Whisper Sweet Nothings

Folks are at it again. The "local control" banners, buttons and bumper stickers are being handed out, this time for the proposed city of Mulberry. The referendum bill has passed in the legislature and the governor has signed off, and an interesting city it will be. The city charter is worth a read and in the vein of "there ought to be a law," reading the charter should be required before you're allowed to vote. 

There are some key takeaways.

Like Dunwoody, the city tax millage rate is limited by law. Unlike Dunwoody, it is pegged at 0 mills. That's right, ZERO. Can you imagine how our crop of tax-and-spend whiners would squeal with a limit like that? Of course the Mulberrians must be on constant alert as at the first charter "update" some greedy bastard will want to raise that limit if not eliminate it entirely. 

Perhaps more interesting is all-things-city-manager is left blank, as in "reserved." Perhaps they are wise enough to avoid a city manager and the inevitable bloated bureaucracy that entails. Maybe they want to ensure a limited time contract, say 3 years, for the city manager. Perhaps they will contract it all out and given it is "city-lite" that may be the plan. Or it may be a sneak attack against trusting Mulberrians. In any event, prudent Mulberrians should ask, and demand, answers to critical questions. Go not blindly into that danger zone. 

Worthy of note is that the city will not provide police and fire, keeping these services with the county. Would that we had been so wise. Perhaps the Mulberrians have learned from the huge mistakes made by Dunwoody (can you say "losing court battles?"). But they also need to be on guard against a "developers' authority" and selling your soul to outside grants. That is if they are really committed to local control.

Safe? For Now...

The Georgia Senate voted overwhelmingly against Senate Bill 114 which would have authorized a vote on City of Buckhead City (yes, they call it that) putting a stop to the city-hoods. For now. But they will be back as there is a lot of money behind this effort and a lot of money to be made by powerful interests should Buckhead split and form yet-another bureaucrat owned and operated sprawling government. If you read the bill, pay close attention pages 22-25 where it is clearly laid out that the elected officials have little to no influence over or impact upon what goes on in the City of Buckhead City. All power resides in the city manager, all employees report to the city manager and all interactions with business and developers are by way of the city manager and his minions. All these new established-in-a-hurry cities are cast from the same mold. 

If (more likely when) this comes around again and is placed before the voters as a referendum and should the voters approve, that will be the last meaningful vote they will be allowed to cast. 

Read The Charter

The final press for the City of East Cobb has gone full court with the AJC dutifully parroting proponents chatter about "local control." They even go so far as to drag out the stats on how many voters are represented by a County Commissioner vs the number represented by a member of city council suggesting smaller is better. 

At best this is disingenuous, perhaps rising to the level of now verboten disinformation. Paul Harvey might point out that commissioners have more responsibilities and capabilities and city council (and the mayor) will be legally prohibited from doing much beyond ribbon cuttings. Imagine you could vote for the head coach of your favorite team. Would you give that up so you could only vote for one of the cheerleaders? 

That is what this city charter, like all those coming before, does. Give it a read.

Panning For Gold

Mayor, council and city bureaucrats bugged out to gold country to ponder how to part you with more of your gold without you having any say in the matter.  Now there was a lot of suspicious talk going on, like the myth about citizens having any demands or expectations that city bureaucrats give a rip about, but the common thread was how to extract more money from us in such a way that we could not possibly prevent them from pilfering our pockets. Some talk about raising the millage rate (we've had nothing but TAX increases, but via the backdoor) but it seemed there was one significant stumbling block: the city charter. The sales (snow?) job used to sell this dumpster fire to the voters hinged on limited government, local control and fiscal prudence, none of which sit well with the bureaucrats the voters (unknowingly?) turned their lives over to. But the charter has a baked in millage rate limit and requirements for referendum to make some of their most coveted changes. But they left themselves a backdoor: no referendum is required to change the charter. They can do that with just a little help from their friends. 

The current train wreck at city hall has folks calling for top-level resignations and firings which is sending chills down the collective bureaucratic spine. So, perhaps there is some trepidation around initiating a re-write of the city charter. Maybe, just maybe, there will be a citizen revolt with the people who live here demanding that those we elect be assigned actual responsibility for city operations. Maybe then the citizens of Dunwoody will get what they thought they voted for in the first place.

