Chamblee Dunwoody Linear Park

The City of Dunwoody is taking an uber-green approach to converting the section of Chamblee Dunwoody between Dunwoody Road and Spalding into a linear park. They are doing this in slow motion by simply letting nature take it's course. God, whoever she may be, has stepped up by creating one of the first trees for what will become a thriving forest.

As nature takes her course we can see this two lane waste of asphalt self-reduce to one lane followed by a slow restoration to a country lane and finally regaining its former glory as an Indian trail. No concrete required.

It has become clear that there was no grant money available to support a more timely creation of a park nor is there any available to remove road saplings and the City arbor-toire is more concerned about trees that might belong to individual citizens. Some were concerned that had grant money been available this stretch of asphalt would have become another concrete interstate to nowhere. Another observer was overheard commenting that were this tree growing in the gutter at his house the City code enforcers would be all over them like white on rice. But when it is in the City's gutter...

Local Control For Sale

We in the 'Wood wax poetic about "Local Control". "Local Control" is the cornerstone of City governance based on the superficially obvious observation that it is smaller and generally in closer geographic proximity. But miles are not the only measure of proximity and the ballot box is not the only means of control.

A perfect and quite transparent object lesson is had by juxtaposing the High School Roundabout with the Village Parkway. In the former case Council "bowed to the will of the people" allegedly receiving a Sagan-esque "billions and billions" of emails. The objecting noise over the Parkway is unceasing and protesters have literally taken to the street. To no avail. For the Parkway matter Council hides behind "The Master Plan" claiming it is well vetted, the product of public input and not subject to further review or modification. The same could be said of the roundabout, but it isn't, and the Smart Folk are left to ponder why.

The differentiator is as simple as it is obvious. Much of the Parkway funding is from grants while the roundabout is simply our tax dollars at work. And when City Hall taps Other People's Money, these Other People tap them--on the shoulder and direct them to do what these Other People want and do it the way they want it done. If that happens to align with your "vision" and achieves your goals, and only your goals, then it is little more than another source of funding. Of course this is never the case. If you were going to do something as these Other People would have it, why should they pay?

The problem is increasingly obvious. The Other People are much more subtle than a tap on the shoulder. They tell the City up front what "their way" is making it clear it is "their way or the highway". Consequently our City bureaucrats are not identifying and characterizing problems in order to propose one or more solutions for public approval and funding but instead look to what funding is available, determine what strings are attached and then craft a "solution" tailored to the grant requirements. Problems themselves are discussed only as it furthers grant approval and characterized only to the degree required to squelch public outcry. We're not very good at the second part.

As few grants cover one hundred percent of costs these Other People are buying influence and taking the "Local Control" we've entrusted to the City at a very steep discount. It is increasingly apparent that Council exerts as much power at City Hall as the DeKalb Board of Education does over DCSD Administration.

At the end of the day when grant prospecting influences what this City does and how it is done unelected City bureaucrats are selling OUR "Local Control" for their benefit.

Bank Operates In The Hole

There has been some confusion surrounding the siting of the Chase bank at the corner of Dunwoody Village Parkway and Chamblee Dunwoody Road in the heart of the Village. Some say it is situated "in a hole" and if one is standing on the sidewalk near the city-mandated, never-used park bench, the building does indeed sit below sidewalk level.

The problem is that folks have it all backwards. Literally. When you are looking from the CDR sidewalk you are actually looking at the back of the building. The picture below is of the actual front of the bank. Notice the porch, signage and those little things blocking the view...they are called "automobiles". These are often used by what business folk call "customers" in order to get to and from the place of business.

It is all the rage for governments to legislate how and where a business is allowed to put its own building on its own property. Dunwoody is neither unique nor unusual, but they have kicked it up a notch down to the Village requiring bike racks, park benches and lighting in addition to the signature "beige and brick" and the more commonly mandated sidewalk.  Whilst all the greenies are fawning over the "artists renditions" of folks perambulating up and down the sidewalks, some taking a brief respite on the bench and generally having a good ole time, businesses have been laboring diligently to make this nonsense workable.

And they did.

They were forced to situate the building near the "frontage road" (Chamblee Dunwoody) with parking "in the back". And to make this work they simply turned the building around so that from a functional point of view it is the back that faces Chamblee Dunwoody Road. The functional front is "in the back" where all the cars are parked. While they did dress up the functional back, don't be too surprised if the doors stay locked if only for security reasons. Still not convinced? Well, where is wheel-chair access located? Do you usually put handicap access as far as possible from the front door?

