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!
Comments
Post a Comment