Drug Money

Drug dealers have a special way with sales: the first one's free. Free samples are used in other fields, but it is particularly effective with an addictive product. Apparently this tactic is being used at city hall (and you thought it was just prostitution), on city hall. And the drug? Money. And the cost of the drug? More money.

Sounds like a recursive call to the stupid(){...} function. Because it is.

This manifests itself in do-what-we-say grants that gets whatever-they-say started but is insufficient to cover the real and often recurring costs. But the power of addiction is strong and it seems as if everyone at city hall has that monkey on their back. That's how we came to forsake our morals, cast aside integrity and embrace our current spend-then-tax addiction. 

Makes you wonder if we can pack them all up and send them to rehab.

Transform

Please. Please just do it.

The election is over and the democrats lost. In Georgia they got their hats handed to them. So please, just give it up. It didn't work, and frankly you didn't even try. But you just cannot let it go. 

And what is "it?" Well that would "trans girls competing in AFAB sports." The republicans, who rule the gold dome, intend to pass a law keeping AFAB sports free from any Y chromosomes. Democrats, who should be munching on popcorn while watching the show just cannot transform themselves into listeners. Nope, they gotta yack it up. 

We've got an AJC-curated letter lamenting this effort as well as the AJC's public school promoter-in-chief chiming in, in the midst of a diatribe about funding. Both see this effort as a waste of valuable legislative time that could be better spent on, well, damn near anything. Joining the chorus is the reliably leftist seat on the Georgia Gang who pontificated on the very small percentage population known as trans and the vanishingly small number of those that are interested in sports. It was unclear whether this argument was, or was not, in support of the legislation. The fall back position from "doesn't affect many people" was "waste of time-better things to do" as if this is a talking point running through the left. The left have also embraced the "this hasn't happened so we don't need a law" as if democrats have never supported or passed preemptive legislation. It also ignores the fact that it has happened, in Georgia, at the college level.

This issue did not work for them in the recent elections. Apparently the trans turnout did not carry the day. Maybe democrats should embrace their own logic. The trans issues affect very, very few, while infuriating many, many more. Maybe they should be listening to a broader, more mainstream constituency. If they still have one.

Minding Inquiry

Tis the season of pondering, asking questions, getting evasions in return and casting votes nonetheless. As a backdrop, we all, deep down, knew this was not going to go our way. Lack of transparency, the transparently obvious "we're setting up a Development Authority, of, by and for developers" and a general back-tracking on anything even closely related to competent policing and code enforcement. To describe this, and all the other new cities, as mercenary is to disparage guns-for-hire all across the globe. Just look at the difference between a permit to install a garbage disposal and enforcing code violations. In the first case the city makes money and you actually are required to bring it to them. In the latter case it is just another expense that offers City Hall no benefit.

Except maybe every so often. Say at election time. Now is our opportunity to ask aspiring politicians questions and watch them hone their skills of evasion. Just ask them what they, personally, specifically intend to do about quality of life issues that are important to residents. Ask whether they will prioritize residents' concerns over catering to developer interests. Ask them if they know what happened to elected officials who have dropped the ball, been co-opted by the system, and just what they will do to avoid a similar fate. Ask them what they will do should we suffer from their failings.

Then vote.

Going Out Of Business

No. No. Not the recently opened Pet Emporium. It will do just fine.

Sign Of The Times

What IS out of business is City Hall, particularly code enforcement. Their stop-work-order comes directly from council who is working real hard to craft a brand spanking new overlay ordinance that is better suited to the demands of the business at the expense of residents.

But there is an election coming up and this may be a good time to find out where candidates stand on enforcing laws that support quality of life. 

Trump's Taxes

Remember those? Very vocal anti-Trump groups were demanding, as some kind of made-up-as-we-go-along "right," to access then candidate and now President Trump's tax filings. Inquiring minds must be in the know.

Didn't happen. Turns out not many folks in government want very many of the financial truths revealed because it looks less than unsavory as even casual examination indicates government insiders are making out like bandits. And this isn't just the sudden millionaire M. Albright or the laundering operation of past presidents. As long ago as 2004 the Wall Street Journal reported on Senators cleaning up in the stock market getting upwards of 12% better return than Wall Street pros. And it is not just the Senate. In 2011, the New York Times reported similarly over the top returns for Representatives in the House.