You can legislate all you want in an attempt to coerce your own brand of silliness, but businesses are going to do what they must in order to remain in business. Some folks maintain that the City should not have allowed this bank to be built in a hole, but the fact of the matter is that is exactly what the City insisted be done.

Dunwoody Pavement Paradox

If you're trying to figure out a simple answer to all things asphalt in Dunwoody then you're probably dizzy from all the spin. The problem is there is more than one distorted looking glass in this fun house. You cannot just follow the money and you cannot just look for the busy body who wants to run your life. You must consider both.

Take the interstate lane to be paved through old growth forest. Done deal. Chamois chafing bikers are hell bent on creating a Dunwoody just like Seattle or wherever the hell bicycle nirvana really is (and belongs). But they are "progressives" and that makes them right and you wrong. Just ask 'em.

Another on the special interest front is the High School Roundabout. Roundabouts are currently very trendy with the aforementioned "progressive" crowd. Just gotta have 'em, after all they are so euro-chic. Can't wait until they find out how euro-chic castles are. Real castles, not those shoddily constructed mcmansions. Anyway they attempted to validate their plan by hiring a consultant who never did a site visit and didn't even know about the high school. Little Fuqui Yuppee. Then the Not Around My Place folks pounced and shouted in Council's ear and like a wind-sock Council blew the NAMP's direction. Score one for the "interlacers".

Council were not listening so intently when the anti-parkway crowd tried to bend their ears. The plan is simple enough: spend two point four million dollars on zero point four miles of road. That works out to over eleven hundred dollars per running foot, not the kind of money that falls off trees. This plan includes de-paving--sacrificing one lane each way for sidewalks and bikeways so one might conclude the progressive bikers have won another battle. Naturally the interlacers came out in force, stealing a progressive mainstay, "save the trees", in an effort to stop the plan. But this is a case of follow the money, and the money is a grant that we've asked for and received and should we turn up our non-progressive noses, we'll not see another grant for quite some time. And we're addicted to OPM.

There's also the one point five million dollars pissed away on a building now left to rot. Why? Well, the official answer is this property is a necessary component of a cut-through from Shallowford over to Perimeter/Ashford-Dunwoody. In reality this is a bit of both follow the money and "we'll run your lives". You see the real goal was to acquire the old Shallowford/Emory hospital property allowing for an extension of the interstate lane through Brookrun and preventing the construction of those nasty ole apartments with those nasty ole people living in them. Just so happens that Peachford property was owned by the same folks and they wanted to unload all of them. If you think those deals were unrelated you're too stupid for this smart city.

Dunwoody Park Forest Drive

If the Dunwoody Parkway tragedy continues as planned we, as a community, stand to lose these fine trees to chainsaws and bulldozers. Why the same public pressure that brought a four-way-stop to roundabout plans cannot or will not be brought to bear to stop this destruction is simply baffling. Why are council email inboxes not flooded with stop work requests from all corners of the 'Wood?

Simply put the parkway plan must change.

A simple exercise of eminent domain will put sidewalks and our beloved bike lanes beside the existing road preserving the fine arboreal specimens dotting the median. This will not only provide for all those who walk to work in the village and those who bike to shopping but it will also remove crufty, dilapidated old trees like this one which overshadows the median suppressing the growth of far superior specimens (see above).

Get moving and email that windsock of a council today!

Oink Oink

Pork: Always Good

The only remaining agribusiness in Dunwoody seems to be harvesting pork.

This has recently surfaced in the Parkway kerfuffle, but it is interesting to note that few voices are raised in opposition to the pork stampede driving this project to completion but rather to the specifics of the project and the million or so bucks it will cost local taxpayers. And it really has gone without saying, in any meaningful forum, that many of these taxpayers are businesses, some of which rely on this little stretch of paved paradise.

However, there has been some indigestion over the general issue of pork--controlling grants that fund bloated excess in what local governments do and how much they [over] pay for having it done. In response, supporters of the gluttonous appetite for this intrusion and bloat offer the tried and true "if we don't do it some one else will." This speaks to the belief of a zero sum game as this is commonly followed by "and they'll get ahead of us." OK. So what? The argument isn't quite as childish as "nanny, nanny boo, boo" but it is pretty darn close.

