Skip to main content

Tucker's City Bill Updated in the Senate

NOTE:  Special called meeting of the DeKalb Delegation will take place in the Coverdell Administration Building starting at 8 a.m., on Wed. March 25.

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.

That's why we are ready to see the Lavista Hills bill go before the voters because we are confident it can and will be defeated at the ballot box.  Sometimes the only way to move forward is to go straight through and that's what has to happen here.

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.

Popular posts from this blog

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…

Taxpayers and Voters are Unhappy with Commissioner Barnes-Sutton:


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…