Lobbying For Decatur/Avondale Annexation at the State House
Decatur Metro | February 2, 2010According to the AJC, Rep. Stephanie Stuckey Benfield says she has 6 of the 10 signatures from the DeKalb delegation needed to put the Decatur/Avondale College Ave commercial annexation bill to a vote before the General Assembly.
DeKalb County’s legislative delegation conducted a two-hour meeting Monday on annexation in general and in particular on the proposal for the two cities to meet at Sams Crossing.
It was announced at the end of the session that the sponsor of the two bills — one for Avondale Estates, one for Decatur — can begin lobbying fellow lawmakers to sign off on the plan. The delegation’s rules require signatures from at least 10 of its 21 members to move a bill forward for a General Assembly vote. State Rep. Stephanie Stuckey Benfield said she already has six signatures for the bills.
Also in the article: Many area business owners are still angry about the possibility. DeKalb CEO Burrell Ellis is against it. And Decatur Mayor Bill Floyd is tired of delays.
UPDATE: Geoff has a very detailed report of opinions given on annexation from the hearing at the Georgia Capitol. No big surprises though. The Decatur and Avondale mayors are for it. DeKalb commish Kathie Gannon and many of the area’s business owners are against it. And round-and-round we go.
Latest from Decaturish
But Decatur Mayor Bill Floyd — whose city stands to add 10 properties — said the cities were tired of previous delays and wanted more control over what went on in those lots.
__________________________
The nerve of these landowners — doing whatever they like with their property. They must think this is a free country or something.
Wait! Does this “free country” thing mean I can finally build that skyscraper in a residential neighborhood inside that obnoxious floodplain!?
Hooray!
Stupid laws and other people who are affected by my actions. It’s my free country baby!
There is a difference between having to abide by ordinances and being told what you can and can’t do with your property by the Mayor.
Well yes, they can build exactly that if the zoning allows it.
Putting an expensive building where it doesn’t make economic sounds kind of stupid, but if zoning allows it, it’s not the mayor’s right or citizens right to oppose it. He’s obligated to follow the laws like the developer. Saying otherwise seems to be a sanctimonious double standard.
Or maybe the mayor should take a strong opposition to abortion as well as development he doesn’t like.
Just have to say, I love the scare quotes around free country, DM.
Also, the issue isn’t that these owners have disobeyed Decatur city ordinances/laws. The properties are not in the city. That’s why they are talking about annexing them. Nor did the mayor raise any legal violations or zoning inflaction issues in the quote above. He said he wanted more control over what “went on in those lots,” which may be a lot broader than compliance with a zoning ordinace. Speaking of which, the stuff about floodplains and skyscrapers is, of course, a pure red herring.
I disagree. I don’t think I actually scared anyone DEM.
Just to be a bit more clear than obtuse, I wasn’t really addressing DEM’s claim in relation to this annexation issue. More just the general, often-used assertion of “this is a free country”. Everyone is correct that there is more to this specific annexation issue than just current, existing zoning law.
I just get feisty when I hear the blanket “free country” assertion. It’s NOT a free country in the way the term is used in its current sense. You give up certain primal rights when you join a society, regardless of how free and open it is. The on-going debate is where to draw the line between individual and your neighbor’s rights in relation to your own.
Exactly what “primal” right is at stake here? These people aren’t drilling for oil on these properties, polluting rivers, engaging in open stan worship, Klan rallies, etc. In fact, I haven’t seen the least bit of evidence that the owners are using their land in a way that harms a single person.
Of course rights have to be balanced in a free society. No one disputes that. To say this is a “free country” is not to deny the necessity of laws. That should be self-evident. Again, these people aren’t violating any laws. They’re simply resisting being subjected to a new set of city laws through an unwelcome (for some, maybe most) annexation.
So, exactly what right of Avondale and Decatur residents is to be balanced against the rights of the property owners? Their right to have an aesthetically pleasing drive between the two cities?
Again, the primal argument was more about the “free country” thing, not annexation. So, here’s a completely serious question…if you don’t mean “freedom to do what you want”, what do people mean when they say “hey, it’s a free country?”
As for the annexation, I’m not sure how I come down on this one. I understand Decatur’s desire to clean the place up (I can imagine DPD’s response rate would be a bit of a crime deterrent), but at the same time I understand the reaction of some that this is a weird decision-making power to give to the legislature.
Freedom to do what you want within the bounds of the law and reason. I can’t really define it with more preisision. I do think it’s a statement that you should be presumed to be free unless there is a damn good reason to restrict that freedom.