One valid observation has been made. This version of the pork industry is a structural implementation of the tragedy of the commons. But it has all the moral appeal of starving people only to watch them fight over crumbs. For your own entertainment. Let's just call it a government operated "Survivor" reality show. And local governments, of which Dunwoody aspires to be the best, are fighting to "get on the show" and it is every bit as embarrassing as you might imagine.

A few, a very few, outliers seem to be thinking outside the box that is our city limits, suggesting that at some point people of principle and character must take a stand on a larger stage, even if there is great risk. Normally such talk is allowed in Dunwoody only on the Fourth of July and only in reference to long dead forefathers who risked property and life so we could rape and pillage the future they fought for. After all that is what they fought for. Right?

The fact is there has always been a tension between principled ethics and practical ethics (yes, some consider this an oxymoron). The grade school example is "you see a dollar on the ground--should you take it?" While there are bodies of law built around what folks do, what they are allowed to do, and what they should do in cases  like this, the question remains: should you take something you know does not belong to you?

Of course the situation in Dunwoody is completely different because we have a man in a trench coat flashing us really cheap Rolex watches and if we don't take these off his hands someone else will. We may not need another watch or care what time it is and we don't really care where he got them. In fact, it's better we don't know.

They Paved Paradise...

...and they put in a velodrome!

Or it least that's what it seems like in Dunwoody these days.

It was one thing to stripe off bike lanes during the re-paving process, especially on high traffic routes, but the plan to put an interstate-lane-wide impermeable concrete bike road through wooded parkland is odious. It would be like putting an interstate through a national forest so drivers can zip by and "see the scenery".

And just what has happened in the cycling world anyway? Doesn't anyone own a mountain bike? Wouldn't that be an appropriate ride through a nature park? It seems like the vocal wing of our cycling community are all Armstrong wannabes that will ride no less than the best road bike, they'll ride it wherever the hell they want, and if there isn't a road there they will cry like colicky babies until it gets built.

This fascist wing of cycledom not only holds drivers in contempt but they also have little regard for those they consider lesser riders on lesser rides. Mountain bikes might only warrant a condescending snort, but the sight of a beach-bike with pedal brakes and a flip-flop shod rider would have them in a hissy-pissy fit. These spandex-clad blivets sitting atop their Fuji Finests act as if the smallest bump would have that razor thin "saddle" performing an impromptu prostate exam. As painful as that might sound, the greater risk is it would put an eye out.

Parkway: The Real Problem

In a recent update a City Councilman hinted at a very real problem surfacing in the Parkway kerfuffle.

"... the City ran the risk of blacklisting from future grants if we cancelled the plan completely."

This is a clear statement that we are driven by an ambition to spend other people's money--by way of grants. We at The Other Dunwoody will not entertain the claptrap about how we pay the taxes that fund these grants, or "getting our share", or how if we don't get the grant someone else will. We will simply suggest you research "The Tragedy of the Commons" and start taking some ownership of America and not just your back yard.

This selfishness also blinds us to the key point underpinning this repavement project. Somehow we got backed into a corner and are now presented only with a Hobson's choice.

Now if this situation was created by, at the request of and with the approval of Council 1.0 in an open and transparent manner, then all is well and good and the time for carping and complaining is over. It is now time to act on the plan. If Council 1.0 instituted the plan, began execution and passed the baton to Council 2.0, it is incumbent upon the current Council to take that baton and run with it, not throw it down and whine.

But the carping and complaining remains ceaseless, even on Council, making one question whether Council 1.0 was very involved in the actions that precipitated the "future grant poison pill". If not, then who did this?

The obvious place to look, if you are not the Police Department, would be at those closest to the action: the bureaucrats down at City Hall. Did someone at City Hall take the steps constituting an irrevocable commitment? If so, who did this? Did they have standing authorization to make million dollar commitments on behalf of City taxpayers? If so, this should be fixed immediately.

If this was some deal based on bureaucratic "initiative", as many suspect with Project Renaissance, then Council needs to act, first to terminate the offending bureaucrats and then to amend the process to prevent future disasters.

Government "Purchased" Program

It may have slipped your notice but DeKalb County has combined forces with "Purchasing Power" to set up  their very own version of "Aaron Rents" for county employees. It is quite the sweet(heart) deal, but just when did it become a County Government responsibility to set up an internal retail operation?

