Dunwoody Merges With Brookhaven

Details are just emerging but the AJC put the public on notice that a merger between Dunwoody and Brookhaven is in the works.

A non-profit has been established to promote and advance the merger with pre-merger Task Forces already established. Insiders indicated one of the most contentious is the Naming Task Force, where proposals have ranged from Dunhaven to Brookwood[y] to Pavedpark City to Cycle City to Teaborough and even City of Rightwing. The latter has been rejected as being too obvious.

As expected the City Charter Task Force is in turmoil. Some have suggested the merged city be headed by a mayor and a vice-mayor as hands-on CEO and COO respectively. Thankfully the suggestion that the charter require the mayor to be named "Davis" was promptly batted down. There has been no mention of a role modeled after a corporate CFO as this is government so cost containment isn't an issue and taxes are easily and routinely added and increased. Some have voiced concern about the number of Council members with the current plan being to add additional members. To ensure "proper" minority representation the districts will remain aligned north-south but this combined with the increase in Council is making for some very skinny districts. A proposed alternative is to increase the number of at-large Council members but there is some concern about attracting the attention of the Feds.

The Operations Task Force has proposed a restructured police force emphasizing enforcement, eliminating some desk jockeys and downplaying the revenue-by-fine model.  No one really expects this to make it into the charter let alone into practice.

Of course these are all unconfirmable reports as the non-profit is private and none of their activities are subject to open records requests.

We won't have to wait long for the dust to settle and details to emerge, but one thing everyone is excited about is that Dunwoody will finally be rid of purloined "Smart City" moniker.

Brookhaven Police Department

As Brookhaven is on the brink of becoming a city modeled closely on Dunwoody, it might be of interest for voters to examine Dunwoody's Police Department Five Year Staffing Recommendation. You will note around a half million USD increase each year increasing the budget percentage dedicated to Police from over 27% to over 34%.

The first paragraph of Grogan's "Discussion" warrants attention down in Brookhaven:

The staffing level of the Police Department has been a topic of discussion since the early planning stages of the City of Dunwoody. Staffing the Department at an appropriate level is critical to ensure we provide our community with the services required to educate, partner and protect them.

Setting aside the silliness of the police prioritizing "educate" over "protect" in this self-proclaimed "City of Smart", the basic message, "talked about all the time" and "it's always about staffing, which means MORE staffing", should resonate with folks on both sides of the City of Brookhaven issue.

Take a few moments and read the recommendations for yourself. Then ponder what it really means in the context of Brookhaven.

It's Debatable

Or is it?

In the Battle of Brookhaven the latest gauntlet cast down is The Great Debate.

Old School.

Face to Face.

The challenge is offered by one of the most vocal advocates of Cityhood, who just happens to be a lawyer. A lawyer skilled in weaving a story around any given set of facts to support his view and his agenda. And a lawyer blessed with oratory skills, a dollop of charisma, and those skills have been honed to a razor sharp edge by years of courtroom practice.

The proposed opponent in the face to face Texas Cage Match will be equipped with virtually no oratory skills and little practice. Were it his choice, The Advocate would like a retired librarian with a speech impediment and preferably Tourette's Syndrome. But certainly not a skilled public speaker who might understand that it isn't what you say, it is how you say it.

But why the challenge? Because the "facts", even spun out like cotton candy, may not carry the day. And these "facts" seem to change on a daily basis, and while they generally change to support The Advocate, after a while this "flexibility" calls into question the veracity of any claim. If the facts are so malleable now, how amorphous will they become after the vote?

So now The Advocate is forced to fall back on Shyster 101:

1. Pound the Facts and when that doesn't work, 
2. Pound the Law and when that fails,
3. Pound the Table

We are now at the point of "Pound the Table".

But what happens when evasiveness, charisma and oratory skills overcome uncontested facts and common sense? Well, we'll just have to wait and see.

But while we wait perhaps we can get a clue...

Guide to Brookhaven

Or more precisely, a guide to the "NO CITY" Brookhaven community.

