As I’m sure many of you already know, the city commission voted last night to accept the 11 Midway Road parcels that sought annexation into the city of Decatur (well 10 of 15 voters among those parcels did.) The AJC’s April Hunt has a summary of the vote that was posted earlier today.
I wasn’t there obviously, so be as skeptical as you’d like about my opinion – pieced together with sealing wax and commissioner saliva – but it seems that the city commission just wasn’t ready to an about-face and start denying annexation requests, even though the note from Peggy Merriss (page 67 of materials for the meeting) indicated that this annexation didn’t really fall under the city’s annexation deferral plan since “it was recommend the City Commission should not accept single or small lot annexation applications that are randomly placed in mid-block areas of adjacent streets that do not support the City’s interest in clarifying city limits.”
I still stand by my earlier metaphor: the hornet’s nest has been kicked. Look no further than the Superintendent’s striking note to the commission on page 81 of the materials that essentially states “Please deny any further annexations in this area.” Wow. Now there’s a difference of positions!
Going forward, I think we can all agree that it wouldn’t be all that prudent for the city to continue to accept annexations while the school system struggles under a bloated school system. But lord, it would be even worse if we simply started blanketly denying annexations with nothing more than a request from CSD in our hands.
So I resurrect my old call that for the sake of CSD, the city commission needs to figure out where it stands on annexation now, not in 2011.
What do you mean by “bloated” school system? The term bloated seems to suggest unhealthy growth. Number of students? CSD has been growing in student roster but that’s a healthy sign of trust of families in Decatur as a community and CSD as a system. And it may not persist in this economy when many will postpone or limit having children or stay in cheaper housing rather than paying Decatur prices. Bloated staffing? I would say that we are at the maximum level of class size before we sink to the level of the rest of public schools in Georgia, which is nothing to be proud of by any educational measure. Bloated Central Office? I have to admit that I can think of a couple of salaries there that would each buy 3-5 paraprofessionals that are badly needed on the ground level. And an individual or two that has a bloated sense of their own importance given that they are not the Superintendent, nor particularly productive, nor particularly responsive to family needs. But, keeping it all in perspective, our Central Office is probably more professional and committed than what one sees in some Georgia school systems.
Great response, CSD. I agree 100%
That is a really reasonable perspective. As someone with children in the system, and a “baby’s moma” who is a former teached in CSD, I often am not so generous, especially concerning the central office.
Right-on CSD Snowflake! Agree 100%, particularly regarding the person(s) in the Central Office.
Um…ok. I guess I shouldn’t have been so general with my adjective use. I meant enrollment-wise. And perhaps I should have used a slightly less critical word, but really all bloated means is “too full.” It should be seen as an observation, not a criticism.
And I’d just like to point out that I was perhaps the first person on this site to question the unlimited growth projections for CSD, so I appreciate your support in doubting this. Student enrollment is bound to level out and what with the recession and all, I think it’s not all that extreme to think that baby-making might be on the decline.
I just hope that we don’t have neighbors prostrating themselves in front of the dreaded trailer delivery trucks.
Prostrating…in worship, or protest?
Maybe a little of both–in worship of the negative because it gives them something “meaningful” to do, and in protest for, oddly, the same reason.
I apologize for the slightly off-topic post, but I think it should be posted to a newer thread:
On the Winnona Park listserv we have déjà vu with more strife and negativity over the installation of trailers at Winnona Park Elementary. As the last time, the majority of negative comments are coming from folks that live near the school (their main complaint, of course, is the devaluing of their property), folks who do not have school-aged children, and folks who may have unrealistic expectations for the ongoing management of our small school system.
It seems that if the school system is the main reason people pay a premium on their houses to move to Decatur, then, as long as the school system continues to be an outstanding one (and the city’s other services don’t suffer), people will continue to pay that premium–particularly for houses adjacent to a school. Trailers are going to be necessary to keep the classrooms at manageable sizes until the restructuring in 2011. Classroom size may not matter to neighbors without children in school, but it’s pretty important to those of us who do and it’s crucial to the school system as a whole.
The evident mismanagement by the administration of CSD must be acknowledged–in the hope that it is not repeated in 2011, but the obsession with hindsight, and eyesores, does not help house prices, the school system, or our children who are in school.
I agree WG. We’ve become a victim of our own success in some regards; our schools work well and so parents want to live here so their children can benefit. I would say that the individual of whom you speak whose continuous griping about CSD’s lack of foresight has probably benefitted many times over in increased property values as a result of the success of the CSD.
I don’t think the school enrollments are tied to the economy at large to any degree. What they are tied to is the affordability of homeowning in Decatur and the education alternatives in intown Atlanta.
