Welfare of the county is more important than a new city

To the editor:

Among the many issues that have become apparent since our last letter to the editor is that so many residents of the proposed city of Brookhaven have known nothing about the proposed incorporation.

That became clear at the recent open meeting of the Senate subcommittee where we learned that the residents of Lynwood Park had been totally ignored in the frenzy generated by Rep. Mike Jacobs and his colleagues. We have no idea why this was so, but ugly suspicions remain.

Equally perturbing is that there seems to be a deliberate lack of concern for the rest of DeKalb County. That became clear at the same Senate committee meeting where we heard a compelling, detailed presentation from county officials and a lobbyist.

This supplemented what we found out earlier at [DeKalb County Commissioner] Elaine Boyer’s town meeting. The speakers there explained that a major reason for the recent county-wide tax increase was the loss of property taxes from the new city of Dunwoody. They emphasized that the incorporation of Brookhaven would aggravate this problem still further.

We also heard that there is no way for the new city to provide a truly adequate police force to replace that of the county. The duties of the DeKalb County police force involve a lot more than watching houses and controlling traffic, and no force of the size planned for Brookhaven can approach adequacy.

Are we not to care about the county at all while having pipe dreams about the virtues of the new city? We suspect that our total tax bill would be even larger after the incorporation exerts its financial effects on the county.

We can’t speak for anyone else about how they feel about good citizenship, but for us the welfare of the county is more important than the few dollars we are told we will save in property tax should the incorporation bill be approved by the voters.

We see ourselves as residents of suburban Atlanta who live in DeKalb County. As such we feel allegiance to the county with no special concern for the Brookhaven region. Apparently, we differ in this respect from the supporters of incorporation, whose only interest seems to be the misguided and short-sighted wish to get the most for themselves while ignoring the ability of the county to meet the needs of all of its residents.

At Mike Jacobs’ last town hall meeting, held at Oglethorpe University, we heard that poverty level characterizes more than 10 percent of the residents of the proposed new city. The person who brought this matter up could not even get Mr. Jacobs to talk about it. Isn’t it relevant to us as good citizens?

We continue to disagree with supporters of incorporation about the benefits of a smaller population electing fewer officials. The smaller the electorate, the more likely it will be controlled by a dedicated partisan group.

Consider what already has happened. The airport was to be part of the new city, but now it is not. The city was to have three districts with an elected representative from each plus several members elected at large. Now we are to have four districts with no at-large members. All of this was decided by Mr. Jacobs, perhaps in conjunction with his select group of loyal followers from Brookhaven Yes and Rep. Tom Taylor of Dunwoody.

We were not asked our opinions on these changes; we were told that this is the way it was to be.

Most recently we have the name of the proposed new city. We really don’t care about it (except for the nuisance it will produce in having to change our address in all sorts of things like credit cards, checking accounts, etc.), except that Mr. Jacobs has had the name changed back to Brookhaven without polling the area’s residents.

On second thought, he probably did talk to J. Max Davis, who says he is thrilled by the name switch back to Brookhaven. Mr. Davis heads Brookhaven Yes, whose members should not talk about community.

Attending this organization’s first meeting required signing on to immediate incorporation. Then they organized a free bus trip to the recent House Committee meeting at the Capitol, but that was only for members of Brookhaven Yes.

This is no example of strong commitment to the general community. Contrast this with Laurenthia Mesh’s Ashford Neighbors organization whose meetings are open to all. But maybe that group is irrelevant as it is against incorporation.

The Feb. 29 Dunwoody Neighbor said that the Brookhaven Chamblee Homeowners and Neighborhood Business Alliance together with the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus and three other local entities are filing suit against Reps. Jacobs and Taylor about the legality of the process to date. The targets of the litigation are over-taxation, unconstitutional deal-making, and violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Is it possible that there are issues here that have not been disclosed in public meetings?

Nobody who opposes cityhood has argued against voting on the proposal.

The objection is to voting in a hurry in the absence of reliable information. Because the Carl Vinson Institute study provides opinions, not facts, we need another study, preferably one not funded by a totally partisan group. An election held in July in the middle of vacation season is both irresponsible and undemocratic.

Marlene and Michael Zeiler