.

Sen. Millar: Only Lakeside Cityhood Bill Will Move Forward

The Dunwoody state senator said other cityhood bills in DeKalb County will likely fall to the wayside.

The only cityhood bill out of DeKalb County with any chance of moving seriously toward the creation of a new municipality here is the Lakeside City Alliance's bill, state Sen. Fran Millar said last week.

The Dunwoody legislator told Reporter Newspapers that bills that have led to new cities in the metro Atlanta area over the last several years have been mostly Republican-led, and the alliance's bill is likely to be the only serious cityhood contender.

From the Reporter Newspapers story published Friday:

Millar, who sponsored the Lakeside bill, said he doesn’t expect any serious cityhood efforts will come out of the flurry of last-minute placeholder bills.

“Do I think some of these bills are going to be going anywhere? Absolutely not,” Millar said. “I think the only one that will go anywhere — if they can raise the money — is the city of Lakeside.”

Millar noted that the creation of new cities has been a partisan issue in the past, with the bills to create cities in the metro Atlanta area led almost exclusively by Republican lawmakers. But this year, all of the last-minute incorporation bills were sponsored by Democrats.

“All the Democrats have done for the last couple years is complain about the growth of cities, and now you’ve got five bills filed by Democrats for cities,” Millar said.

Read the full story for more information.

Several legislators have submitted bills that could lead the path toward other cities in DeKalb County. Here are several stories about those efforts:

  • Carter Files 'City of Lavista Hills' Bill
  • Cityhood Bill Filed for Tucker
  • Lakeside Alliance Files Cityhood Bill

For more information about cityhood in our community.

What do you think about Millar's comments? Tell us in the comments section below.