Simple. It means that you should be able to do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t harm the person or property of another. That is freedom. The problem I have with the phrase is that it is slowly becoming less and less accurate in describing this country.
How is that simple?
Doesn’t the very existence of our legal system, in place to essentially determine “harm to person and place”, refute your assertion that it’s a “simple” determination?
Which brings us back to my original gripe. “It’s a free country” attempts to cloak an insanely complicated dance of individual vs. group rights into a simple statement. It’s just not true. We may have more individual rights than many other countries, so to say “It’s a freeR country” holds more truth, but that doesn’t have the same ring, I guess.
Our legal system should only be used for crimes or issues that harm the person or property of another. Can’t get any more simple than that! Yes, I understand that there are always shades of grey, but if we followed this SIMPLE concept, our country would be a more free country. Obviously, when one says “it’s a free country” they are not implying that they can murder, rape and rob. Having said that, since our government does not apply the above “person or property” concept, we are indeed just a freeR country. Simple
I guess we have to agree to disagree about the number of situations that fall into that “shades of gray ” category.
You seem to believe it’s just a few things. I’d say it’s almost everything, beyond the most heinous crimes, due to the fact that every person is going to have a different interpretation of what constitutes “harm” and every circumstance will be different and unique.
I can certainly see how we might disagree on what does and does not constitute harm, but I really can’t see how any of it is simple.
It would be real simple if they just let me be judge and jury!
You rock today, DM.
I gotta say, this annexation business troubles me. I don’t see a moral justification for taking over unincorporated Dekalb properties against their owners’ wishes. I know other municipalities do it all the time, but we’re Decatur – we’re better than this.
TeeRuss and I don’t agree a lot, but I don’t get it either and no one have offered a good justification other than “I don’t think it’s pretty enough for me right now” type stuff
I third that.
Sorry folks–I think the D should try to swallow up as much land as possible. Soon residents won’t be able to pay their taxes and the D is gonna need revenue and a giant Jerusalem-type wall. Avondale, look out. All those neighborhoods east of downtown, the D is coming for ya.
They came for the low hanging revenue fruit of the unicorporated and I did nothing.
Then they enforced ordinances there to clean it up and I said nothing.
Then they rezoned my precious R60 so I …
sold out to a brew pub and retired to an attached MU development in the old Devry property.
I wonder if yous guys tune would change if the options were
A. disband the school system
B. raise the millage rate
C. annex unincorporated commercial areas into the city
It’s YOUR school system. Don’t ask me to pay for it.
It’s YOUR millage rate. Don’t ask me to raise my taxes to meet yours.
Decatur had better figure out a way to pay for Decatur. That should not include gobbling up surrounding neighborhoods and businesses.
How does this differ from condemning property and turning that property over to developers?
“How does this differ from condemning property and turning that property over to developers?”
This (annexation), I believe, is the initial step necessary for the eventual occurrence of that (see quote). Can’t condemn property that’s not in your city.
It’s different because your land isn’t being taken, just under different government control. That’s a difference, no?
And what if we ask really nicely?
But seriously, Decatur is what makes your on-the-cusp neighborhood and home desirable. There seems to be an assumption here that Decatur can still be what it is today without annexing. What if that isn’t the case? What if they don’t annex, they have to turn the school system back over to the County and all the rich, young families book-it to another good school system?
Are you cool with reverting back to the Decatur of 1970?
My house has been here since 1955. It’s nice because I keep it up as do the neighbors. Decatur meanwhile has been turned into a big ditch by MARTA, a ghost town due to lack of businesses and now is becoming bar and party central.
Oh boy. Some neighbors.
Is this the rhetorical version of the, “If don’t like it, move.”?
A big ditch by MARTA, seriously? Maybe you’re mistaking Decatur for that strip of College and Katie Kerr. You know, that really ugly section sandwiched between Decatur and Avondale.
Amen, DM. I find it ironic that edge of Decaturites who enjoy a boost in property values and other amenities WE PAY FOR start slamming our little town the second the threat of it affecting their pocketbooks. AMB and DEM are pretty happy to post here as part of the community otherwise. As a near 20 year resident, I feel pretty insulted. I am against annexation for a lot of reasons, but I am not going to start a smackdown and insult the whole community.
Empty shops and bars? I’m with my buddy Gibbets.
Nellie,
First, show me where I “slammed” Decatur or “insulted the whole community.” I’m simply against annexation, just like you appear to be. I haven’t taken any pot shots at the city, unlike others have. I don’t know why you suggest otherwise.
Second, this issue has no effect on my pocketbook. I don’t live in the area to be annexed. So you’ve accused me of acting in my own self-interest, based solely on a guess that is 100% wrong. I guess I’d feel “pretty insulted” by this if I were so fragile as to be hurt by blog posts.
