Our readers write: Proposed city of Brookhaven stirs passion
Brookhaven voters go to the polls July 31 to decide whether to create a new city. Proponents and opponents of the proposed city have produced a flood of letters to the editor giving their opinions on why their neighbors should vote one way or another. Here is a sampling of recent letters on the proposal.
‘Cityhood’ will improve local government
To the editor:
Recently, the president of Oglethorpe University opined that if Brookhaven incorporates within DeKalb, citizens of the new city will forgo their opportunity and obligation to support DeKalb County as a whole.
His opinion is curious to me considering he is employed by a private university that competes with public universities in the area. Even more interesting is that his employer recruits students nationally and even internationally – yet the university advertises on television as ‘Oglethorpe University in Brookhaven.’
Incorporating Brookhaven is not mutiny or secession – it is very simply a measured movement to have more local control over city services with increased efficiency. The new city will provide police; parks; roads; zoning; and code enforcement. The county will no longer bear the expenses for those services within the city area. Less than 15 percent of residents’ local taxes will shift from county to the city to fund those five services.
The rest of our taxes will continue to support DeKalb for county services including public schools; the fire department; water and sewer; sanitation; etc.
However – and this is vital – Brookhaven will not be a ‘private city’ in the sense Oglethorpe is a private university. In contrast to private Oglethorpe University, Brookhaven will be open to the public. The city and the services provided will be for the good of everyone, whether they are a city resident full-time; a work-day resident; a temporary resident attending a private university; a visitor; or someone who is just passing through our 12 square miles. Oglethorpe is gated and fenced; Brookhaven will be wide open, delivering services to everyone, without questioning their allegiance to city, county, private organization or neighborhood homeowners association or street captain.
When the city of Brookhaven is incorporated, we will still live in DeKalb County and most of our taxes will support DeKalb County for the benefit of all DeKalb County, including the faculty, staff and students inside the fences that limit access to Oglethorpe University campus.
But cityhood will improve local government through efficiency and truly local representation by our own neighbors whom we elect ourselves. And that will benefit everyone, public and private alike.
DeKalb already has 10 cities operating within its borders: Avondale Estates; Chamblee; Clarkston; Decatur; Doraville; Dunwoody; Lithonia; Pine Lake; Stone Mountain; and even a portion of Atlanta! From CEO Ellis’ own web site: “Home buyers may choose from upscale Dunwoody, the small-town, artistic charm of Decatur, the Victorian homes in Stone Mountain, and growing southeastern DeKalb, where land is open and prices more modest.”
Brookhaven has all those qualities right here in our 12 square miles. Brookhaven will fit very nicely in the alphabetical listing between Avondale and Chamblee. Yes is best for Brookhaven AND DeKalb.
Clayton Conarro
Death knell for new city
To the editor:
Two recent news items should sound the death knell for the proposed city of Brookhaven.
First, money: The city of Peachtree Corners announced that its initial budget would be three times that projected in the Vinson Institute Feasibility Study for that city. This should not surprise anyone; everything, particularly when government is involved, takes longer and costs more than projected. The budget in the Vinson Institute Study for a “city of Brookhaven” is very close to break even. An initial budget even twice that in the study would put the new city underwater from the start.
Second, police: Last week, the AJC carried a story exposing the claims by city backers in a recent slick mailing headlined “Your New City of Brookhaven Means More Police Protecting All of Us.” The article reported that the city backers base their statements on just three days of “time shift cards” cherry-picked from all of 2011. The time shift cards are the only factual support for the claims that we would be better protected in a new city. But the article goes on to report that the backers misread the cards and there were more police in Brookhaven on the selected dates than the three to six claimed in the mailing.
The DeKalb County Police Department has 590 officers, with 83 officers assigned to North Precinct alone and we don’t have to pay extra for SWAT, helicopter, major crime, drug investigation, etc. The new city is to have 53 police officers total.
Better police protection? The reverse is true. Let’s protect our families and our pocketbooks and vote no on July 31.
