If the bills pass Rules, they go in front of the full House of Representatives for a vote. You can start right now trying to reach all of them. The Dekalb delegation doesn't have any more or less power than anyone else on that floor at the time of the vote. Every Representative will have a chance to vote. So, it is important they understand this isn't an ordinary bill about ordinary things.
This decision can very easily come back to haunt them if they don't pay attention and the next battleground is in their own district. Chaos .... that's all these bills are going to create ... chaos!
Here is a recent email we sent to the House of Representatives Committee on this issue:
Will one of you PLEASE ask for an amendment to the Tucker bill before it is passed today?
You cannot possibly agree that the THREE districts with one elected by the immediate area and one person elected at large is a fair democratic process. PLEASE REVIEW AND CHANGE THE TUCKER BILL SO IT IS THE SAME POLITICAL DISTRICT SET UP AS THE BILL FOR LAVISTA HILLS.
Essentially, they are trying to neutralize any one from our Tucker community who might not agree with whatever they have planned in terms of zoning, code enforcement, etc. And, the “at large” person, if elected by a group of the “pro city” folks can essentially use their position to try and bully or demean the value of the other person from that same district who just so happened to be elected by those in that district alone.
PLEASE CONSIDER ANY OF THESE ALTERNATIVES ...
- We would much prefer 7 total seats, since this was the magic number we were told was necessary for a better school board. We do not like the idea of a long term Mayor always having the last say on any issues that could be tied up.
- We also would be okay with 6 seats that are ALL voted on at large.
What is absurd is that Tucker 2014 has never given any one a chance to read this charter, which is essentially a carbon copy of the Lavista Hills / Lakeside one, until now when it is almost too late to even let you know what we think about it. Our entire protest at the onset of all this mess was that the issues affecting the Lakeside community are not the same issues we have in Tucker. But, here we are with almost identical bills. How is that possible?
- We would be even more okay if the only bill proceeding would be the Lavista Hills one (minus our zip code businesses and residents) as they clearly do not need to take anything away from our zip code to be viable.
Perhaps because this is all one big incorporation plan that started with the COUNTY’S Revenue Enhancement Commission? An idea for a way to get more money from the residents that CEO Ellis did not plan to pursue because cities are supposed to be bottom-up, not top-down initiatives.
You are not supposed to allow government to decide that there needs to be more government. That’s not their job. That’s not asking people to vote on a fair question because most people don’t even know what the issues might have been that spurred all of this to begin with! This is one of the only differences we could immediately spot. If it isn’t right for Lavista Hills to be forced to vote in these larger areas, then it isn’t right for us, either ... especially considering that SMOKE RISE, a STONE MOUNTAIN community is going to hold down TWO of the SIX proposed seats!
Smoke Rise residents have nothing to lose when it comes to their decisions. They all have homes they have invested in that have “Smoke Rise” in their address. Same with the people in Lavista Hills who now have “Atlanta” as their address or even “Decatur.” But, our addresses say, ‘Tucker.” We live here. Why isn’t anyone looking out for Tucker?
We don’t have that luxury of being able to see a city of TUCKER fail and not have to worry about our own homes and neighborhoods failing as a result. It is OUR VOICE that is being intentionally shut out here.
We didn’t ask to be a city. We ONLY asked that our borders be protected. This bill doesn’t even do that.
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO FORWARD TO ANYONE ON THE COMMITTEE WHOM YOU THINK WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THIS OPINION.