In other words – Decatur’s school system has grown because it is a better deal for many families than most of the other intown Atlanta options.
Whether it continues to be a better deal vs. the other options depends on how Decatur housing prices and taxes move relative to the broader intown market, and how the quality differential (real and perceived) between CSD and intown alternatives changes.
Exactly, E. Here’s a hypothetical:
Family A has two children and is looking at two homes in the area.
House in Atlanta price: $250,000
Similar house in Decatur: $300,000
At first glance the Atlanta house looks like the better deal (let’s assume real estate taxes are roughly similar). But, if homeowner isn’t satisifed with the schools, then they’re looking at $10k per year for each kid to attend private schools. 2 kids x $10,000 = $20k per year. Once Family A gets to the third year, they would have been better off purchasing a home in Decatur and taking advantage of our public system. At least I hope that’s how this all works out.
Yes but what if these “school-driven” families that move to town decide to stop with two kids instead of three due to a crap economy? Wouldn’t that effect enrollment?
Not if the people without kids keep moving out and people with kids buy their houses.
Well, it would still effect enrollment. It would just slow it down as opposed to reverse it completely.
I don’t know if this is representative, but most of the couples I know in Decatur, and Winnona Park specifically, have had only two children–seems like the general limit around here–and the number of couples that have more than two are about the same as the couples that have only one–is this parity?
I don’t see the increasing enrollment ever slowing down (and I have no idea what the CSD board was doing, or what numbers they were looking at, a few years ago) because of the attractive nature of Decatur and its schools.
Welcome back, DM! Dave over at InDecatur has a pretty interesting visual of the map of the area surrounding the newly-annexed property:
http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/in_decatur/2009/06/welcome-to-our-newest-citizens.html
Peninsula, indeed.
welcome back Metro
Does anyone have a map reference to the parcel involved? It looks like a portion of Midway is already within city limits so a few more homes would only streamline the border. What is the actual current impact on 15 homes to CSD?
Also, The economic downturn may very well result in more growth for CSD not less as metro exurbs empty out into more sensible work/life situations (ie. living in Decatur).
jeez Cubalibre,
It’s like you were watching me type my post!
🙂 It’s all good, my friend. That’ll be .05, please!
Can someone tell me why Decatur High was not listed in Newsweek’s 2009 list of the nation’s best high schools? DHS was #584 in ’08 up from #1154 in ’07.
Because lists such as those are arbitrary and stupid.
NIce reply.
Outstanding!
I’ve been trying to figure that out too BEL…here’s how Newsweek says comes up with the list…
“We take the total number of Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate or Cambridge tests given at a school in May, and divide by the number of seniors graduating in May or June. All public schools that NEWSWEEK researchers Amy Novak and Dan Brillman and I found that achieved a ratio of at least 1.000, meaning they had as many tests in 2008 as they had graduates, are put on the list on the NEWSWEEK Web site, Newsweek.com.”
But I also read that Newsweek has to compile this list themselves, so if DHS didn’t give them the data, they wouldn’t be ranked. Anyone know how the 2009 graduation rate compared with 2008? That would be the first thing to check.
P.S. I just sent an email to CSD asking what’s up. If and when I get a response, I will post.
The list is ridiculous. It does not even attempt to include outcomes on those AP/IB courses. Who cares how many kids they can pack into an AP class if no one passes the AP exam?
An appropriate measure would be to include both the numbers of kids in AP classes AND the numbers of kids who leave the class with a 3 or better on the AP.
Another mature and informative post.
Well BEL, you have to admit that Sam and WG are right. And the actual answer to your question proves it. That ranking is so overly simplistic it’s not even worth paying attention to. It’s 100% based on the number of students taking Advanced Placement (AP) and/or International Bacelaurate (IB) tests divided by the total school enrollment. It doesn’t even take the results of the test into account – not that that would make it all that much better. I’m guessing that DHS enrollment went up and/or the number of AP students went down. That’s it. Why Newsweek or anyone else thinks that this is a good way to measure our nation’s top high schools is unknown (and arbitrary and stupid).
The arbitrary and stupid explanation would carry a bit more weight with me if people had said that last year, when it made us look really good.
And it’s not enrollment, it’s graduation rate.
I really don’t remember the good ranking last year, DM. But how many thousands of high schools are there in the country? To think a magazine has come up with a way to rank them and that they could somehow be accurate is a little hard to believe. One kid might have dropped out and our ranking goes from 500 something to off the charts. It shouldn’t hurt our self-worth any to not be on the list. The question should be: are the kids getting a good education there and ready to move on to college or the workforce? If the answer is yes, then who cares what some stupid magazine says?
