Writ Of Mandamus

More on the writ later, but first let's set the stage...

As many of you may know there has been a dinosaur zoo operating in Dunwoody for a few years now. Not live dinosaurs or even fossilized bones but the inflate-a-date variety. Now the city is shutting down the dino-zoo and that is making fur fly over on fece-book with most seeing dino-extinction as a sin against god and humanity. Mostly because their kids liked it. 

This would be a real teaching moment if it weren't taking so long. Some are just now learning that Dunwoody takes an "enforce on complaint" approach to anything they deign to address and with any action subject to their assessment of the complainer, the alleged offender and the alleged violation. This has led some to call for an open records request to identify the dino-hater presumably to go after them, but be honest, isn't guessing more fun? Others are seeking their very own inflate-a-dino to defy "the man." Others cannot fathom how an inflatable is a sign. Some want to "throw the bums out" suggesting write-ins for the unchallenged in the upcoming election. The zoo-keeper confesses to knowing the rules but has been doing this for three years which may not be the best thing to immortalize on the interweb. The mayor is going to "look into it" which is politician-speak for "I'm outta here" as there is much that any city politician would not want the electorate figuring out as they dig into this affair. Let's learn that anyway.

We'll start with the "sign, not-sign" confustication by looking at the actual ordinance, specifically Section 20-34 - Prohibited Signs:

Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, the following signs are prohibited within the city:

(1)Dilapidated signs, including sign structures.

(2)Animated signs, including balloons, streamers, air or gas filled figures, signs that move mechanically as a result of human activity, wherever located.

There you have it, no ignorance, no excuse. Those dinos are prohibited and in violation of city ordinance. You should also know that this ordinance passed unanimously, 7-0, with much self-congratulatory backslapping and support from many if not most of the current politicians. So what exactly is the mayor looking into? An unread ordinance that was voted for? How often does that happen?

Suppose the mayor does look into it. Can the mayor actually do anything? Let's see what the city charter has to say about that, specifically Sec. 3.05. - City council interference with administration:

Except for the purpose of inquiries and investigations under Section 2.08 of this Charter, the city council or its members shall deal with city officers and employees who are subject to the direction or supervision of the city manager solely through the city manager, and neither the city council nor its members shall give orders to any such officer or employee, either publicly or privately.

It is impossible to believe that anyone who voted yes for the Dunwoody referendum ever read this (or ever will) as this prohibition is kryptonite to all those Dunwoody zionists preaching local control. Dunwoody is modeled more after DeKalb Schools with powerless elected officials than after DeKalb county where our elected officials have real staff, real responsibilities and offer the electorate real control. In Dunwoody, voting in new bobble-heads only affects the entertainment value of council meetings. 

The third leg of this stool is the "enforce on complaint" practice. Here we look to Sec. 3.04. - City manager; powers and duties enumerated:

The city manager shall have the power, and it shall be his or her duty to:

(1)See that all laws and ordinances are enforced;

Job one: enforce all laws and ordinances. In what world is that: just sit on the sidelines until someone complains? No one should be complaining because if the city manager were getting the legally mandated job done there would be nothing to complain about. Why? Because if all laws and ordinances had been enforced then this one in particular would have been enforced three years ago. Isn't what the city is doing to us the very definition of dereliction of duty? And since the only thing mayor and council can do is upgrade the city manager, which they are not doing, they too seem to have dropped the ball. And none of this seems to bother any of them.

This brings us to the writ of mandamus, a court order forcing a government to do its job. Maybe it is time to pursue that path as we're living in the municipal equivalent of a failed state where clearly defined responsibilities are being ignored in deference to...who knows what. This city's failure has conditioned folks to believe that ordinances don't matter, which means your vote doesn't matter, because the council vote doesn't matter. Just ignore what you don't like and hope no one important complains. And had the city done its job these dinos would not have been up long enough for folks to come to believe if something is popular or you get away with it long enough then it cannot be illegal even when it is. Is that what we want to teach our children? Because that is exactly what this city is doing.

Cheerleaders

Back in the day, waaaay back in the day, when cheerleaders were athletes, they were selected on capabilities and not just looks or appeal. Those days are gone. 

Read the city charter.

You will understand why the current mayor is so popular. She's a cheerleader. And her fans like the cheers. What they do not understand is that she doesn't and cannot really do anything. Except be a cheerleader. 

Does that make you happy?