Operationally it is simple. First, no interest. None. Never. Not now, not in twelve months. Not on TV's, not on computers and of course never on washers and dryers. How does that work? Simple: charge a twenty percent markup. These are prices that would make "Needless Markup" blush and were that interest, it would border on ethical if not legal usury. But this is little more than gouging, which except for plywood after a tornado, is apparently OK. So lesson learnt: if retail is for chumps, then this must be for real losers.

It gets better. The county gets ten percent. Yep. Ten percent for garnishing the wages of their employees and forking the money over to a private, for-profit business. Is that what folks really mean by "Public Private Partnership"?  They've turned the old bromide "business doesn't pay taxes, they just collect them" on its head.

But wait! There's more! None of this could happen without...you guessed it...POLITICIANS! At both the state and county level this was pushed through by our very own North DeKalb elected officials.

One, at the state level, is paid a "fee" for "brokering" the deal. Very tidy. Sounds a bit like this scam was not let out for bids, but what the hell, isn't that what elected office is for? Making deals between government and corporations to garner those hard-earned "brokerage fees"? Of course he says he'll tithe, giving ten percent of his fee, which adds to the county "commission",  in order to cover county costs. What a mench, eh?

And the local yokel politician? Well it is the commissioner's job to establish a smoke screen.

"We can't afford to give them raises, we've raised their insurance and if you can't replace your washer and dryer, you don't know what kind of trouble that is." 

What? Can't afford raises? Not now and apparently not ever, but we sure as hell can make sure you have every opportunity to pay twenty percent over retail. Not WHOLESALE, but RETAIL, and we'll take OUR cut. And "washers and dryers"? Like it really isn't going to be big screen TVs. Are we really supposed to believe the washer and dryer always go out at the same time? And have YOU ever heard of a "laundromat"? Right. Gotcha.

Do we need any other explanation for the lack of traction on ethics legislation than shenanigans like this? Such legislation may risk a politician's real income. Or worse yet, suppose we had a legitimate fourth estate, that investigated the money flows related to friends and family of corporations, and politicians with their friends and families.

We certainly know something is being bought and paid for here in DeKalb, and it is pretty clear it isn't just major appliances.

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.

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?

Just Say NO!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just Say NO!

The Five Percent Solution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making Parks Work

The PR campaign in support of the Parks Referendum has started in earnest and it has turned ugly with ad hominem attacks. Not against The Other Dunwoody, that's just too easy, but against another Citizen of Dunwoody who is a noted contributor to the city as well as the greater community. Since our pollyannish cheerleader squad has not a clue how to participate in a reasonable, adult debate that might arrive at a workable solution, it is incumbent upon The Other Dunwoody to cut to the chase and offer the solution.

The center of controversy is around the gap between the intent, to purchase land for parks, and the language and content of the referendum and the supporting legislative documents (laws/ordinances). These documents are presumed to be legislative mandates of this council guiding the operations of current and future city personnel and councils with regard to this thirty year commitment to purchase land for parks. The fixes are rather straightforward: the language of the referendum must be changed and it must be supported by city legislation and these documents MUST meet these criteria:

• The language must require that this bond money be used for the purchase of land for Parks and only Parks and any land acquired directly or indirectly by use of these funds are dedicated in perpetuity to Parks. Think of it as the Taxpayers of Dunwoody donating land to the City with a deed restriction. 
• This money cannot be used to acquire any property with even the threat of imminent domain, let alone the actual process of imminent domain. Any city employee caught attempting to use the threat of imminent domain in conjunction with the use of these funds shall be subject to felony charges. They might even lose their job.
• This money cannot be used to purchase "rights of first refusal", "options to buy" or "easements". It can only be used to buy property with the full rights of the existing owner--pre-existing easements apply. This money cannot be used as a tool to cajole us into taking on more debt at a later time.
• Any and all money collected by these new taxes must be put in escrow and used only for the purpose of paying the principle and interest on the bonds. Nothing else. No ribbon cutting ceremonies. No promotional events. No investing and spending the interest else where. Debt reduction only. And when the debt is paid, any remaining funds are returned to the taxpayers in direct proportion to their contribution to that year's tax.
• Any future referendum with language that would alter in any way the use of property acquired under this referendum or the use of remaining funds must be approved by two thirds of the registered voters in Dunwoody. See in perpetuity.
• Any future changes to these laws and ordinances enacted to define and control the process of acquiring land for parks must be approved by 100% of the City Council seats. Not the majority of a quorum. No "abstainers". If a seat is vacant, it must be filled before the vote. One Hundred Percent. Six "yeses". Signed by the Mayor. No "ifs", "ands" or "buts". Again, see in perpetuity.
• And here's the "deadly embrace": these changes must be complete with all laws and ordinances enacted seven days prior to the vote on the referendum. Fourteen days it should be, but we know you're in a hurry (we've already discussed why).