And it isn't just politics that pays. It is government as well. Recently the AJC reported that working stiff wages and salaries average $23.15/hr whilst government "workers" rake in $30.12/hr, a 25% markup. Benefits fare worse at $10.11/hr for us and $17.94/hr for them, benefitting them with an additional $0.75 for every dollar we work for. No wonder government employees are such fans of a big and growing government.

But it isn't just inside-the-beltway bandits. Have you ever noticed how it isn't very long before a gold dome Representative or Senator is bringing home the gold, often to a really nice second home on Tybee or up in Blue Ridge? Or how a City Councilor's wife's cousin's husband lands a cushy job with a local Audi dealership? You know, the one owned by the bloke who's wife needs a wee little favor, a business friendly ordinance perhaps to help her business. And others like it, of course. And then magically a nice nearly-new, just off-lease A7 comes available at an extraordinary price. And why wouldn't that politician get first dibs? After all a shirt tail relative works at the dealership. And this is above and beyond (or below and under-something) long standing traditions like calling utilities to task for your neighbors or jumping queue for things like private school slots. That's old school.

So maybe the folks screaming for Trump's Taxes have a point. But it may be they don't go far enough. Maybe all politicians should publish their Tax Filings and their property holdings/interests. Many do. But the next logical step is for any incumbent seeking re-election to submit to a life-style audit. That might actually go a ways towards breaking the rule that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts...

Election Is Coming

And they are not uncontested.

Maybe we can find a candidate who can read. And understand. And not become so easily confused.

Back Where We Started

To be sure the drum beat the loudest in Dunwoody's march to citihood was "taxation without representation" countered with the promise that a city would ensure "local control." Perhaps so, but "rotten to the core" notwithstanding our Smart City That Should is beginning to look more and more like the County from which it fled.

The drafting of a comprehensive plan shows a widening gap between Staff and City denizens including some on Council. Not only that but whilst the draft is [allegedly] on the City website it is apparently like finding the pea under the walnut shell. Not so easy--sound familiar? Then when you do get the document what it contains has stirred a bit of a fuss.

Some feel they were sold Mayberry (they were) and they're getting Buckhead (they are). Some fear it caters to business growth with high density high rise development in areas outside of Perimeter Center and are not thrilled about five floors of office workers watching their kids swim in the backyard pool. Clearly the authors of the plan consider this a win-win. They get more tax revenue and you get free baby sitters.

Some are voicing their concerns in social media and town hall style meetings. Others are contacting their Council representatives. To the degree allowed by the genteel politeness of the South moving the City back towards the founding principle of creating a small southern town underpins the political campaigns of newcomers seeking open office or engaging in contested races.

These elections are the most important in this city's history and will likely decide whether Dunwoody is a complete sell-out to business and political greed or returns to its original mission.

Man In The Mirror

I'm Gonna Make A Change,
For Once In My Life
It's Gonna Feel Real Good,
Gonna Make A Difference
Gonna Make It Right . . .

The upcoming City elections are expected to see low voter turnout. This has some folks in the Wold worried as they fear that the upstart Clean Sweepers may have enough enthusiastic backers to gain a majority when only a small minority of registered voters bother to go to the polls.

These worried Agents of  No-Change have good reason to fret and even better reason to know it. Many of those now sweating the upcoming exercise in democracy are the same ones who helped manipulate the system that brought us the landslide approval of the citihood referendum by scheduling the vote so as to intentionally depress voter turnout. Remember that we voted for citihood in July of the year that saw Obama win the November election and lord knows the Dunwoody Yes! crowd did not want Obama backers weighing in on their city. Still don't.

So these worry warts are painfully aware that folks aligned with or simply immune to the status quo tend to not be very energetic whilst those advancing change tend to be enthusiastic. This is especially true when the agents of change have enough backing to actually believe a run at an office has a chance. Now things have come full circle and CfD and DY! are facing opposition that tactically looks exactly like they do.

But perhaps all this worry is for naught. Perhaps the Smart People of the Wold will see the Clean Sweepers as the vocal minority of whiners that the Agents of  No-Change have branded them. But perhaps not.