If You Can't Say Something Nice...

...come sit by me.

Seems the meeting to discuss ramming "paths" down residents' collective throats did not have the church revival vibe the mayor was demanding. She seemed to think she was a cross-examining lawyer demanding the witness "just answer the question" because controlling the question controls the outcome. 

Then it went pear shaped when the mayor slipped some interesting quotes.

"I think the perception is we're not listening."

See, when you, as a resident, disagree with the powers that be at city hall then it will be dismissed as a "perception." Got it?

Or how about this?

"My goal for tonight [...] was to figure out where people would like to see [trails]. Not where you don't want to see it. It doesn't help me if we're going to pick one part to pilot."

Maybe, just maybe, people want to see these "trails" in Alabama. But that doesn't fit your agenda, does it?

Then there is the discordant notes of serving all those folks in Dunwoody who don't have cars and depend on public transportation juxtaposed with the conclusion that the Village is the best place to start. Has the mayor ever been to the village? Notice a lots of folks w/o cars didja? 

After not getting the "amens" and "hallelujahs" the mayor has determined that the wrong folk were in attendance and the city needs to engage (round up?) the right folk. The ones that agree with the agenda. 

But here's another option. You're going to put a referendum out there (parks and associated tax increases) so why not add a referendum on all this "trail" happy horseshit?

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.

Whose Phone Is Ringing?

Perhaps the real question is "whose phone should be ringing?"

Recently there have been calls, unanswered calls, for the removal by resignation of Dunwoody's self-proclaimed Top Cop. But these callers may have the wrong number or at least not all the right ones. Does Dunwoody need a PD shakeup starting at the top and including the upper ranks? Absolutely. 

But this would miss the mark.

As required by the City Charter the police chief reports to the city manager. The same city manager who has, by inaction, endorsed the incompetence and misbehavior permeating his (and it is his) police department. Clearly the calls for the Top Cop's resignation fall short of the mark. These fish rot first at the head and it is stinking to high heaven. The calls should be for the removal of the city manager. When, if ever, will our elected officials answer that call?

Can We Quote You On That?

The AJC quoted our Top Cop as saying:

"As law enforcement officers, we are and should be held to the highest standards of conduct whether on or off duty. We will conduct a thorough investigation of this incident and the actions of our officers."

Wow. Lot to unpack there. Does the Top Cop's "highest standards" include running a porn operation? Police shootings of members of gen-pop, including fatalities? Civil rights violations? Enforce DWB but no patrolling of school zones, again with the fatality connection? Those are symptomatic of a very perverted view of "highest standards."

The clear signal of furtherance of the disaster is "we will conduct a thorough investigation." Danger Will Robinson! Will this be like the whitewash coverup of the porno ring? Perhaps there is a higher, nobler authority. The Georgia State Patrol was called to the scene and perhaps, just maybe, this is a good time to involve the GBI. Now you might be thinking that a statewide organization might be keeping track of errant officers.  Maybe you're thinking of POST? Because they tend to let a lot of very serious incidents fall through the cracks and off the record.

It is hard to tally up the full cost of this systemic incompetence, but it starts with the salaries of the city manager and top cop, both of whom should be fired. With cause. Then there are the legal fees being paid to defend this incompetence, often a losing cause resulting in further payouts. One must really wonder what it takes for the mayor and council to take the actions necessary to clean up this mess.

Job One

Reports have surface recently in one of the local rags indicating that the mayorette and some of the other dwarfs are "concerned over pandemic learning loss." 

Wow! There is a lot hidden in there, most of it unadulterated hypocrisy.  How so? Let us explore the ways.

Perhaps the biggest, stinkiest floater is the simple fact that this city by way of mayor, council and developer's authority actively and aggressively work to undermine our schools. They do this by taking properties off the tax rolls, moving all that money directly into the profits of greedy, but well-connected developers. To be very clear, the city is doing this unilaterally, without school board input even though the vast majority of tax diversion is being taken directly from the school system. Just look at your own property tax bill. Yet we have "representation" at city hall that have the chutzpah to express concern about our children and our schools. There is a special place in hell for these kinds of politicians and it seems that social distancing is not an option. 