Top of list has to be Ashford Neighbors, self-proclaimed as "a grassroots organization dedicated to preserving our community". We will assume their community is "Ashford" which will be part and only a parcel of the forthcoming City of Brookhaven.

Then there is No New City of Brookhaven, which hints at a twelve-step approach for those drunk on the Koolaid, but seems stalled at step one: Admitting there is a problem.

Hot on their heels is a similarly named No City Brookhaven, offering a "No Fear" approach to presenting the facts around the increasingly contentious issue of the cityhood referendum. An identically named blog, seems to offer much the same information, and like this blog is immune to the cacophony of annoying poems and irrelevant drivel cluttering up other local information outlets.

By and large you will find much the same information and resource links at all these, and there may be more, but each comes in a slightly different package. They all take the same approach, presenting the facts, though this has time and again been proven ineffective when political rhetoric is the opponent's weapon of choice.

But at least they publish the facts and provide relevant references so the voters cannot legitimately claim a year down the road that they were misled by pro-city rhetoric with no way to know what was really going on. They will make the claim nonetheless, as the first part will certainly be true.

Brookhaven: Smarter Than We Think They Are

Google Analytics indicates that the fine folk of Brookhaven will not go blindly into a forced-upon-them city. They have shown particular interest in a couple of points that warrant comment.

The first is franchise fees:

1. A tax by any other name. All monies go into the general fund and not into an account set aside exclusively for the stated purpose of the levy.
2. Taking franchise fees as a whole, and comparing to combined property tax  with HOST property tax subsidy, franchise fees are the second largest income item. It is just another way to spell greed.
3. It is the "best kind of tax" as it is largely paid by folks without a vote, particularly businesses and to some degree folks in unincorporated areas. Screw them, eh?
4. By and large the county didn't receive these fees, yet the infrastructure these fees are allegedly required for are in place and doing quite nicely.  How can that be?
5. Franchise fee revenue makes any comparison stating the city will provide same or better services for "less taxes" morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Slimy politicians are pretty sure voters will tax themselves a dime to get a dollar from other folks, but to the extent that these citizen-voters are customers of local business, the voters are simply paying a pass-along tax. To mystify the reality city proponents are using the "Starbucks" tactic: this will cost you less per (month/week/day) than a latte at Starbucks. That they even have to address it at all is a credit to the soon-to-be good citizens of Brookhaven.

The second hot topic appears to be privatization of government services. This too is over-hyped by those hell-bent on yet another city in DeKalb.

1. It has it's place. If you have a janitor, auto mechanic or copier repair-woman on what will inevitably be a payroll characterized by gold-plated benefits then you are a fool.
2. Much like the city itself, the finances of wholesale outsourcing do not pass the smell test. The outsourcing company may offer economies of scale, but have no doubt, just as you will pay for new city bureaucrats, you will also pay for the profits and bonuses of these private outsourcing companies. How can this possibly be more cost effective?
3. You can re-bid often if you don't like the services or costs, but you will soon find you've exhausted all your options. Fact is there are not that many companies to turn to for turn key operation.
4. When you outsource services, you outsource quality, you outsource accountability and you outsource transparency. Any part of a city operation where you might, just maybe, want to make an open records request is not something you want these politicians hiding behind an impenetrable wall of "corporate trade secrets".

Privatization had been all the rage, but now, eh, not so much. Even in Sandy Springs, the poster child for Three Pee Uh Oh, the enthusiasm has waned, the costs have skyrocket and the loss of control has been deemed intolerable. If Dunwoody can show Brookhaven how to do anything it would probably be where to draw the line between in-house services and those contracted out.

You will be told a lot of stories that do not align with this view of reality. But you will listen because these pandering political prevaricators will become your new city leadership. At least you are starting early and you are asking some smart questions. Keep up the good work.

Brookford Ashaven

The staged formation of Dunwoody hit its high point early in the first scene with the orgasmic screams of "yes, Yes, YES!" from our yellowed-tagged evangelists caught up in an artificial, but no less frenzied Pon Farr. By the end of the first act of their convoluted adaptation, the lust was sated, and the muddled second act punished the audience with the antics of two parties who found themselves in a permanent, but ungratifying union they neither liked nor respected. While scenes offered great tragic theatre, the outcome for Dunwoody has become much like a tattoo, a painful, increasingly embarrassing, but permanent reminder of a temporary feeling.

