – about 45 voters – but were later added to the list of people who could vote for or against the new city.

In contrast to the LaVista Hills election, voters easily approved making Tucker a city with nearly 74 percent of the vote, according to unofficial results from the Secretary of State.

Faye Petree (left) and Mikhail Petersen perform live during the election night party in Tucker on Tuesday. Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Faye Petree (left) and Mikhail Petersen perform live during the election night party in Tucker on Tuesday.
Photo: Jonathan Phillips

“The people of Tucker have spoken. Tomorrow, after three years of hard work, we will get some rest and then the next step is looking at city set up,” said Anne Lerner, a member of the Tucker 2015 Volunteer Council.

Tucker will have a population of over 30,000 people. Its western border will run along I-285 and its southern boundary will include portions of Stone Mountain Freeway and East Ponce de Leon Avenue. Tucker will elect two council members from each of its three proposed districts, plus a mayor, in nonpartisan races.

Hundreds of people were celebrating in the rain on Main Street in Tucker on Tuesday night, symbolic of the positive campaign supporters ran to achieve cityhood—unlike the fierce battle that took place in LaVista Hills—Lerner added.

“We had a positive campaign, this was about staying together. I think the people spoke loud and clear and the vote sends a strong message of who we are,” she said.

“This is a community win. It’s not about politics; it’s not about personalities. It’s about community. Tucker is an amazing, amazing community,” she added tearfully. “I’m so proud of everyone.”

Here are more photos from Tuesday’s historic cityhood vote …

Marjorie Snook (right) talks with fellow supporters of Dekalb Strong during their viewing party at Melton's app & tap on Tuesday. Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Marjorie Snook (right) talks with fellow supporters of Dekalb Strong during their viewing party at Melton’s App & Tap on Tuesday.
Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Mary Lindsey Lewis (right) talks with fellow supporters of Dekalb Strong during their viewing party at Melton's app & tap on Tuesday. Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Mary Lindsey Lewis (right) talks with fellow supporters of Dekalb Strong during their viewing party at Melton’s App & Tap on Tuesday.
Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Dave Markus checks poll results on his phone during the Dekalb Strong viewing party at Melton's app & tap on Tuesday. Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Dave Markus checks poll results on his phone during the Dekalb Strong viewing party at Melton’s App & Tap on Tuesday.
Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Suzy Baerwalde (right) hugs Marjorie Snook as poll results come in during the Dekalb Strong viewing party at Melton's app & tap on Tuesday. Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Suzy Baerwalde (right) hugs Marjorie Snook as poll results come in during the Dekalb Strong viewing party at Melton’s App & Tap on Tuesday.
Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Mary Kay Woodworth talks with fellow supporters during the Lavista Hills viewing party at Sprig on Tuesday. Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Mary Kay Woodworth talks with fellow supporters during the Lavista Hills viewing party at Sprig on Tuesday.
Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Lavista Hills supporters sport I'm a Georgia Voter stickers during the viewing party at Sprig on Tuesday. Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Lavista Hills supporters sport I’m a Georgia Voter stickers during the viewing party at Sprig on Tuesday.
Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Mary Kay Woodworth checks polls results on her phone during the Lavista Hills viewing party at Sprig on Tuesday. Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Mary Kay Woodworth checks polls results on her phone during the Lavista Hills viewing party at Sprig on Tuesday.
Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Matt Slappey (left) and Amy Parker check their phones for poll results during the Lavista Hills viewing party at Sprigs on Tuesday. Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Matt Slappey (left) and Amy Parker check their phones for poll results during the Lavista Hills viewing party at Sprig on Tuesday.
Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Allen Venet (center) talks with Amy Parker during the Lavista Hills viewing party at Sprigs on Tuesday. Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Allen Venet (center) talks with Amy Parker during the Lavista Hills viewing party at Sprig on Tuesday.
Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Sonja Szubski signs the Tucker 2015 sign during the election night party on Main St. on Tuesday. Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Sonja Szubski signs the Tucker 2015 sign during the election night party on Main St. on Tuesday.
Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Julian Saden (right) and Codey Bearden hang out in downtown Tucker during the election night party on Tuesday. Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Julian Saden (right) and Codey Bearden hang out in downtown Tucker during the election night party on Tuesday.
Photo: Jonathan Phillips

Correction: This story has been updated to identify which specific groups called for CEO Lee May’s resignation. Tucker supporters have not issued a statement regarding May’s status as CEO. 

