Our Floundering Fathers

Our founding fathers were stung by a recent news article covering the racial underpinnings of newly formed cities, including Dunwoody, a previously unincorporated suburb created by decades-long White flight. 

Did 'em's get 'em's li'l feelin's hurt?

Apparently, because these White men, and they are all men and all White, are basically shouting "I'm not a racist." Perhaps, but they were, and remain, clueless as any White man knows that is exactly what NOT to say. Not at this moment; not with today's movement.

They kick this off by claiming that a historian (we're going to grant a history professor, emeritus, that designation) had no evidence. How could that possibly be? Could it be that the founding fathers did their work behind the cloak of private corporations, Dunwoody Yes! and Citizens for Dunwoody? Could it be that there are no published meeting agendas or minutes? Could it be that there are no interim or final drafts of "Task Force" reports? You know, the reports that informed, mayhap even "drove," the actions of the founding fathers? Could it be because there is no historical record? Could that be because of the actions of our founding fathers and their co-conspirators?

They go on to enumerate what "drove" them to form a city as if it were out of their control, not an ambition of theirs, not a projection of their own egos. These drivers include areas where the city has shown epic failure but end with the old bromide of local control: "the desire to improve our community and control our own destiny, thus enhancing the quality of life for all our citizens." [emphasis added] They actually just laid that stinker right out there. They, who have turned this city over to any and every business that wants to exploit "their" citizens. They, who rose to power on promises of stopping apartment development built a city promoting expansion of rental properties throughout Dunwoody. Their city is notorious for police malfeasance and incompetence ranging from bungled investigations to DWB enforcement to citizen shootings to enforcement neglect to civil rights violations to odious sexual hijinks. It is a city well known for ethics violations and being on the losing end of numerous court cases. It is a city that has deliberately acted against its own ordinances and now has passed an ordinance violating the rule of law. Is this where they were driving? Were they driving drunk? Not unheard of.

If these drivers were so obvious, were indeed an existential threat, were the truths they hold to be so self-evident why did they schedule the referendum vote for the middle of July? Was this not to ensure minimal voter turnout so their small, but fervent group of supporters could dominate the outcome? Could it be that a November vote, in a presidential election year with a Black candidate on the ballot would all but ensure failure? Do they have a credible way to spin those facts? Do they have a credible way...

Not content with those insults they drag out the whole racial smoke screen saying that "Dunwoody had long since ceased to be a Whites-only enclave." True dat. The Whites-only enclave is called "city government." All White, predominantly male council. Only white mayors. Exclusively White male city managers. White male chief of police. Do they really expect anyone to believe that reflects the demographics of this city? That it ever did? That they ever cared that it would? Or perhaps they wanted to ensure that it didn't? Which is more plausible?

And one of the first efforts of this White Enclave was the plan to destroy the homes of people, people of color, in order to build expensive housing and ball parks effectively using housing economics to engineer, to their liking, the racial makeup of their new city. They started a promotional campaign and when that gained insufficient traction began a PR campaign based on crime in that area and the cost to "the rest of the community" in addressing that crime. This only came to a crashing halt when one otherwise loyal minion blurted out the critical role of this redevelopment in keeping those people out of our schools.

And they just cannot put down the shovel, continuing with "Racial and ethnic diversity was and is a driving force of Dunwoody’s success." Yet they would engineer a system that is exclusively White and mostly male at the topmost levels of its power structure, that is so paternalistic it is all but a modern re-creation of a plantation society. Yet we're supposed to believe there was nothing racial going on, by accident or by design.

So why has council and mayor been lily-White? Well that actually is by design. The city map was sliced up into voting regions and there were many ways to do this. The most obvious is just to divide the city into three parts, each region running east to west. This would all but guarantee a minority seat on council. Instead our founding fathers chose to slice and dice into regions running north to south. Why? As mentioned, no documents are available, but this layout all but ensures that the minority areas are divided allowing them to be conquered by White areas. Three at-large council seats ensures representation for the dominant, White voting pool. Would they have you believe this is merely coincidence? Can they still assert they actually designed this city if so much were left to chance? That anything, including diversity was a consideration?