In any event when one considers that the City is really run by the City Manager and his staff who for the most part don't even live here one realizes that Council and Mayor are mostly kept around for rubber stamping, photo ops and other entertainment. So ask yourself: which gaggle of bozos portends to yield the best entertainment value? Vote accordingly.

Is This You?

When "the City's staff" engage in a coordinated, concerted effort to drive from Dunwoody those citizens they find unacceptable, is this you?

Or what about the kind of fidelity to honest government wherein a City Manager claims public review sessions were held yet the City Clerk responds to an open records request with "no record of any meeting". Is this you?

Or perhaps the commitment to public safety displayed by an apparent policy of shoot-to-kill for traffic offenses. Is this you?

Then there is the questionable ethics of a five million dollar pot-sweetener land deal using City taxpayer funds. Is this you?

Or the corporate welfare that manifested itself as a sweetheart deal between the City acting as a land developer and a nearly bankrupt home builder to ensure the builder's financial well being. Is this you?

And the botched closed-door "executive" sessions resulting in over a hundred thousand dollars of useless expenses which also cost the City Attorney his job and convinced a sitting member of Council to decline a bid for re-election. Is this you?

The shameless grubbing for grants that transformed a one hundred fifty thousand dollar site-appropriate nature trail into a million dollar interstate lane without any public vetting. Is this you?

Incessant "scope creep" that some are now calling intentional? Is this you?

The zealous militarization of a yet-to-be-proven competent police force that already shows a propensity for selectively harsh enforcement and (ab)use of deadly force. Is this you?

Or the constant hiding behind anonymizing labels and titles when there is legitimate need to address controversy yet leaping to the forefront to take credit or grab a pay raise. Is this you?

When you elect a Council and Mayor who sit by and watch these deplorable actions taken in their name or worse yet applaud them then THIS IS YOU.

Make Independence Day Meaningful

It has been pointed out there is a snowball's chance in hell of getting an updated City Charter that creates anything even faintly resembling a democratic form of government for Dunwoody. The subtext, which we all know, is that we have what we have because the few and the powerful who pushed this City into existence wrote the original charter and installed the original bureaucracy. They still have the power, they like it that way and you can't change it.

But there is something we can do. We can put a stop to the hypocrisy, to the charade that is an insulting slap in the face of the citizens of Dunwoody and of every democratic form of government on this planet. We can update the charter to eliminate the election of the Mayor and Council. Not the actual positions, just the election. They have rendered the ballot box worthless so let's all act like grown ups and accept it.  We can stop this madness. We can do this because those in power will let us.

This may not be easy to figure out. While we may be smart we don't score very well on the Edison-Tesla Innovation Scale but then again pride has never prevented our purloining what we like from other cities so we should take a cue from Dorset, Minnesota.  But only a cue. While they did select their Mayor at random they used a most inferior technique--drawing a name from a hat. There is a far superior option--a raffle. Raffles maintain the underlying random nature of a draw but add that something special that makes it all things Dunwoody. It makes money for our bureaucrats to piss away.

For those who believe anything remotely resembling political office must somehow be subject to manipulation an open raffle allows any one person to buy as many tickets as they wish. Given enough money someone could all but buy a position. It may not be democratic but it sure as hell lines up with local politics round these parts.

While we're at it let's modify the term to a single year. It isn't as if there is much of a learning curve for positions that rubber-stamp whatever the City Manager puts before them and single year terms will serve to maximize the raffle revenue. It's not a federal grant, but in this Smart City it's what our masters call "win-win"--they win and...they win!

And we should hold the drawing at the end of the Fourth of July parade with immediate transfer of office between the seated Mayor and Council and the newly selected. This transfer of title symbolically represents the permanent transfer of real power from the voters to just another bureaucrat and signifies that government of the people, by the people and for the people has perished from this place.

After all, isn't that what our forefathers fought and died for?

Democracy Inaction

As many know Dunwoody will hold elections for City Council seats this fall. At the same time it is becoming increasingly apparent that current council is just a wee bit out of touch with the citizenry. We're regaled with tall tales of "thousands of emails from all across Dunwoody" when it suits council's desire to ramrod something generally unpopular down the public's throat but are given no substantive evidence of any alleged support for clearly unpopular issues. No clue where they get their wild-eyed ideas but we might as well be running this city based on chit-chats at a gas station.

