Skip to main content

Save Tucker! Opposes a City of Tucker because it simply is not Tucker!

Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 3:13 PM
Subject: Save Tucker! Opposes a City of Tucker because it simply is not Tucker!
Dear Rep. Mitchell,
While we appreciate the fact that you were willing to sponsor a  bill for a city of Tucker during the last legislative session, based on the information you were provided at the time by the individuals who were reaching out to you, we want you to know that the residents of Tucker by large number, are no longer in support of this plan and would prefer that you do not fire the first shot in this turf war.
We were never the ones complaining about the DeKalb County Government or asking for government that was closer to us.  By every testimony I heard during the initial Tucker Together meetings, it sounded like Tucker residents were very satisfied with the services they received.  We have no complaints about a police department that has provided us a safe place to live, with its own HQ on one end of our community and another precinct at the other end.  We could use some better recreation facilities or help at some of the parks, but we have been able to get that help and even grant money by relying on volunteers and special services for unincorporated areas.  We never had any question about our identity or needed a way to stir up community pride.  Tucker has always had all of that, and  home prices that were reasonable, too.
Our largest complaints have been about the school system and the city groups have insisted that they will have nothing to do with the school system.  If that changes, we might consider incorporation again, but as it stands right now, there is no sense in having a bill for a city of Tucker be the starting point that creates a long list of possibilities for others looking to annex, de-annex, start other cities, etc.  This issue has caused a lot of confusion and anger in our community and conflicting stories are often told, creating even more of a panic about the right thing for us to do. 
The bottom line is that Frank Auman, Honey VanDeCreg and even Elaine Boyer are all Smoke Rise residents.  Their addresses are Stone Mountain addresses.  You are the Stone Mountain representative.    Tucker doesn’t want to protect the borders of some new configuration of Tucker that take in a Stone Mountain CID or residents of your historic region.  For one thing, we can’t afford to be that big.  For another thing, we have never wanted to be that big.  If you do decide to bring forward a bill this session, please be transparent in the manner by which the rules for cities are changed to allow the departure from the standard two year  process we were all told was necessary.  Please review for yourself, and ask that the information is made public, the donors for the Tucker feasibility study.  And, please ask that Frank Auman find a suitable replacement for leadership because he is not a current resident of Tucker.  OR, rather than try to convince Smoke Rise to join a city of Tucker when very few people who live in Tucker are actually interested in a city at all, perhaps you can suggest that they rename their endeavor to “Smoke Rise” and then let Tucker vote on whether or not they wish to be a part of this Stone Mountain spin off. 
Mary Kay Woodworth came close to inciting a riot  in Tucker in 2013
when she tried to explain how "Lakeside City Alliance" was merely formed
to study the possibility of a city that would take half of Tucker and deny
them an opportunity to have a true voice in the process. 
We love Stone Mountain.  Always have and always will.   We also love Atlanta and Decatur.  But, we have never been mistaken about where we live.  We have never been disrespectful to our neighboring communities by trying to form a city using their name or the money from their local businesses.   We never approached our elected officials and asked  to include the residents of other areas into a large city that is only showing itself to be marginally possible from a financial standpoint.  Please do not do to us, in the name of help or pity, what we have not tried to do for ourselves.   
If the city of Stone Mountain wants to incorporate more land and include the Stone Mountain CID, it should have to recruit the support of the voters they will ultimately  need in order to have that annexation approved.  The residents and commercial should be viewed as an entity that comes together or stays as unincorporated DeKalb.   And Tucker should be able to remain “Tucker” as defined already very clearly with our own zip code, 30084.  You have not voted in favor of any existing city to date, so please do not suddenly decide that this is the time for you to change your beliefs.  Tucker, as mapped by the committee, is destined for financial failure. 
 Frank Auman, last known President of Tucker 2015,
lists "Stone Mountain" in his address when
he registers as a lobbyist on the city of Tucker bill.  Does
he really think he lives in Tucker?
By trying to help us, your bill could just be exactly what does us in for good.  And, Republicans seeking a reason to turn your constituents against you and turn your district Red, will seize the opportunity to point out the mistake.   The same is being done to Scott Holcomb in his district where he believes that the Evansdale community wants a city of Lavista Hills.  In all honesty, they want a city of Lakeside or just a promise that they will remain in that school district.   Holcomb cannot promise that to them any more than you can claim to be giving Tucker what it asked for:   protection of our borders.  The Tucker 2015 group is not a group focused on Tucker.  It protects Smoke Rise and will lose at a referendum if one is ever brought forward.

Thank you,
XXXXXX
Save Tucker!

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 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…

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…