Comments on: Musings On Another AJC Annexation Article

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 04:27:35 +0000

Erik has it on the money (pun intended). I bought my house because it was NOT in an incorporated city, because I didn’t want to pay the extra taxes. This was a money grab, plain and simple, because the city didn’t want to raise property taxes on it’s own residents. But those of us that would be annexed would see a significant rise in ours. For what? I am not underserved by Dekalb County in the least. Using the city’s own online tax calculator, my estimated *increase* in property taxes would have been nearly $3000 per year.

I have a number of family members who live in northern New Jersey where this has gotten totally out of hand. Town after town after town. Every town has its own mutiple levels of bureaucracy, it’s own police force, its own school system, its own trash collection, its own mayor and city staff and tax collectors, etc., etc., etc. This all costs lots of money for duplication of resources. And these bureaucracies become growing entities that feed on their own power and the budgets become larger and larger. Why is all this necessary? It would be much smarter for cities like Decatur to contract services with Dekalb instead of re-inventing the wheel. This is wasteful spending and gross inefficiency.

I grew up in unincorporated Dekalb, have been educated in the school system, and have never found services lacking. Except for six years in the city of Atlanta, I have spent almost all of my childhood and adult life in Dekalb and am just fine with things the way they are. If you don’t like your school, then do something about it. Get involved, help fix it, or buy a home in Decatur. You have free will. Being annexed by the City of Decatur would be against my free will.

By: CSD Mom

CSD Mom — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:27:23 +0000

Erik, I live in the city limits but I totally agree with you…I would be livid if I had specifically chosen a house outside the city limits and someone told me I was being annexed without being given a choice.

By: Erik Haagensen

Erik Haagensen — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:54:47 +0000

Hi everyone,
What all these discussions ignore is the concept of annexing someone’s land just to get at their money is unAmerican, anti-democratic, an erosion of property rights, and just immoral. If your neighbor can’t afford the TV they want, they should work harder or save money somewhere else. But to take the money from you to buy the TV they want is theft. How is annexing commercial property which doesn’t have voting rights any different than that? We bought our land, put together a business plan, invested our life savings, and chose what jurisdiction (and thus tax level) would work for us. Then the city comes along and says, sorry about all that, we’re taking you over, you get no vote, and we get your money. They don’t even bother to explain it any other way, just we want your money. It is oh so wrong, its just plain shameful. Live within your means, don’t steal from your neighbor. -Erik

By: MrFixIt

MrFixIt — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:34:23 +0000

Good explanation Judd.

Ugh… Math… can’t live with it, can’t live without it.

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:15:43 +0000

Sorry it read that way, Judd. Did not mean to imply you had your position first, data second. I was clumsily attempting to reference how you and others recognized that everything — success or failure — ultimately rode on enrollment numbers, so you applied greater scrutiny to those projections.

From what you came up with, you drew your conclusions. That’s what I meant to say. Thanks.