Dropping Like Flies

After a recent $40M judgment against a DeKalb Hotel on allegations of supporting human trafficking (AKA prostitution) another hotel has settled a strikingly similar case to the tune of $6M. Quite a savings. This does call to mind the Dunwoody PD's falsified police reports justified on the basis of protecting local hoteliers whose properties may, or may not, be hotspots for human trafficking. Is this aiding and abetting? Are these kinds of judgments and settlements headed to Dunwoody? Does anyone wonder if a jury might find the city liable should a case present itself? Are any of those wonderers at city hall? Is it at all possible for the police department to ever do the right thing, and do that thing the right way?

No Will?

A certain founding councilman is at it again, this time proclaiming that what is sorely lacking at city hall is the will to act, to re-imagine and re-create Dunwoody as a sustainable center of innovation. As he has been, he is absolutely correct, but there is much more missing at city hall than mere willpower. 

Dunwoody has no vision because they have no visionaries. The founding councilman points out that we do not, we should not, invite outside consultants to create a vision for us. Correct again. But if not these outsiders, then who? None of the unelected bureaucrats have any vision that is not handed to them by these consultants, or by folks waving grant money under their noses, or developers who have them on speed dial. Either way, vision is that of outsiders. The elected cheerleaders are no better as the only vision they have is what the unelected serve up. 

The other thing in desperately short supply at city hall is creativity and original thinking. This has been the case since day one. Whether a motto, logos or an artist's IPR city hall has been a den of plagiarists and thieves. The irony of the original motto/logo being on a recycle bin should be of no surprise to anyone.

Plano Texas...Meet Walmart.

Without creativity, without originality, without thinking, there will be no innovation, no matter how strong the will. This city is a bunch of children trying to spell "G-O-D" with all the wrong blocks.

Property Taxes

Oh please! Not again. Sorry, but it is a never ending saga.

Our neighbors in Fulton County are in a bit of a snit over what they see as unfair treatment of homeowners vs commercial property owners as it relates to assessments. They have observed that homeowners are assessed based on comparable sales, while commercial real estate assessments are calculated by other means, often resulting in under-assessment of these properties. Not surprisingly, the homeowners assert this means under-payment of property taxes by commercial property owners. 

Do they have a point?

Yes, they do. Despite what our head cheerleader would like you to believe there is quite a bit of turnover in the residential real estate market making comparable-sales assessments not only possible, but also the most reasonable method of assessing market value. 

Commercial properties do not see that kind of sales turnover and the businesses that own them would balk at that form of assessment anyway. Businesses view these properties, these buildings, as assets, and for business and tax purposes, assets depreciate, representing the fact these service life of an asset and the need to replace it. Helps explain why they love the occasional teardown and rebuild. Plus, local governments will shield these "re-developments" from any taxes for a few years, allowing for that depreciating assets algorithm to kick in. 

The folks in Fulton have observed that when commercial properties do go on the market and do sell, they often command a market price twice or more than the county's assessment. Anything else would be man-bites-dog headline news. It turns out this isn't just Fulton, but DeKalb as well, and we have an existence proof very close to home. Prior to selling to the city, the owners of the building that is now city hall, were appealing the counties assessment of $2M. Before the appeal was resolved they sold that very same property to the city for $4M. For all the time these properties are not assessed in the same way your home always has been the commercial property owners have been carrying one half the tax burden you bear. The next time some soft-brained adultling whines that apartment dwellers pay the "full tax" you might try reminding them that apartments are commercial properties. 

You might also remember, at the ballot box, how this city has bent over backwards for commercial properties, and their propaganda notwithstanding, they have done little for you. After all, have you heard of the mayor or anyone on council reaching out to the county to create an assessment process that more accurately marks commercial properties to true market value? No? Well, have you heard any of them dismissively point out it is the county, not the city that assesses property? Thought so. 

Down In The River

Should we try praying to fix this? Nothing else has worked.

The River...

...Is Spring Fed

And let us pray.