Pros From Dover

We were told from the beginning, and it is enshrined in the city charter, that we would forgo meaningful representation for the promise of professional, virtually flawless, city operations by hired bureaucrats. Reality has proven to be far from the promise. We've had serious ethics violations, not averted by a city attorney bureaucrat. Odious incompetence and open malfeasance plagues the police department. We've had multiple DWB violations (costly). We've had civil rights violations (more costly). Sexual hijinks (untold costs, to date). Fealty to business over residents (think "bark park" in your back yard) has proven that even if they are competent, they're devoted tocojones anyone but us. And this all lands on the city manager, first and current, who've not the bollocks to do anything (positive) about these train wrecks. Certainly we're getting neither Hawkeye nor Trapper John.

And...given the only lever our eviscerated mayor and council have to pull is replacing the city manager with someone with some cojones we obviously need some changes in who gets elected and the only relevant question during any election debate is "are you committed to changing the city manager?" Or, should we bypass that and fix the city charter?

They Cannot Be Stopped

This could be about cityhood movements that just will not go away no matter how directly and firmly the voters tell them to; they're like that cold sore that keeps coming back. This is about those developers hell-bent on building cookie-cutter clutter buildings. Everywhere. Oh, and they expect the taxpayers to pony up some additional profits. 

And TOD isn't the only one who finds these buildings to be architectural trash and aesthetically odious. Click that link. The entire article  is well worth reading but one of the many knock-out punches is:

The “Stick Frame Over Podium” building—a model of cheap, expedient construction—is creating freight trains of mute boxes cropping up throughout America’s urban landscape. These dreary buildings have made so much money for their developers that the typology is changing apartment living for enormous numbers of people. A code evolution has caused a revolution in how buildings can dominate the aesthetics of our communities.

The article offers many insights into how this plague rots the very soul of our community offering little but profits to developers and possibly to enabling friends and family in city bureaucracies and administrations. Is there any hope? Perhaps a glimmer:

I think we will soon see the inoculation of the recession vaccine. In the coming months, the low interest rates that power development will be jacked up to temper the inflation that post-pandemic expectation has nurtured. When the cost of money rises, the savings of stick-frame-over-podium vanishes. And developers will stop building them.

This hope is mitigated by the reality of this cheap, but highly profitable for the developers, development practice:

But, like the chicken pox, there will be a shingles replay for our thoughtless intoxication with expedience and profit. Cheap boxes do not weather well. Skins intended to keep weather out only do so until their seams fail—and they eventually do. Flat roofs inevitably welcome water inside, and flat faces made of veneers decay in the freeze and thaw, expansion and contraction, of wind and water.

And the author shares his fear that greed will conquer all:

[...]this huge wave of 5-over-2 buildings will fail in just a generation or two. The difference is that while cars can be recycled, we may discover that the rotting sticks of these cheap buildings might be easier to remove than reuse or repair. Will we learn from their failure?

What the author fails to mention, or notice, is that this planned obsolescence is intentional on the part of the developers. This will be timed pretty nicely with the expiration of tax handouts. These gulags will look so trashy that the next crop of bureaucrats and politicians will all but beg them to "re-develop" these odious hovels. And as long at the residents of this city are held powerless by the city charter, we can expect developers to get some pretty hefty tax handouts, just as they did the first time.

Don't Do It

This is a shout out to folks who are about to get sucked up in the "New City" movements in East Cobb and Buckhead: Just Do NOT Do It. If you're in a rush to find out why just do a some quick internet browsing and you cannot help but conclude there may be a dumpster fire in your future.

These impending city fuster-clucks are more likely to impact East Cobb than Buckhead as the latter is already part of a city, but there are significant issues that will blindside most voters. After it is too late. Before then, there are things that can be done. 

Demand transparency. You won't get it but you must insist. Relentlessly.  You must see past the intentional, deceptive diversions. The biggest will be "economic viability" proven by a "study" that is commissioned by the city advocates to prove just that. For Buckhead this is a no-brainer as it has the most wealth per acre of any place in Georgia. East Cobb is another story, but just remember: the study is bought as is the conclusion. 

Resistance requires intense, unwavering focus. On the city charter. That is the document that will destroy your life. It will define city organization and operation in such a way that it benefits the big money behind the effort, developers and businesses, at the expense of those who live in the community. It will create a bureaucratic organization with minimal oversight by any elected official. If you need a model, look at a local school district. Run by educrats (for educrats) with your school board representative sidelined, reduced to a mere observer though with a better seat than you. Your city council and mayor will be much the same, and this is now such a common organizational structure it has a name: a "weak-mayor" city government.