DM – Details, details. Sorry I was off a bit. It was a silly way to try to determine the top schools last year when we where on the list and it’s still a silly way to do it. By these rankings a school is better off to encourage kids to drop out and have every kid in school take as many AP tests as their schedule will allow, whether they are “AP caliber” or not. This ranking is so ridiculous – it tells us absolutely nothing – and did so every year it’s been released.
Wow. How mature and informative–you guys are getting much better. Now if we can get those Halliburton, Gitmo, and NRA numbers from guys that would good.
Cheers!
How many in Decatur Schools are paying tuition to come in?They should be asked to find their own schools if they are part of the reason for the crowding. That should be figured before being so against others becoming part of Decatur. I do understand the concern for the schools. But, to deny a few families the right to be annexed because of crowding in the schools isn’t fair. What is more fair is to limit or do away with tuition paid people. Most of them live in Avondale and can afford to send their children to private schools. They shouldn’t be allowed to crowd Decatur.
JEM, I checked the Constitution… and there is no “right to be annexed.” Sorry to disappoint.
Yeah, but the Federalist papers–boy they go on and on about annexation…
I think you would find that CSD has cut way back on tuition students in recent years and is not accepting them at all in certain grades.
Sorry for the incorrect use of the word “right” if indeed I did so. I will substitute the “opportunity” to make it more clear. But, you are missing my point. If, the school system would stop allowing people to pay tuition, annexation wouldn’t be as much of a problem. Jem
From what I’ve heard JEM, they’ve already done just that at the elementary school level (which is where the over-crowding is an issue).
That is definitely a smart move on the school system’s part. It is my understanding that if a child is already enrolled in Decatur, they can continue. So, it will be a while for this to affect the whole school system’s numbers. Thanks for the info.
A sincere congratulations to the applicants. Decatur is a special place, as it’s clear you know. Don’t take it for granted. It’s in our charge. Welcome.
I think Decatur should annex Druid Hills. Think of the tax base! Not many kids either!
On the the other hand I’m not sure the commission could handle the civic association or the historical society.
Anyway waddaya think Scott!
Such tasty bait, David. How could I resist!
I’d have to say ix-nay on that idea, unless you can tie it to any of the goals in Decatur’s strategic plan. You know me: Foolishly concerned with long-term vision. A good way to get somewhere as a community but disenfranchising to personal agendas. Curse my predictability!
I am not pleased by this at all. I really think this should not have passed without a more careful consideration on the long term impact of piecemeal annexation on city services. I feel like our commissioners failed the current residents by not providing a long-range annexation plan before allowing this.
There’s a City election coming up in November. If you’re not happy, be sure to vote. The historic turnout in such elections is around 20%.
I’d make a fair wager that a much larger percentage of people that read DM regularly vote in city elections.
Nellie, what I’d like to know is what was the rationale of voting in favor of it, since the City Manager’s note to the commission said “umm…this kinda goes against our plan.” Was it all those in favor sitting in the room?
Unfortunately, I wasn’t there.
That’s my question as well. I really should have gone and kick my self in the ass for not going. I want a rationale from the commissioners, not a bunch of “deciders”.
My question also, especially given the CM comments and the CSD statement you cited earlier. I hope it wasn’t favoritism to a developer.
I seem to recall seeing a comment on another thread on this subject that indicated those houses were all part of a pack that were built by a local design/architecture firm…the poster named them by name, said they were her neighbors, but I don’t recall exactly who the poster was– sorry for my spotty memory (I’ve slept since then).
Not saying that’s why they were granted annexation, but I did think it interesting at the time I read it…your comment, AR, jarred my memory.
I recall THIS comment cubalibre about Renewal’s Peter Michaelson living there, but I don’t recall anyone saying that it was part of a pack of houses built by them. Is that the comment you remembered?
It is, DM– thanks. So, not all the houses were built/developed by that firm (I did acknowledge & apologize in advance for my recall being spotty), but I’m wondering if the majority were. I mentioned it not to make the claim that it was the reason those plots were granted annexation, just that it made me wonder if Another Rick could be onto something. Certainly, posters here who are noting that this was a piecemeal annexation are correct– and I think we’re all wondering what the Commission’s reasoning behind it was.
If my memory serves me correct many (if not the majority) of the houses annexed are older 1950’s-1960’s ranch style houses although there are a handful of new houses. Not sure who contructed them.
I was there and made a little speech. Faithful readers can guess about what I said. I tried to focus on the pattern of recent smallish annexations rather than this one in isolation, questioned the impact on the schools, and made the case that this pattern was cumulatively a bad deal for the Decatur taxpayer. And I said that I didn’t see a plan here, which is quite unlike Decatur. What is the plan?