As for enjoying the amenities “YOU PAY FOR,” most of your tax money goes to schools, police, and fire protection. Guess how many of those services I can use? Zero. I did accidentally call the Decatur police once. They immediately made it clear that crimes occurring a quarter mile outside the City’s border are none of their concern. That’s as it should be. But please trust that your tax money is safe from the heathens in unincorporated DeKalb.
When it comes to the price of my house, no one adds any extra value for Decatur’s schools and great city services, since I can’t use them. Decatur government spends money to benefit its own citizens, not anyone else. The fact that those benefits may spill over to others to some degree costs you no extra money. And, of course, Decatur itself benefits immensely from its proximity to Atlanta. Should you open your wallet and chip in some Atlanta city taxes? That’s what I thought.
It’s YOUR school system. Don’t ask me to pay for it.
It’s YOUR millage rate. Don’t ask me to raise my taxes to meet yours.
Decatur had better figure out a way to pay for Decatur. That should not include gobbling up surrounding neighborhoods and businesses.
_______________
IF annexation is about revenue, then AMB is exactly right. It is very suspect — in fact, blatantly unfair — for a city to vote itself a collection of benefits/expenditures, decide that the price of those is high, then impose additional taxes on those who never voted for the expenditures to begin with. if maintaining the city schools is of such importance, then Decaturites should pay up. if not, make budget cuts. The worst solution is to externalize the costs onto others.
Why on Earth would they do A and B? Wouldn’t that be A or B?
And C, well, the only folks who really care about that are the business and property owners that are getting annexed with their input.
And, aside, what is Decatur without its schools? it’s nice and all, but most of us here because of the CSD.
While I have always been grateful for the value our City Schools add to our community, you might be surprised by the percentage of property owners who did not move here for the schools and are not here for or because of them. Some of us like our homes and our neighbors and the location.
I don’t know that I would surprised.
Entire communities benefit from good schools–people who realize this don’t mind paying high taxes when they don’t have children in school.
What is the percentage, 17-23%? I’m guessing here.
“…annexed withOUT their input.”
DM, I know you’ve got Decatur’s back on pretty much anything, and that’s great. But your response to me posed A) a false set of choices, and B) doesn’t address the morality of the situation.
Our school budgets can and should adjust when necessary. So should our millage rates. Anything else would be irresponsible.
I’m with AMB – our school system and taxes are our responsibility. I don’t see the rationale for making them someone else’s.
Eh…I think I come off more pro-city than I actually am (though I am quite pro-city) because I’m often playing devil’s advocate in place of the commissioners and/or city staff.
How is it a false set of choices?
Isn’t it possible that school enrollment could overburden CSD to the point where they needed to raise the millage rate? Or perhaps get to the point where the school system had to disband?
You seem OK with making these choices, but I’m not so sure that a lot of Decatur residents would be happy about either of those things IF there was also this other option to annex in more money. Why else would the city commission step onto a potential mine-field in the first place?
And what’s the moral issue here? It’s not exactly Kelo vs. New London.
Oh, snap! DM throws down a Kelo reference!
It’s a false set of choices because there are many steps between where we are today and your scenario of disbanding the school system. Realistically, our tax rates and school budgets will find equilibriums that fluctuate with supply and demand. The doomsday scenario would require some kind of exogenous disruption, a black swan.
The morality of the situation is that I don’t believe it is kosher to annex properties against the owners’ wishes. Especially in this case, where there’s a very clear consensus of the owners that they don’t want this.
You seem to be asking us, at what point do the ends justify the means? I don’t know, but IMO we’re clearly not at that point right now.
I have attended meetings regarding the annexation, both in Avondale and the opposition. I must say that NO one wants to be annexed into Avondale. I feel less adamant regarding Decatur, but any annexation should not be one sided. I know the two cities say they can do a better job managing the properties than DeKalb county. But I disagree. Look at Avondale, ride through it, go to an open meeting and then tell me they do not have the commercial strip they deserve. This is what happens when a few elected people think they know something about what makes an economy tick. If I had any doubts about Avondale, all I needed to do was listen to a zoning change debate. Anyone wanting to invest would walk, no run to the door and not look back. All in all, if Avondale wants to show what it can do, start with your own city before expanding. If you show you can handle the responsibility and provide something business owners want, they will come to you to be annexed.
I find the political blather about what they can do tiring. Prove it or shut up!
It is really about a No Mans Land between the 2 towns. Right now the businesses are used tire and car repair. There is little Dekalb County police coverage between the town borders. It is over time to clean up these eyesores.
