Just got our power back after yet another tree fell across Nelson Ferry this afternoon. That’s two trees and one giant branch so far this year if anyone is counting.

I’ve had worse excuses to go to the Brick Store on a Wednesday night.

CL’s Cliff Bostock gives Decatur’s new steakhouse a mixed review.

Thanks to Carl for forwarding.

Perhaps some of you have seen the odd note on the Oakhurst Message Board portending the demise of Calavino’s, Sawicki’s and Le Petit Marche.

While we’re all well aware of issues at Calavino’s, the items about Sawicki’s and Le Petit were new to me. Plus the format was just a bit too vague and random for my taste. Plus I didn’t think Sawicki’s was doing that poorly, so I didn’t bite.

But it looks like Creative Loafing did.

However, Lynn Sawicki was quick to respond, confirming my suspicion that it was pure rumor…

I’d like to know who started that rumor!!!
I’m not going under, but like other businesses, am feeling the crunch.
The times are tough, but I will stick by my vision for the store- providing the city of Decatur with fresh, chemical free meats and seafoods as well as organic produce etc.
The community has to commit to supporting us little guys if this is to work for me- of course business is down- only McDonalds is showing a profit!!!
I believe the community wants this type of establishment, but they do have to step up and keep their values and morals through this crunch and come out to support all of Decatur- or the city WILL turn into a wasteland….

So I’m doing my part to debunk this particular rumor.

Glad to hear Sawicki’s isn’t on the verge. I enjoy it way too much.

All that said…(wait for it)….keep buying local!

As reported by the AJC, the detailed by Judd Owen in a recent comment, last night the Decatur school board voted with the Superintendent in opposing annexation.

Actually its a little more nuanced than that according to Judd…

“The board voted tonight on the three options presented by the City’s report, which were 1) no annexation, 2) annex the three areas north of the tracks only, 3) annex all six areas. They voted a firm no on option 3, but were split on 1 and 2.  The split seemed to be in large part because the data on how many students would come in from those areas was so murky and contradictory. Even among board members relatively open to annexation, there was a strong sense that we do not have a clear view of exactly what we’d be getting into with annexation.”

About what I expected.  Regardless of any personal concerns about gain or loss, we can’t go around making unalterable decisions without valid backup data.   Because of the discrepancies recently brought to light by Judd and Pat, this issue now seems to be going before the commission half-baked.  If they voted in favor, the commission would be supporting an annexation plan that included disputed data.

If I was a commissioner, I’d be very wary of voting on anything before all that student enrollment data was recalculated to match the current version of the map.

But apparently, we’re going forward anyway.  That, in itself, hints at the outcome.