But now there seems to be concerted and effective opposition to the whimsical fantasies of our duly elected Lords and Ladies of the ruling class and their courtesans at City Hall to the point we find ourselves at an impasse. The trifecta of "Runway in the Park", "No Way on the Parkway" and "Turning Down the Roundabout" pulled up lame right out of the gate.

This offers an excellent opportunity to solve the underlying problem of City Hall detachment. Put these issues on the upcoming ballot and while we're at it, let's dissect the "Master Plan" and put those individual components up for vote. Doesn't have to be a formal referendum, just a non-binding straw vote, but a vote that is much more transparent than rumors of bountiful and conveniently unavailable emails and phone calls.

Ramrodders will argue that we cannot afford to wait. Wait for what? Transparency? Serving the citizens of Dunwoody? For someone to actually look into what is really going on and question the almighty authority of City Hall and the bureaucratic minions who bloat our budget?

Until we get responsive and responsible leaders and city staff, we deserve no less than to have our voices heard in an auditable, undeniable forum.

Let the voters speak.

Practical Reality

It doesn't matter what folks say something is. It doesn't matter what something is or was supposed to be. The only thing that matters is what something really is.

That is practical reality.

A perfect and timely example is "local control" and what makes this pretty interesting is that DeKalb's out-of-touch public school bureaucracy has co-opted the term. The assertion is that politicians elected at the county level are more "local" than bureaucrats at the state level.

Real...

Simple...

Equation...

But only for real simple minds, because it is little more than a play on words--a perverse little pun.

So let's look at this from a pragmatic point of view.

By and large do the voting public in DeKalb county feel that DCSD administration is "local" to them in any meaningful way? Do these administrators listen and learn about issues in the community AND address these issues in a straightforward, effective fashion? Do the public feel that it REALLY makes a difference who they elect to the School Board when Board members are structurally prevented from direct, forthright action under the threat of sanctions for "micro-managing"?

For many in DeKalb the answer is probably a strong yes, but for others it is an even stronger no. The former have representation in the controlling bloc which wields the political power necessary to ensure that the hired bureaucrats bend to their will and comply with their wishes. The other Board members, who feel their constituency is not well served, are relegated to the role of annoying outsiders--increasingly less-than-loyal opposition.

It is the latter constituency, empowered by the geographical self-aggregation that prevails in today's America, who have been and will continue to be "break-aways". They do this not out of racism and only partly over money--more based on how it is squandered than where it is spent. The practical reality is that these voters are disenfranchised by a system that has so diluted their representative voice that they have no control over any aspect of the school system charged with educating our children.

Without ANY control it doesn't really  matter whether it is "local" or not and it appears this group would prefer some control at whatever level is available rather than no control at all.

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...

Hoisted on His Own Petard

Reports from a recent council meeting indicate the basis for the vote to defer the vote to dismiss the City Attorney, was, according to the Mayor, "because we have not received the report yet, we as a group decided to defer until we could review it".

Were that we, the mere citizens of Dunwoody, afforded that courtesy prior to the cityhood referendum. As you may or may not remember there were several "Task Forces" chartered to draft reports and plans for key areas of city operation. To be very clear, none of these were released to the public prior to the vote. We did not get to read nor review these reports, but instead were sent to the polls with much conjecture, ballyhoo and hype.

The responsible party for maintaining this cloak of secrecy? That would be "Citizens For Dunwoody". And who is a corporate officer of that non-profit? Well that would be Captain Petard, who seems to play a star role in yet another yet to be released report. At least those determining his fate will have the luxury of reviewing this report prior to their vote.

Some folks get all the luck.

Version Control

Software products are routinely labeled with "versions" and while this nomenclature has taken hold in the vernacular there seems to be little understanding of "number dot number" beyond "bigger must be better". While that is generally the intent, there is a bit more to it. Version number syntax is commonly:

major.minor.bugfix

A bump in the "major" number indicates a release of the product with significant additions to and improvements in functionality and may be incompatible with previous versions and possibly requires additional hardware or a newer platform.

"Minor" number bumps, often called "dot releases", fix significant bugs, improve performance and add minor features or functionality, but are always backward compatible within the major release and do not require a hardware upgrade though there may be significant benefit in improving the underlying platform.