Like I said before. Clean up? Clean up your city first. Look at the eyesores in Avondale. Created by people who THINK they know everything, but really prove every day how little they know. I reiterate that Decatur has proven they can handle appropriate development. Avondale is blind leading the blind.
This seems to validate Nellie’s point that the rationale for annexation is, to many, purely asthetic. That doesn’t sound like a compelling argument.
IF (and that’s a huge and doubtful IF), the idea is to clean up this area and is not a land grab, why can’t Decatur and Avondale cooperate with DeKalb on code enforcement and beautification projects? Why do the cities have to annex to have influence over these properties?
I consider this small annexation as a warm up for the massive land grab planned for Suburban Plaza and other surrounding neighborhoods.
“I consider this small annexation as a warm up for the massive land grab planned for Suburban Plaza and other surrounding neighborhoods.”
I do too. This is opening the proverbial flood gates.
I agree. If this bill that was assigned a HR number today supposedly passes, it will affect us all not just Avondale Estates. It is about slowly loosing our rights as property owners. How can anyone agree to involuntary annexation no matter where it is? The meeting on Monday at the Capital, the Mayors are all for this, of course, it will give them freedom to gobble yours and my property next. Economy is really bad and cities are looking for ways to increase revenue. What is a better way than take something from someone else.
How can Avondale Estates complain about the so-called blighted area! There are some really pretty buildings in their jurisdiction–not. If beauty is the goal, why hasn’t a “beautification” committee worked on this with the property owners. I believe I read some where that annexation wasn’t really at the top of Avondale’s list until the City of Decatur was interested. Hmm.
If you don’t stand up for what is yours it will slowly be taken away. Wake up people, this affects us all. Involuntary anything is not a good thing!!!!!
I have a question that isn’t really on topic.
Say I live in unincorporated Dekalb. would it be possible for Atlanta or Decatur to ‘annex” that land? And if not, why? And if yes, why?
Are the targeted areas unincorporated Dekalb?
Generally, residents beg to get annexed, businesses sue to avoid it. Annexing residential zones is not a financial gain for the city. In fact, it’s considered a burden on the school system.
Typically, the services to revenue ratio of residential is much higher than commercial and industrial zones.
Given the dilapidated state already within the borders of both towns, the “we’ll clean it up” argument is simply untrue.
IMO. This is about getting taxes from the landowners. If I was a landowner there I’d be screaming, but as a Decatur resident I say welcome to the tax rolls my friends!
Ridge….. You are right on.
On the other hand….
The city government concept basically exists to promote commerce by providing a web of attractive amenities such as educated workers, and residents, competitive schools, jobs, decent environment, recreation, transportation, security, healthy water and sanitation. ( These all reinforce each other in a complex balancing act called “city government”. )
Many nearby businesses (and homeowners) have enjoyed the benefits of being on properties adjacent to these amenities without actually paying to support them for a very long time. So, I’m not going to cry at all over the prospect of these folks being forced to join more fully into the community. I believe the overall results will benefit everyone. just my 2
It is harder from what I understand it you are talking about residential. But commercial property anywhere if this bill passes opens the flood gates. Who knows, residential might be next.
There are 5 ways that property can be annexed. The way that the property is being annexed in Avondale Estates is that of a legislative nature. All you need is the Representative for the area, to introduce it to the House and then it moves from their.
In a nut shell, involuntary anything when it comes to property rights is a bad thing, today it those owners, tomorrow it could be you.
On the Decatur side, if annexed, those ten properties would become part of the Columbia Park Master Plan growth area, which means their value is likely to increase dramatically over time in relation to their present condition.
City-supported, community-driven master plans create long term predictability which is attractive to property developers. That’s why nobody hears those ten properties kvetching like they are on the Avondale side. They’re going to reap some very nice rewards.
Yes, you get the idea. Who wants to be supervised by people who would not know a good idea if it smacked them on the butt? All they know is what they do not like, which is everything. Go AWAY!!
I was wondering if anyone was going to mention Columbia Park and the Decatur/Avondale LCI. I assume that looms pretty large here.
Being next to new development and able to advertise low county taxes means even more potential rewards.
“even more potential rewards”, like low County services? You get what you pay for.
Exactly. And I have no desire to pay for your boutique schools and laugbably overstocked city employee base.
Oh, we have boutique schools? What is a boutique school exactly?
I think he means our schools are on undersized lots as a “little shoppe” would be.
OK, so you would rather have DeKalb County’s much higher crime rate, greater public safety response times, greater (i.e. more expensive insurance) fire insurance rating, and problematic schools.