Roberto April 08, 2013 at 08:15 PM
Dill, keep up the good work and your on-target comments!
rwf April 08, 2013 at 08:34 PM
Well, given they've assumed the name of 'Lakeside City' in their organization's title, I would have to assume that is their one and only purpose, since that name exists no where else and for no other reason. Initially, of course, they will only be able to study the viability of creating a city, hence the fund raising, but the Carl Vinson seal of approval is almost a given these days. After the study is complete, you can be sure the LCA will stay intact and become the prime advocate for the City of Lakeside. The LCA's website states that they have applied for 501(c)(3) status, which is the same non-profit status used by the Citizens for Dunwoody, Inc. organization, the main advocacy group for the City of Dunwoody. CFD was an offshoot of the Dunwoody Homerowners Association, which has 501(c)(4) status, the same as the TCA. For them to be on record as stating a position of non-advocacy doesn't really make that much sense to me. I suppose they've been advised to say as much while their application is still pending. We in the TCA study group were really scratching our heads on just how to proceed setting up the non-profit. We definitely knew we could not do anything under the TCA umbrella, but no one had a strong sense of where to go from there. So when no one in the Tucker business community stepped in to push the issue, things just came to a halt.
RandyRand April 08, 2013 at 08:59 PM
The world according to Dill, a place where one can conveniently put aside the legal facts and apply anything to justify their position. Correction Dill: tucker is not a city, and not a town, and please stop with the DCP stuff, legally the ‘tucker” area is unincorporated Dekalb County. No one uses the Census data to find out how many toilets they have in their home so let’s not use it in place the real legal facts. And Dill, even if there were a nut company named Tucker Nuts on Main Street it would still be unincorporated Dekalb County, Dagnabit, that’s how the law works. Is that being too pompous for you Dill?
RandyRand April 08, 2013 at 08:59 PM
Correction Dill: 285 is a freeway not a boundary. You Dill might like it to be a boundary but the 2006 GA Tech “tucker” study did not think it was boundary nor did your “almighty Census DCP”! And by the way Dill, 85 is a freeway too not and boundary. You see Dill it would split the City of Atlanta in half and it just doesn’t, people at GA Tech can just walk across the bridge to get their chili dog on other side 85 and it’s amazing, they seem to never leave Atlanta. We Trolls love bridges for that very reason.
RandyRand April 08, 2013 at 09:00 PM
Correction Dill: I do understand Tucker, why else would I have developed the: Top Seven: Save Tucker Slogans / Tucker Cityhood “121 years of Déjà vu all over again: Tucker” “If God intended for things to change quickly he would not have created Tucker” “Tucker selected to Americas Top 10 list Whistle Stops” (Finishes just behind Petty Coat Junction) “Embrace Tucker, where the 1960’s was a time for change” “Tucker Cityhood, Not that old wives tale again” “A bowl of Butter Beans a day will keep change away: Eat at Matthews!” “This time we’re gonna turn the Tucker around 360 degrees!”
RandyRand April 08, 2013 at 09:00 PM
Correction Dill: The TCA in its recent public letter, has discredited themselves far more than I or anyone else ever could. And to specifically answer your question concerning the TCA: after attending the recent Boyer hosted “Tuckerfest” with the THS, TBA, TCA presenting at the Tucker Middle TMS meeting, you can count me out of an future Tucker Goat Rodeo’s.
Tom Doolittle April 08, 2013 at 09:02 PM
Vinson would be more responsible to help LCA with the purpose that has been voiced--to include alternatives. Too do that, Vinson would be charged to look at the economic viability of larger and smaller areas--or since that sounds to open ended...just simply provide a minimum population and/or area that would be viable. Now that would approach a useful study.
Tom Doolittle April 08, 2013 at 09:07 PM
On Rep Holcombe--no philisophically opposed but doing wrong way. Sounds somewhat like Oliver, so I look forward to these leaders leading a public discussion/panel/conference to hash out what would be the right way (I'm definitely not satisfied with Oliver's approach leaving out discussion of viable ideas). If LCA and others are charged with having open meetings, then the "alternative legal process" folks should be too.
RandyRand April 08, 2013 at 09:29 PM
Dill, I have become convinced that you, like Cheryl Miller, are mentally locked into the world of farfetched conspiracy theories and all its bogus hogwash. Good luck with that! And FYI, the best place to stockup on Tin Foil for your helmets is over at Dollar General!
RandyRand April 08, 2013 at 09:38 PM
By your definition then Dill, you are Cheryl Miller’s Shill! Have fun with that!
Georgia April 08, 2013 at 09:45 PM
No, Dill. I'm not jesting. Who?
rwf April 08, 2013 at 09:58 PM
Well, we should keep in mind that the Carl Vinson Institute was able to justify the viability of both the City of Milton and the City of Chattahoochee Hills, both large, low density areas with minimal commercial development and zero industrial area. Seems you can tweek the numbers pretty much any way you want to justify the outcome you are paying for. Frankly, I have not heard of any city-hood movement that was derailed after a CVI study.
rwf April 08, 2013 at 10:23 PM
Mary Margaret Oliver is coming across as rather two faced in the face of the DeKalb city-hood movement. On one hand she files HB 22 in the General Assembly which is calculated to slow down, if not completely prevent, any new cities in DeKalb. Then she turns around and files a placeholder bill for Briarcliff. Elsewhere it has been stated (Mike Jacobs?) that in a situation where two or more proposed cities have overlapping boundaries, there is no provisions whatsoever in state law or procedures within the General Assembly to work through the differences. This could be quite troublesome if it boils down to Republican bills versus Dermocrat bills. Briarcliff currently overlaps with Lakeside for maybe 75% of their proposed areas, while Lakeside and Tucker are justifiably claiming areas on their respective far sides of I-285. The three Democrat bills, Henson and Mitchell on behalf of Tucker, with Oliver's and Carter's bills on behalf of Briarcliff/Lavista Hills, may need to join forces against the Republican Millar's bill for Lakeside. A no rules cat fight may be in the offing.
Eddie E. April 08, 2013 at 10:36 PM
IS boyer still in office?
Nancy April 08, 2013 at 10:42 PM
So you would be just as happy in the Tucker City?
Nancy April 08, 2013 at 10:46 PM
I have grave concerns about giving money to LCA for any study as I am not sure if the study would be expanded to looks at alternatives.
Enuff Govt Already April 08, 2013 at 10:46 PM
geezzz, the world according to Rep. Fran, additional (and needless) govt allowed only if it gets D'woody's approval.