Very often "bug fix" version numbers remain unpublished leaving Customer Support to suggest that users upgrade to the latest version and see if that works. In fact, many of these releases will remain unpublished unless one or more of the users demands a fix to a bug that annoys them.

Conventional wisdom suggests one should never buy One Dot Oh of anything and this thinking is so prevalent that some companies never label a product lower than Two Dot Oh. More fearful companies start at Two Dot Two or higher.This is based on the knowledge, born of experience, that initial releases suffer from "time to market" pressures resulting in feature "postponement" and buggy implementations. In many cases the designers are building what they want, not what their customers need. All too often, they don't even know what their customers really need.

Some take umbrage at the use of "Dunwoody Two Dot Oh", perhaps because there has been no clear indication that significant features have been added or that the "upgrade" will finally expose the need for "new hardware" in several key areas. If they are correct, this is just Dunwoody One Dot Two as we had our first dot release when we played musical chairs with one council seat. There seems to be some debate over whether it was an improvement or not, possibly based on comments like "we're going shopping", but it was a discernible change warranting a dot release.

But the voters screamed their displeasure with Dunwoody 1.x in their most recent visit to the polls and Dunwoody 2.0 started off with a recent executive session (well, they really started off with a "retreat") so there is some hope that this was to address glaring deficiencies in the existing "platform". Key personnel improvements are desperately needed.

As for minor changes, we probably won't see City Hall formally issuing bug fix releases, but things like removal of the blog from the City website will just happen over time. Or given the current level of transparency (sunshinereview.org gives Dunwoody a "C-") one is probably safe in assuming there is no bug fixing going on down there. Perhaps transparency would be a good place to start.

Dunwoody 2.0

At the end of the day, Dunwoody 1.0 as well as 1.1, the failed "Bug Fix" release, will go down as the "Spend All We Have, Then Borrow More" version of the city. The silent majority, the sixty five percent who either did not vote or voted against cityhood have awakened, and by rejecting the parks bonds clearly indicated the days of Dunwoody's pre-existing power structure "flitting others' perfume" is over. But the Spend-Alls did not leave without getting in a few sucker punches.

We were treated to a protracted pas de deux around the apparently pre-arranged purchase of an empty office building, owned by the same party that anticipated quite the windfall from the parks bonds. Believing these to be two separate, completely disjoint, arms-length negotiations is more than even Polly Ann can handle. The second rabbit punch was the approval the CVB budget including their move into the most expensive office space in Dunwoody--the Ravinia. So now we own vacant office space and rather than move the CVB there, to the benefit of all, well, the Spend-All Team preferred to piss away more money.

And those in the community worried about a return to the ways of D-1.0 must be vigilant. Some of the Spend-All Team remain and those new to office have not been tested by the temptation of spending Other People's Money. The city has also proven to be not quite as smart as they would like us to believe. Case in point: the plan to create Parks Under the Power Lines. Problem is, the wizards at city hall either didn't realize or didn't care that this was private property. Owned by city residents. Who, not surprisingly, did know and did care.

From the very beginning, D-2.0 will be challenged to show a degree of wisdom and foresight that eluded their predecessor. D-2.0 must take up the challenge of rewriting our zoning. As noted elsewhere there is much silliness in the existing documents, as authored by D-1.0, and an equal portion of care must be applied to handling this effort lest the impact of that inferior team be felt for years to come. It may turn out that the effort should be postponed indefinitely, but if pursued due consideration should be given to discarding the existing documents.

If D-2.0 is to succeed, it might look to the DeKalb Schools for guidance. Really. After finally changing guard, the new superintendent is making significant staff changes to address the culture that created the problems she inherited. Low hanging fruit includes "Friends and Family", those overpaid staffers who hold a position because of who they know, rather than what they know or what they can do. Dunwoody 2.0 should follow suite and purge City Hall of F&F staffers.

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.

Nattering Nay Bobs

The Voters of Dunwoody gave both Bobs, Wittenstein and Dallas and emphatic "NAY!" in Tuesday's run-off election. What are we to make of this?

The losers significantly out-raised and outspent the competition. Perhaps money isn't the deciding factor. Perhaps it was ill-spent and was a deciding factor, but not as the spender anticipated.

