We followed up with Decatur City Manager Peggy Merriss about this morning’s report that Rep. Karla Drenner would support the Decatur’s annexation plan for the areas in her district. Ms. Merriss said “Currently only Rep. Drenner has been willing to sponsor a bill and we believe that it will be introduced today or tomorrow.”
As for the other annexation areas not included in Rep. Drenner’s district, Ms. Merriss believes that “given the session deadline for the 2015 General Assembly, we have concluded that we will have to take a look at other options after the General Assembly has concluded.” She clarified that this includes trying again in the 2016 General Assembly.
a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Do the other options include armed invasion and occupation?
I am not a legislative expert, but the lack of information and context is really profound with regard to annexation. Mary M. Oliver pledged that she would introduce Decatur’s entire bill and now only Carla Drenner will introduce it, but only part of it for her district. Is there a chance that the partial map gets approved so that we have a lot of residential and little tax-generating commercial? Next you hear that no annexation bills will be introduced this year. Now, the City Manager says may be “other options” after the legislature adjourns which include introducing the same thing next year.
I understand there are a lot of moving parts and this is politics, but can anyone read between the lines? Could we get a lot of residential this year, with the presumption that we will get the commercial next year and what happens if the commercial doesn’t happen next year? Why introduce anything then?
It would be nice if we heard a plan from city leaders as to what we can do within our city borders to address the problem. It is looking more and more like annexation is not a viable solution, and it may actually worsen the problem. I at least need to know when I need to start saving for a bigger tax bill.
Rogerio, um, NOW! 🙂
The middle school and high school need to double in size! That won’t be cheap, and commercial annexation could not possibly help that much.
I think Moderate raises some valid points. Why should CoD pursue a partial annexation on one section with a lot of residential area without knowing the outcome of the other areas the city wants to annex that have more commercial tax benefits?
The city needs to make the case before pursuing any partial annexation plan here. Is there another agenda here that residents of CoD don’t know about?
The current residents of CoD should be able to vote or at least voice their opinion before the city pursues a half baked annexation plan that may create more problems than it solves. This will affect CoD residents and the schools our kids go to, so why should the commissioners and people in areas to be annexed get be the only ones deciding this?
There are too many questions here, I think the best course of action is to wait and see how this plays out next year with the other areas to be annexed. Is the TIA annexation moving forward this year? If not, why should we rush ahead on area B which no one else wants right now without knowing how the other areas to be annexed will be resolved?
DecaturWalker, you nailed it: “…why should we rush ahead on area B which no one else wants right now without knowing how the other areas to be annexed will be resolved?”
When I first read this news this morning, it seemed to me that we wouldn’t even possibly consider this partial option – bc it’s that undesirable. I hope I’m right, but who in the world really knows.
To answer your question about CoD residents getting to vote … we don’t. The theory is that our commissioners, whom we elected, represent us and listen to/give voice to our concerns. The only ppl with an actual vote are the ones in the potential annexation areas. And that’s just residential. I may be wrong, but I don’t think commercial folks get a vote.
I have long respected the leadership in Decatur, both elected and paid staff, but they really had a blind spot when it came to the politics of annexation and cityhood this year. There’s been almost no public support for the annexation of area A, either by the businesses located there or from Dekalb’s political class. Instead, there was an active campaign by Medlock residents arguing against that option. And despite the pettiness of their arguments, I don’t really blame them.
Decatur’s 2010 strategic plan called for the annexation of primarily commercial areas to balance the tax digest. But at some point local leadership needed to stand up and say, “hey citizens, I know this is what you wanted, but it’s not feasible for a number of reasons, so here are your other options”. And among those options, in my opinion, should have a Go Big concept, bringing all of Medlock Park into the Decatur fold. There is a shared set of values between Medlock and Decatur, and it would have been a natural fit. But it would have taken a big, bold vision, to make the case, and I just don’t see that among our elected leaders right now. What I see if a void, left by the departure of Bill Floyd, who was able to sell big ideas both inside the city’s borders, and outside to our neighbors and partners.
Everyone in DeKalb County is building their future on grand ideas, whether it’s Lavista Hills or Greenhaven. Meanwhile Decatur keeps playing small ball, which inevitable leads to small returns.
I agree that the Decatur delegation has seemed outflanked politically.
As opposed to all the other municipal incorporation and annexation efforts that have scored such clear-cut, decisive victories?
Scott, that totally cracked me up!