One very important thing to consider is that there is currently talk of a City of DeKalb, including ALL unincorporated portions of DeKalb Co. and preventing any future cityhoods. If Tucker doesn't incorporate or join in the incorporation of a neighboring area, its residents will be locked into the inefficient and sometimes corrupt government of DeKalb Co. henceforth.

It is my understanding that the name & map the LCA is using are drafts and can be amended. As for Henderson Park, that park is currently funded by tax dollars from all DeKalb residents. It doesn't belong to Tucker. I've lived here for 14 yrs. and it is basically the same park it was when we moved in, except for the community gardens area. I frequently drove my young kids to other DeKalb parks that are nicer, like Brook Run in Dunwoody. Henderson could be so much more if the folks making the decisions lived in the community.

In addition, our police precinct (the Tucker one) covers a massive area that extends all the way to Lithonia. There are something like 15 squad cars on duty at any given time and there is some serious crime in other areas. Crime is also on the rise in our community. Wouldn't it be comforting to know that more officers are in our area when we need them and could have quicker response times?

These are all important considerations. Let's all try to keep an open mind and at least come to the table and have a discussion before passing judgement on the subject.

A proposal for a City of DeKalb has been raised before in the legislature and couldn't fight its way out of committee. I believe the legislature opposes the move, largely for the same reasons that it has been pushing for more autonomy for northern Fulton County -- it wants to create the conditions for northern DeKalb -- which is far more Republican -- to break away from a Democratically-dominated south DeKalb.

Tucker is right on the dividing line, politically, geographically and culturally. Tucker is multiethnic, has wide variation in income, and is not generally dominated by either political party. The one thing Tucker seems to have in common is a sense of shared identity. The more I think about Tucker, actually, the more I like the place.

To the claim that "crime is on the rise in our community," well, perceptions vary, of course ... but if that's true, it would have to be floating against the broad sociological tide of recent years. Crime, relative to previous years, is way, way down almost everywhere. The last three years or so have had lower incidence of crime than any three years since 1960. I won't argue that you're wrong, only that I would want to see statistical evidence supporting that claim.

I'm not arguing against a Lakeside incorporation, per se. I think a lot of folks are weighing the cost-benefit question. I would, however, like to start seeing more of our county commissioners make the case for unity if one is can be made. That's their job.

"The TCA advises DeKalb County Planning and Zoning on all zoning and land use applications in the Tucker area."

What if we disagree with what the TCA wants, as is usually the case for me? I would like my own representative that I elected. Most of us are not even aware of all the pending developments the TCA has fought. Also, now we have a ”sports bar”/strip club on Northlake Pkwy where the beautiful Olive Garden used to be because we have no control over zoning & the TCA did not have the authority to stop it.

DeKalb County has many more parks to be concerned with than Henderson Park. A new "political system" that has actual legal clout is what we need to make sure our tax $ are going to support our parks. The residents of that area will of course have their own representation in the new city, and that person will have more influence within the halls of DeKalb County government - via the legal voice of a city - than a group of citizens.

By the way, Northlake & Briarcliff are among the names being considered for the new city. The TCA's repeated use of the name Lakeside is inflammatory.

Also, the groups that have worked so hard representing Tucker parks & schools are an asset we don't have to lose, but instead of dealing with the DeKalb County govt conglomerate they can work with the new city who in turn, can be much more effective within the confines of county govt.

If being in a city is so undesirable, then why did the TCA look into it in the first place?

I find it difficult to believe that people would be willing to engage in the divisive, expensive and administratively complex process of incorporating a brand-new city ... over parks.

Let's lay it all the way out there.

Talk is emerging in the legislature about a change to the Georgia constitution which would permit some municipalities to break away from their county school systems. Folks in Dunwoody in particular have been agitating for it. North Fulton would love it. The high schools in Dunwoody, Brookhaven ... and Lakeside ... are particularly lovely, but they're burdened by dysfunction in administrative leadership.

