.

DeKalb County - Reactive Neighborhood Summit

What’s going on? It's a weekly question asked by a thirtysomething resident of the Sagamore Hills community.

On November 3rd, I joined 370 other DeKalb County residents at the 4th annual Neighborhood Summit. I was excited to hear what the CEO and other County leaders had to say about the state of the County, where we have been, and where we are going.

We quickly broke up into groups to dive head first into your topic of choice. Groups included crime/ safety, recycling/ sustainability, and Community Cabinet. Community Cabinet was billed as a discussion with elected officials.

I chose the cabinet group. It was led by Commissioner Stan Watson and Representative Howard Mosby. We also had CEO Burrell Ellis join our group for the better part of the time.

As we made our way to the room, with about 50-60 other residents, I started to think about all the ways DeKalb County is going to improve the life of residents within unincorporated DeKalb. I thought about how DeKalb is going to show us the ways they are going to diversify and re-strategize there approach due to the recent Charter school discussion and cityhood movement. I was thinking that this could be where DeKalb is going to shift the model.

And then they begin...

Commissioner Watson writes one word on the flip chart in large red letters - 'CITYHOOD'.

And then continues to write down the nine cities within the boundary of DeKalb County, informing everybody that the county has lost 20 million dollars from Dunwoody becoming a city and an estimated 25 million dollars when Brookhaven becomes a city in January.

Commissioner Watson continues to drive the point that this type of revenue shifting is going to kill the County of DeKalb. He told numerous story about how the county is bringing multiple suits against these cities in hopes to repeal there cityhood. These cities were created because the citizens were tired of poor zoning, slow government actions, and slow if any progress public works projects. The county is creating suits that admittedly cost the county substantial time and money.

Commissioner Watson shifted gears and started to outline economic development.

I thought, this is where the rubber is going to meet the road. This is when DeKalb is going to make a stand and really show that they are doing (fill in blank) - draw people to this County.

Commissioner Watson starts to outline the two big benefits of the County: cheap land and cheap housing. He then went into the issues that we all are painfully aware of – issues like public schools not making the grade, DeKalb leading the state in 17 year olds being arrested, poor transportation system, no sidewalks where we have bus station, and even basic services like street sweeping not taking place.

Great, we all know this – what’s the County's plan to change this? The answer, nothing.

There is no plan. Watson went right back into the issue of cityhood, and the money they are losing.

Cityhood was the crutch of the talk. Rather than saying where they are investing what money they do have - the whole discussion was on what they did not have. No vision, no plan, and no idea of how to be proactive about the situation they are in.

The leaders of DeKalb have no plan or vision for the county. The county has instead invested so much time and money to fighting cityhood that they seem to be exhausting what resources they have on it.

These reactive struggles could have been avoided if DeKalb was proactive to begin with.

Finally, someone asked a granular question. How many street sweepers does DeKalb have? Commissioner Watson answers, zero. The resident replies back, "Why don't we get one, that an easy thing to do. What's the five or ten year plan for the County?" Commissioner Watson answered that they do not have one because cityhood does not allow us to forecast out.

Even in the worst of economic environments, a businesses or government must plan for the future with what is known and what is estimated.

DeKalb has chosen not plan for its future, rather the county placed their efforts into suing and fighting with the communities that have decided to drive their own success.

Our area is unique. We are primarily made up of 65+ and 20-30 year old's that are looking to start their families, and live within a developed and aging infrastructure.

We need a strategy to sustain smart grown, improve / create amenities, and create a reason for families to want to move into this area.

If we continue on the track we are on, we can look forward to carrying the burden of financing DeKalb's legal battles, watch other communities grow prosper, and watch our community- as we know it - dissolve.

Cityhood isn't the problem, DeKalb's lack of involvement and vision is. It's not more government; it's a chance to make your government proactive.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Tom Doolittle December 12, 2012 at 03:40 PM
Street sweepers are great examples of what you don't want county government to do. Many city services aren't cost-effective without high density. Even the new low-density cities will have a hard time providing granular services within a tax structure that is affordable for the average household (and most likely businesses). Counties should provide only general services for their unincorporated areas. To the subject of visiosn and planning--county/state and cities must do that together, so it would be a county that would energize that effort--whether with county employees and resources or in partnership with an outside organization. BTW--generally speaking, unincorporated areas shouldn't have "streets" per se--they should only have "roads". If you have a street (usually implies higher density), that's a signal that area should be in a city. Then, regarding "sweeping"--there should never be a "road sweeper".
Tom Doolittle December 12, 2012 at 03:50 PM
BTW--Lucas, thanks for the report. I wonder if some others who attended might write theirs--either as a comment to this or a blog item as you did. Do you have the ability to ask a few attendees to do that?
Tom Doolittle December 12, 2012 at 03:53 PM
Also--its really my impression that the "county" would not have originally "fought" city-hood, if there had been some cognition among the city proponents that they were railroading a challenge to a system that has been in place since the first city formed in DeKalb. Changing such fundmental constitutionally chartered frameworks should depend on all parties understanding the implications of right and wrong processes. City proponents also needed to recognize the impact of the city-hood movement being a White Republican one in black Democrat led counties. Should that matter? No. Does it matter when establishing process? Damn right. That said--do we need more cities? Yes--but under what criteria, such as minimum density? Should a small legislative committtee be able to unilaterally assign a new city boundary? Those planning requirements should be put into the municipal comp planning laws at the state level.
RandyRand June 27, 2013 at 11:43 AM
Interesting and revealing dialogue Lucas, thanks for sharing

Boards

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
See more »