It is worth noting these founders chose not to involve their necessary co-conspirators, Dan Weber and Fran Millar, in their retort. We have heard from Rusty Paul, mayor of the city we most want to emulate and former state Senator fighting alongside Dan and Fran, who has acknowledged "that there were issues on both sides that had racial overtones." Perhaps, no longer in the fray, Dan and Fran have had time to reflect, perhaps to regret. We will never know.

They may take umbrage at how history has judged their motivations and intentions, but we, the citizens OF Dunwoody continue to suffer from what they actually did.

Just Say NO!

Shortly we, the citizens of  Dunwoody, will be presented with three opportunities to raise our taxes. Two take effect immediately and the third kicks in at the whim of the city, whenever they want, and whoever they may be at the time the mood strikes them.

Referendum: "Shall land be acquired and remediated for parks and greenspace by the City of Dunwoody in the amount of $33,000,000?"

• VOTE NO: This represents almost THREE TIMES THE CURRENT BUDGET in debt load.
• VOTE NO: We are now told the City intends to use the money to force undesirables from their homes--this plan is now as official as anything the city has ever said.

Referendum: "Shall the park system of the City of Dunwoody be improved by the issuance of general obligation bonds in the amount of $33,000,000?"

• VOTE NO: Again, this represents almost THREE TIMES THE CURRENT BUDGET in debt load.
• VOTE NO: This was split out of a single, $66,000,000 bond because even the City knows this is an outrageous idea.

Redevelopment Referendum: "Shall the Act be approved which authorizes the City of Dunwoody to exercise redevelopment powers under the 'Redevelopment Powers Law' as it may be amended from time to time?"

• VOTE NO: You, the citizens and voters of Dunwoody will be giving the city unbridled power to alter tax structure and wield power of eminent domain.
• VOTE NO: What you give up, you will never be able to take back, and you will have relinquished all opportunity to control the power delegated to the city, as defined by whoever may be in office at the time.

Dunwoody is not yet five years old, but consistent with the personal fiscal policy of many of Dunwoody's Smartest, the City remains free of long term debt. Much has been done, and much more can still be done without incurring debt for ourselves and our children--and let's be frank, this is a debt that once adopted will be renewed and we will be locked in a fiscal model based on long term debt. This debt load can only be satisfied by growing the tax digest, and with the intent to remove more properties, especially commercial properties from the tax rolls, residents will take on a greater burden.

The rebuttal, used during the drive to form the city, is "Trust Us". However, the way these referenda were intentionally written, the way information has been intentionally withheld then leaked, and the intentional timing of any releases is indistinguishable from deceitful manipulation. Earning Trust? Hardly!

Should any of these referenda pass, our standing as a well-managed, fiscally conservative community will be shattered and there will be no looking back. Dunwoody will be well on its way to becoming just another city run just like any other city--by the same kind of politicians we thought we left behind in DeKalb.

Just Say NO!

The Five Percent Solution

There is an old bromide along the lines of "the first solution to pollution is dilution", but when the matter at hand is socio-economic there is no acceptable solution but to separate the effluent from the affluent. Fortunately, commonly accepted practices, particularly zoning, create a physical and economic moat around the affluent and also serve tof encapsulate the effluent thereby reducing the cost of extraction and elimination.

Such is the case with Dunwoody, which proposes to eliminate a particularly odious demographic from the fringes of the relatively recently christened city. As it turns out, a majority of Dunwoody's poor, its Hispanic population, lives in a very small area. This just happens to be exactly the same location where Dunwoody leaders intend to build the city's premier recreational facility, thereby clearing up that demographic blemish.

While the demographics are well supported by our most recent census, this is not news. The maps below, based on Y2K data show 'twas always thus. Consequently this is not a recent infestation to be eradicated, nor is it likely that the City Founders, the smartest of the smart, did not know this prior to these recent plans or even before formulating plans for cityhood.

The above map shows where the white folk live. Not surprisingly, the darker green coincides with a higher percentage of whites in the population from its lowest in the area under discussion to above 95% in the area furthest from the Hispanic fringe.

The above map shows only the Hispanics and more clearly demonstrates how the city plans to eviscerate the existing community to prevent any northward spread and slow if not reverse the westward spread.