Tom Doolittle April 08, 2013 at 10:48 PM
RanRan--I think most people understand LCA's position as being open-ended--not looking for a single "way" as an alternative to county govt. Perhaps I'm wrong and its time to pin this down. LCA is not in the business of a "yes/no" decision of making a city. ..and of course, I appreciate your approval of other groups studying "other ways" also. I was hoping that LCA would consider the legislative quagmire as an opening to also talk about legislative alternatives and solutions. Do you think LCA will do that? If not, I'd hate to leave this up to legislator haggling--and not being serious about involving the public in changing the law.
Ralph April 08, 2013 at 10:54 PM
HB 22 follows the regs in some ways and puts into the code rules that appear now only in the regs. May go to far in that it prevents any changes to the map filed with the original bill. And takes away some descretion of the chairman of the legislative committeeto waive the Carl Vinson study. Don't see it passing without amendments to allow some minor changes in the boundaries. but I like requing a map to filed with the bill to put people in the affected area notice that they will be included if the bill passes.
Tracy White April 08, 2013 at 10:56 PM
I will NEVER be in favor of a city named after a high school. Call it Briarcliff, include the Emory area, let Tucker alone, and I'm in. But Lakeside, no never. What a divisive poor choice of a place holder name. The LCA people have no tact.
Ralph April 08, 2013 at 10:57 PM
Once the study begins, I believe it would be hard to change the boundaries once the study is under way. The legislature would probably pass the bill containing the map shown in the study to be voted on up or down.
Tom Doolittle April 08, 2013 at 11:17 PM
Ralph--we should have several maps by the time the local legislators sit down to hash this out. Are you satisfied that each one or any of them have the right to do that without a public process? The law simply doesn't have a contingency for deciding on competing maps--and therefore I don't believe legislators have standing in negotiations. The law needs to be changed--and once it is admitted that one change is needed--then opens the door for a discussion all changes needed. I do believe the item in Oliver's "placeholder bill" referring to "conflicts" between this law and other laws to be identified relates to this issue.
Brian Crowe April 08, 2013 at 11:42 PM
It seems to me, Tracy, that the most appropriate name for the proposed city as currently mapped is "Northlake". Since Northlake would be the commercial anchor, and it's the name most people are familiar with (and it doesn't involve touchy high school rivalries) for this area, I think it's an easy choice.
Ralph April 09, 2013 at 12:02 AM
The following was posted by Georgia as part of the rules of the committee. If she is corret about the regs, there will be wiggle room in the descretion of the chairman to allow a change in the boundaries without requiring a new study. With the power to waie the study he has enough latidute so that the maps could be considered and passed for a public vote. That does not mean that he would. I would be very careful about that if I were in his position. But it would be legally possible. Likely or not is another matter. Information on current rules regarding forming new cities. House Committee on Governmental Affairs committee rules: "Any bill or resolution coming before the committee that proposes the incorporation of a new municipality.....shall be considered only if the bill is introduced during the first year of a biennium. Any such bill or resolution may be passed by the comittee only during the second year of the same biennium. No such bill or resolution may be reported out of the committee unless a study of the bill is made and a report submitted for the commitee's consideration by the Carl Vinson Institute of Government or the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies. This rule may be waived by the chairman of the committee in his or her discretion."
David Claude Warlick April 09, 2013 at 02:20 AM
Briarcliff is the name of a closed high school that was in Atlanta.
Tracy White April 09, 2013 at 03:28 AM
Briarcliff is the name of the major street running the spine of the proposed city. High school is long gone. Northlake is a shopping center. Yes there is a lake, and yes there are cliffs.
Tom Doolittle April 09, 2013 at 02:36 PM
The requirement that a particular university group do the study is loaded with political and influence problems--let alone competency and scope questions. For such an important matter (pls consider the grave long-term ramifications), there either should be second and third professional opinions (at least one from an organization outside of Georgia), but absent from that--peer review--AND take comments from affected citizenry with rules for public review, such as occurs with Federal rules proposals. Moreover--the "lite" and short-term nature of the "Vinson" requires follow-thru after a city is established (say three years, five years, ten years) to either prove they were correct, explain why conditions have changed results in the case of a city being formed--or in the case of a city not being formed--an update that might make another pass at it. The issue is a civic organizations need for building trust and relevance with a local community when it has no history. It relates to the credibility of the city-making process and potential conflict even if a "yes" vote is accomplished. Brookhaven is awash in civil conflict and it simply will persist for a host of manipulative reasons. LCA is in a position to do a more thorough and even evolutionary job--in fact play an evolutionary role showing how city-making should be accomplished in Georgia. This includes processes which in fact make the shortcomings of current rules very clear.
Anita April 09, 2013 at 08:04 PM
oh my goodness! Is anyone getting their work done during the day, or have smart phones & technology totally taken over? lol!
William Fulcrum April 09, 2013 at 11:22 PM
John: I also am an Oak Grove resident but it has been only recently have I seen the first police car in months - literally. I think their recent appearance is coincidental to the issue raised by the LCA meetings and particularly after Lee May showed up at the Briarlake BC meeting admitting that more police would help the recent spate of car break-ins in Amberwood and Breckinridge. Is it just a coincidence also that the new police chief's first public appearance was in Oak Grove last week?
RandyRand April 10, 2013 at 01:09 PM
Millar is simply presenting the current reality. Consider this quote from today's AJC: “Bringing in a new layer of government, just so you have someone closer to fuss at, I don’t know if people think it’s worth the fight,” said Honey Van de Kreke, a Tucker businesswoman. Does this sound like the tucker area will make a move forward on Cityhood to you? NOPE!

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 »