 

About Decaturish.com

View all posts by Decaturish.com

  • dmforman

    Thank you Decaturish for all of the coverage that you’ve done on annexation and cityhood. We appreciate you.

    • MAC

      Here, here! Ditto, Dan and Decaturish. A veritable yeoman’s work on cityhood coverage throughout this long, hard journey. Please know that the community is appreciative, and looks forward to the growth and continued success of this important local news outlet. Thank you.

      • notapunk

        Thanks Dan, for being the only outlet that covered so many of the angles that others ignored and being a go-to place for information.
        Thanks, too, for letting all of us, for and against cityhood, vent all of our thoughts and frustrations.

  • DeKalb voter

    I agree: thank you, Decaturish, for your excellent and unbiased coverage of this election. No thanks go to cityhood opponents who issued a robocall at 8 PM on Monday night, Nov. 2 (with no opportunity for refutation) suggesting, absurdly, that taxes would go up 24% in LaVista Hills during the first year of cityhood.

    • MAC

      I’m certainly not supporting those pesky robocalls, but the truth be told, LaVista Hills lost totally on its own merits. The robocalls, I believe, made little difference in the outcome.

  • ThatOne

    Coverage was very helpful. I am hopeful that the DeKalb Strong and LaVista Hills cityhoodinitiative will now come together to help improve DeKalb County. I doubt many will, but one can always hope!!!

  • DHH

    Very close vote. I’m not in favor of all these tiny cities in metro ATL as I feel they have negative impact on aspects such as public transportation. That said, if I were in the La Vista group I would certainly look at the election results as validation that there is some interest for a city in that general area. For not that much money, they were able to get very granular polling data on which specific areas want in and which want out. With a few boundary tweaks, another check to the CVI, and perhaps a slightly better name, they will have their own city in 2 years.

    That is unless Tucker and Brookhaven eat all their candy before then.

    • A Gok

      The LVH groups had much more money, political support a political consultant on their board, and were still not able to push the city through. I would hardly call that a validation.

      • Marlbey

        Agreed. Also, generally speaking, “yes” supporters show up in larger numbers to off-year elections (like this one, where there was virtually nothing else on the ballot.) It is practically unheard of for a “no” vote to pass in an off-year, so I suspect opposition was much stronger than the ballot count indicates. If LaVista Hills had been part of a presidential or gubernatorial election ballot, the “no” vote would have been overwhelming.

        • DHH

          I am sure “they” will try again, but whoever the “they” is could change. This ballot gives the leadership of (Proposed New City) exactly the data they need. The “off year-ness” of elections could help or hurt. This ballot was fairly unique and as such there really isn’t much conventional wisdom to guide us on how it would have turned out in a different election cycle.

          The pro county group will help their mission if they can quickly pivot and make good on a promise to improve the county. Dekalb Strong has earned a victory, but at the same time inherited a huge responsibility. If they take their foot of the gas, the next vote could easily be 50.5% to 49.5%.

          • A Gok

            Dekalb Strong is not pro county. It is for cleaning up the county.

          • DHH

            I think of them more as Guardians of the Galaxy, but on a smaller scale. Their intentions are good, but they have lots of work to do.

    • Linda Hatt

      Much of the commercial property will be snatched up. LaVista Hills will no longer be viable.

      • Marlbey

        It likely wasn’t viable anyway. The feasibility study was performed using commercial areas that have since been annexed by Brookhaven (because those properties specifically petitioned Brookhaven in order to avoid being in LaVista), and commercial properties that wound up assigned to Tucker’s map. The LaVista Hills proponents never commissioned a second study (the cynic in me wonders if it is because they knew the study would not be favorable to their cause.). LVH should have failed if for no other reason than the absence of good data on viability.

    • Stephanie Lewis

      I’m sorry, after a great deal of hard work, we just won. I don’t want to be a city. My neighborhood, in the middle of the footprint, just went through the most divisive issue we’ve seen in our 20 years of living here. Friendships were lost. People are furious. This has been sad. If you wish to ponder or joke, would you do so at your expense? We live here.

