Skip to main content

Rep. Howard Mosby Answers Questions From Save Tucker!

Rep. Howard Mosby
The following are questions that Save Tucker! recently posed to Rep. Howard Mosby (D - Atlanta) who is a member of the House Governmental Affairs Committee.  Mosby was appointed to the Tucker/LaVista Hills (Lakeside) Boundary subcommittee that recently defined borders between the two city advocacy groups.

Q:  What is the requirement for feasibility reports with these new borders?

A:  Great question.  It is my understanding that the feasibility reports will take at least 3 months to complete and therefore may not be available for the committee to consider before voting on them.  Therefore, those requirements may be (more likely probably) suspended in order to vote on those boundaries.

Q:  What is the rule for the two year mandatory process?  Has an exception been made for these groups only, or has the rule been changed for future groups as well?  Where can the public view the actual rules if they have questions?

A:  The rule is that incorporation bills must be presented in the first year of the biennial legislative session and voted on in the second year.  Again, in order for there to be a vote in 2015, there would need to be an exception to this rule.  I personally have not seen these rules in writing, however I have been told that this is a matter of practice.  They may be introduced this session with the caveats around the decisions concerning Tucker and LaVista Hills.  The chair would have to release those rules to the public.

Q:  The borders are said to be set in stone, but what if the feasibility reports are no longer favorable?  Can the proposed city advocates alter the boundaries in order to make them smaller, for example?  

A:  It is my understanding that if the decision is made to suspend the rules, then only those boundaries set by the committee will be accepted.  Any changes would trigger using the existing rules and start the “two-year" incorporation process.

Q:  Rep. Tom Taylor and others have mentioned proposed city charter documents.   We have personally asked many times to see the proposed charter for a city of Tucker.   When will the public be able to actually see something in writing about the type of local government that the groups are proposing? 

A:  I don’t know when the charter documents will be available for review.

Rep. Mosby also added, "I wish we were not at this point where the legislature has taken the position of “resolving" this matter.  Specifically, we did not ask for this; and the rush to draw boundaries for a vote in 2015 will not produce, in my opinion, the best for the citizens of the affected areas and by extension, DeKalb County."

Thank you, Rep. Mosby, for responding to our questions!  

Popular posts from this blog

Welcome to Smoke Rise, Soon to be Tucker, GA

The driving force behind the city of Tucker has been the leadership within the community known as "Smoke Rise, GA."  Smoke Rise residents currently have addresses that say "Stone Mountain, GA" and many of them worked hard in order to create a separate identity for themselves, petitioning the U.S. Post Office to change their official name to "Smoke Rise."  While the Post Office did not agree to change the official name, they did agree to allow "Smoke Rise" as a recognized alternative to "Stone Mountain" that could be used interchangeably as long as it accompanied their 30087 zip code.

It is important to note that these residents did not ask the Post Office to recognize their use of "Tucker" as an acceptable alternative.  They asked to be called "Smoke Rise."

It appears that zip codes and address labels are important to them, just as our Tucker zip code is important to us.  And, while we do understand that Smoke Rise…

Tweak us out of LaVista Hills

This is a letter shared with the "Dekalb Strong" group.  You can join the conversation at
We didn't realize how easy tweaking was. “Tweak” and just like that, 2000 people are moved from one city proposal to another. (“LaVista Hills, Tucker border tweaked in Senate,” News, March 20). Our home is in Toco Hills on the southern edge of the proposed LaVista Hills and we’d like to be tweaked out of it. North and north central DeKalb County residents have become pawns in the misguided ambitions of a few. With all the changes made by the Senate and House, it’s vital the feasibility of these proposals be revisited. The LaVista Hills boundaries have bled commercial property to the Tucker proposal and Brookhaven’s annexation of Executive Park.

As reconfigured, LaVista Hills is almost entirely residential. Even including Toco Hills shopping center and Northlake mall, there appears to be insufficient commercial or industrial property to sup…

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…