This is your lever. Demand a form of government where elected officials, elected by you, have direct operational responsibilities. No "city manager." Instead a city administrator who reports to, and works at the pleasure of, the elected mayor. Same for the chief of police as well as other top level bureaucrats. Councils with real staff and real responsibilities for creating, advocating and passing ordinances. You must insist on leadership that can be changed, by your vote, if the city turns its back on those who voted it into existence. Without this "local control" is just a meaningless phrase they like to use.

You must also ensure that the city charter prohibits the creation of a Developer's Authority with the capability of removing property from the tax roles and also prohibited from the practice of money laundering: Payments In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT). To prevent the destruction that out-of-control developers will rain down on your community they must be de-funded. If you do not do this your community will fill with unwanted developments that bring traffic and crime all the while draining money from your schools. For East Cobb these schools are crown jewels of the community. Don't throw them away.

You also need to stay on top of how the city charter can be modified or re-written. In most new cities this is done by some appointed administrators or bureaucrats with no credential or capability requirements, subject to unknown influences and operating without transparency. Demand that any revisions to the city charter go before the voters, in a referendum, before being submitted to the state. Just like the vote to establish the city in the first place.

These are your levers and your vote is your fulcrum. But make no mistake, if you waver in any of these demands you will get one, and only one, vote. Don't waste it supporting others' ambitions to ruin your life.

Why Not? Here's Why...

Someone posed the ponderafication of "why didn't they consider 'instant runoffs'?", with "they" being the folks trying to re-write the city charter. What's an "instant runoff" you ask? Well it is a scheme specifically designed to address the money and time costs of runoff elections while hewing true to the democratic notion that citizens have a right to vote.  The system is quite simple. When you cast your ballot you select your first choice, then your second, then third and so on to n-1, where n is the number of options. When there is no candidate with a majority then the votes for the lowest vote-getter go to the candidate selected by the voter on their ballot. This iterates until a candidate achieves a majority. The winner may not be everyone's top choice but at least it isn't someone that a majority voted against. 

So why didn't the folks trashing the charter go for this? Others have. The largest anti-rationalization is that it is complicated and not everyone will list a secondary or tertiary preference. So? Not voting is a voter's choice, just as valid as any other. Furthermore, taken to the extreme should all the electorate chose not to chose secondary candidates this scheme devolves to the "plurality wins" scheme the charter hackers recommend. 

So that cannot be the real issue, can it? The real issue is as simple as it is obvious: partisan politics.

Democrats and Republicans are equally addicted to power and riches that control over government and politics affords them. They enjoy a duopoly they will not easily relinquish and will defend at all costs. Even if it means destruction of "little d" democracy as we're watching with the Charter Commission. 

Instant runoffs are a threat to their power (and money) because it greatly increases the chances for third party candidates to gain office. Suppose an election offers these candidates: a Republican Right Wingnut; a Democratic Left Wingnut; and a third party candidate holding down the middle. With the current vote+runoff scheme few that might otherwise support the centrist will instead feel they must vote for the lesser of the two major party evils lest the greater of the two, in their opinion, win the election. In the current scheme a vote for a third party candidate is either a protest vote or a wasted vote. The plurality scheme further marginalizes third party candidates while increasing power of the incumbent party as any votes siphoned off by a third party candidate are likely to go to the party not currently holding the office. The current scheme limits third party viability, undermining democracy and the plurality scheme only makes it worse. 

And the Democrats and Republicans who appointed the Charter Commission really, really like it that way. 

This is despite the fact that instant runoff is not a guaranteed threat to the duopoly. Suppose the three aforementioned candidates are running for mayor with the Republican getting 40%, the Democrat 35% and the third party 25%. [Yes, the race is technically non-partisan but we all know who is waving what color flag.] With no clear majority the third party candidate is dropped and the votes re-counted with the third party supporters votes going to their second choice. As a result the winner will have a majority and in this example could in fact be the Democrat. Because THAT is the will  of the people. Apparently NOT the will of the Commission. 