Wittenstein had incumbency giving him a record to run on and his opponent a record to run against. No councilman can do the job without finding themselves on the opposite side of some issues relative to some constituents. Nor will his successor. But it may be that the citizens of Dunwoody realize that with incumbency and "experience" also comes a certain comfort and complacency. A freshman councilor is not very likely to say "well, that's the way it's [always been] done", but is instead more likely to question the status quo and possibly probe for and arrive at a different and better answer to any given problem. In such a smart city with so many smart citizens it will take many election cycles before we've exhausted all our smart options.

Dallas is a bit more interesting. Whilst touting superior experience and qualification he seems to have spent a significant chunk of his funds on a campaign advisor. Perhaps this is why, in the later days of the campaign, his message went decidedly negative and he went so far as to inject alleged party affiliation into a non-partisan race. This expenditure was clearly ill-advised, but thankfully it was his money, not ours.

One would like to think that most citizens of Dunwoody would have been intellectually offended by these tactics and that alone would turn the tide. Perhaps it was and perhaps it did. But on the matter of party affiliation, it is a sad day when mere association with a party is as blemishing as a leper's sore. It is also of interest that the smearing allegations are offered with citation--county voting records--from which one infers that what really happened is his opponent "crossed-over" in a primary. (It is unlikely even DeKalb county would publish an individual's actual votes on specific ballot items, not because they wouldn't, but because they cannot figure out how.) When the Republican north was dominated by Democrats to the south, how many erstwhile Republicans didn't cross-over to vote against Cynthia McKinney? Would a "smart" voter not take the opportunity to have their voice heard in the opposing party primary if they know that their candidate, no matter how well qualified, simply will not win in the general election, or would they squelch themselves so they can claim a party affiliation as pure as the driven snow? And which action gives them the greatest representation in their government?

Regardless of their real motivations, and there are probably as many as there are voters, Dunwoody has done itself proud.

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.

Fussbudget

The first vote is in and the runoffs are a week away. We've had two Sundays to become intimately familiar with the distinct boundary between Dunwoody and Sandy Springs even as a new purveyor of adult libations plies his trade in our little village. As the tryptophans fade and the toddy warms, let us all pause to take stock of recent wounds and those who lick them.

The most obvious are the fans of "America's Sport", baseball, and there seems to be quite the disagreement on just how popular baseball is in Dunwoody. On the one hand, the Dunwoody Fan Rag claims without any supporting citation that "there is ample public demand for ball fields". Really?!? Sadly for these ample demanders, this did not bear up under public scrutiny nor did it survive a public vote. Frankly it is superficially incorrect: where "ample demand" exists, pay-to-play works because "ample demand" begets "ample support" with no need to tax non-players. Clearly Dunwoody falls far short of "ample" with regard to boys, their beloved balls and the sticks to beat them with.

Then there were the parks bonds themselves, invested with more than ample  histrionics and ego and whose rejection appears to have ripple effects far beyond mere boy's games. The City's immediate response was a little "tit for tat", putting on hold the purchase of property slated for the "Peachford Extension" as if to say "if we don't get what we want, we'll just take our bat and ball and go home", knowing they'll just have to call a special session to approve the purchase or lose $50K. But publicly we're treated to a Councilman saying " the voters of Dunwoody spoke loud about us buying land particularly if we’re going to buy land and pay too much for it".  Yeah. Right. Like the voters were wrapped around the axle about the price tag of those apartments and didn't care a whit about the pogrom it forces. These folks never had their fingers on the pulse of the public, and it is unlikely there was an election day epiphany at a Tuesday night pity party. It is more believable that this was a pissy fit of pique resulting in a childish tantrum.

Or perhaps the voters simply put them on notice with regards to whimsical boondoggles. This extension is to facilitate east-west travel in the area, which is located only one block from the apparently inadequate east-west conveyances of I-285, Cotillion and Savoy. Or perhaps not.

But it could be that one plan, the parks, was tied to another, the extension, by way of the general budget. Had the bonds carried the day, this infusion of cash would take parks out of the general budget freeing up funds needed for less playful commitments. Like pavement. Complete with white and yellow markings. Now that the City does not have that easy $66 million to go on a "shopping spree" and all projects must come out of general funds, perhaps  they don't have enough money to run this City in the manner they promised.