Tom Doolittle
-
The Basics
-
Tom on Patch
-
More Stuff
Comments
-
On the article Another Legislator: Only GOP-Backed Cityhood Bills Will Be Considered
-
On the article Another Legislator: Only GOP-Backed Cityhood Bills Will Be Considered
Tom Doolittle
4:33 pm on Tuesday, May 21, 2013
ReplyBTW--thanks to the Tucker Patch for announcing the Lakeside City Alliance meeting right along side the Tucker meeting tonight at St Andrews.
Both meetings obviously affect a broad combined audience in disputed territory and not. Its important for everyone to understand the terms of engagement.
I certainly hope Republican legislators (especially from North Fulton) will tell people in Tucker that they need to suck up to them to get a bill sponsored--assuming its a legitimate hope.
This process is a fraud and will hurt people from all over our corridor, "win" or "lose".
-
On the article Another Legislator: Only GOP-Backed Cityhood Bills Will Be Considered
Tom Doolittle
4:28 pm on Tuesday, May 21, 2013
ReplyThis is a very important report, whether or not you agree with the way it was reported.
Documenting meetings where Republican legislators (the state) from new cities continue to present their considerable weight in "uncharted territory" is important history that will be helpful in a future review of the process that either changed our landscape or didn't. This is a story that probably should be in the AJC.
As has been said in the past: "If it isn't documented, it never happened".I wish I could find the clip that was on The Patch where the Governor's appointee told the Buckhead Chamber audience that this side of I-85 isn't a definable community--being the top criteria for getting a "yes" vote.
We can use an inventory of these clips.
-
On the article Monday Essentials: Lakeside, Tucker Together, Northlake Meetings
Tom Doolittle
4:01 pm on Tuesday, May 21, 2013
ReplyProbably could pick this one up too--happened in Evansdale, disputed territory.
Readers will have to cross "community" boundaries to get the full stories on what impacts their futures.
Well--on to the Decatur Patch to finish my frickin' rounds in The Corridor. maybe we can have a Corridor Patch.
-
On the article Another Legislator: Only GOP-Backed Cityhood Bills Will Be Considered
Tom Doolittle
3:57 pm on Tuesday, May 21, 2013
This is civil (absence of overt conflict). When the US builds an army base in a foreign country to claim territory and "prevent" violence, it's "civil". Doesn't mean people are appropriately represented, but its "civil".
-
On the article Another Legislator: Only GOP-Backed Cityhood Bills Will Be Considered
Tom Doolittle
3:52 pm on Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Don--they are absolutely using the bully pulpit to do just what you describe. It has the same effect as publishing one-sided polls to discourage full participation in elections.
What is disappointing is that legislators appear to have a dog in the hunt..and the process which makes a legislator into an "author" of a movement.
Question: in your attempts at "authoring" a city of Briarcliff, how have your discussions gone with Republican legislators?
The Republican legislators should be invited to Tucker meetings.
-
On the article Monday Essentials: Lakeside, Tucker Together, Northlake Meetings
Tom Doolittle
3:44 pm on Tuesday, May 21, 2013
ReplyIts awesome that Tucker Patch is willing to announce the Lakeside City Alliance meetings along with Tucker Together. It seems that this Patch understands why both activities are important to any resident in the entire area from Emory to Tucker.
Very good intuition on your part. Its good that you don't have a "I don't cover Lakeside" (Druid Hills/Briarcliff) notion.
The fact that Patches could even possibly have that problem is indicative of the issues that make it difficult to adjudicate separate cities here.
What's interesting tho is Dunwoody meetings and Sandy Springs meetings are announced on their respective Patches all of the time.
-
On the Blog Post Private Property Rights vs. Eminent Domain
Tom Doolittle
9:06 am on Tuesday, May 21, 2013
ReplyMy coverage of the URP meeting:
http://clairmontheights.org/node/3371"When I asked if Economic Development officials knew of any negatives to having DeKalb County essentially termed "blighted", they said "no", firms will jump at the chance to locate in such a place to take advantage of the state tax credits. "
..and more -
On the Blog Post Private Property Rights vs. Eminent Domain
Tom Doolittle
10:08 am on Monday, May 20, 2013
ReplyIf DeKalb names Opp Zones (bonds) in current unincorporated areas--and those areas incoporate--the county maintains the rights to the zone--and control over the ensuing bond inducements. Essentially creates financial islands of county control in new cities.
This might explain the shift away from targeted, specific, limited and few zones to naming the entire remaining unincorporated area a so-called "zone".
Are county employees really this smart? Probably not fast enough on the draw--but their "bond-its" are.
-
On the Blog Post Private Property Rights vs. Eminent Domain
Tom Doolittle
10:08 am on Monday, May 20, 2013
ReplyJust from an "optics" standpoint...the use of Opportunity Zones demands that you classify the boundaries around the zone as a slum. It's in the law. It was bad enough that the Urban Redevelopment Plan was restricted to a few specific industrial and commercial areas in the county with the litte residential area next to them (small slums, very distributed, targeted)--now the entire county, less cities and one strip along Briarcliff (matching proposed Briarcliff city) is classified as a slum.
No doubt this is unprecedented across the nation. Incredibly irresponsible and my guess the Feds would have never suggested such a move.Qulaity employeres, even manufacturers and warehousing, probably won't take the bait--the incentives will mean comparatively little. The county has prosituted itself and will pay a huge price--probably will be petitioned by local residents to revise the plan after a few years.
To wit--I refer you to other cities and counties. Gwinnett has one Opp Zone, restricted to part of the Gwinnett Village CID, less than oe square mile in a 15 sq mi CID.
The other issue is cheating or at least defying the intent of the law. It represents competition for other real slums, now like DeKalb. Alpharetta named one of these and simply got a relo that it would have gotten anway.
Tom Doolittle
5:21 pm on Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Herman--the short answer is "no". Probably an unfortunate example in this case. Mainly considered the law we seem to apply in both cases--here's the process to date:
"What makes you think you can do that"--"because we CAN".
I simply don't trust the source of power, no matter who's using it or on what issue. Our 2,000 bases accross the globe to keep "The Peace" are an apt example from those standpoints.