Then there is the obvious. No elected official at city hall has any responsibility for our children's schools. Nada. Hell, they won't even provide enforcement when schools violate city ordinances and building codes. Why? Is it because there is no money, no power, no prestige in doing the nitty gritty work? Or is it just because they have no interest whatsoever in residents' quality of life? That they are no more likely to support us than they are to rein in an out of control developer's authority, or misplaced government instituted chamber of commerce, or the incompetent leadership at city hall, particularly in the city manager's office and the police department. It is as if posturing about things outside their purview means no one will notice their failure to serve this city's residents. 

Maybe if these political do-nothings showed as much concern about fulfilling the commitments and responsibilities of the offices they hold instead of anything but that, this city wouldn't be the raging dumpster fire they have let it become. 

Dereliction Of Duty

This is a sordid tale of politics over service, personal interest over common good with a healthy dose of negligence and incompetence. Despite having occurred over a brief time the telling takes a bit.

It all began with SARS-CoV2 and the (under/over)reactions by politicians to the spread of the virus and the impact of COVID19 which in Georgia quickly turned into a Blue vs Red pissing contest. Dunwoody's mayor just could not keep her nose to the grindstone and do her job.

When this started those knowledgeable in all things disease made policy recommendations suggesting actions the Dunwoody mayor chose NOT to take. Actions some would later characterize as "taking a stand" and one can guess this inaction was out of political considerations or perhaps standing with and listening to certain voices.

Bear in mind that at this point in time the Governor had deferred to local authorities, including this city, to take actions in their communities that would protect their community in the way they determine are best suited to local conditions. Sounds like "local control," doesn't it? Did Dunwoody's mayor take action? Exert local control? Show leadership?

Nope.

Instead, she had to join the political hashtag flash mob of mayors screaming for the state to step in, to take actions requiring courage and leadership lacking in these mayors.  And of course, take any associated political heat. Dunwoody's mayor took to media to disparage the governor because of, in her opinion, his reluctance to take a stand.

And then he did, relieving any political pressure she might receive from her business constituency. But the Governor, who is responsible to all of Georgia, made good on his promise to craft an executive order covering the state in its entirety and with uniformity. As city leaders had clearly demonstrated reluctance to act when given the chance, his executive order did not allow them to now that his order was in effect. And it remains in effect.

Some mayors, ours included, took issue with that, and free of political liability began advocating for the passage of local mandates exceeding the Governor's. Dunwoody passed an ordinance mandating masks and it is worth noting it was not a unanimous vote. Shortly after Dunwoody approved this illegal ordinance the Governor updated his executive order making it clear to even the densest local politicians that any city's ordinance not aligned with his executive order was illegal. Hard Stop.

Our mayor's reaction? Quick to twitter she proclaimed the Governor's action "incredibly sad for my community and Georgia." She then accused the Governor of politicizing your health, exhibiting hypocrisy that knows no bounds.

But there is a greater context than even a pandemic. This city is operationally in shambles. The police department is a public disgrace. The city openly, willingly violates its own ordinances. It has established agencies that serve not the public but are mere tools of powerful business interests. While Dunwoody's mayor was busying herself with issues beyond her ken she was ignoring her actual responsibilities. While she was distracted by her hashtag flash mobs she was supposed to be appointing a charter commission member as the city charter is up for review, and frankly given recent performance should be up for revocation. But the mayor was just too busy.

And how does this all stack up? Well, for the most part it is signalling and it is signalling something far from virtuous. Our mayor leads a city flagrantly ignoring city ordinances signally total disrespect for rule of their own law. Further undermining the rule of law, the mayor pitches a hissy fit when the Governor doesn't meet with her approval and then she advocates illegal and frankly unenforceable ordinances in a city known for lax enforcement of unprofitable infractions. Perhaps that is why she set her fines so high. And really, how would it be enforced? Skip through pages of "WHEREAS" and you'll find a definition of face covering you could comply with by wearing a bridal veil. Is she really claiming this is more important than delivering on a well-known, long standing deadline? Is this incompetence on display? Is it negligence? Regardless of the underlying pathology it is dereliction of duty.

So what should this mayor do? She would not lead; she will not follow; she must get out of the way. She must step down. Let someone with demonstrated intellect, exhibiting logical, rational thought and who has a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities of governments step in and do the right thing and do that thing the right way.

