Save Tucker!

 A recent conversation on our Facebook page, www.facebook.com/SaveTuckerFromLakesideCity, involved the idea that Tucker didn't NEED politicians.  Instead, we NEED local folks who will step up and help run our community.  Originally, we needed to incorporate to "protect our borders," but the very first map ever produced by the Pro-City group known as Tucker 2014 (now called Tucker 2015) didn't even accomplish that goal.  They willingly excluded prime property inside the perimeter, particularly the Sam Moss Center on Montreal which has ALWAYS been known as having a Tucker address.  They didn't even attempt to include the Gwinnett side of Tucker and have never released an impact statement about how the tax based could be impacted if they annex that territory later which is what they stated was their plan. Here's a part of our response to this discussion.  Feel free to join in as well by "liking" our page and following the developments in this city

Two photos for two new proposed cities, but both featuring at least one supporter who believes he belongs in BOTH groups.   What OTHER similarities are there between these two "rivals" that their supporters may not know about?   How exactly did all of these proposals supposedly come "from the people" but ended up wanting the exact same things, with the exact same slogans and now, we learn, the exact same people.   In fact, Lakeside City was started by a group of people who stated that one of their main motivators was that they did not want to be included in a proposed City of DeKalb.  Later, Stonecrest was started, the story goes, because of the efforts to start a city of Lakeside in North DeKalb.   Before all of this, there was "Brookhaven YES."  Now, we have "Lakeside YES" and "Stonecrest City YES."   How stupid do they think we all are that we cannot see they are all part of the same plan? Either write

Common sense tells us that when you add more government to anything, you will end up with something that costs more, takes longer and could quite possibly be ineffective at solving the problem it set out to fix in the first place.  Agreed? Yet... advocates for new cities in DeKalb have claimed NOT ONLY that they would offer businesses a much needed improvement to their current permitting and zoning process, but also that this would be a primary driver of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT for their little slice of the county.    FURTHERMORE, right after the last legislative session ended,  City of Tucker advocates were even claiming that THIS was a reason all by itself for us to be behind the efforts to incorporate. Are the residents of Tucker getting enough of a warning about what could happen if they get a city that can't support itself and fail?   Save Tucker! tried to  point out the simple fact that this desire to speed up the process might not be so great for residents.  Faster p

Rep. Howard Mosby, who voted "no" on the compromise map drawn by the House Committee prior to the start of this 2015 legislative session, talks with Rep. Darshun Kendrick on her YouTube channel.  He says the final map was not drawn in a scientific or fair manner.