Below the bull's eye on both maps sits an apartment complex housing 2500 residents, of which approximately 580 are students in the Dunwoody cluster of DeKalb County Schools. These residents represent approximately five percent of the City's population.

Of course it isn't just about race or ethnicity, it is every bit as much about relative income and poverty. As one moves east or south from the border with Sandy Springs one sees a drop-off in home values and household income identical to the map of "white folk" distribution. A similar map of poverty is identical to the map of Hispanic demographics. The correlations between poverty and crime, or poverty and poor educational outcomes will neither be questioned nor belabored here, but simply accepted as a fact underpinning the motives of many including the most outspoken supporters of destroying these homes.

The plan includes razing the homes of some of the poorest in Dunwoody. Without the availability of the targeted apartment homes, these people will remain poor, but they will not remain in Dunwoody. Nor will their children, poor and less equipped to keep up with their whiter and brighter neighbors to the west and north, remain a burden to the Dunwoody cluster.

Supporters claim this is about parks and recreation as Dunwoody is currently one city-owned diamond short of their desired minimum of three. And while it is not the purpose of this post to question motive or intent, there is a point worth pondering. "If you wanted to eliminate the poor, especially poor Hispanics, in Dunwoody, what would you do differently?"

Re-Refer Madness

In the event you're new to Dunwoody, or simply consider politics as much fun as changing any other soiled diaper then you may not know the back story to the Republican contest to fill Dan Weber's State Senate seat. It was the legislative Dynamic Duo of Dan Weber and Fran Millar (Senate and House respectively) who through any means necessary brought about the referendum for, and advocated the creation of, the City of Dunwoody. Now Dan is done, ready to scurry off to St. Simons, or Emelia Island or where ever else politicians past their use-by date are warehoused.

Fran is viewed by many, especially Fran, as the heir-apparent to fill Dan's seat. Unfortunately, word did not make it to James Sibold, who opposes Brother Fran in the Republican Primary. The Dunwoody Fan magazine has spared no ink in defense of sometimes columnist, who's overbearing zeal to balkanize our little part of DeKalb receives unending praise. Meanwhile Sibold is depicted as either not supporting the cityhood movement, or as one to be counted amongst those advising consideration and caution. Mentioning his name alongside that of "Shrill Jill" Chambers is clearly intended to rouse the rabble, though truth be told, Shrill Jill proved once again that it isn't what you say, but how you say it.

So the local media have painted a scene wherein a vote for Fran is a vote for Dunwoody, and a vote for James is a vote against. This characterization is nothing short of re-referendum on cityhood. But this time around there are some differences.

Unlike the first time, citizens have access to information and the city has a track record, whilst in the first go round the Citizens for Dunwoody conveniently neglected to publish task force reports before the vote. And though this is not an election year with the kind of voter draw one gets from personalities like Obama, Hillary and Palin, at least it will not be scheduled solely to manipulate the outcome.

Dunwoody fans like to point out that over eighty percent of those who voted (on July 15th in a presidential election year) favored cityhood. They neglect to point out that even with intense prosthelytizing they could barely entice forty percent of registered voters to the polls, so they only garnered a third of the registered voters' approval. Of course a high turnout wasn't the goal, else the referendum would have been coincident with the primary or better still the general election. The goal was to motivate most if not all of those in favor of cityhood with emotional pleas and frenzied hype to vote early and often. While a very high percentage of these voters did visit the polls, it is unlikely their numbers have swelled since the city was formed. As it turns out, there is an increasing level of buyer's remorse in Dunwoody.

Nonetheless, barring nightmare scenarios (like a candidate coming out in favor of late term abortion) we should enjoy a Republican primary synonymous with re-approving Dunwoody. And regardless of whether we get the single issue zealot or the thoughtful moderate we will likely be represented in the State Senate by a Republican that sits comfortably to the right of center.

Billboard Tops Dunwoody

In a poignant display of oneupmanship Action Outdoor Advertising waited until the last day of DeKalb dominion over Dunwoody to erect a large and largely unwanted billboard just within the about-to-be city limits. Were they excited? You betcha! But no less than those of us in The Other Dunwoody.