Mizz Dunwoody Bitch Slaps Mista DHA

The relationship between Mizz Dunwoody and her Mista has always been publicly pleasant if at times unseemly or downright incestuous. Recently an earth shattering breakup has Mizz Dunwoody kicking Mista DHA outa da house and to the curb. The abruptness leads some observers to believe Mizz Dunwoody has gone a bit crazy or might be over-reacting to some minor cock-up, like Mista DHA leaving the toilet seat up. Again. But somehow this has a burning bed quality about it.

Reaction in DaVille was immediate and in some cases pre-emptive. Some with an eye for Mista DHA as well as a slightly catty attitude towards Mizz Dunwoody are already slinging mud on Mista's behalf. Fact is they've been making catty remarks only slightly under their breath for some time and now that a crack has opened they are driving a wedge hard and fast all the while batting an eye at Mista DHA. The heart wants what the heart wants.

In reality even the batty-eyed flirts don't know what really happened. Mizz Dunwoody didn't just bitch slap the Mista, she lawyered up and laid a gag order on his stunned face. His initial compliance may be a simple delay tactic until he finds the better lawyers or it may be that Mizz Dunwoody has something that not only constitutes irreconcilable differences but might point to something significantly more serious and embarrassing than a brief indiscretion. And if Mista's courtesan's don't know how are the poor disengaged denizens of this burg to know?

Perhaps the better question is "why would we want to and what good would it do?" It's pretty obvious this split is for real and for good. The lawyers alone indicate that makeup sex is not in this couple's future and while his flirts may service Mista DHA, Mizz Dunwoody seems hellbent on standing tall. And alone.

But what now for Mista DHA? The sting is fresh and there is a risk of anger overruling reason. He may seek to vanquish Mizz Dunwoody on a field of legal battle but he would only win a pyrrhic victory. With significant collateral damage. Us.

Maybe Mista DHA can turn his attention to Miss Schoolhouse. They could be DaVille's next power couple. Or perhaps he can leverage his remaining wealth to invest in real estate. There are some nearby properties, notably a failed restaurant that he could save from becoming a successful bank. So many options. Only one of them bad.

Mizz Dunwoody and Mista DHA were, in their day, such an admirable couple. Let's hope bickering and acrimony don't permanently tarnish the image. 

Olde Farts And The Missing Majority

Lately there's been some 'cussin' and discussing around a stated gap between this City's demographics and what subset shows up for Council and Town Hall meetings. And when we say demographics we mean age because the dirty little secret is that no one at City Hall is the least bit concerned that the audience remains lilly white. The audience age observations surfaced at the first Town Hall meeting in the Mayor's statements that were later recounted at the subsequent Council Meeting.

According to print media the Mayor "told the town hall meeting audience that the average age of a Dunwoody citizen was 37 or 38, and those citizens did not have time to come to these types of meetings because of their families or jobs." We won't speak to what keeps other folks busy and quite frankly neither should the Mayor.

But we're all over the age thing.

The 2012 estimates from the U.S. Census bureau suggest a median* age of 36.6 years in the Wold. First this is not the average age but it is the age at which there are just as many who are younger as those who are older. This particular stat also includes all ages. Infants. Twaddlers. Elementary School children. High School. In fact, over 21% of our population is under 15 with almost 26% under 20. Certainly those 18 and 19 year olds are eligible for the vote but the remainder of this one-in-four cohort is indirectly represented.

As we've pointed out before, suburbs are places dedicated to the worship of children so it should come as no surprise that many in the Wold expect that the parents of minor children are the most appropriate representative on their children's behalf. The City Manager has taken us all to school on what a representative form of government means (he gets what he wants--you don't) and perhaps he'll let us know if this reaches into our dens and kitchens. It also seems the Mayor disagrees with parental primacy--otherwise he would have used a demographic stat that more accurately reflects the rather inconvenient view that an elected official should first and foremost represent the electorate. You know. The voters and taxpayers.

So what are the demographics of the potential electorate--those eligible to vote in this representative government (even if they don't bother)? One way to look at this is to examine the U.S. Census bureau data** for the potential electorate. This group comprises 36,388 souls out of a total of 46,133. The estimated average age*** of the twenty and over crowd is 47.1 while adding in some potential non-voters gives an average age of 45.3 for those fifteen and over. Call the average age the midpoint between these and we get an electorate that is ten years older than the median age of the overall population. Not quite Olde Fart but not thirty something either.

