Shaken, Not Stirred

Bond. Trails Bond. Apparently the any-debt-at-any-cost crowd are crying in their martinis. But no worry, if you can afford to live in Dunwoody you can afford a top shelf martini. Or so went the logic.

Problem is, that kind of logic did not resonate with the crowd who, almost 15 years ago, voted to create a city they thought would be characterized by fiscal responsibility, limited government and local control. As it turns out, the city charter minimizes voter input and local control except in those instances where a referendum is required for city bureaucrats to "grow the city." Such was the case with the rather deceptively named "parks bond" referendum. 

The postmortems have already begun and the do-over committees are probably forming so, well, let's pile on. 

Start with the name. It is deceptive on many levels. First it was to cover parks, which almost everyone favored and highway lanes (even more deceptively) branded as "trails." Worse yet, there was not a list of specific projects with pricing, just a bucket of items like a list a four year old child hands to Santa but no where near as specific as "I want an official Red Ryder, carbine action, two-hundred shot range model air rifle!" More like "I'll have the whole bag and I'll take what I want when the mood strikes me." There is enough confidence in what goes on at city hall and how they operate to make some folks wonder if what would come out of the bag would be PATH's choices over the community choices. 

And city hall knew that PATH's choices were not popular amongst the populace which is why they bundled it with parks and refused to allow an up-down vote on each independently. Separation would also have required they expose exactly how much they intended to allocate to parks and how much they would direct to PATH. So they chose to piggyback something bad on something good as if they were the US congress or something. Works when voters aren't directly involved. Not so much this time. 

There was mischaracterization on both sides. The debt-averse crowd characterized the bond as a "blank check" which the mayor curtly dismissed by remarking, correctly, that it is not a blank check. Left unsaid was that it is better characterized as a slush fund (see previous observation that no concrete prioritized list was provided). The pro-debt crowd characterized the debt-averse as being "anti parks" without recognizing that the referendum included "trails" without constraint on parks vs "trail" priority or expenditures with no protection against PATH running away with all the money. 

Then it got personal with the debt-lovers characterizing the debt-haters as olde fartes who were frozen in the 1970s and against any change. This kind of attack is not noteworthy other than it invoked the Dunwoody version of Godwin's law. This degenerated to invitations to move if you don't like debt-funded changes or a Dunwoody that is nothing more than a cookie-cutter copy of neighboring cities. A bit like watching the folks with all the shiny objects trying to convince the millionaire next door to keep up with the Jones'. Entertaining to watch for the first couple of rounds but quickly turns painful. 

One can never have a contentious political debate without yard signs and one cannot have yard signs without someone removing the opponents' signs. When some debt-averse signagers pointed out that their signs went missing the retort from across the chasm was "the city did this." Not clear if that is true but everyone should certainly hope that it isn't. A city that shows disdain for their own responsibility to police signs in the Village should probably not be pulling down political signs advocating against the city's wishes. Not a good look. 

The pro-debt crowd used a common tactic to dismiss the 53% tax increase that the bond payoff represents by claiming you have to compare that increase to your total property tax bill. Actually, no you don't. You see, the only taxes that the city can directly affect is, well, the city tax. Kinda obvious if you think about it. So when they propose to add more than 50% to their bill they are just looking for a way around the charter restriction on millage rate, which turns out to have been a very good idea to prevent runaway spending. It got funny when the pro-debtors started insulting the other side because some of them weren't aware of what services were provided by the city vs the county when they argued for better priorities. See, you can compare taxes to school and county taxes but you must be oh so clear about the services. 

One thing neither side mentioned was that the bond tax is regressive. Apartment owners do not get a property assessment freeze (homeowners do) and they do not get a homestead exemption (homeowners do) so they are going to pass the increased cost directly to renters, driving up rents. And this is when the city is promoting more and more apartments as "affordable housing" while at the same time proposing a tax that will make rents less affordable. It is really amusing when blue fiscal policy runs counter to the blue agenda. 

Infrastructure?

Dunwoody debt advocates have promoted their passionate desire by suggesting they want to "invest" in "infrastructure" as odd as that may sound. And what will become of this investment, this infrastructure? Well, let's look at some of the previous infrastructure investments, namely Dunwoody Village Parkway. 