Retirement Age

Ah, the "retirement age." So many meanings. Is it the period of time we are now entering where significant numbers will age out of work, to be followed by a dip in the size of the next generation to age out? Is it how old you must be to start collecting Social Security? Is it when you start "aging in place" whatever the hell that is?

Well, aging in place is the easiest to answer: it is a marketing ploy used by developers to force high density where it isn't wanted and doesn't belong. Think: the Life South property. This tactic is nothing new. We've been treated to "live-work-play" and "transit oriented development" and "mixed use," all marketing slogans used by developers to take our community where they want it to go---profits for themselves. Now we have the mantra of "age in place" and "affordable housing" to convince folks that hundreds of apartments should be built where none are needed. And they apparently have the shakers and movers at city hall, including the city manager, in their pocket. The DHA? Not so much. 

The plan is simple, use these marketing tactics to push the development over the line. Pressure has been applied, "deferral is denial" in an attempt to force a hasty decision, thought this has been walked back. A good mantra for those in the approval chain would be "make haste slowly" but that isn't likely to resonate with city hall. The actuality differs from the marketing promo. By quite a bit. First, the plan calls for a 55+ community of affordable apartments, whatever that means, with the implication this will have no impact on schools. After all how many 55+ have kids in schools? Well, that there is a fork in the road. Turns out, the rules for 55+ are pretty loosey goosey. Only one of the renting adults needs to be over 55, the other could be significantly younger and might well have school age children. Then there is the 80/20 rule, which says that up to 20% of the units could be rented to anyone of any age, which explains the developer's plan for three bedroom units. Even then there is the issue of enforcement. With resident owned 55+ units there is a HOA which is responsible for enforcing residency rules and is granted some means to effectuate enforcement. These are rentals, managed by a for-profit management firm whose primary objective is maximize profit by way of maximizing occupancy, a clear disincentive to enforcing the 80/20 rule. And will the city do anything? Hell no, they don't enforce sign ordinances or issue traffic citations. They're sure as hell not going to get involved here, and it isn't clear where they would even get the data needed to monitor residents' age. Same for DHA. 

Now if the developers were really committed to building something for that age-in-place crowd, they'd make it a 62+ development. Here we're talking a bit higher bar for the residents as both adults, assuming two, must be 62 or older. Even better, and easier to monitor, all residents must be 62+ and there is no 80/20 rule. Enforcement is stricter and it is much easier to implement oversight, And, at 62, you're getting pretty close to retirement age, or at least the minimum age to take Social Security. For now. You're not likely at this age to have school age children so there is no reason, no rationalization for three-bedroom units, allowing for more units in total. For developers isn't more better? Also, this is the time of life where many people are making the transition from work to fixed income. 

No one should be surprised if the developer pushes back on any suggestion that their age-in-place profit-taking scheme be compromised with a 62+ requirement. But here's the thing to watch for: how does the city manager react to such a suggestion?

What's Wrong With Us?

As in, what's wrong with us, with us being us? There must be something. We hear it all the time. Coming from city hall and all those folks who run this city. The city we voted into existence.

We're a suburban community, a bit upscale but not posh, always have been, always liked it. Still do. This was never a community of "starter homes" and even the smaller houses have always been priced at a premium. And what's wrong with that? EXACTLY what is wrong with that? Is there something wrong with those McMansions being built across from the Fire Station on Roberts? You know, the ones starting at $1.6M. Who's going to buy those? Well, that would be the same kind of folks who bought their Redfield four-four-and-a-door thirty years ago: people buying their step-up home, perhaps their forever home, and very often transplants with a good relo package. Not some mid-20's kid who's just starting out and who, if you follow the science, sports a frontal cortex that is not fully formed. So, in a normal mind, what's wrong with being an upscale community?

We've also never been fans of density. Why? Because density brings crime because density brings people. More and more people. And there is not a peer-reviewed study, even one funded by developers, that shows  that increasing density decreases the per capita rate of crime. Therefore: more people; more crime. This ain't even maths, this is arithmetic. Real. Simple. Arithmetic. So exactly how is it wrong for Dunwoody to not want more crime, to not invite more crime into our community?