The audience seated to the south end of our theatre of the absurd, perhaps more mature or simply less hedonistic, have little enthusiasm for our prurient display of the political quickie, back alley knee knocker or our pimped out political prostitutes. They seem to have a less than favorable view of the brothel franchises,  "Citizens for where ever" and "over here YES!" that stage our plays.

Though plagued by similar sounding troupes, they hope to put on a different play, one where long after the memory of that first night mellows to a soft patina, a meaningful relationship grows, demonstrating the enduring value of gratification rather than celebrating the fleeting satisfaction of an animalistic urge. They are not inclined to stage "Oh! Calcutta!" but are more interested in an adaptation of "Fiddler on the Roof".

And yes, the representatives of their troupes make out nicely whether the play is a raging success or miserable flop. But to the thespians' credit, the prospective partners in this adaptation are less concerned about sex or wedding scenes and more about the marriage, seeking a union based on mutual respect and trust, eschewing any hasty union resulting from an intoxicating lust. They seem to understand that weltschmerz besets everyone, if they should live so long, and know time is required to build the kind of relationship that endures. Their play will not peak in Scene One, Act One.

If the folks up in Dunwoody would quit humming "Jack and Jill" and just listen, they would hear soft, sincere lyrics from the south:

"Golda? Do you love me?"

Good for Tevia. And good for Golda.

Brookhaven: Dunwoody Deja Vu

In two key regards Brookhaven is heading down the path recently paved by Dunwoody.

First is standard operating procedure for any powerful interest that wants to get their way: schedule a public vote at an inconvenient time, say the first Tuesday after the last new moon before the summer solstice. This provides the special interest with maximum benefit not just from ordinary public apathy, but also from summer distractions, vacations and outside activities. Expect them to push for a mid-summer vote where they can expect eighty percent approval from a very small turnout. And like Dunwoody, this will be done in a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR, when fall voter turnout will be at a four year peak.  Were they patriotic supporters of this country's democratic principals the referendum would be on the general ballot, but they are more than willing to subvert our ideals to gain even a minor advantage.

The second was honed if not formulated by the Citizens for Dunwoody: form a private non-profit to run various "Task Force" efforts. These task forces were simply brilliant. They engaged people who wanted to think of themselves as  "part of the movement" and by appealing to their inflated sense of self-importance, kept them harmlessly engaged in the cause. Since the organization is PRIVATE so are all the meetings and reports. All the real shakers and movers have to do is round up the busy-bodies, teach them a secret handshake and give them some busy-work. At that point the "Task Forcers" will go press the flesh, saying asinine things like "trust me, I know, I'm on a the Task Force and the county has it all screwed up--the City will do much better". This isn't just marketing, it is prosthelytizing as it is not a matter of fact, but rather an article of faith.

It is not too late nor too early for reasoning folks in Brookhaven to take action. They should make two non-negotiable demands:

1. put the cityhood referendum on the 2012 general election ballot
2. operate the Task Forces under the legal constraints of Georgia's Open Meeting Laws and publish Task Force reports no later than six weeks before the referendum

You will be given some reasons why this just cannot happen. Any attempt to justify an "early vote" is unadulterated crap. Period. They will attempt to deflect the task force issue by using the "private corporation" shield, but as with Dunwoody, should the Brookhaven referendum pass, the Governor's office will establish an operational committee for the city between passage and first day of operation. You are only asking that the Governor's office start before the referendum.

If Mikey cannot pull these two simple things off, then perhaps his city isn't ready for prime time.

Brookhaven: Learn from Dunwoody

Brookhaven is well along in fulfilling its destiny as the next city to incorporate in DeKalb and there is much to be learned from its slightly older sister to the north.

