More info from the House Government Affairs Committee

Georgia State Representative Amy Carter, Chair of the House Government Affairs Committee which will consider all cityhood proposals, stated on Monday that she does not want these proposals to take up a significant amount of the Committee's time in the upcoming session. She informed the Committee of her plan to allow each of the proposals (Briarcliff, Tucker, Lakeside and Stonecrest) a limited time to make a presentation in the first week of the legislative session, after which the committee will decide what to present to the full House.


She said that she intends that the Committee will give fair consideration to each proposal, but added her preference that two or more of the competing groups get together with a joint proposal, to simplify the decisions faced by the committee.  Another member of the committee then added that if one of the groups does not want to talk to the others, or to work out a reasonable arrangement, that will also tell the Committee something about the competing proposals.

mikeatl October 25, 2013 at 07:58 AM
Goodbye Lakeside!
TruthWillSetYouFree October 26, 2013 at 09:48 AM
It would appear from the comments that Mary Kay and Kevin better start kissing Briarcliff and Tuckers butts quick or they will be shut out.
doddave October 26, 2013 at 04:07 PM
Tucker and Briarcliff make sense. Lakeside not so much. There's a difference between wanting to make your own city as a toy and trying to put something meaningful together. Both Briarcliff and Tucker can be meaningful operating cities. I just hope Tucker goes small enough with services to be workable. As an area they're on the way up; but it's tough to look at it right now.
Tom Doolittle October 26, 2013 at 10:39 PM
I've always thought the Tucker way of life, even now, was the way of the future for most Americans not living in larger dense cities. I just can't put the "way of life" into metrics (does anyone there have a vision drawn up) or say how it would come to pass. One thing is for sure, the train tracks will come into play. I just look at the town assets and say as things simplify that is what people will want: 2 schools on "Main Street" (essentially)-a Post Office (one that will probably survive cuts) a library and a community center. Also where there's a center, what's around it can most efficiently be built up (speaking of budgetary constraints in a future of high interest rates and no borrowing). This is not to say other communities can't work as cities--it is to say Tucker is a cost-efficient (and community-efficient) one--that is to say--a "town".
Tom Doolittle October 27, 2013 at 10:40 AM
Rhea: You said--"You may want to check with Herman for the most objective view of the schedule of the Lakeside bill moving forward. The power point presentation was clear from where I sat." Again I ask you, would you please explain precisely (what you asserted prior) how you conclude "it was clear (in the meeting) that a plan will go forward (in the Govt Affiars meeting)? You asserted something very important--and information to that effect would be quite enlightening (to me and hopefully people that are tracking closely) to what amounts to a very loose and vague process by the legislature. From this point forward, any allusions to govt committee meetings will be parsed until satisfactorily esplained.
Tom Doolittle October 27, 2013 at 12:31 PM
Rhea: You just simply haven't explained an assertion you made...and its an important one. Are you in the habit of saying things actually occurred that you can't explain? Its one thing to have an opinion about something, but that's not the same as representing an actual event as definitive--and not explaining what you mean or what you saw. Again--what did you see or hear PRECISELY which give you the impression that "a plan will move forward"? Most of us weren't at the meeting and we have no access to recorded proceedings. Please explain or say you absolutely had no reason for making the statement.
Tom Doolittle October 27, 2013 at 01:58 PM
Above: "(Carter) added her preference that two or more of the competing groups get together with a joint proposal" That's not clear to me the committee wouldn't accept a brokered agreement between sponsoring legislators, rather than "competing groups". That would be a travesty of public mis (under) representation--and proof that this is a complete farce.
Tom Doolittle October 27, 2013 at 03:56 PM
Rhea: When you get an audience with the Govet Affairs Committee after Mary Kaye and Don do theirs (or do their sponsoring legislators make the presentations--did Kevin tell people that in their slides?) When they deign to let the other "we" (not MK or Don) that you say is so important in their eyes--pls provide a detailed report her on how that goes. In fact, just let us know you're "we" is on the agenda. Surely you'll find one more person to provide a mandate to be in front of the committee. Again, I applaud you sticking with your attempt to re-focus the debate, but I don't think those people care what you think down at the Dome. They certainly don't care what I think, which is table the issue for a long tiem while our community gets educated, organized and polled


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something