If Lakeside incorporates after the constitutional change (assuming it passes; there's significant opposition in rural Georgia. surprisingly enough), then there will be a hue and a cry about how it would devastate the remaining school system. The incorporation would probably come under serious judicial scrutiny; it would certainly come under increased public scrutiny. But if the city incorporates before the constitutional change ... then it's just ostensibly about parks and police.

Take this as one man's opinion; folks advocating for incorporation are gambling that the increased administrative costs -- and there will be some -- and additional layer of government are worth it if they can get their own schools. But if the constitution doesn't change ... you're stuck with more government.

Good questions, George.

It's not all about parks. First and foremost (to me) it's about zoning. Zoning influences everything. Northlake has a bad image right now - that would change with restricted zoning. I don't think we should have tattoo parlors, "spas" and pawn shops next to family-oriented restaurants and businesses. I don't think high-end retail or restaurants are going to invest in our area when it's very likely that the county could approve a bar/strip club next door. Why should a nice retail chain open a store in Northlake Mall when the county could approve a tattoo parlor next to them? They won't, and they don't.

And again, if being in a city is so undesirable, then why did the TCA look into it in the first place?

Zoning is real. And I'll give you that one -- it's hard to beat local control on zoning issues. I can imagine the reaction you're getting from the county zoning folks when local objections are raised.

Let me ask -- are there recent zoning fights that the community feels it lost? Where the red t-shirt brigade at a commission hearing failed to achieve a reasonable goal? Because that's a substantially better argument than anything I've heard to date, if that's the case.

It's also a relatively easy fix. If the LCA looks like it can credibly threaten incorporation, the zoning board is going to suddenly become much more receptive to local issues.

Again, some of this is a county commission with a profoundly tin ear for issues in North DeKalb. It's lovely that Elaine Boyer is coming to speak, but you would do well to pour an earful into Lee May, Sharon Barnes-Sutton and the rest. The whole group needs to get it.

What's so wrong with tattoo parlors? All the kids are getting them these days. The nice girls who graduated from college have quotes in nice script that are spelled correctly. Lighten up on this! Strip clubs are still sketchy, and will remain that way, but tatts are mainstream, like long hair on hippies in the 70's, only diff being that you could cut your hair but lasering off the tatt is a bit more trouble.

It's a divisive issue about CONTROL. If all the unhappy residents just voted new blood in, we'd win across the community. Instead, we have the Friends and Family Network members elected to every possible position, and we seem so surprised when those people are accused of impropriety. My My My.

Sarah, "spas" and massage parlors were all over the place in Tucker in 1996. The community got them out. I was not involved so I don't know how it happened. It may have been a zoning change, the police, or the landlords figuring out what was going on. Whatever the solution it happened without being a city.

Additionally, now it seems the park maintenance is now being "outsourced"
Yesterday...talked to the guys working in Montreal Park....no more county staff....maybe because of
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/new-hire-draws-ire-in-dekalb/nWtXM/

When it comes to conducting a Cityhood study it’s ok for Tucker but not ok for Lakeside. Does this sound reasonable? So TCA conducted a “study” into the feasibility of a City of Tucker. Then decided that is was not feasible without a broader based area of tax payers. The TCA had no problem with a simple study to determine if a city incorporation as an idea is feasible or not. Was the TCA study opposed by the “Northlake and Brookhaven” areas? I don’t remember any! Did TCA ever consider or publicly present a proposed map of the potential city prior to or after the study? I don’t remember one! Where are the documented minutes of the meetings demonstrating that the TCA voted against a “land grab”? Or could it have been that TCA wanted to be exclusionary, quiet, or simplistic, or too small in its’ mapping and cityhood study efforts? Was there complete openness in the TCA Tucker Cityhood study effort and who actually paid for the study? I believe that TCA has a lot more explaining to do the area citizens about TCA’s previous study efforts before it weighs in on the Lakeside Cityhood Alliance efforts. Without complete openness on the TCA Tucker Cityhood study and all the facts exposed, no one should take TCA’s highly misleading and dishonestly self serving comments in the above statement at face value.