These are non-negotiable.

Fix it and you just might get to go on that "Shopping Spree". You can even buy those apartments filled with "People You Just Don't Like". Can't get it done or done "in time"? Well, just maybe the timing isn't right and you can get your act together for next year. It seems that might even be a presidential election year.

One Lump? Or Two?

With tax for two and two for tax,
Just us to tax and tax on all we own!

During the upcoming elections Citizens of Dunwoody will be presented with parks referenda:

1. a $33 Million indebtedness to buy "parks"
2. a $33 Million indebtedness to operate "parks"

Even if you believe the City of Dunwoody should own and operate just as much in the way of parks, by whatever measure, as your favorite place, where sadly you do not currently reside, surely you can see how this is a bit like getting a loan to buy a car and then another loan to put spinners on it and gas it up. Most sane folks would question whether you need a car, and even if you do, can you really afford it. Again, were sanity in charge, the answer would be a resounding NO!

It appears, in our Smart City, sanity is sadly lacking. Even still we can dismiss the latter of these proposals as over-reaching, either out of simple and pure greed, or as an attempt to position what they really want as a "compromise". In any event it is too absurd for even the most fascist purveyor of "tax you for me, me, me", but that still leaves this notion of "investing in parks". 

That referendum and the associated operational procedures have been criticized by many, most observing that it is crafted as if by novices, who are new to this whole 'guvmint thang', and who don't really know what they're doing or how to do it. Well...that just happens to be the case. That said, when it was pointed out by many, but in particular a well-know local developer, that it is a good idea to appraise property before purchase, or, and here's a real shocker, that you get two independent appraisals, language to that effect was, however reluctantly, added.  But this lip-flapping about details and wording ignores serious structural problems and almost makes approval seem a foregone conclusion. 

The Other Dunwoody has already made the case that Dunwoody does not need additional parks and with recent suggestions of converting undesirables' apartments into "City Parks" it is increasingly clear this is about something other than "playsets fer the kiddies". This is not a need, it is a proven greed and will start a never-ending addiction. It's pretty clear that we don't need these "parks" and the ultimate price we will pay is outrageous.

In spite of all that, there is the distinct possibility that one or both of these will pass, and without any substantive, structural changes that constrain how and for what the money will be used. There will be no language to ensure it is for parks, and parks only, nor that surplus funds will be used only to pay down the debts with the tax expiring when the debt is repaid. And quite frankly, would you believe these politicians, or those to come after, any more than those who lied about the GA-400 tolls? Probably not.

So just who is pushing this? Well that would be the "Citizens for Dunwoody, Inc." who when advocating for city-hood sat on task force reports until after that referendum passed. As  their website indicates (note the lack of posted referenda, calendar of events, or opportunity to comment) this organization is not one dedicated to open and honest discourse. In the past a well-informed "Smart" electorate did not suit their purpose, so again they are supporting a PR barrage to push this thing through.

Who are these folks? As it happens, the CFO and Secretary is none other than our very own City Attorney who has influence over the language, if not the content of these documents. This Smart City would be better served if a highly compensated employee fixed the vagueness and closed the loopholes in these documents rather than supporting an organization that appears hell-bent on glossing over these problems with non-binding speeches at PR sessions.

And the credibility of this process would be better if informational sessions were run by the League of Women voters. There are enough sessions scheduled for the Mayor and members of Council to each make two presentations and field questions from the community. Bring the city manager to each and every one. Let us hear what the architects of this proposal have to say. Then our paid staff can focus on ensuring that the referenda are properly updated to reflect any newly identified weaknesses resulting from these public reviews.

If they cannot or will not address these issues before the vote, we can deal with it the day of the vote.