David W. Drake
End county official’s arrogance
To the editor:
If you’re as tired as I am of the arrogance and condescension coming from many of the DeKalb County commissioners and too many of the staff at the various DeKalb County offices, and if you don’t think we need a Million Dollar Soap Box Derby track, I urge you to join me in voting yes for Brookhaven.
Joe Burum
Why do we need to start a new city?
To the editor:
I have read the Carl Vincent Institute (CVI) Study regarding the proposal to create a new city of Brookhaven. After reading this proposal, I am not in favor of this new city and will vote “no” on July 31.
I urge all impacted residents to study this issue and ask important questions – why do we need to do this? Are the current services delivered by DeKalb County so bad that we need to create another layer of government (the city) to deliver 9.4 percent of our services (primarily parks, police, road maintenance, zoning and a municipal court); and let DeKalb County continue to deliver the other 90.6 percent of our services (fire, jails, garbage, water & sewer). (These percentages are based on the 6.39 mills as a percentage of the total mills on my 2011 property tax bill; the 6.39 mills are the subject of the CVI study).
I have read statements in the newspapers and blogs that this proposal is not a duplicate layer of government. That is correct; it is not duplicative. However, to add clarity to the verbal gymnastics, this proposal results in two governments, each tasked with delivering separate services to us.
As a CPA I read the CVI Study with much interest. In my opinion, the slant in the CVI study appears to be to spend more money on parks and less money on police compared to the current level of spending by DeKalb County in managing these services. I personally am not willing to trade police for parks.
Here is how I arrived at this opinion after reading the CVI study:
I do not take much issue with the math in arriving at the $28.5 million in revenues and $25.1 million in expenses that show the new city would potentially have a surplus of $3.4 million; from experience I know that numbers can be calculated any number of ways to achieve a goal.
And, in fact, this original $3.4 million estimated surplus was formally reduced by 96 percent to $135,348 in a supplement to the study issued in March 2012. For comparison, DeKalb County’s 2011 annual operating budget is approximately $529.7 million; and its total operations, when the airport, water and sewer and bond payments, are included is $1.58 billion.
In my opinion, two areas in the original CVI Study stood out:
1. The emphasis on parks, which has a recommended budget of $1,376,49, 2 compared to the estimated spending by DeKalb County for the same parks today of $480,140, for an almost three-fold increase.
2. The selection of per-capita spending to budget for police services. Currently, DeKalb County’s budget for 2011 per-capita spending for police services appears to be approximately $192.75. The CVI Study used a factor of $113.20 per capita for the proposed Brookhaven, choosing to model after John’s Creek and Dunwoody. However, in my opinion, it is questionable to mirror these two cities that have very different demographics than the proposed Brookhaven. A more reasonable model might be Smyrna, which uses a per-capita budget factor of $128.83. For comparison of demographics, the “poverty rate” is as follows for these cities: John’s Creek (3.2 percent); Dunwoody (4.6 percent); current unincorporated DeKalb (14.5 percent); Smyrna (13.7%); and proposed city of Brookhaven (12.7 percent). If we revised the police budget for Brookhaven using DeKalb County’s factor, our police budget would increase from $5,568,082 to $9,468,198. If we revised the budget using Smyrna’s factor, our budget would increase to $6,312,296. Either of these revisions puts us in a significant deficit position using the CVI Study.
I am not willing to trade police for parks and will vote “no” on July 31.
Beth Taylor
New city would mean local representation and control
To the editor:
I am voting yes for the incorporation of the city Brookhaven because I believe in local representation and control.
Currently my DeKalb Commissioner represents more than 130,000 residents. In the city of Brookhaven, they would represent 12,000 residents. That representative will be a neighbor. A neighbor who I will have access to.
A neighbor who will answer my call if I have a suggestion or want to express an opinion. Today, I can’t get a return call from my DeKalb Commissioner. Brookhaven’s City Hall would be down the street by as opposed to 16 miles away in Decatur. In Atlanta, 16 miles is a long way! How can we express opinions to our representatives when we can’t get to the meetings without taking off a full day of work?
There has been a great deal of debate on if taxes will go up or down with the new city. DeKalb County has publicly stated if the new city happens, they would lose $25 million to $27 million in revenue. That is more than enough to successfully run the city of Brookhaven.
