This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

Partisan Elections: Only Fair Way to Go for Tucker

If we were to jump ahead for a moment and picture what a city election would look like in Tucker, how would you vote when political parties will likely be hidden from the ballot.

There is still much we don't know about the potential for Tucker to become a city.  The various city bills are currently being reviewed in an Intergovernmental Committee and it has been reported by the City of Briarcliff Initiative (COBI) that legislators want city groups to work together.  Otherwise, it could be back to the drawing board for at least three of them:  Briarcliff, Lakeside and Tucker. 

It's possible that Tucker and COBI could work together to present a unified map whereby the two groups would essentially take over the remaining portions of DeKalb County considered to be "northern" in geography. It's odd to know that there are folks who refer to Tucker as "North" when we have been called Central and even South by various leaders at different times depending on which location best suits whatever point they are trying to make at the time.  Maybe that's part of the reason why Tucker has always been considered "the best kept secret" in metro Atlanta - no one really knows where we are located exactly, except for those of us who live here, that is.    

I am not convinced that becoming a city is really worth the potential increases we would face from city taxes, Special Local Option sales taxes, increases in utility fees plus the various fines, license fees and other charges that would inevitably be levied upon us.  Did you know that there are cities in DeKalb right now that charge a license fee for holding a garage sale and even some that wants you to get a license to ride your bicycle?  

"Local control" sounds a bit like a double-edged sword.  On the one hand, you may have more elected officials who are "closer to the people," as we have heard touted by the various advocates.  But, on the other hand that also means more people who want power to exert that control over our tax dollars and, potentially, our quality of life.  Sure, it's nice to think of these imaginary people who have yet to be named as having our best interest at heart at all times.  But, let's be honest with ourselves for a moment, even the best people can be influenced by the big money that political action committees throw around in Georgia.  It's in the press all the time.  We are one of eight most corrupt states in the U.S., according to a report by The Center for Public Integrity.

The report was based upon 330 “Integrity indicators”, each falling into 14 categories including internal auditing and ethics enforcement.  It was noted that in Georgia, more than 650 government employees took gifts from vendors conducting business within the state between 2007 and 2008. And, just recently, the AJC reported that PACs essentially pay the way for legislators as early as their first re-election campaign.  So the only ones working the hardest for the citizens in their districts are the ones in their freshmen terms as legislators.  After that, big money and big business takes over and the will of the voters can easily be something lost in the shuffle. 

So, what does ethics reform have to do with the City of Tucker?  

I don't know about you, but I'm finding all of the claims being made by the different (but remarkably alike) city groups a little hard to believe simultaneously.  I'm guessing that they are hoping we will only listen to the parts that we want to hear and ignore the rest.  Or, they are banking on the public's short attention span and betting we will forget the dates where our opinions will actually count - when we will be expected to vote, if we are in one or more of the ever-changing fluid boundaries they've drawn and redrawn.  

If we were to jump ahead, just for a moment, and assume that one or more of these cities were to actually be approved by the state and a referendum were to show up on a ballot in 2014, then what?  The next step would be a rush to elect city officials, right?  But, as far as I can tell, the cities all plan to create "non-partisan" elections, meaning you and I will have very little to go on when we see these new names on our ballot.  And, we are actually paying attention.  Imagine how lost some folks will be when they see names on their ballot they have never heard of running for positions we have never had before.   Here's more information about pros and cons of partisan vs. non-partisan elections.

If these city advocacy groups are clearly politically motivated and party-loyal in theory, then they shouldn't have any problem with running a good old fashioned politically correct election, right?  I understand that "non-partisan" may sound good to the average voter, but that's only because we expect that those running for office will actually abide by the spirit in which such elections were created - by leaving traditional politics at the door and running on their merits, vowing to do right by all the citizens regardless of their party affiliations.  But, that's not how non-partisan is being used, in my opinion. 

Rather than being "non-partisan" in nature, the elections I have seen are only non-partisan in the fact that they are an attempt to fool the voters so that we do not know what party the candidates belong to.   They don't leave their ideology behind them.  It just gets harder for us to determine who exactly they are representing and what is motivating them on the various issues.  Let's get off on the right foot here and stop following the rest of the pack when it comes to these deceptive practices.  

The only real reason I have heard for forming a new city would be the idea that we "the people" can do a better job.  But, how can we do that if we are not truly trying to change anything other than who's hands our money reaches first before it filters down to the actual programs or plans it is intended to support?  Somehow adding more to this chain doesn't really sound like we're changing anything.  In fact, it sounds more complicated and expensive.

If Tucker wants to remain true to its old fashioned values, then we need to take a stand against the usual way of doing things in the metro Atlanta area of late.  We can start by being honest about what is really driving these city initiatives and why.  

There's no denying the fact that several folks who are heavily involved on the Tucker 2014 board have shared interests.  Three of them live on the same street and several of them have ties to the telecommunications industry.  More than a few of the folks on both sides of the debate have their own homes and children to consider and, coincidentally, they are all in the Livsey attendance zone.  Why is that?  Does it have something to do with the proposed school zoning changes or the fact that the school board has tried to close Livsey on more than one occasion?  As much as they say it isn't about the schools, I am finding that very hard to believe.  Until the city debate popped up, everything in DeKalb was all about the schools.  

These issues, separately, may not be an immediate concern, but the fact that they have not been upfront with our community about who they are and why they want to see Tucker succeed as a city, is a very real concern for myself and many others.  

It's no big secret that the Republican legislators are the ones who are backing the city initiatives and pushing them forward.  It's no big secret that the "Embry Hills" area where Tucker 2014 has included in our map, is also the statewide HQ for the Republican Party in the state of Georgia.  I believe it is also the area where our Tucker 2014 President said she was from as well as it being the area where an LCA board member once lived.  

The only speakers I have seen on the topic who appear to be in favor of forming cities in DeKalb are all Republicans, several of whom do not even live in our area or represent any part of Tucker.  So, if we all know who is in favor of forming cities, at least in the counties that are led by Democrats, then why try to hide that on a ballot?  Are they ashamed of their party, or are they trying to fool us into believing that there really could be such a thing as a "non partisan" group on this issue?

The county commissioners are partisan in their elections, so there's no reason the city council seats, mayor race and any other elected positions can't be partisan as well.  If we must move ahead with a city of Tucker, let's be up front with the citizens who live here.  Give people more than just a name on a ballot.  Let them know where the candidates stand in terms of their own ideology. 

Let Tucker's elections be partisan and may our voters be truly able to choose for themselves who they want to lead us.  And, if we can't start out on an honest foot here, then I suggest that even our first step may have us headed in the complete wrong direction. 

For more on this topic, please join the conversations taking place on our Facebook page right now: www.facebook.com/SaveTuckerFromLakesideCity.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?