Though not guaranteed, instant runoff is a very real threat to the duopoly. Suppose the same election is held with aforementioned bitter polarization of the main parties and that this acrimony is such that many True Blues and Red Bloods would really prefer another choice than their own party offers, but certainly not the other team's. With instant runoff, voting third party is no-harm no-foul as they can select their party's candidate as the second choice. It would also mean that staunch partisans can vote third party as their second choice denying the opposing party the win should their party not make the runoff. So if the numbers are Republican 40%, Democrat 25% and third party 35% it is possible, perhaps likely, that the third party candidate will take the win in the instant runoff. Is there any Republican or Democrat that wants to see THAT happen? 

Assassinating Democracy

Dunwoody's movers and shakers, by way of the Charter Commission, have tracked down democracy, slipped a knife in the back and started twisting. On the one hand they disparage voter turnout while simultaneously extending a term limit for the mayor guaranteed to discourage voter engagement. 

But that is not the mortal wound.

They want to do away with runoffs in contested races. Really! They actually approved that. Why? Because it cost too much money. That's right. They don't think that our vote is worth the cost. It gets better. In a move that would make Goebbels blush they claim that runoffs are anti-democratic because of reduced voter turnout. What it actually does is provide for installing a "winner" who had more voters against them than for them. And this would be in contests where interest is so high that more than two candidates vie for the slot. And they call this "democratic."

That's odious enough to back a buzzard off a gut wagon. 

For those who weren't here or have forgotten, this city was founded by a referendum vote held mid-summer in a presidential election year. This was a brazen voter suppression tactic. Oh, and by the way, it cost more money than having the referendum on the November ballot. 

And the hypocrisy runs deep. Many on this commission were 'playas in the day' with one being a member of the first city council. It is tempting to lob a 'shame on you' their way but shame requires character and being a character doesn't mean you have any.

Instead let's take pragmatism to the extreme. What the folks on this commission know better than most is exactly who this city was intended to serve from the get-go. So do the folks at city hall. So why not just cut to the chase and cut out the citizens and their vote altogether? Why does it have to be such a bloody murder? Why euphemize democracy when we can euthanize? 

Let's have the people this city really serves select the mayor and council. The city manager can pick two for council to represent the overlapping, redundant headcount in the city bureaucracy. The director of economic development picks another two to represent business interests profiteering from our community. And the Developers' Authority can pick the mayor and two more on council since they are the biggest of the big dogs getting fat on city hall largess. 

And think of the money we'd save.

Who And What They Are Afraid Of

The short answers are:

1. you and 
2. ceding power. 

What brings this to the fore is the chazerai over the City Charter re-write in particular the part regarding establishment of a fire department or taking over any service provided by the county and assuming the associated costs with a simple majority of votes on council. To be clear it would be a simple majority of a voting quorum of council. 

Proponents of the re-write including some architects of the original charter argue that the Council already has this authority and have consulted legal counsel under the gold dome to bolster that claim. Opponents respectfully (or maybe not so respectfully) disagree and do not hold in high regard distant lawyers in the ATL offering rulings on the promises of a responsive local government.

But the proponents' argument is a deflective obfuscation. The real issue is (or should be) "is this the best we can do?" Why did they not take this opportunity to add to the charter a referendum requirement to cover these extraordinary commitments on behalf of the citizens? Why instead have they chosen to deny citizens a meaningful say? Is this really their idea of "responsive local government?"

That none of this has been openly debated is at the very heart of the current disagreements. This City was sold by our newage touchy feely "we're your neighbor" politicians on the promise of a "local government that is more responsive". This has turned out to be little more than typical political PR based on an incomplete comparison (more responsive than what? A VA hospital?) and further begs the question of to whom this government responds.

Consequently we have absolutely no hope of ever hearing a coherent explanation as to why it is so bad that citizens weigh in with a meaningful vote before the City moves forward on expensive endeavors that directly affect our lives in Dunwoody. After all if these proposals are such good ideas then surely the voters in this Smart City will be all in. When the idea is bad, as with the Parks Bonds, citizens' collective smarts can keep this City from making horrific mistakes. 

In the absence of intelligent discourse we are left to assume that politicians don't see it that way. Rather they see their authority and power being usurped by the ballot box and act as if the only intelligent thing the voters ever did or ever will do is elect them. Our current crop of politicians include those who (over) sold us on citihood with the promise that we'd have local control with a government "just down the street." They lied. They broke their promises and when given the chance to repair the damage by adding to the city charter a referendum  requirement they chose instead to slap citizens in the face by saying "it's always been this way we're just making it official so you morons can 'get it'."