But that's just the average which surely tells only a small part of the story. How true. So how many Olde Farts are there and how does that stack up against them Smart Young Whippersnappers? Well, 12.6% of our population is 65 or older and that seems old enough for Olde Fart. Given the Olde Fart end state (dead) that compares pretty favorably with the under-fifteen crowd that comes in at 21.2%.  Taking out the legal minors we find that Olde Farts hold their own with young voters as well. You must march firmly into the 25-35 decade to match the over 65 crowd.

If we close in on the center of demographic mass we find that 23.1% are over 55 (previously known as "doing the speed limit") while the under-twenties comprise 25.9%. A back of the envelope estimate shows that there are about the same number of residents over 55 as there are those that are legal minors. What sane politician wants to piss off over 10,000 folks of an age known for a high rate of voting in deference to about a thousand 18 and 19 year olds who often cannot be bothered to even register?

So yes, Dunwoody has a large contingency of young folks, but primarily these are too young to vote, too young to enter into a contract and in almost all cases too young to drive. As one might expect our population demographic takes a dip with college age children as presumably these folks go away to college or get an entry level job and can no longer afford Dunwoody. And this all fits our general description: a suburban home to those who want a good place to raise their children.

Basically we've a middle-aged population. Currently the average age of adults (and we're acknowledging 18 yr olds as "adults") is around 46 but should rise as we now have a developer proposing to build a fifty five and over residential complex near Georgetown. This is not likely to offer a younger crowd at the Mayor's meetings and will drive up the average age in Dunwoody. With a stated policy of suppressing apartments with transient residents who tend to be younger the shift should be even greater. So you may not like Olde Farts but outside of that poor bastard we scared back to Fantasy Land it looks like our Plan of Record is "grow the rolls."

But is that what this is really all about? The aforementioned article goes on to quote the Mayor: "We, as a city council represent 47,000 people and we have to be very careful not to be pushed and swayed by a very vocal minority."

Wow.

OK.

Fine.

They're vocal.

But they may not be the minority they're dismissively made out to be. But even still there seems to be something else going on.

Sixty five percent of our population is under 45--children (a full 25% of the total and 40% of this younger subset), their parents, some folks working towards parenthood and a few smart young folks. And these are the folks who are NOT showing up at the Mayor's meetings which he states is because they're too busy with life. But the Town Hall meeting started with a personal testimony to the fact the the Mayor and Council cannot read minds. And yet...he can speak authoritatively to what are the motivating concerns and issues for this missing two thirds--which represent only 56% of the potential voters. Could it possibly be that the things most important in their lives are more centered around what is going on with the schools than how long the orange barrels are going to be on the Parkway? Perhaps so long as the City doesn't let anything important go pear shaped they are focussed on things that directly and immediately impact their children's well being. Who really knows? TOD cannot read minds either.

Politicians love to claim they represent a larger than life group in support of their opinion or policy all too often falling back on "The Missing Majority"--those folks out there in the constituency in some form or another that just don't have the time or opportunity to participate as much as others yet have all the time in the world to share their concerns and views with any ole politician (in private and off the record of course). This is particularly true when the politician's position is not carrying the day--remember all those emails about the Parkway that could just never be found? So the approach is to marginalize those who show up, who represent, as a vocal minority. Yet some of the very same politicos hold in high reverence that distinctly smaller minority that wrote, as if writ in stone for the ages, some Master Plan that was then subject to quite the minority for review and consequently can now only be deviated from on recommendation of the staff. Perhaps size really doesn't matter. The reality is that these politicians don't give a hairy rodent's rectum if you're in the minority or not they just want you to shut up, sit in the corner and pay your taxes.

And that's exactly what you should do because they are going to do and get what they want whether you like it or not--just pretend you still live in DeKalb County--because you do.

* Only in special cases (even distributions) is the median (midpoint of the range) equal to mean (average of the numbers in the range).  As we move along we will (due to lack of raw data) assume such a distribution.

** Unfortunately the Census data are bracketed as 15 yr 0 mon to 19 yr 12 mon which covers two years worth of voters. However it does not account for those over 18 who are not eligible to vote--not citizens or voting rights suspended. In the absence of detail data we'll call it a wash but recognize the inherent inaccuracy.

*** These estimates are based on the assumption that within a Census range the distribution is even, IE the median equals the mean.

What's For Breakfast?

Eggs Benedict is an American breakfast dish that consists of two halves of an English muffin, topped with ham or bacon, poached eggs, and Hollandaise sauce.