Park It

Please quit with the "we need more green space" blather. It is unadulterated crap. And we probably don't even need the baseball fields we have let alone any more so let's just cut to the chase.

The Mr. Hyde side of the City seems consumed by lust over other people's money and getting their chance to spend it. A city councilman was quoted in the AJC referring not only to the pre-committed purchase but others as well saying, "With $27 million left [...] we can go shopping." Wow! Did someone elect a pre-pubescent teenage girl to city council and does she think she's at the mall with daddy's credit card?

Our version of Dr. Jekyll in the land grab debate argues this is a buyer's market, and we should act before the situation changes though it doesn't look like it will for some time. Acting soon doesn't mean you cannot or should not negotiate a better price nor does it mean that every bit of property is a good buy. And Bill Grant, who knows a thing or two about buying up Dunwoody property, has suggested that as the "only buyer" Dunwoody could negotiate a better price and shouldn't rush into anything. While he does have a vested interest in the availability of undeveloped property in Dunwoody, he also has a point. 

But timing the market is not the real issue at hand. A high ranking city official was once quoted by one of his friends as saying "We formed the city too late. Too many apartments are already here." Well, maybe, and maybe not.

Clearly the Pipe Farm purchase was to prevent the completion of an already in-progress apartment complex. The Shallowford Hospital property is most appropriate for high density housing rather than upscale dining, technology incubators, Rodeo Drive retail, or even parks. But god and voting taxpayers willing, Dunwoody will take that off the market as well.

Now is a perfect time to put it to a vote. Homeowners, even in Dunwoody, cannot quickly turn their property and certainly not at the price they want. Imagine if they could. Wouldn't any sane homeowner sell, move out and up, to an area where prices have not held up, and get a bigger, newer home and better schools? Since they cannot or will not move, paying to build a moat, albeit a green space moat, is suddenly an attractive alternative, even given you would be instituting a tax that will never go away and eliminating other sources of revenue.

So the referendum for purchasing property presents a simple question to folks in Dunwoody:

"How much will you pay to keep those other people out"?

Revolutionary Forces Beaten Back

With apologies to the Beatles and all their fans...

You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world

You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world

But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out

This was the message sent by the citizens of Frederick County, MD and apparently received by their local Board of County Commissioners. While some of the uproar is sure to have come from "self-serving county employees" for whom privatization meant loss of pay and benefits if not a job, there were broader concerns about how the BoCC was conducting business.

You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We'd all love to see the plan

You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're all doing what we can

But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait

As it should be in all government contracted services, transparency was a real issue. From the beginning the BoCC not only conducted much of their business in a way that came under criticism on this point, but they neglected to address transparency concerns when their revolutionary new outsourcing plan took effect.

You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head

You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

The situation started as an "electoral mandate", not unlike any election in the U.S., especially when an incumbent loses. It also created a single-party BoCC led by a recently elected Chairman who became the public face of local government outsourcing.

Don't you know it's gonna be alright

At the end of it all, reason overcame revolution. A hastily prepared report was reviewed by the University of Maryland after which this report was given the disposition it merited based upon that review. A consensus was reached to "make haste slowly" putting Frederick County on a path of optimizing services and reducing cost structure while retaining transparency and accountability. This approach to addressing the misalignment between public and private payroll and benefit structures is much more like what Atlanta is doing and Dunwoody has done than what Sandy Springs did.

It bears watching.

Sandy Springs Maintains Services

As reported in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution Sandy Springs has passed a 2012 budget with no service cuts while cutting costs by over $7 million.

How did they do this?

City officials have said switching from CH2M Hill as the provider of most city services provided big savings. They estimate around $7 million in savings by allowing companies to bid on separate services instead of all of them being put together.  "Dividing the contracts up has been good for the city," Councilwoman Dianne Fries said. This is supported by the City Manager, John McDonough who added, "Due to the savings realized from the re-bid of the city's general government services, Sandy Springs was not faced with making significant budget cuts."

Dunwoody was out front on the proper way to contract for city services, but it is comforting to have the affirmation of our "big sister" to the west. Now if Dunwoody could just show DeKalb County how to save some of our money...

A Shout Out to Frederick County, MD

Google Analytics indicates the good folk of Frederick County, Maryland have been doing due diligence before moving from a traditional service approach to the once-favored "Public Private Partnership" or "Three Pee UhOh". Since our new cities north of Atlanta seem to be the breeding ground for Three Pee UhOh, perhaps the experiences of these communities can provide some guidance.

