Love It Or Leave It

In the never ending debate over citihood we have finally reached the inevitable rhetorical deadlock: Love It or Leave It. In comments to the AJC point-counterpoint we find this nugget:

"And frankly for those who would see Dunwoody lose its cityhood, you are welcome to move to an unincorporated areas[sic] of DeKalb."

Like many of the City Crusaders this glosses over a foundational truth in this matter: many of those unhappy with current City operations and actions already moved to unincorporated DeKalb County in a nice little area known as DUNWOODY!

Or at least it was nice. Now, not so much to oh so many.

Crusaders might argue that change is inevitable (it is) and suggest that no matter what the form of government Dunwoody is not what it was 35 years ago (it isn't) and if that pastoral community enjoying the benign neglect of a distant government is what you want (some do) then it is indeed time to move somewhere that looks like Dunwoody of yore. On the other side of the ledger one might argue that those who want to live beside the Beltline or Silver Comet Trail should move to the Beltline or along the Silver Comet. Or that those who want to see the world spin around a bicycle hub should move to an existing cycle-centric city. Or if organized sports are your thing find a town with six baseball diamonds and move there. If you came to avoid traffic, you're part of the problem. Like successful city schools? Move to Decatur.

At the end of the day the "Love It or Leave It" rhetoric rings hollow. No one, not even Jill Chambers, suggested the City Crusaders should leave unincorporated North DeKalb for an existing city but instead called for moderation, vetting and debate. Instead we plunged headlong into citihood with a mid-summer vote engineered to carry the day on the backs of a minority of registered voters. Even in the weakest HOA such a dramatic change (on the order of changing the Articles of Incorporation) would require a super majority of all eligible (e.g., registered voters) homeowners. Rather than address the issues and define the details upfront we've kicked the can down the road. We seem to be out of road.

Those advocating that you love the new (and changing) Dunwoody or leave it have a point: the good ole days are gone and they are not coming back. If you've been here for more than ten years and you want to continue to live in the kind of community you got when you came here then you really need to move.

Don't look back, just mourn the loss and move on.

Jilly Bob

Shrill Jill, meet Farmer Bob.

Farmer Bob, meet Shrill Jill.

What Shrill Jill and Farmer Bob have in common is they ran right up against the Dunwoody Cabal and have been excoriated for it.

In the case of Shrill Jill we had a harsh voice advocating that the Cabal "make haste slowly" and advising their zombie followers of the need for and availability of more information and greater details. She was right, but she was crushed, and was figuratively "run out of town on a rail".

Farmer Bob encountered his field of Bouncing Bettys with the Parks Bonds. Though originally a supporter of the bonds he did a one eighty upon learning that an important Cabal objective was the removal of five hundred undesirable families from our community, and more importantly, to the Cabal anyway, the removal of the lower caste's children from "our" schools.

Neither Jill nor Bob were unequivocally opposed to the proposition at hand, but rather objected to the means by which the Cabal executed their plan. In the first case the objection centered around lack of transparency and inadequate disclosure of facts and estimates, and insufficient vetting of plans. In the latter case, while some objected to the lack of transparency, Farmer Bob took his stand against the plans of a powerful few to purge our community of those they unilaterally deemed unfit while sugarcoating a heinous act as "something for all our residents". While he has been credited with defeating the bonds (he didn't, the voters did) he has been vilified and subjected to ad hominem attacks in comments on local blogs.

At the polls the outcomes could hardly be more different with cityhood winning by a landslide and the Parks Bonds failing by a two to one margin. So is this the beginning of the end for the Cabal? Probably not as the Dunwoody power structure is as well established as it is incestuous. Until we have an election where candidates truly feel that a track record with DHA, Dunwoody Yes! or Citizens for Dunwoody is as much a negative as a positive, the Cabal is alive and thriving.

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.

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.

Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down

Kick 'em when they're stiff, kick 'em all around

Dirty little secrets, dirty little lies
We got our dirty little fingers in everybody's pie
Love to cut you down to size, we love dirty laundry

We can do the innuendo, we can dance and sing
When it's said and done, we haven't told you a thing
We all know that crap is king, give us dirty laundry

Let it be known from the outset that The Other Dunwoody is no fan of Shrill Jill, but this is beginning to look like a vendetta. With all that is going on in Dunwoody, starting the city, selecting service providers, a mugging at Redfield, murder on Cotillion, assault rifle theft at Perimeter, the Dunwoody Fan Magazine (aka The Crier) wastes a front page headline and significant ink to beat up on Jill Chambers.

It isn't that Representative Chambers doesn't deserve to have these events presented to the public, but it has little relevance to issues confronting Dunwoody today. While Ms. Chambers does indeed live in Dunwoody, she represents only a small area of our fledgling city with most of her constituents residing in Doraville and unincorporated DeKalb. In fact, the ethics complaint does not come from a Dunwoody resident.

All the while there are significant issues with our own city council members that warrant more than a few questions and a better public vetting than they have yet to receive. Perhaps if we had a competent fourth estate on the job we mere citizens would have greater confidence that this city is moving forward without undo influence from self interested individuals and organizations.

Come on Crier, the cause is won. The trophy is on the shelf. The promotions succeeded and you have been selected as an official organ. Now it is time to direct your attention to a new set of politicians that deserve no less scrutiny than any others.

TOD