Three of the commissioners responded, all very courteously. The basic rationale, so far as I can tell, for the unanimous vote (Cunningham was absent) was that these are people who really want to be a part of Decatur, and it’s just a few houses, so why not? No one attempted to say there was a plan. Baskett and Boykin even said that this went against their plan to smooth out the city limits. (Will they do this later with more annexation?) As I recall, only Boykin addressed the point that they had pledged not to do any further annexations for two years — from the large to even one parcel — by saying that he had meant to vote for refraining only from the large-scale.
To Steve, I’d say that it’s well and good to say vote, and yes we should all learn about the candidates and vote. I fully agree. But first all these questions need to be an issue in the campaign, and so far they’re not. If large-scale annexation is going to be back on the agenda in 2011, then that’s the biggest issue going. Our candidates should tell us where they stand and why? Should there be a plan governing small annexations? What about the DeVry campus? What role should CSD have in the decision-making process?
In fact, I’ll take the liberty of asking our five declared candidates, if any are tuning into this discussion, to weigh in here.
This makes even more angry because it pretty much verifies that they did this as a throwaway and without much thought. I think I have an letter to compose this weekend.
Judd, as regards voting, I wasn’t even beginning to address whatever issues there may be in the campaign. My point was that people who may not be happy about this or that decision should make their voices heard when the time comes, and not just keep whining. It was not directed to anyone in particular, whether or not they participate in this or any other blog. 20% participation speaks for itself, though, and it would be interesting for folks here who have issues with the way things are being done to state whether or not they have voted in City and CSD elections. To me, it has always been disappointing that Presidential elections have huge turnouts while local elections are largely ignored. The local issues will have a more immediate effect on you and I than what happens in Washington.
Local elections are all so important. It would be interesting to discuss why local turnout is so low. As a student of local government, I can say that Decatur is not the exception. I have participated in Decatur elections for more than 30 years and studied the history even longer. There has been a long history of efforts to minimize participation and discouraging turnout in local elections, including in our fair city. Also, turnout for national elections, while higher, is still absurdly low in comparison to many European and South American democracies of which I am familiar.
A slightly different perspective from a tipster, who writes in…
“What Decatur got are several gracious, oversized lots with single family dwellings — lots of privately owned greenspace — and minimal impact on CSD schools. Some of the houses are new construction, some are vintage 1950s.
Another benefit: this annexation may slow down the pace of possible future assembly of these large parcels into more mini-subdivisions. Or, it may provide more opportunities for input if there is development planned in the future. If these parcels had remained in DeKalb, the neighboring Decatur lots would have had very little say in new plans.
Yet another benefit: This annexation appends more Decatur to the new 8-9 acre development that includes some unbuildable topography and floodplain around Shoal Creek (which then runs through Dearborn Park). This puts the green belt along the creek within the city limits instead of sharing responsibility with the county.”
Hmm. Know you’re just passing on Tipster’s info, DM, but I didn’t follow the logic regarding assembly of large parcels. Were these properties themselves assembled and then re-subdivided?
Obviously there are still DeKalb properties adjacent to the city limits that a developer could assemble. How does this annexation INCREASE whatever say neighboring Decatur property owners have in potential new plans for DeKalb properties?
And I’m also at a loss on the benefits of putting only a portion of the green belt along the creek within the city limits when it appears an adjacent portion is still shared with DeKalb (from the map at inDecatur: http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/in_decatur/2009/06/welcome-to-our-newest-citizens.html).
That map makes this annexation look very, very strange.
So again, how does this annexation fit into the commission’s plan for smart, reasonable long-term growth? Again, I can’t support this until there is some real urban planning involved. For an example of why this is important, look about 6 blocks to my left at City of Atlanta.
A lot of the things floating around go back to these people “considering themselves part of the community” kinds of answers. That’s not urban planning and it seems from the reports Peggy Merriss and CSD agree.
One other tidbit from the meeting is worth mentioning. A couple of Midway residents expressed concern about what they heard or calculated to be a 52% increase in property taxes. Baskett said he didn’t think it was nearly that high (in fact, it is, at least for my property). The mayor said that the city and county had different exemptions, so that might shrink the difference, that we pay DeK for more than we get and they’re working on fixing that, and that DeKalb was raising its millage while Decatur wasn’t (by dipping into reserves), which will shrink the difference.
But most interesting to me: The mayor said that the school part of the two bills is about the same. That’s surprising since most people, I think, assume that CSD is the main reason the Decatur bill is higher. Better schools, higher property values (which means more tax revenue all around), for about the same price. I have no doubt at all that CSD could and should operate more efficiently, but that’s not too shabby.