First, it is inevitable, don't fight it. You don't have to blindly embrace it, but fighting will be like swimming in quicksand, but with a peanut gallery rooting for the sand. In the end you're going down and all you will succeed in accomplishing is adding your name to the list that includes "Shrill Jill" and "Farmer Bob". But again, you don't have to just sit in the corner, eat your cookies and drink your milk. You can think. You can analyze. And...if you are very careful, you can criticize.

Your CVI study is complete. In terms of content this is relatively insignificant, but as a milestone it means that the dominant power structure is in place. Just check out the assumptions underpinning the foregone conclusion that "shows Brookhaven would be viable". Then pull that string. Who insisted on these assumptions? Is it the same group that paid for the study? Just who are these people--not a group--real, flesh and blood, money makin', power-hungry people? Who the hell are they? They need to be outed. Early.

These are the folks who will run your city for the first few to several years. And they will run it to their benefit, not the benefit of the Citizens of Brookhaven (see, now doesn't that just sound right?). They will be pulling the strings of council and mayor, but even before, it is these, the few, the empowered, that will draft your ordinances, set the rules that dominate your life, and unlike the benign neglect of DeKalb, these folks will see to it that you toe the line. Or else. If you're in a HOA and hate it, think of this as a HOA on steroids, with the power to tax, condemn, and compel with an armed force. If you're in a HOA and just love it, then you're probably one of the assholes that will be running the city anyway.

When it comes time to vote, not for the referendum--that will be rigged, but for mayor and council, you might want to pretend it is the second or third election, not the first. By the time you get to the third election you will have become thoroughly disillusioned with all the pompous asses that promote themselves as having been some kind of great contributor to the cityhood movement or who played patty-fingers with other power-hungry frat boys in one of the unavoidable string of "non-profits" that foisted this city upon you. Those are the people you'll certainly vote against then. Cut to the chase. Vote against them now.

And you might just want to look at the financials. See, the proponents of cityhood are gonna tell you how "we can have the same or better services for even less money". Maybe. And they love to point out the elimination of the bifurcated "Special Services Tax District" which covers two of the much ballyhooed "3-P's" of new DeKalb Cities: Police and Parks. Fact is, these have to be paid for, and you will have your own overhead to cover down at the newly minted city hall. Expect "parks bonds" to be floated within three years of incorporation. Expect a police force that is twice as large as you will be sold on pre-referendum and a never-ending stream of budget increases backed by little more than flag waving.

As you dig down into the revenue side you'll see a big chunk o' cash: franchise fees. Turns out the county gets virtually none of this money as it is not incorporated but your newly incorporated Brookhaven will, so any financial comparison that ignores this disparity is intellectually bankrupt. Now much of this money comes from folks in unincorporated areas of the state, including yourselves at this point, but it largely/only goes to cities. Some folks, often those in unincorporated areas, find this morally reprehensible. But, as has been pointed out by leaders in Dunwoody, this money is necessary to support the city, and in your case it helps eliminate that SSTD assessment. So it's OK, right? After all, you've been on the downside of this great moral divide and now it is your turn to reap the rewards. This is how "situation ethics" works. All you need to bring to the table is a very flexible moral spine and an equally firm sense of self righteousness.

But wait! There's more!

You're gonna start this city, so you're gonna need "City Services". One thing Dunwoody did right (really, you finally read it here) was to ignore the siren song of the "Shills for CH2M Hill" who were advocates of Whole Hog "P Three Uh Oh", otherwise known as "privatization". Clearly many services should not add head count to the city payroll with its generous benefit package--and yes, you will find one of the first things enacted will be generous benefits. If you have a janitor, electrician, HVAC tech, mechanic, or even an IT guy, on city payroll then you're an idiot. By the same token, you'll probably NOT want to contract for police services. But there is much grey in between. Fortunately there is a simple rule to follow in deciding whether to outsource or not: if you can envision requesting information under the Open Records Act, then you want that function in-house. Otherwise, you're screwed. Well, you're probably screwed anyway, but if they can throw up the "sorry, private business information" roadblock, then you're screwed, glued and tattooed.

And finally, don't let your guard down. You're gonna have yet another set of politicians that require constant watching and frequent changing. Buck up. You gotta do both every chance you get.