"People taking action because of terrible service will do harm to the people managing those terrible services. And they will take it out on other people. We're certainly not going to adjust to reality; we like what we're doing."

Are these the actual words spoken by Ellis?

No, rob, those are not the actual words spoken by the CEO. For those interested, here is the full statement I was given by Burke Brennan's the CEO's spokesman yesterday:

"Although DeKalb County has continued to fair well during these difficult economic times, the incorporation of cities in DeKalb County continues to present challenges for the County’s bottom line. The CEO believes that unique state law in Georgia governing municipal incorporations has allowed for discretionary revenue shifting from the County to city governments. This harms the entire county, whether we live in incorporated or unincorporated portions of the County. As a result, the CEO believes we have now reached a 'tipping point' where continued incorporations may hamper the ability of the county to adequately fund essential services – from courts and criminal justice, to libraries and elections – that all of our citizens depend upon. In light of these concerns, the CEO is focused on promoting a dialogue between County and City leaders that leads us to a collaborative solutions to the issues and concerns that support the current movement towards incorporation."

Lakeside Alliance is the only one that I see consistent information from. And, I believe one (possibly two) other groups have now joined ranks with them. They have a Facebook page that has been pretty good about posting information.

Sally--I can't name the groups either. Why? What does it mean "joined"? What was worked out to have them "join"? Why did they join? Why didn'ty the Alliance join them?
Question--what would you want to discuss, promise or otherwise negotiate with such groups which would under any other circumstaces be competitors of yours? Good--now would you like to know if the Alliance leaders have done that?

Not for the purposes of criticizing or because you are right, but because they have committed to "being" YOU--and specifically have avoided saying they REPRESENT you (because they can't legitiamately do so).

So if they are "You", wouldn't you like to know what "You" supposedly said to these people and who "You" met with and when and where?

Hell--even the other groups' leaders might benefit from their own stakeholders having the info.

WOW Tom, must have been a long day to result in that. I can't say I even follow it all.

What difference does it make which group is joined or joins. They are now one. Have there been compromises between them? Probably. That's how large groups get things done. Surely you are not proposing that this neighborhood act like the Washington group. No one compromises. Nothing is accomplished. Or, maybe you are. You've made it clear you are not in favor of cityhood. So maybe that is what you would like.

I hope you are not under the impression that there aren't behind the door deals done in the current Dekalb County government. The problem is, more of the representation comes from south Dekalb so we lose more often than not. Of course, they want our $$ to spend in south Dekalb. Otherwise, they just want us to be happy with the few crumbs they throw our way. Here is your new park land... now, you must spend all your free time turning it into a real park and maintaining it. Over it!! Time to move on.

To anyone referring to "groups" that have been in discussions with Lakeside Alliance--please publish some information about what transpired? Also indicate whether you think the Alliance represents you and whether you think the information is important.

As we have seen by a dangerously divided Brookhaven community that became a city on the basis of a 1% differential with 15% of the electorate voting--the process for bringing the community together is VERY IMPORTANT. Brookhaven's health is shaky as a stand alone taxed jurisdiction, not only financially, but also socially.

Only my opinion? Its an opinion, but not only mine. Granted it can be debated and proof will be in the pudding--probably within 5 years.

That is one outcome I'm willing to wait for before I bite the bullet here.

Sally--You have accused me of being against city-hood. Do not confuse providing devils advocacy (and not being ZEALOUS about citi-making), identifying SPECIFIC issues that need transparency and noting the dangers of implying that someone represents "our" interests to our state reps--with being against areas forming new cities. Not true.

I believe my questions (that's what they are--not assertions) are valid. The mere fact that simple questions might illicit angry replies here (and no information) indicate we're already on a dangerously zealous path.

I got a request for clarification from the Alliance leadership about these suggestions --they consider my suggestion valid.

Tom, your tone if very negative. Maybe it's not intended to be. But it certainly is. This process is not going to happen overnight. It won't be voted on until 2014. If that's not enough time to have people fully informed I cannot imagine what length of time is needed.

It appears there are two basic feelings / opinions about cityhood.

One is more emotion based, those totally frustrated with the County government & schools and want something different, with cityhood being the selected path. Fully prepared to push it to the public vote.

The other is more undecided neutral based asking for infomation that demonstrates that cityhood is not just different but "better" [related to X, Y, and Z impacts] than the current situation and viable for the future.

I expect that the vast majority of the general community are probably a blend of both.

thanks Rob--judiciously put
Points about your conclusion:
You said--"I expect that the vast majority of the general community are probably a blend of both."
Based on my experience organizing meetings and comm in this area, the vast majority of any community, even one that is as genrally engaged and activist as this one--the vast majority won't have any knowledge that this is even an issue before they are asked to read a referendum on a ballot. (This is a major fallacy in the manner with which Georgia now allows city-making decisions to be made--and one that is at the base of the danger that Brookhaven now faces--and expedience that our area makes it a priority to avoid with great patience.)

My research into other state's procedures show much more risk-averse and less poltically entangled approaches. I'll have a summary paper available soon.

