Skip to main content

Rep. Howard Mosby Answers Questions From Save Tucker!

Rep. Howard Mosby
The following are questions that Save Tucker! recently posed to Rep. Howard Mosby (D - Atlanta) who is a member of the House Governmental Affairs Committee.  Mosby was appointed to the Tucker/LaVista Hills (Lakeside) Boundary subcommittee that recently defined borders between the two city advocacy groups.


Q:  What is the requirement for feasibility reports with these new borders?

A:  Great question.  It is my understanding that the feasibility reports will take at least 3 months to complete and therefore may not be available for the committee to consider before voting on them.  Therefore, those requirements may be (more likely probably) suspended in order to vote on those boundaries.


Q:  What is the rule for the two year mandatory process?  Has an exception been made for these groups only, or has the rule been changed for future groups as well?  Where can the public view the actual rules if they have questions?

A:  The rule is that incorporation bills must be presented in the first year of the biennial legislative session and voted on in the second year.  Again, in order for there to be a vote in 2015, there would need to be an exception to this rule.  I personally have not seen these rules in writing, however I have been told that this is a matter of practice.  They may be introduced this session with the caveats around the decisions concerning Tucker and LaVista Hills.  The chair would have to release those rules to the public.


Q:  The borders are said to be set in stone, but what if the feasibility reports are no longer favorable?  Can the proposed city advocates alter the boundaries in order to make them smaller, for example?  

A:  It is my understanding that if the decision is made to suspend the rules, then only those boundaries set by the committee will be accepted.  Any changes would trigger using the existing rules and start the “two-year" incorporation process.


Q:  Rep. Tom Taylor and others have mentioned proposed city charter documents.   We have personally asked many times to see the proposed charter for a city of Tucker.   When will the public be able to actually see something in writing about the type of local government that the groups are proposing? 

A:  I don’t know when the charter documents will be available for review.


Rep. Mosby also added, "I wish we were not at this point where the legislature has taken the position of “resolving" this matter.  Specifically, we did not ask for this; and the rush to draw boundaries for a vote in 2015 will not produce, in my opinion, the best for the citizens of the affected areas and by extension, DeKalb County."

Thank you, Rep. Mosby, for responding to our questions!  
 





Popular posts from this blog

Taxpayers and Voters are Unhappy with Commissioner Barnes-Sutton:

IMPORTANT RUNOFF ELECTIONTUESDAY, JULY 26!  DEKALB COUNTY'S DISTRICT 4 CHOOSES BETWEEN INCUMBENT BARNES-SUTTON OR CHALLENGER BRADSHAW! 

If you DID NOT vote in the last election, do not despair, you can STILL VOTE in the July 26 Runoff so long as  you were registered to vote at the time of the first election.  To have a say in this runoff, you will need to ask for a "Democratic ballot" for you to cast your vote on.

From the desk of the group "Unhappy Taxpayers and Voters," we received the following:

To DeKalb Teachers and Georgia Teachers:

Commissioner Sharon Barnes Sutton (of the 4th District in DeKalb County) has a long history of arriving to work late (Commission meetings and/or committee meetings) and/or not showing up at all. We ask that you review the following records (prior performance and work history/records of arriving to work on time and/or showing up) and ask if teachers that are not elected officials could get away with the same violations:

How ma…

Tucker Township? A Vision or a Pipe Dream?

Who drew this map?  We are not really sure.  We stumbled upon it recently while looking for Tucker election results. We do, however, think this map, called "Tucker Township" actually shows a good compromise between Tucker and Lavista Hills that could have worked well for everyone.   It offers a great way to share the Northlake area commercial tax revenue.  So, why didn't anyone suggest something like this  prior to putting forth competing bills in the 2013 and 2014 legislative sessions?  And, why is Tucker's city still being allowed to move forward when it has been called "unconstitutional" by even the legislators who supported it?
Limited services government in the form of a new city is something that the Georgia constitution does not allow, apparently.  But, unless citizens decide to fight the creation of Tucker or Peachtree Corners, two of such limited cities are going to continue operating until someone tells them that they cannot.  
Save Tucker…

Tucker Behaving Badly

Newly elected Tucker Mayor Frank Auman (center) and four council-members were sworn in to their positions on March 8 at Tucker High School.  The council members represented exactly 2 of the 3 districts.  Despite the fact that they were not bound by any particular charter requirement to do so, they decided to move forward without the conclusion of District 2's election, which was held over by the need for a runoff.

When met with objections, they promptly began holding meetings anyway.  And they hired staff members, specifically lawyers, more specifically lawyers who are experts in election laws and understanding the charter. 

The seats for District 2 were decided in a runoff election March 29. And April 1, the results were deemed finalized by the Elections Supervisor in DeKalb County.  A separate swearing in ceremony was held at Tucker Recreation Center for them.

When Auman was elected mayor, he said his first goal is to build a foundation for the city.
“We have to get the rev…