Let's talk apartments. Dunwoody has always been against apartments. And by Dunwoody, we mean the community of folks who built this place and who in a moment clouded by enthusiasm, voted this city into existence. They have a very good reason for not liking apartments: schools. Certainly this is DeKalb and touting the school system as a whole is a precarious position to take, but there is no doubt whatsoever that folks pay a premium to get their kids into Vanderlyn, above and beyond the Dunwoody premium. It's a tight community (within a community) and apartments bring (more) overcrowding and transients. Not community stalwarts. Dunwoodians like their schools and they want them to be better, not worse. What's wrong with that?

Our "development" has always been organic, especially around the Village, Orchard Park and Georgetown. Dunwoodians like it like that, in no small part because they don't like things forced upon them. Someone wants to chase their life-long dream of running a restaurant? Fine. If it's any good, if it suits the community then they will do well, even thrive. If not, well...next. Mellow Mushroom has done well for quite some time, as has Village Burger. NFA is winning awards. Vintage has been a few places: Pavillion II; Corner Bar; MudCatz. Steak & Grace is the third steakhouse in that location. You do what you do, you do it well, you respect the community, and you will thrive, and...you're welcome. This is the essence of organic development. Dunwoodians like that. They really, really like when someone from the community, or coming to the community, tries to understand and serve the community, yet somehow that is seen as wrong.

Yeah, we like our streets paved, but more than that we like safe streets, and back in the day we had them. The referendum sales job would give anyone the impression that DeKalb North Precinct officers flocked to Buford Highway, but the fact is, if you reported speeding or other traffic violations in your neighborhood, DeKalb PD would send out a patrol and put a stop to it. We expected more of that and the definition of disappointment is "unmet expectations." We're disappointed. But it is hard to fathom how we're wrong, wrong to want speeders and red-light runners off our streets. 

We were told about "local control," because we really, really don't like outsiders telling us what to do with our lives, with our community. And we really didn't like Decatur telling us what to do or how they, as outsiders, seemed to be ruining our community. So we were told things would certainly be better when our elected officials were nearby neighbors, as certainly they would not screw over another neighbor, someone you might see about town, at church, or shopping. What they didn't tell us was that would be because they really cannot do anything, good or bad, and they neglected to tell us that unelected bureaucrats would be running this place, and they are so far removed from the ballot box that vox populi is on full mute. By action, since the very beginning, we're being told there is no local control, and in fact, we were wrong to want it, and to expect it. 

These bureaucrats have no interest in listening to us or in understanding us. Instead they understand and listen to those who best advance the bureaucrats' interests, and they are more than willing to sell Dunwoody out from under us. That's why we get a unanimous vote in support of a developer's damp dream of making a fortune building hundreds of (unwanted) apartments on Ashford Dunwoody. In further support, they'll tout the "over 55" nature of the development, suggesting no impact on schools, knowing full well this is neither rigorous nor enforced. Not by Dunwoody bureaucrats anyway. They will do their obligatory "soliciting public input" sessions but any public pushback will be ignored and all comments will be cherry picked in support of what they were going to do all along. They don't care what we want or what we like, and they don't even care to find out. They cater to outside interests, be it developers, or grant funders doing what these entities want regardless of what the community wants or even needs. And they are so profoundly, completely banal. We have a logo that looks like someone spent all of five minutes cruising Google Images and settled on something more commonly associated with places on a river. Not Dunwoody. Some son of a son of a bible salesman sold them on "place making" so they join in the Sign Wars and we end up with Dunwoody Dildoes scattered around the city outskirts. Here's a clue for the mental munchkins at city hall: we ARE a place and we always have been. Then we simply must pave interstate lanes all across our residential areas. Why? Because everyone else is doing it. So the rule in this city is: we cannot be ourselves, we must be like everyone else, because being ourselves, well that's just plain wrong. 

And why is Dunwoody, our Dunwoody, the one of our making, so reviled at city hall? Why do they cater to outsiders rather than us? It is as if they are trying to destroy us, destroy our community. Think of it this way: if they were really trying to destroy Dunwoody, what would they do differently?  And, if you could vote all over again, would you vote differently?