Tucker Civic Association (TCA) has completely misrepresented its cityhood “Study”. The “Study” is a quality preliminary effort and school project developed by graduate students attending the fine institute of GA Tech. In their words : “The report is by no means an exhaustive study of all issues involved, but rather lays out in broad strokes the questions to consider, along with a path toward incorporation.” Is this “the study “that the Tucker Civic Association is referring to in its statement above? If so, why did TCA fail to call it preliminary or state the conclusion of the study was positive toward cityhood?

The "Study" recommends TCA "engage the Carl Vinson Institute to prepare a feasibility study crucial to the process .” By the way, conducting this exact kind of study is the openly stated goal of the Lakeside Cityhood Alliance.

Also, why not also mention that the Tucker Cityhood study clearly and significantly crosses west of I285? But what everyone should find very interesting is the large number of the positives listed for Cityhood. Most telling are these word in the Tucker Cityhood study: “In conclusion, we are optimistic that Tucker has the assets and ability to implement an incorporation plan -- if that is their desire.” How does the stated Tucker Civic Association conclusion stated above jive with this pro Cityhood recommendation? What is the TCA’s real agenda? See more at:

http://www.tuckercivic.org/docs/IncorpPrelimFeasRept.pdf

For the record, I am not now nor have I ever been a member of TCA but Randy you seem to have a lot of hostility toward a study conducted 6 or 7 years ago.

Exposing the blatant misrepresentations by the TCA is a civic service effort on my behalf. Not hostility! We all deserve the truth. Lying in public deserves to be exposed as such. The TCA commissioned the study and set the maps which reached across their ever changing and area imaginary boundaries. The study concluded that cityhood was very viable which is completely the opposite of the statement is their public letter. Their open letter is also full of numerous other falsehoods which all readers should take into consideration when determining the TCS’s credibility or lack thereof.

I was a member of the TCA exploratory committee looking into incorporating Tucker as a city. I have to agree with RandyRand, for the most part, in how he is characterizing some of the inaccuracies in the TCA ‘letter’ signed by Bruce Penn and Beth Ganga, even though I might agree with many of the other issues the letter raises.

1. “This exploratory group included experts from Georgia Tech.”
There were no ‘experts.’ The study was performed by a group of Georgia Tech graduate students in what can be described as no more than a term paper. One of the students lived in Tucker and was on the committee. She wanted to do a ‘study’ of incorporating Tucker, and she included several other fellow students as part of her group, none of whom were experts in this particular subject. Their study was done largely separate from the exploratory committee; we had very little direct interaction with them beyond the one committee member.
(cont.)

2. “. . . the Northlake area and parts of Brookhaven.”
The Northlake shopping area would be very popular with any local group looking to incorporate, primarily for the commercial tax base. Although the map in the Tech ‘study’ included areas beyond Northlake shopping centers, we only considered the commercial district as an optional area to be included in the city limits. We spoke very casually with the Northlake Community Alliance who were largely indifferent to the possibility of a city, although one or two were very much against it.
There was never, ever, EVER any discussion about having to include “parts of Brookhaven” to make a City of Tucker viable. It was never discussed as a need or as a possibility. It never came up. You only need look at a DeKalb map to recognize just how silly this option would be.
(cont.)

3. “The Tucker Community was not willing to "land grab" into other areas, choosing to respect other individual communities.”
The issue of a “land grab” into other individual communities was NEVER discussed, either within the committee, or with the TCA as a whole. There was, of course, a lot of discussion about where to draw the city boundaries. We had started with the federally delineated Tucker CDP as the core area, and then considered in turn whether or not to include Northlake, Smoke Rise, the Pleasantdale corridor, and/or the Tucker HS areas south of US 78. Some thought the Northlake and Pleasandale areas were too far outside of Tucker, and the area south of US 78 was simply not an integral to Tucker. Most debate, such as it was, centered on Smoke Rise.
(cont.)

4. “The Tucker Civic Association does not support or oppose the Lakeside and Oak Grove Communities seeking to form their own city.”
I am sure this is true. He should also have stated that the TCA does not support or oppose the idea of Tucker forming a city. This is due to the fact that, as a tax exempt organization, the TCA is absolutely precluded from advocating for or against a city. Whereas individual officers and members of the TCA may certainly weigh into the discussion along with any other resident, the TCA, as a whole, cannot.