    • DeKalb voter

      Almost all the “no” precincts came from the south side (especially Laurel Ridge), areas west of Clairmont along Briarcliff and south-central areas. Without Laurel Ridge, the initiative would have passed with votes to spare. One wonders if a city could be crafted leaving out the neighborhoods that don’t want it– if all the commercial property is not gobbled up by Brookhaven or Tucker, as you mentioned. However, I am not sure that too many people have the appetite for another long and expensive battle.

      • Staci

        Here’s the thing: those of us in Laurel Ridge tried to be “carved out” of the map and neither the legislators nor the leaders of the LaVista Hills movement would listen, since they needed us for viability. Given the contentious battles over the feasibility WITH our neighborhood in the map, not sure if your suggestion is an option.

      • Ernest

        Dv, Laurel Ridge neighborhood got a bad rap on all this because it was incorrectly labeled. What has been and is being incorrectly called “Laurel Ridge” is actually much, much bigger and is all the neighborhoods in the Shamrock area – Pine Glen, Laurel Ridge, Pangborn, Wilson Woods, Fork Creek Hills, Country Squire, parts of Springbrook and other neighborhoods around there. It is the Shamrock Precinct, not just the Laurel Ridge neighborhood around the elementary school. There actually is no Laurel Ridge precinct at all. That area of neighborhoods should be correctly called Shamrock or Shamrock precinct, not Laurel Ridge.

        There is still so much misinformation around. Little Laurel Ridge neighborhood alone being in or out wouldn’t make a major difference either way. Those residents should not be blamed for what all the neighborhoods around them in Shamrock did or didn’t do.

        Reality is that Shamrock as a whole, erroneously called “Laurel Ridge”, is enclosed in the interior of the LVH city limits, surrounded by all the neighborhoods from there to I-78, I-285, and the area all around and the other side of N DeKalb Mall up to the other side of QT, and up N Druid Hills Rd to the Willivee red light. It was and is impossible to just cut a hole out of the doughnut, whether for little Laurel Ridge neighborhood or the whole Shamrock precinct.

        My guess is that many who talk about it have not looked carefully at that whole part of the map. The situation is comparable to Leafmore, Oak Grove, Northlake, or any other interior neighborhood arbitrarily saying “Take us out!” It could not be done by the legislature; state law forbids creating “islands.”

  • MAC

    Try Knot to conflate: First, DeKalb Strong’s stance against LaVista Hills does not imply a support FOR Tucker cityhood. Tucker and LaVista Hills had two very different cityhood models and approaches. Tucker didn’t win its cityhood bid because of DeKalb Strong “support.”; it won because its residents overwhelmingly (74%) were presented with a reasonable cityhood model and approach that reflected the spirit and ethos of their community. Second, Tucker becoming a city IN NO WAY means that they are “no longer a part of DeKalb.” Far from it! Tucker is now one of a list of other incorporated municipalities (cites) that are located in DeKalb County like Avondale Estates, like Brookhaven, like Chamblee, like Clarkston, like Decatur, like Doraville, like Dunwoody, like Stone Mountain, etc. (I’m sure I’m missing a few others). These are cities located in DeKalb County and still cooperate with and receive a list of services from the county. ALL cities in Georgia will exist within a county. (Atlanta in Fulton County; Morrow in Clayton County, Norcross in Gwinnett County, Marietta in Cobb County, etc., etc., etc.).

    • blackbird13

      True, and looking at your list, I note that all of those cities have their own police (and Decatur has its own schools), while Tucker will not. Tucker, though it has a strong community identity which helped it win the vote for incorporation, will be the least “separate” from DeKalb of any of the DeKalb cities.