To have a local police force that knows our neighborhoods, to have a voice when zoning decisions are made, to have control over our parks and their improvements, to be able to successfully manage our roads are all reasons why I am voting yes.
I hope you will, too, on July 31.
Shannon Cameron
Avoid higher taxes and the risks of a city
To the editor:
Many thanks go to all of our neighbors who donated time and money to No City Brookhaven. They stood in front of the seniors on fixed incomes and young people just starting their families to protect all of us from the increased taxes and risks of a city. They did this not for personal gain but because they cared for their neighbors and community.
We also extend thanks to our kind and generous neighbors who defended against the false promises of Brookhaven Yes that our taxes would decrease and we would have more local control, more police and more services. Everyone in these difficult economic times would like these things to be true, but beware! These are false promises, as shown mathematically below.
Last week, DeKalb County did not raise its millage rate. This proves without a doubt that the city will cost a lot more than what we now pay. The following chart illustrates the effect this will have on residents living in the boundaries of the proposed city of Brookhaven:
County City Total (mils)
DeKalb County (2012 budget) 10.12 n/a 10.12
Brookhaven (as set in charter) 8.43 3.35 11.78
By comparing the County tax rate to the rate set in the proposed city charter that we will vote on July 31, we now have irrefutable evidence that it will cost us MORE to live in a city of Brookhaven than DeKalb County.
Our neighbors stood in front to protect us from the politicians, developers and registered lobbyists on the board of Brookhaven Yes and from a huge political machine that gains financially from new cities (see list of many, many such companies on Brookhaven-Yes disclosure at http://media.ethics.ga.gov/search/Campaign/Campaign_ByName.aspx). These companies are experts at outsourcing services for cities like Sandy Springs and Peachtree Corners. As they privatize services, they send local tax dollars to Singapore, Great Britain and California, including 911 call centers in New Jersey (See New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/business/a-georgia-town-takes-the-peoples-business-private.html?pagewanted=all).
You will pay more but you will not get more. Only they will get more.
Our neighbors have stood against scare tactics of annexation that are also false. The Brookhaven Reporter, July 19, quotes Dunwoody Mayor Mike Davis, “We are not interested in your neighborhoods.” And to the question, “Will Chamblee annex neighborhoods in the footprint of the proposed city of Brookhaven should the referendum fail,” Chamblee City Manager Dr. Niles Ford responded in a July 20 phone interview, “I have one answer. No.”
Why the rush? Dunwoody had three studies over 10 years.
If you have any doubt in your mind at all, you must vote no.
There is no alternative.
Eugenie Viener
Vote yes and take control
To the editor
I celebrated my second birthday in Brookhaven and have been fortunate to have 59 more. Wow! Look at the changes. What was once a sleepy little community has now become a very urban area.
Most of the changes have been positive. A row of haphazard buildings were replaced with a new train station and across Peachtree Road, here have been many new centers and businesses, mostly positive.
It’s always felt like a town with all the shops, grocery stores, schools, churches, and a library, but we are not a town, we are an unincorporated area of DeKalb County referred to as Brookhaven.
It is important that we, as a community, vote yes for the city of Brookhaven on July 31 and take control of the municipal services that are important to us. You can argue many issues, but the sad fact remains we are not a community.
Aside from a few civic organizations we have little or no control over police representation, zoning and code enforcement, road maintenance and parks. Please note the lack of sidewalks on the Buford Highway between Chamblee and Atlanta, drive the smooth paved Windsor Parkway from Sandy Springs into unincorporated DeKalb and note the cracked pavement and end of lane stripes. All of us can see the improvements when driving between our area and neighboring cities.
A good question was asked at a recent meeting: Why is there so much opposition and what do the no supporters stand to lose if Brookhaven is incorporated? The answer is obvious when you look at the major contributors to the no argument who build and manage apartment buildings and allow billboards on their properties. If we continue as unincorporated DeKalb, we can look forward to more apartments, more blight, and reach the goal the no folks seem to want, lower property values.
Hank Quinn