It is my hope that this community sees its reponsibility as not only to take the time to establish a community infrastructure for adequate representation--here--but also look at its job as one that would establish new legislation that relevent to the entire state. The state should not have laws that are driven by the needs (and demographics) of a few metro Atlanta counties.

I believe the process they are in at this moment is to determine if there is community support. Clearly, if there is not enough community support, it won't happen.

It's good to see that DeKalb's (Atlanta North's) issues are being looked at and publicized outside of Atlanta--altho I don't know where this writer is. However, it would help if they used other reference points than the AJC. There are so many short-cuts in this self-congatulatry article that it would be impossible to treat them here:
(1) DeKalb and suburbs are conflated with Atlanta--and yet Detroits problem are its own--not the suburbs.
(2) They mention Detroit only to invoke the pejorative, not to explain what their legislature has done to take over the city government-- a black one that has responed to adversity with home-grown, local industry, scaled down neighborhood economies ad eschewed the traditional city elite power structure. THAT is the basis of the state takeover--an undemocratic one--that is simply there to protect elite interests and the 20th Century unsustainable institutional economic model (can you say new stadiums and halls of fame?)
(3) These guys did precisely what expedient and tricky city-makers are doing here: conflating the school problem with the city-making issue. Our folks go one cynical step further and insist they have no current interest in new school systems--but yet make no attempt to silence the folks that want the school issue to take a joy-ride on the City Express.

There's more, but at this point, your criticized for being picky.

Just so everyone understands Hammie's article reference to Detroit--its relevant here-
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/03/michigan-will-take-over-detroit-snyder-has-top-candidate-mind/4843/

I'm assuming when you refer to "our folks" you are speaking of the people who have formed Lakeside Alliance. If not please define who "our folks" are.

Under that assumption, they have not said they aren't interested in a school system. I believe they said, forming a new city will not mean a new school system. Partly because state law does not allow that at this moment. But, they did say at the first meeting, that forming a city would be a first step in that direction, if the state law is changed.

Mr. Tom, I thought the WND article comparison of Atlanta to Detroit was unfair. Anyone that has been to Detroit periodically over the past forty years knows this is fiction. Yet, I found the last sentence of your link very telling: “Five other cities in Michigan are also under state control. Detroit will be the largest city in the country to lose the ability to govern itself.”

What an honor!

Special hamburger anyone?

yes--Mr. Burger. I mentioned a few things wrong about the comparison to Atlanta also--especially since it really is the DeKalb breakdown that the article references in conjunction with new city excapism. However, to your point, it would also be "unfair" to equate economic development, governmental and social woes in DeKalb to Detroit. It'll be a while before we're in that league--but I wonder how long it will take to feel the state's heavy hand in our government (as is now the case with schools "for the children".
Oh gee--haven't we already felt it just a BIT, however indirectly via constitutional amendments. Might we put the "investigation to knowwhere" "trial by media" of Burrell Ellis in that category? (only time will tell).

Sally--with "our folks", I include the Alliance public statements along with the general conversation in our area (actually all of DeKalb) that has a very difficult time separating school difficulty with more traditional governmental tax allocation and corruption issues. It is important because I believe the issues that city-makers have identified to date (services are parks, zoning and police) are not issues that once provided by a city will solve any emergencies (nor impact property values)--and indeed were never deemed so in the case of Dunwoody or Sandy Springs.

However, at least the "story" (now considered conventioanal wisdom) about schools is that they contribute to an economic emergency. Its a whole different ball of wax that deserves its own solution(s)...and indeed we have them already (with local choice schools) and they are building more of them...as well as seeking an alternative school certification provider--one that certifies individual schools. Therefor we divorse ourselves from a reputational standpoint by simple PR strategies.

If you conflate the issues, you lose the opportunity to discuss innovative solutions for each individually.

Parks, zoning & public safety are definately topics on the mind of all of my neighbors in this area. Probably because we mostly feel we've gotten the short end of the stick on all of those. Then, you add the school situation to that. People are simply feed up with the way things are. I have no idea if the cityhood movement in this area will be successful or not. But I do know there is much frustration with the status quo. If you have other solutions this is the time to put them on the table. At least the organizers of Lakeside Alliance are putting an alternative out there. Just saying take it slow is not going to work. It will be a slow process anyway. People have had patience with the situation for a while now. We need to see movement in a direction that looks positive. At this point, anything that is moving us away from Dekalb County control looks positive to me. And alot of other people I know.

There is NO WAY I am in favor of waiting 5 years.

darn--forgot to mention that all of the Sandy Springs civic infrastructure was in place years before it became a city. So it no doubt helped the area click along, raise partnerships (local nonprofit orgs, chamber of commerce), investment, planning (SS Revitalization), commuicate common goals (Leadership Sandy Springs) thru the years.
Also when the city vote came thru, the infrastructure guaranteed success.

Dunwoody was the same, a little less so--and they did theirs without the need to attempt city-making via the legislature as Sandy Springs did for 30+ years.