      • MAC

        I hear you, Blackbird. Good points. But I would say that whether or not a city has its own police department or school system is not what makes it more or less connected to the county. If all or most of these cities continue to get other services like parks and recreation, water and sanitation, or road and sidewalk enhancements from DeKalb (which most of them do), does that fact make them a degree “more” connected (sentimentally) to the county than if they provided those services for themselves? I think there’s little connection. A municipal community’s feeling a sense of sentimental connection to its parent county is based many intangibles such as attitude and perception. The City of Decatur is located in the “heart” of the DeKalb county seat of government. Geography alone creates a perception of “closeness” to the county for Decatur than, let’s say, Doraville or Dunwoody. So geography is another variable. By the way, the City of Decatur has its own school system, not because it wants to separate itself from DeKalb County Schools, but rather because founded at the turn of the 20th century, Decatur City Schools and any school system in the state that existed prior to 1945, were able to remain in tact. Newly created school systems are prohibited by the Georgia State Constitution.

        • blackbird13

          I was thinking primarily in terms of tax dollars. Schools and police consume the vast majority of them, so Tucker, for example, will continue to send the vast majority of its tax dollars to DeKalb.

    • Thomas Walker

      You missed Pine Lake and Lithonia.

  • Tom Doolittle

    I’m doing a precinct review to see the % turnout and vote differences. Guessing more support on the Top End, but a disappointing turnout there.

    • Samb

      Looking forward to reading your findings. You’ll have to drill down further than precinct level, though — some precincts were split Lavista Hills/Tucker or Lavista Hills/nothing, so individual voters at the same precinct had different ballots, resulting in some puny looking “turnout” numbers.

      (Edit: Although I suppose you could extrapolate from the county ethics vote, which was on all ballots.)

      • Tom Doolittle

        OK–looks like you’ve tried this before.
        Thanks

        • Samb

          Not really, I just noticed in looking at the Lavista Hills tab on the xls what appeared to be wide disparities in the “turnout” in adjacent precincts. For instance, Midvale Elementary has 1642 registered voters, but only 25 cast a ballot in re the Lavista Hills question. Tab over to the Tucker question and you’ll find 692 ballots cast from the Midvale Elementary precinct, as that area is overwhelmingly to belong in the city of Tucker. Ergo, the best quick-and-dirty way to get turnout-by-precinct is to use the ethics question vote totals.

          Disclaimer: I am not a demographer — my ordinary area of study is baseball. Cue the disparagement!

          • Russell Carleton

            Can’t trust those baseball statisticians to do anything!

          • A Gok

            Russell you were so cool about the abuse you endured! Sorry people were so ugly, but glad you have a thick skin.

    • travelingfool

      on thoughts on how this outcome will affect Decatur’s next annexation attempt or will that still even be on the table?

      • Tom Doolittle

        I don’t see why Decatur would be in a hurry to annex neightborhoods based on their rejection of Clairmont Hills this year. Neighborhoods would have to vote themselves in by 100% “Yes”–or vote 60% yes to have a legislative vote. In other words, at this point, unless the political calculus (ie: deals) don’t change with Democrat legislators (MMO), the City won’t be looking for neighborhoods (its all about school overcrowding.
        It has to be an “opt-in” scenario by the neighborhood itself.

        However, I think the legislative committee is considering a “baby step”. That is, authorizing (or forcing) the county and cities to work on an “annexation map” which defines the entire county in one city or another. These are essentially “annexation rights” that cannot be exceeded. The individual cities then take whatever time is needed to make the annexations happen (or not).

  • turnoutthelights

    Somebody’s got to say it: 136 vote difference out of thousands. 50/50 split. The no-class bunch of DS should stop gloating and figure out how they are going to “fix” DeKalb for the 50% of LVH voters who saw through their baloney and tried.

  • Linda Hatt

    I’m not sure those folks who voted down LaVista Hills fully understand what their future may hold. Atlanta, Tucker, Brookhaven and Decatur will most likely annex the proposed LH area down to a unincorporated area of with boundaries of N Druid Hills, I-85 and Briarlake Rd. The remaining neighborhoods will be a little “island” at the mercy of corrupt DeKalb. Rader and Gannon will be outvoted in their efforts to preserve our community.

    Another layer of government is not ideal, but at least it would have been our own government. We would have had much more control to protect our community(ies) from more townhomes (=traffic) and hookah bars that stay open until wee hours.

    Sadly, low information voters won again.