If you've been paying attention you'll have noticed that the eco-warriors at city hall were all eliminated having only just foisted those garish LED streetlights on us. For the Parkway? Well they get the warm glow of old school technology. When it works. If you happen to stroll the parkway after dark you'll notice that between one in five to one in four work only intermittently. At best. At least one has sustained obvious, visible damage and never works. 

This is how Dunwoody maintains their "infrastructure investments." Apparently there is no grant money available for upkeep.

Gender. Does It Matter?

Well, sometimes it does.

Timing Is Everything

Maybe timing isn't everything but in most cases it is very important and sometimes sooner is not better than later. This is especially true in politics and associated "messaging." Recently the Blue Bag Bag had the weekly, rather droll, report on discussions between city bureaucrats and elected officials around the structural deficit, devalued commercial properties cutting revenue whilst avoiding mention of the shift of burden to residential properties, diminishing pandemic slush funds, expectations of SPLOST funds and the desperate need for bond money for unspecified parks projects allowing rebudgeting to support more than just playtime. The SPLOST and bond are coming up for a referendum vote and this is where it got sticky. 

The BBR article drops this nugget: 

"If costs continue to outpace revenue, the city won't be able to afford expanding local government to their liking."

You know what? You might have better supported the "unlimited growth agenda" had you waited until after the upcoming elections to lay this out there.

Still, lots to unpack, most importantly who does "their" refer to and just what is their "liking?" Are we talking about just the unelected bureaucrats who thrive on spending other peoples' money or have we elected folks who have forgotten, or never knew, that Dunwoody was founded on commitments to fiscal prudence and spending restraint. What flipped in the city's DNA that switched on this cancerous growth seemingly limited only by restriction of revenue? Is there any way to cure this cancer without killing the host or has this city run its course? If the latter it is time to call on hospice, starve the cancer and wind this thing down. Vote accordingly.

 

Message Received, Loud And Clear

There are several problems with "selective enforcement" not just limited to making these enforcers judge and jury, providing opportunity for discriminatory practices and falling far short of the mandate enshrined in the city charter to enforce ALL laws and ordinances. 

Unequal enforcement is also a powerful way to send a message.

And that is what we have right here in daVille. You may be aware of the willful violation of a yard art ordinance with the city turning a blind eye due to some uncomfortable political optics based on surname and timing. The social media hoopla resulted in a dinowoody movement complete with signage, an example of which sits proudly (and illegally) in front of the Village Chevron. During the time of this dinowoody violation, posters showing some (not all) of the folks kidnapped and held by Hamas terrorists have been put up and then, mysteriously, removed. Well, all but one (have luck finding it). 

Whether it was the city or the citizens, by leaving dino while removing the kidnapped they seem to be sending the message: "we stand with Hamas."

Looks Like A Duck

Must be a duck.

Park in a driveway, drive on a parkway

Apparently when you pave a lane of interstate beside an existing road and stripe it just like a road folks begin using it like a road. And why not? Doesn't multipurpose include motor vehicles?  

And You're Being Lied To

But you should be used to it by now. 

Remember the halcyon days, the before days, when Dunwoody Yes! and Citizens for Dunwoody put on a full court press to convince you that a city means "a better Dunwoody." You were told the city could operate on a $18M annual budget and they had the CVI study to prove it. That was a lie. You were told you'd get better services at a lower cost. Now look at the legal costs just to defend an out-of-control police department. You were lied to. You were promised that a city would clamp down on rampant apartment development and now you have a highly compensated bureaucrat telling you "The demand for apartments is significant. We need more of that here [in Dunwoody Village] and Perimeter," begging the questions of demand by whom and just who are "we"? But there is no question that you were lied to. 

And the lying is not in decline. 

Now you're being told it is a $60M bond, but you're not being told it is a $100M debt. Debt is what you're obligated to pay and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. Anyone who fails to mention the true magnitude of this debt is also lying. 

Do you really like being lied to?

They Were Lied To

Who? All those "students" who took out loans for what turned out to be mostly a four to six year party and a worthless credential. 