In no particular order...

Be wary of studies. The outcome of any study is based on assumptions. Whoever controls the assumptions controls the results and recommendations.

Be wary of consultants. Consultants are a bit like picking a doctor. If you talk to a surgeon, your ailment will most likely be treated by surgery. A homeopath? Not so much. If you hire a consultant with a track record of advising wholesale outsourcing of services, well, don't be too surprised when he recommends you do the same. And you should be no less surprised to find out he just happens to know of a company that can get the job done.

Be careful what you ask for.  If the motivation is to free the county from a Wisconsin-like death grip of public worker unions, then perhaps wholesale outsourcing is required to break free. Be sure the contract is no greater than a term in office or you will simply trade one demon for another. Plan a clear path to the optimal solution arrived at by some of our communities.

If the change is the result of a political shift from democrats, generally beholding to unions, towards republicans, generally beholding to business, be very wary. You are probably just trading one form of political corruption for another.

Wholesale outsourcing is dubious at best. The financial arguments are simple enough: like Walmart, these mega-corps allegedly enjoy economies of scale. Perhaps they do. But one thing is certain, when you pay the contract, you are paying their profits, their executive bonuses, and funding their re-investment in their business. Little of this money will stay in Frederick County.

When you outsource services you outsource quality. More importantly you outsource accountability and transparency. What is now subject to open records requests will magically become "the proprietary business information of a private corporation".

Full frontal Three Pee UhOh has lost its luster. Before rampant city formation had run its course north of Atlanta, at least one of the new cities rejected full outsourcing from the very beginning. The others have or are in the process of moving towards in-house management with multiple contracts for various work. This is being done not only to ensure the best service levels, but to save money. Ironically it is saving money that is offered as the primary reason to outsource but it simply has not withstood the onslaught of reality.

We in The Other Dunwoody hope this helps.

What Brings You Here?

Not to this posting. To Dunwoody.

Why did you choose to live in Dunwoody?

It should come as no surprise that most folks in Dunwoody were neither born here nor raised here. They moved here. The question is "why"? Why, given all the options, did folks move here in say the last five or six years?

Was it the parks? What, did they find a real estate agent recently released from a mental ward and fresh off her meds who drove these prospects around pointing out vacant lots that might become a park someday? And did these tragically "smart people" then buy a house close by...but not too close by? After all, if you don't want your own kids literally playing in your backyard you sure as hell wouldn't want other folk's brats playing right behind it, right? And is that what all this "send your kids to the park to play" is really all about? Are people in Dunwoody so uptight they cannot tolerate the neighbor's kids playing in their own backyards?

Perhaps it was the schools. Legend has it that a house in Vandy commands a premium of as much as fifty thousand dollars. For K-5, now K-3, perhaps back to K-5. Call it six years, because no one is suggesting the middle school or high school are worth any premium. So let's call it $50K. That's well over $8000/year. Right...now let's check on this...yep...there is absolutely no way could you buy, on the open market, five years of elementary education for $8000/yr. And if you could, there is just no way it would be as fine an education as DeKalb County offers at Vandy. Nah...it can't really be about schools. Surely "smart people" would have done a little research and found out that East Cobb's public schools routinely kick Dunwoody's ass when it comes to academics.


Were they forced to live in DeKalb? Did the courts make it condition of their probation or what? Then did they decide Dunwoody was the best DeKalb has to offer? What, Smokerise not good enough for you? Decatur too funky? Chamblee not have (good) enough restaurants? Doraville missing a farmhouse? Stone Mountain not have enough parks and recreation nearby? Surely it can't be that houses in Avondale all look the same or that Brookhaven is too close to MARTA.

And why is this even worthy of a rant from The Other Dunwoody? Shouldn't we be discussing Ernie's neon sign which is in violation of a silly city code?

This is topical because a vocal, if otherwise insignificant, group of fairly recent Dunwoodians apparently moved here to raise taxes. They seemingly come from a land where it is accepted practice to appropriate other people's money to spend on their whimsical fancies and toys for the kids they have but cannot afford. They're here. They're mouthy. They're posting all over the blogosphere. It demands a response.

So it has been left to The Other Dunwoody to ask the obvious, and apparently hard question:

"If you don't, and didn't, like Dunwoody, why the hell did you move here?"