We've probably all heard the story about the chicken and the pig at breakfast--the chicken is involved but the pig is committed. For those engaged in high tech it is all too easy to see the current City Hall cock-up as yet another IT project fail and leave it at that. King Warren would certainly approve.

But that kerfuffle is just one example of the systemic problems permeating all aspects of the Hutmacher Café. It boils down (a reduction in toqued-up terms) to the fact that the City Manager and all His Staff may be involved (they certainly are when it is time for praise and a raise) but not a single one is committed. So from Executive Chef down to Bus Boy the team at the Hutmacher Café suffer inflated egos and bloated self-esteems. They gleefully serve up what they call Eggs Benedict complete with overcooked eggs and a congealed sauce atop a burned muffin but missing even a hint of anything resembling pork. Then they arrogantly proclaim it worthy of a breakfast at Brennan's. It certainly carries a Brennan's price.

And the Mayor and Council? What say they? Well, they fawn over this unsavory mess and the service that delivered it by heaping unwarranted praise on the Chef and Wait-Staff. It may well be the best rendition of Eggs Benedict they have every tasted but this says as much about them as it does the over-hyped tripe coming from the hell's kitchen of the Hutmacher Café.

Mayor and Council may be easily fooled but the public is increasingly aware that the Hutmacher Café serves up little more than a cold, slimy version of Eggs Benedict-Arnold.

Light Up Dunwoody

Remember Hope and Change? Remember Yes We Can? Remember Dunwoody Yes!? What these have in common is an ephemeral foundation of hope fueled bravado and a wonderful sense of self. And more than a heapin' helpin' of a condescending understanding of just who knows what is best for everyone.

Here in the Wold we have a shining example of how poorly these enthusiastic hope-filled endeavours age with nightly displays right up in the village. Go see for yourself.

What you'll find is a sight that to many is somewhat garish. The picture doesn't do it justice so you really should go see for yourself.

Now you're probably wondering what's the big deal with a business using its storefront for, well, business. Seems legit. But you would be wrong.

You see when our little group of community organizers decided they should be deciding they decided that NEON signs are verboten in the Village Overlay. But if you get a chance to stop by you'll find these aren't NEON lights. They're just UGLY lights.

Now maybe the existing ordinance shows what happens when folks who think they know what they're doing and don't try to do something they really can't. Maybe it shows the cracks in a political ecosystem based on earning merit badges in your local HOA, at church, then moving to DHA before finally earning enough patches to sit on Council.

Maybe this display really does violate existing ordinances and that is even more troubling. After our recent contentious election there are now calls for governance. But what can that really mean? Does Council enforce our ordinances? Hell, do they even author them or simply sign off on documents drafted by staff? Should we call in the Mayor to put an end to these violations? Could he if he even wanted to?

Or is the simple fact of the matter that there is no place for governance nor statesmanship in Dunwoody. We're being managed not governed so ask your boss, the City Manager, if this way of Lighting Up Dunwoody is OK or not.

Winston Churchill's Destruction of Dunwoody

One of Winston Churchill's quotable quotes on democracy

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter"

seems to have struck a cord with the powers-that-were who pushed thru the creation of Dunwoody. While promoting this city as a platform for local control they were crafting a city charter that effectively relegates our elected Council and Mayor to ceremonial status all but eliminating the voter's say over those who run their city.

They blessed us with what is really "representative democracy" in name only by creating what is in fact a Bureaucratic Monarchy. They effectively stripped our Mayor and Council of any real authority and concentrated what should be distributed power with built in checks and balances answerable to the voter into a single bureaucratic position effectively answerable to no one: the City Manager.

Our current charter has given us a Council and Mayor with the authority to preside over ribbon cuttings while it is King Warren of the Wold who decides when and where and even if these ribbon cuttings occur. He negotiates backroom real estate deals with the full power and purse of the City and deigns to engage Council only when their approval, guided by his hand, is needed--at which point it has been reduced to a mere formality. His casual dismissal of his public non-engagement when making drastic changes to Brookrun Parkway is probably the closest we will get to honesty and transparency during his reign with every other action cloaked in impenetrable opacity with the CAD dis-integration being but one example.

The basis for this Orwellian perversion is not just the aforementioned Churchill quote but the twisted notion that when power corrupts it only affects politicians while appointed officials are somehow immune. There have been many a pub chat regarding the general integrity of anyone who would even consider entering politics but history has proven time and again that humans, any and all, are ill suited to manage power and ultimately it is power that controls them. The key factors of power's corrupting effect are concentration and time and we have had quite enough of both.