There is the undeniable irony of it all. Were it not for last minute wrangling with a late vote change and the violation of home rule--a blatant show of disrespect for the DeKalb delegation, there would be no Dunwoody, no Mayor and no Council. Yet, the manner in which SB82 was pushed through the house was perfectly legal. And apparently all the paperwork was in order with our new billboard as well, and the company, prudently and legally, made sure it was in place before the city was. Just hours before, but before. And legally regardless.

Now City officials and many citizens have their shorts in a knot. See they don't like billboards. At least not in their back yard. And by golly, they're gonna do something about it. Call out the lawyers! Who cares if it is legal, we'll sue them anyway! Hypocrisy you say? How dare you! Can't you see that we are Dunwoody and Dunwoody is W^Hright. Always right and right in all ways. Get with the program folks.

Let's hope our nascent leaders come to their senses and see the irony if not the humor in this and move on to more important things than wasting our tax dollars on frivolous legal posturing. Maybe something like, oh, gosh, let's see, how about getting this city on its feet!

TOD

It's Official: Dunwoody's For Sale

Well, maybe not or maybe it's just our integrity on the block, but it is increasingly clear that it is all about money:

1. While our likker laws do keep out undesirables, more than anything else they generate revenue. Lot's of revenue. And by golly, that's what governance is all about--spending other people's money.
2. And these likker laws are just a part of the business ordinances (IE: taxation) that the City, shall we say, derived from the existing county ordinances. Now remind us--those of us in The Other Dunwoody--wasn't this new city supposed to be better than DeKalb. Increasingly it looks more like a governmental mini-me.
3. Now that we have a City Hall on the cheap, some questions have been raised regarding its location in Sandy Springs, to which members of the council have responded: you can't beat the price. Well, actually if Quixote and his faithful side-kick, Pancho, hadn't gone jousting at windmills, we'd still be in unincorporated DeKalb and as events are about to prove, that would be cheaper. So, do we really want cheaper? No. We want what we want, we just don't want to pay for it.
4. And, the ever-popular Franchise Fee Tax has been officially revealed as just another tax increase. It's not clear how those outside The Other Dunwoody view it, except that the Chair of the Dunwoody Fan Club, Dick Williams, says: "Franchise fees, like 'em or not, have been part of the Dunwoody budget from Day One. Can't do it without them." Well thanks for the clarification Dick--this end justifies any means.

You might be surprised at all this late-in-the-day grubbing for money, shocked at feigned surprise regarding the delay of Franchise Fee/Tax receipts and the allegedly unexpectedly large police requirements. Yet, you know they squandered the extra year donated by Fran Millar, failing to put in place a startup plan, a one and five year plan, a comprehensive land use plan, and the financial models and budgets that demonstrate feasibility.

You might even be getting the idea this is more like a bunch of overgrown children trying to spell "god" with all the wrong blocks than a well-planned civic endeavor.

You might be catching on.

TOD

The Best Tax

Is a sneaky tax.

In Dan Weber's Memorandum to the City, he offers some interesting revelations.

First, he mentions the 9/23 budget. There was a budget put together on or before 9/23? Why has this not been made available to the public? How did Weber get access to it? Don't we have a Mayor and Council committed to transparency? Isn't transparency a major whereas in Resolution No. 2008-10-01? Doesn't the phrase "serve all stakeholders in a transparent manner" appear in the two-sentence mission statement? Isn't item (4) of the Values statement "As representative of the City of Dunwoody, we will be fiscally responsible and transparent"? Does item (6) not include "we will be communicative"?

It's not clear if or when the Mayor and Council had their transparency epiphany.

In discussing the harsh economic reality of starting and running a city, Weber lets it be known that the city, in the unpublished 9/23 budget, plans to follow the county's lead by continuing a 0.7 mil tax increase. Many citizens would be more than a little surprised at this, since before the referendum, all we heard was 2.04 mils, with a 1.0 mil cap. Oh, and we were going to get 25-30% better services if you believe our not-for-pay consultant.

Now we find out that our Mayor and Council have intended for some time to slide in 34.3% increase in city property taxes because they believe we won't notice.

It is disheartening to learn that our neighbors in Dunwoody are no better than our other neighbors throughout DeKalb when it comes to governance.

TOD