Like A Cold Sore That Won't Go Away

Dominium, so aptly named, is persistent if nothing else and is acting with Trumpian sense of entitlement and ownership of facts: "no one under age 55 will be able to live there,"  where "there" is an incredibly out of place high-rise apartment on Ashford Dunwoody. Like Trump, who has his own facts, he has a reality problem with Congress. Seems the 104th passed something called HOPA (Housing for Older Persons Act) which explicitly defines the rules for 55+, including the 80/20 rule and that only one resident need be that old.  This is an actual "act of Congress" that Mr. Dominium has no control over, so despite his protests, the actual fact is that, by law, folks under 55 can, and very likely will, live in these apartments. Otherwise, honestly (that's a stretch) why would anyone build three bedroom apartments? 

The fact that this man's proposal is so inappropriate that even advocates of urbanization are against it is concerning. What is more concerning is the bureaucrats at city hall that are actively advocating for this proposal. The folks are on our payroll, and they have not a single clue about, and even less consideration for the people living in this city. They don't know us. They don't care to. They don't work for us. So who do they work for? And what is the power these outsiders have over city hall bureaucrats?

Maybe it is time for a "power down reset," rebooting this operation with lots of new faces. 

Rolling Out The Red Carpet

This city put out the welcome mat for developers on day one, after all we had a Developers' Authority before we had a city hall. Now the city is rolling out the red carpet for developers wanting to build apartments. Hundreds, soon thousands of apartments since incorporation. 

And the folks that run this city want even more.

It is as if they are cold-calling any and all commercial property owners suggesting they do a tear-down and re-build converting these properties to huge apartment developments. Irony? Absolutely. Remember that one of the things the Dunwoody Yes! folks claimed would change was the zoning backdoor that let commercial property owners build apartments without a zoning review. Now this city is encouraging exactly that.

Since this city is so good at collaboration, how about they collaborate with the school system. Maybe they could work together to convert one of these commercial properties into a school for the students already in all those apartments this city has encouraged. You know, give these families a sense of place, a neighborhood school around which to build community. Is that because they don't care about the folks living in apartments any more than they care about those living in our neighborhoods? Is it because all they care about is making a place for developers?

Great Awakening

Those running city hall have been feeling their oats, for quite some time, but are they one toke over the line? They seem to have aroused some sleeping giants. At a recent DHA meeting a mega-apartment complex to be built at the Life South site, and rest assured it will be built, was discussed. There were some heavy hitters in opposition, particularly to this project, but seemingly to whatever the hell is going on at city hall that resulted in a favorable view in the first place. By heavy hitters, we mean one of the two big guys: Dan Weber, who as a state senator pushed the whole "let's have a city" party through the legislature. Is this what seller's remorse looks like? 

The more important question is whether or not the DHA has had a rude awakening. Is it possible that they are spurred to action, that they will re-acquire the moxie to stand up and fight for the community? The mojo they lost when the city referendum passed. Apparently this odious issue has been a wakeup call to a number of founding councilmen and now even one of the two state-level advocates. 

And is it really odious? Absolutely. The initial stench is from the unadulterated bullshit of "55+ community" with one unabashed proponent of the project claiming that because it was said that it would be restricted exclusively to residents 55+, well then that's that. Well, what that really is, is bullshit. Some lip flapping at city hall means nothing in the face of federal law. Even today. And everyone knows it, including the proponents who pivot quickly to an affordable housing rant, with no shame at supporting this with a "end justifies the means" argument. Nothing matters but what they want. 

And as all things social media do, it devolved into ageist and racist rhetoric on the part of the project advocates. Did you know that the folks in Deerfield East are the recipients of generational wealth? Or that Dunwoody is just a bunch of old white people. Oh, and before you ponder that, it was meant as a "bad thing." And if there are folks in Winterhall who think they got where they are in life through hard work, prudence and good choices, well, park your privilege, preferably at the base of one of those Dunwoody Dildoes. 

Let's bottom line it. What Dunwoody needs to do is support creation of high paying jobs so people can afford to live here, instead of driving our community towards Section 8 housing. 

Retirement Age

Ah, the "retirement age." So many meanings. Is it the period of time we are now entering where significant numbers will age out of work, to be followed by a dip in the size of the next generation to age out? Is it how old you must be to start collecting Social Security? Is it when you start "aging in place" whatever the hell that is?

Well, aging in place is the easiest to answer: it is a marketing ploy used by developers to force high density where it isn't wanted and doesn't belong. Think: the Life South property. This tactic is nothing new. We've been treated to "live-work-play" and "transit oriented development" and "mixed use," all marketing slogans used by developers to take our community where they want it to go---profits for themselves. Now we have the mantra of "age in place" and "affordable housing" to convince folks that hundreds of apartments should be built where none are needed. And they apparently have the shakers and movers at city hall, including the city manager, in their pocket. The DHA? Not so much. 

The plan is simple, use these marketing tactics to push the development over the line. Pressure has been applied, "deferral is denial" in an attempt to force a hasty decision, though this has been walked back. A good mantra for those in the approval chain would be "make haste slowly" but that isn't likely to resonate with city hall. The actuality differs from the marketing promo. By quite a bit. First, the plan calls for a 55+ community of affordable apartments, whatever that means, with the implication this will have no impact on schools. After all how many 55+ have kids in schools? Well, that there is a fork in the road. Turns out, the rules for 55+ are pretty loosey goosey. Only one of the renting adults needs to be over 55, the other could be significantly younger and might well have school age children. Then there is the 80/20 rule, which says that up to 20% of the units could be rented to anyone of any age, which explains the developer's plan for three bedroom units. Even then there is the issue of enforcement. With resident owned 55+ units there is a HOA which is responsible for enforcing residency rules and is granted some means to effectuate enforcement. These are rentals, managed by a for-profit management firm whose primary objective is maximize profit by way of maximizing occupancy, a clear disincentive to enforcing the 80/20 rule. And will the city do anything? Hell no, they don't enforce sign ordinances or issue traffic citations. They're sure as hell not going to get involved here, and it isn't clear where they would even get the data needed to monitor residents' age. Same for DHA. 

Now if the developers were really committed to building something for that age-in-place crowd, they'd make it a 62+ development. Here we're talking a bit higher bar for the residents as both adults, assuming two, must be 62 or older. Even better, and easier to monitor, all residents must be 62+ and there is no 80/20 rule. Enforcement is stricter and it is much easier to implement oversight, And, at 62, you're getting pretty close to retirement age, or at least the minimum age to take Social Security. For now. You're not likely at this age to have school age children so there is no reason, no rationalization for three-bedroom units, allowing for more units in total. For developers isn't more better? Also, this is the time of life where many people are making the transition from work to fixed income. 

No one should be surprised if the developer pushes back on any suggestion that their age-in-place profit-taking scheme be compromised with a 62+ requirement. But here's the thing to watch for: how does the city manager react to such a suggestion?

Look! Up In The Sky!

It's not a bird. It's not a plane. And it certainly isn't Superman. It's some guy in a T-shirt and underwear standing on the fifth floor balcony looking down at your kids playing in your back yard. At least that is what the city's bureaucrats have in store for you. Yes, if you live near by the village they're going have their developer buddies build hundreds of rental overlooks ideal for destroying whatever privacy you thought you had.

Is this what you voted for when you said "yes" to creating a city? No? Then consider that next time you get a chance to vote.