    • Marlbey

      It was the LaVista Hills supporters (and the earlier iterations) that kicked off this cascading land grab. The communities of Tucker/ Druid Hills/ Laurel Ridge/ Medlock and my own Emory area neighborhood were happily unincorporated. But we were forced to explore incorporation or annexation in large part because of the grabby LaVista Hills (and their earlier iterations) threatened to incorporate us, which we did not care for, or threatened to make us an isolated island, which we did not care for, all while poaching our commercial sources of revenue, which we did not care for. Ironic that the ill conceived, poorly executed, and ultimately doomed LaVista Hills citihood movement sparked rival citihood movements for the otherwise happily unincorporated DeKalb neighborhoods, and LaVista Hills that now faces the prospect of being unincorporated and having its revenue generating properties gobbled up by the rival movements it forced into being.

      • Linda Hatt

        I started off leaning away from cityhood. I agree that the beginning of the movement was hideous to watch. But witnessing the ever-increasing corruption of DeKalb government made me lose hope that anyone at the county level (other than Rader and Gannon) gives a damn about preserving communities in our area.

        • Suzie Lavista’s Nieghbor

          No one can annex this area unless we the people decide that is what we want. No city can just add us unilaterally. The LVH did a good job on the scaring people with this line of BS. Fortunately they didn’t scam enough people into believing it.

          • Linda Hatt

            But the cities can annex all of the commercial area. If folks change their mind and want to be a city, it will be impossible without the commercial areas.

          • Marjorie Snook

            Not unless the commercial areas want it. Many commercial owners have resisted cities efforts to annex them. Right now, 40 businesses are fighting to get OUT of Doraville. Cities try to annex commercial all the time and usually fail.

          • Tom Doolittle

            Marjorie is correct unless the commercial owners have something very specific in mind and the city is willing to forego taxes.
            Small cities in DeKalb have never emphasized economic development in this manner. Decatur wanted a commercial center this year and the owner wasn’t interested due to higher taxes. However, if the owner had sway in Decatur, but not DeKalb over a development plan and zoning issue, the owner would be getting something.
            If you look at comments on Brookhaven Post about Chamblee’s extremely static economic development stance, they are only now looking at “packages” of incentives–never have before.
            The situation for Brookhaven annexing over I-85 was an abberation compared to the way older small cities operate (and the property owners’ motives). The new cities have to prioritize this kind of action because they operate on a shoestring.
            New cities with immature land-use systems and decision-makers along valuable interstate corridors are a recipe for trouble. Thankfully, Decatur isn’t that way.
            Chamblee and Doraville, may take the bait.

          • Marlbey

            Brookhaven annexing over 85 was supported by the commercial specifically because that commercial did ~not~ want to be in LaVista Hills. Which brings me back to my original point. LaVista Hills touched off this annexation/ citihood chain reaction with its poorly thought out plans, so can’t complain that it is now the victim of the chain reaction.

          • Save Tucker!

            I believe a city can only annex commercial if that commercial area asks to be included.

  • Dekalb Sucks

    Disgusted with Dekalb County and how corrupt and worthless our representatives are. We are just going to move to Cumming for the best schools in the state, lower property taxes and Not so corrupt politicians.

    • Graybeard

      hahahaha enjoy Forsyth County, you won’t be missed. Spoiler alert: they’re just as corrupt up in North Georgia, only they have an (R) next to their name instead of a (D). Just about the only difference.

      • Jeff Boatright

        I’m trying to understand what the true corruption was. The “leaked” two-page letter from the consultants (claiming “rotten to the core!”) wasn’t supported by the actual report, leaving me to wonder whether the consultants, having found no real corruption, felt the need to exaggerate in order to justify their enormous fee. To my reading, the basic finding was misuse of p-cards to a level that suggests poor choice but not corruption — there was very little finding of net personal gain, just inefficient or non-policy use. Whoop-dee-do.

