We are relieved to see that the latest version of the Tucker bill has updates to the city council voting process. Here is the new language:
(3) Two councilmembers shall be elected from each of the three council districts and shall hold Council District 1, Post 1; Council District 1, Post 2; Council District 2, Post 1; Council District 2, Post 2; Council District 3, Post 1; and Council District 3, Post 2, respectively. Each person desiring to offer as a candidate for councilmember for such posts shall designate the council post for which he or she is offering. Councilmembers shall be elected by a majority vote of the qualified electors of the respective council districts voting at the elections of the city. In the event that no candidate for a council post obtains a majority vote of the qualified electors of the council district voting in the election, then a run-off election shall be held. The candidates receiving the two highest numbers of votes in the election for such council post shall be included in the run-off election. The person receiving the highest number of votes of the qualified electors of the council district voting at such run-off election shall be elected. Each candidate for election to the city council shall reside in the district which he or she seeks to represent.This is an improvement, but there is still the question of how a candidate would determine which of the two posts for the identical area he / she should run for. And, there is still the issue of constituents having to get their point made in front of two councilmen or women instead of having just one to worry about. But, it is a far better election process than what was previously included in the bill from the House, so we hope this is the version that will prevail, if there must be one.
Read the bill here.
... But Is It Feasible??
We have seen very little evidence that the proposed city of Tucker, which is comprised mostly of Smoke Rise residents, Stone Mountain businesses and a few Stone Mountain schools, will be feasible. With just Tucker residents and Tucker businesses, we may have had a shot, but the Tucker-Northlake CID is making sure they don't let that happen. They have been busy including all kinds of businesses since they first started two years ago. Only problem is that they keep adding ones that are in the "Lakeside" area and making the ones in Tucker so mad that they are leaving.
So far, we've noticed some big changes, like these relocations or closures:
* Toys R Us
* The Big Green Egg
* Bikeways of Tucker
* Dee's Cupcakes
* The Roxx
* Dr. Honda
and now ....
The entire professional complex on Northlake Parkway, where many Tucker residents go to see their physicians and specialists, is telling their tenants that they have to vacate by May 1.
There has been talk about what will be built there instead, but nothing can be substantiated. So, not only are cities and annexations destructive to our county and our local economy, but in Tucker, just the TALK about these things is tearing apart what has been more than a century in the making.
Tucker residents who were added to the Lavista Hills map will not vote in favor of these tactics and we know plenty of people inside the perimeter in the Lavista Hills boundaries who will vote no as well.
People are waking up in DeKalb County and starting to see the light. We don't have to let these things consume our time or attention any longer. We just have to all agree to vote NO.