The first lie has been a long term, systemic practice of grade inflation casually laughed off as the Lake Wobegone effect. It is particularly frightening that this is most prevalent in math. Parents should know more and demand better.

The lie affecting society as a whole is the myth that a college education is necessary and implicitly sufficient for someone to make a whole lot more money than they would otherwise. And yet what we have now are stories of folks carrying $44K (or more) who struggle to pay $138/month to nibble away at the debt. Why? Because this borrower had a job making $28/hour ($56K/yr), got laid off and found a new job making $18.50/hour ($37K/yr). Not exactly the pot of gold they were told was at the end of the college debt rainbow. 

And these two lies are not disjoint. Throughout high school students are being told they are much better educated than they are, particularly in math. This innumeracy manifests itself in students, told they are college material, who cannot fire up a spreadsheet or an online calculator and find out whether that mountain of debt can be bought off by the mirage of a pot of gold. Forget the spreadsheet, back-of-the-envelope ciphering shows that it would take almost 27 years to retire that debt at zero percent (0%) interest. At a measly 3% interest rate this payment would take almost 53 years to retire the debt at a total cost (principal and interest) of almost $88K. This debtor would be on track to pay as much in interest as they borrowed in the first place. Should they live so long. 

Yes, they were lied to. Yet, they, college material, made a choice and now they want that choice, a bad one, to have no consequences, at least for themselves. If they are to get debt amnesty a couple of things must happen first: they must explain to those who've paid their loan or never had one exactly why these debtors get off the hook; and the CFPB must realign towards preventing bad loans rather than facilitating them.

Hating On Democracy

DeKalb County has something called a "Charter Review Commission" that is looking into changes to how we, the people might be governed. For the most part the proposed changes are adjustments, mostly reasonable and non-structural. It is interesting to note that the CEO or a commissioner vacates their position if they qualify to run for any office other than the President of the United States, but it IS a draft. It does add some powers to the commissioners but retains the structural integrity of our county government. Most importantly we, the people, will elect the CEO who will be the person running the county. How democratic.

Someone doesn't like that and wants to ditch the CEO that we elect in favor of a county manager appointed by commissioners. This would remake the county government to mimic the school district and the new, faux-cities like Dunwoody because that's working so well---not. It would also add another degree of separation between the electorate and operations undermining local control and democracy itself.

Guest Post: Pound The Table

When a lawyer cannot make a case they pound the table. This seems to be in the hopes that the loudest, perhaps even the most outrageous will win. Hell, it worked once for Trump, maybe it will work for you. 

With the parks referendum we are back to the same place we were with the citihood referendum. On the one side are those insisting that we just must have this money but offering fairly weak transparency. Yes, the city has a "vision" and a "master plan" but have not given a detailed, prioritized list of exactly what they intend to spend this money on. And it is all or none, take it or leave it. To be fair, all of their masterplans include the need for consultants to help them come up with an operational plan: the one that is actually executed. So when you need outside help to plan how to plan don't expect much of the master plan beyond statements of "wouldn't this be cool" and "yes, this is gonna cost lots of money, but it's for the future, for your kids and grandkids." Honestly they may still be paying off the debt (Pew slots us all into 18 year generations, and just wait, someone will use the phrase "generational opportunity" if they haven't already). Because the case for "give us $60M today which will cost you $90M+ over time and a 53% tax increase" is not universally compelling they've fallen back on the tried and true: demean your opposition. 

DONT should really be DON'T

There are some problems with this. It suggests that any criticism of their desires must come from some crusty curmudgeons, nattering nabobs of negativity. If that's true this may backfire as it might piss them off enough to come down from the balcony and vote. Not your way. It ignores the possibility that nabobs may see the similarity between the most recent eSPLOST and this referendum. Lack of specificity, an implicit "you must trust us" vibe, and the ever popular "it's for the children." Combine this with the structural similarities between the school system and the city and it is hard not to throw up just a little bit in your mouth when you hear these proposals. Memory and juxtaposition is a bitch. And worst is the false implication that if you're against this referendum then you are against parks. This is a deception, a lie. It is also a tactic. And not one befitting the kind of intelligent discourse voters in Dunwoody deserve.