  • Suzie Lavista’s Neigbor

    Cityhood lost for a few simple reasons. The first is they did not listen to the people. They included in their map fringe areas that told them no thanks. Those area voted heavily no which tilted the vote to no. They also lost because they were led by people who in my opinion where dishonest. They lied from the get go at the Lakeside meetings when they told us they were not there to advocate and then spent the next hour advocating. They continued the dishonestly throughout by never revealing who put up the 60k for the studies or who paid their lobbyist. They never answered tough factually based questions on facebook or nextdoor. In a lot of cases they just deleted them and blocked those people from asking more or commenting further. They played dumb on Milar changing the agreed on borders with tucker at last minute. Then here at the end they played dumb in saying they had no idea where the illegal robo calls and mysterious mailers came from despite proof the mailers came from the company of one of their board members. People like me who were neutral were watching the actions of LVH Yes and LVH alliance. They preached ethics and transparency but then acted just the opposite. In the end I decided I did not need another layer of government in my life that was unethical and non transparent so I voted no. How much you want to bet there where at least another 150 people like me who had you been honest with us would have swung the vote the other way. Unfortunately there is way to much money from outside this area behind this so I am guessing like cockroaches they will be back again.

  • HB

    Dekalb Strong and their supporters showed their true colors a) when they didn’t SLAM HOME the need to storm the Lee May town halls. Had they been honest about “fixing Dekalb”, they would have put out an effort to mobilize their troops. I don’t even think I saw Marjorie there. And b) when they had no problem with Tucker “seceding” (their words) from Dekalb. Which most of us know is not what really happens, but is what they were accusing LVH of doing.

    From the outside, it appears to have been a sham outfit based on these two facts.
    They lost credibility when they had an opportunity to show up to the real events, and didn’t. As it is, they wanted to squash LVH singularly, and control others choices for thier own properties in the process. There’s a word for that. And now that their funding was released (after the deadline — something they were so indignant toward LVH about), you can see now who was really behind the effort. SMH.

    • factivist

      HB, where do I find the DS financial report? Please post a link. All I find at the ethics site is still 9/2/15.

    • Marjorie Snook

      We released out funding on the deadline.

      I wasn’t at the meetings because one commitment I made to my husband and children is that I would miss bedtime more than twice a week. And my schedule was packed. So in a very real way, the cityhood nonsense prevented me from being engaged with the county issues. I did what I could, but I have a full time job and two small kids.

      Disclosure is here: http://dekalbcounty.gaeasyfile.com/SearchResults.aspx

      • factivist

        Thanks!

      • HB

        I can understand being busy. But you and/or your volunteers had plenty of time to post about other things. And you did. You could have had a major call to action at the very least. For even one of the many events. Please understand how it looks to us citizens.

        And please understand the impression we’re left, knowing that people outside the area’s bounds strived for, and achieved, the goal of squashing someone else’s one chance at some local planning.

        May we ask what is your group’s next official move is?

        • Marjorie Snook

          We posted relentlessly about the first meeting at Maloof–we did have a major call to action.

          I am inside these boundaries, as are the majority of our volunteers. Unlike with the cityhood proponents, everybody involved lived in communities deeply impacted by this vote. Cityhood proponents believed that the impact of their plans on their neighbors was immaterial. But those impacted neighbors did get involved.

          For our next official move, I am going to spend some time with my neglected family. but soon enough we will be rolling again. We plan to push for a DeKalb County charter commission, as well as to work to publicize the very important District 4 and D.A. races, in which we have promising candidates (Mike Bowers stated, remember, that putting a good D.A. in place was maybe one of the most important things we could do to address corruption problems). it will take some discussion to figure out what our county- and Assembly-agenda, and it depends on what seems doable.

          Of course, we will also watch the annexation, fight them, and push for vital reforms to the cityhood and annexation process.

        • Save Tucker!

          D.S. members were present at the Lee May meeting in Tucker. They presented a petition and pushed for him to resign.

  • Kit Fritters

    Now they are trying to claim the election was unfair. They changed the way cities were formed, from a 60% vote to 50%+1, and NOW they try to cry foul. Bully tactics. Plain and simple.

    • Thomas Walker

      Cityhood does not require any vote let alone a 60% vote. Sandy Springs was the first where the General Assembly put it to a referendum. Annexations require a vote – some with 60%, others with 50%+1.

  • Thomas Walker

    No, DeKalb Strong opposed our (Tucker’s) cityhood too. In fact, they oppose all cityhood in DeKalb. However, Marjorie Snook does not live in our community and convinced very few here to vote no to Tucker.

Receive the Daily Email DIgest

* = required field