We have spent far too much time and effort attempting to disprove the harsh reality of power's corrupting effect and we should now consider another bit of wisdom from Churchill:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Here in Dunwoody it is time that we give democracy a try. The power of the ballot box, our power, is effected only through the power of our elected officials and it is now time, with all good care and prudence, to put that power in their hands and return bureaucrats to the role where they best serve--being bureaucrats.

We must create a new charter that will be our Magna Carta.

Which Hunt?

Those who see the Mayor's Special Investigator as a waste of time and money are correct. We need no reports nor polygraphs (regardless of who buys them) nor blather about who told tales out of school nor cries of "witch hunt". Nor do we need further delay for we have two uncontested facts that are more than sufficient to drive the decision that must be made:

• City Council entered into executive session, with the City Attorney in attendance, to discuss selling City owned property
• In his current line of reasoning the City Attorney asserts that SELLING property was not in fact covered by any exclusion to the State's Open Meetings law

It requires neither the smartest of the smart in our Smart City nor any intellectual gymnastics to connect these two dots with the only straight line between them. The City Attorney, by action or inaction, supported Council in discussing disposal of City property which he now asserts was an illegal act. It no longer even matters which of these two assertions is true, nor which would survive scrutiny in a court of law, because the issue at hand is much simpler.

We pay for a full-time City Attorney to provide SOUND legal advice, day in and day out. Dunwoody is not well served by counsel that offers no better guidance than the flip of a coin. This is the heart of the matter. We deserve better and we should expect the Mayor and Council to ensure that we get the best legal counsel for our hard earned tax dollars.

If the Mayor and Council do not believe that the voters, taxpayers and citizens of Dunwoody deserve better than what they are now receiving then we need more than one change at City Hall.

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.

Dunwoody Talking Out of School

On a recent Friday the Dunwoody Mayor and Council held, on short notice, a meeting for the purpose of going into executive session. As we all learned from the Dekalk County School Superintendent search these executive sessions are not held in public and discussions are not made public. In the vernacular, what happens in executive session stays in executive session.

Those are the rules. And as we also learned from DCSS, some folks hold themselves above the rules, to wit, someone is alleged to have leaked information regarding the topics of discussion in the Dunwoody executive session. Naughty boy(s) or girl(s).

Condemnation has already rained down from others in the blogosphere and that is not the purpose of this rant. It will be left to others to ensure guilty staffers are fired and guilty politicians will be pilloried.

There are items of equal if not greater concern. At first blush there is the matter rumored to have been discussed: the sale of all or almost all of the "PVC Pipe Farm" to a developer who will build housing though probably not as high density as the original developer intended. To make up for this reduction in traffic on our roads the rumored proposal includes "mixed use", generally thought to include retail and restaurants. Perhaps a Chick-fil-a?

Some really important questions are raised here. How enduring is a "master plan"? Is the master plan so riddled with loop holes and vague language and therefore so open to manipulation and interpretation that the city can buy property under the guise of "much needed green space" and hardly a year later do a one eighty and propose to sell the property back to developers? Can this city create a plan that will endure one election cycle or is every election to become yet another set of mandates for sweeping change?

And the original financing for the purchase seems so sketch it would make Bernie Madoff blush. Did we really buy the property, as reports indicate we are simply leasing it from the Georgia Municipal Association? And since when did this lobbying organization get into the business of second hand financing? Just who approached whom in setting up this house of cards? How much of this fragile setup was based on the now dispelled confidence that the sheep of Dunwoody would approve the City's "parks bonds"? We were told this property was bought for "parks" and now it is just a speculative real estate deal relying on shaky financing. How many other pre-emptive spending programs were executed based  on "Parks Bonds Anticipation"? The property for the Peachford  Road to Nowhere? And how did this influence the negotiations? Clearly we paid too much for the Peachford property. That or no citizen should ever have complained about County property tax as it appears property in the area is undervalued by half. Was the overpayment because the negotiator was sure the City would soon be flush with cash? Did they "go shopping" too soon?

And who are these people? We need names. If there be consequences, firings and recalls, then let it be for the staffers, the managers and the elected officials behind these speculative land deals and public deceptions. And let it be NOW.