I would also like to say that neither Mr. Penn nor Ms. Ganga were a part of the exploratory committee, nor were they officers of the TCA at the time the committee was meeting. Although their arguments in the rest of their statement are certainly valid, they largely represent only the anti-incorporation side of the equation. In my view this statement should only be considered as their viewpoint as individuals, and should not be presented as representing the TCA as a whole.

It would appear that the Tucker Community has some immediate house cleaning efforts ahead for the TCA when one considers RWF’s specific revelations and the nature and bias within the TCA public letter. Looking forward to the next weasel worded TCA communication but hoping for a complete retraction and public apology. Will they do the right thing?

One VERY important thing you all are overlooking. The Civil Rights Voting Act of 1965 sec 2 and/or sec 5 are under scrutiny by the US Supreme Court. Expect the barn door to fall open if it is decided that federal oversight of these re-districtings is no longer necessary. And, face it, this IS a redistricting effort. The black community understands this totally. Republicans don't traditionally vote fo
r MORE government.

And, btw, the criticisms of the TCA are unwarranted. Anyone can see the improvements brought upon Tucker by this very committed group. I'm seeing some of these comments as an attack on TCA as possibly by a group within the Lakeside bunch (wouldn't be surprised if this is their version of opposition research).

RandyRand. Who are you?

So blatant TCA lies and misrepresenting the facts is good with you “Tough Cookie”? You would make Tony Soprano so proud! Wake up! The TCA has made stone soup and from sweat and monies of the Tucker Community and the Tucker Community thinks it’s great. Take a drive over to Brookhaven sometime and you will see what a growing cityhood really looks like! And redistricting is not the issue here, you can put away your KKK hoodwink.

All this concern over the TCA’s role in the possibility of Tucker incorporating is a bit overblown. They simply do not have that much power or any authority in this regard. When I was active in the TCA, everyone I met were Tucker locals who had a sincere interest in working with others to further the interests of the community. No one was forcing any issue or pushing the organization in any particular direction. It was all rather unexciting to be honest.

The TCA did start the exploratory committee with TCA members, but anyone was welcome to participate. There were never more than 15-20 people involved on the committee itself, and we met maybe once a month for a year or so and held 4 community meetings in local churches with 75-100 people attending. Of those who attended, well over 75% supported the idea of forming a City of Tucker. And whereas most of us who participated favored incorporating, I honestly believe that the head of the committee simply did not feel strongly either way.

At the end it became clear that to move forward we would have to form a new organization, totally separate from the TCA, to formalize the effort to incorporate and to raise the necessary funding for the Carl Vinson study. No one on the committee stepped forward to make that happen, so the whole thing seemed to die of inertia. If the TCA made any formal decision regarding the committee’s conclusions or any decision on how to move forward, I was unaware of it.

Rwf - Thank you for contributing your insights!

RWF - your comments have been a great inside baseball look at the cityhood efforts and where the ball was dropped or possibly not picked up again. You have also made it clear that there have been some TCA misrepresentations which we all need see end to have open forthright discussions. Thanks for recounting the facts.

Frankly, I wouldn't worry about the TCA as its role in any incorporation discussion will be limited at best. Somehow the rules regarding their being a non-profit organization prevent a more proactive role.

For what its worth, the message from the TCA may be even more compromised than you might otherwise think. From what I understand, Bruce Penn, the current president of the TCA, and probably the principal author of the message, is actually a resident of Gwinnett County. He was a resident of Tucker for several years, owns a business located in Tucker (across LaVista from the library) and is, I'm sure, very familiar with the larger Tucker community. But, in this discussion, he is nothing more than a non-resident business owner who will not have a vote on the matter. His primary interest in the discussion is how a future city may impact his business interests. In my opinion, he is using (or abusing) his position as president of the TCA to advocate a personal position that may be at odds with the goals and responsibilities of the TCA and with its individual members.

A resident of the Gwinnett side of Tucker??