Two Lane or Not Two Lane

That is the dilemma.

As hard as it is to believe, there is quite a debate over the configuration of Dunwoody Parkway, centering on the lanes. For those who are not familiar with Dunwoody Parkway, it is the neglected stretch of pavement between Mt. Vernon and Chamblee Dunwoody circling behind Dunwoody Village. If you know where the "Bankwoody" Post Office is located, you know Dunwoody Parkway.

To be clear, it isn't actually a parkway, it is a boulevard, which means it has two lanes each way, a center median and enough vegetation to impeded one's view. At twenty five mph it also has one of the lowest speed limits in Dunwoody outside of All Saints. Of course it is located outside of the Perimeter Center area so there is absolutely no enforcement and speeds in excess of forty mph are not uncommon. Really. Between the length, the dead ends and the speed, it is more a dragstrip than anything else.

And the great divide is literally and figuratively over the median.

One camp wishes to convert Dunwoody Parkway to a street, one lane each way, ditch the median but keep the turn lanes at each light. The space freed by the lane and median removal is to be used for wide sidewalks and bike lanes in the hopes this reduces pedestrian jostling,  the current bike congestion and eliminates the associated injuries. This  camp is the old-guard Dunwoody Cabal and has enjoyed overbearing influence over city operations including so-called long range planning. In fact, the parkway plan has been championed by our outgoing mayor for years, even before the city became yet another albatross around the voters collective neck. And of course there is grant money involved and is there anything we wouldn't do to get our hands on other people's money?

The other camp wants each and every scraggly crepe myrtle in that median, and the median itself preserved for our children's children. And beyond. Further, and this is probably the real issue, they want to maintain the current status of "high speed cut through". Seriously. You cannot make this up. They want to ensure they have a four lane, high speed, half mile cut-thru so they don't get annoyed by going all they way to Mount Vernon and Chamblee Dunwoody. Of course, they're not against bike lanes or sidewalks, just don't take away their car lanes. And it isn't like they intend to stop and shop, or hell, even go the speed limit. Nope. They just want to get somewhere else.

So how about this: suppose we four-lane Mount Vernon from the village to the Dunwoody Club split? Now that would do something for congestion in the area. It certainly would stir more fervent and interesting debate.

At the end of the day, the only thing sillier that keeping Dunwoody Parkway four lanes is spending about $1,500,000.00 on a patch of land so some day we can spend even more to give a(nother) councilman a better commute. Can you guess what this city is going to do?

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.

Just a TAD Will Do Nicely

The Citizens OF Dunwoody rightly rejected the ill-managed drive towards deep debt represented by the two parks referenda. Whilst the approximately forty percent who voted in favour might be considered a "forty percent wrong out of a hundred" and consequently a pretty solid "F", this is politics where fifty plus one is an undeniable "A". Those forty are down.

But not out.

The Citizens OF Dunwoody have granted the City the power to create Tax Allocation Districts, allowing the City to identify an area as "blighted", issue bonds (w/o any more approval from those unruly citizens) and re-structure our tax base and expenditures. Expect this "tool" to be used by the City well before the currently sitting council and mayor leave office. And what might we expect?

1. A blighted area will be identified and it will, not coincidentally, be EXACTLY the same area the EXACT same mayor and council had identified as the IDEAL location for a major city recreation center.
2. Negotiations with area businesses (aka "apartments") will be revealed, preferably as a last minute agenda item at the end of an intentionally long city council meeting.
3. It will also be revealed, unwillingly, that details of these negotiations as well as development plans have been sitting on a city computer for some time. We will never know how these "discussions" originally started and who started them nor the real power structure behind them.
4. Though the location was ideal for "playgrounds for the children of the rich" it will have since been determined even better suited for a "Live, Work, Play" redevelopment with heavy emphasis on "Play", some on "Work" and not so much on "Live"-- and only to the extent that it is owner occupied.
5. Deals will be signed, bonds issued, taxes pulled from the general fund and directed exclusively to the "blighted" redevelopment, and Dunwoody will be rid of its undesirables as well as off on an exciting adventure in land speculation and development.

To their credit, the Citizens OF Dunwoody exercised fiscal prudence with their vote on the bonds referenda, but until the City reflects the will of the Citizens and not a shadow power structure, the Citizens OF Dunwoody must remain unwaveringly vigilant in all matters regarding TADs.

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!