And, I wonder what you mean by “laugbably [sic] overstocked city employee base”
“overstocked city employee base”
I’ve seen numbers quoted here about Avondale, but how does Decatur compare to Avondale in number of employees and relative costs?
There’s no direct comparison. For one thing, Avondale has about 10% of the population of Decatur. Avondale does not provide fire/rescue services. Avondale does not provide waste management services. Decatur has an extensive park system and Active Living department. Any comparison would be nearly impossible.
So it’s not possible to pull public safety, sanitation and recreation out of the numbers and determine a ratio of employees to residents as I think I recall seeing re: Avondale?
Have at it, Gladys. Decatur’s budget documents are all on line.
Steve – Your assertion that Avondale Estates has no waste management system and no park system is incorrect. In fact, residents of Avondale Estates enjoy excellent service from our Public Works Department. Our garbage men/women come up into our yard and gather the waste from our cans, even if they are in the side or back yard, particularly in the oistoric district. We have weekly recycling, and special pickups by simply calling City Hall. Yard waste is also handled at the curb, with much of it recucled into the bird sanctuary at the end of the lake.
That’s right – Lake. Part of the system of large and small “pocket” parks that are part of the original historic design of Avondale Estates, and which are all maintained by our Public Works Department. It is actually pretty amazing what our City can do with the tiny tax base it has!
Anyone get the feeling that Mike doesn’t care for Avondale?
Really? Not sure how you read that into my comments!
I think I’d rather see the city do something about all our downtown vacant storefronts right now than add more vacant storefronts.
Here are a couple of distinctions around annexation
There are 3 ways to annex. Two require referendum, or a citizen vote. The third is “legislative” and
the affected property owners have no say. As in this case, Rep Benfield gets 10 other reps to sign her HR and it is then moved to the senate etc.
It seems like there are several issues at work here.
First, this is a legislative annexation – the majority of the property owners do NOT want to be annexed-So, in effect, it is being forced on them. It will cost the owners additional property tax, impose a tighter zoning restrictions and subject them to an additional layer of red tape. As to benefits, the deal is a bit light in that dept., other than everyone that supports the effort is saying how wonderful it is to be part of AE.
Revenue for Avondale – The property taxes the owners will have to pay are around an additional 15-20% on top of what the property owners are already paying. THe AE Mayor says the additional $32K in Property Tax revenue is not why they are doing it. If you look a bit closer your will see they AE stands to make an additional, roughly, $300K off of revenues on the power poles, phone lines etc.
And traffic citations will add another $200K to their coffers …. Getting the picture here.
The whole beautification argument is not even secondary, but since it is bandied around lets look at it.
OK, we agree it is a ratty looking 2/10s of a mile (I will only suggest that AE downtown is shabby at best) How much time and money has been spent by both sides on this issue to date. If a portion of that time and money went into sprucing it up, it would be done by now.
That area is zoned M1 heavy industrial and has been since zoning was imposed originally. To arbitrarily say OK, we (the collective we) don’t want it to be that zoning anymore kinda bypasses the rule of law …… and, it seems to me, does tread on private property rights a bit.
Crime? The Mayor of AE was saying that area is high in crime. The numbers given were subjected to a fair amount of spin.
1. The area the numbers are drawn from is way larger than the area proposed for annexation
2. When that area is separated out for the period measured ( Nov & Dec 09) there were only 2 crimes. AE in that same period had 16 crimes.
3. The numbers were quoted from Crimewatch.com, a good site. Log on enter a zip code and it will give the reported crimes in that area …….. OK, except AE does not report to crimewatch.com. So AE looks spanking clean when you look at that zip. If you go to AE’s website you can pull the crime stats there. Also, it is important to look at the types of crimes. Obviously, rape murder armed robbery etc are to be avoided. Theft by Taking is another matter entirely. check it out and see if the issue is actually an issue.
Why not have someone of start a dialogue (defined as the exchange of ideas) about how to improve the look of that strip.
Bring the County, the City of AE and the property owners and tenants together and look for solutions.
And, most importantly remember, anytime a politician say we have to look for additional revenue sources, they are talking about you. If you are earning money and or using any services (cell phone, Cable, DSL, Electricity, Gas etc) than you are and will always be the revenue source. Period. Taxing business or Corporations, you think they don’t pass that right on to you? The taxes on your phone and cable bill? Passed right on to you.
AE will not magically make all that additional revenue, a portion of it will come out of Dekalb County “revenue”, how do you suppose they will make up the difference? Hmmmmmm
oh yeah, AE numbers
46 city employees
population @2700
around 1.5 square miles
$2.7-$3M budget
Biggest commercial project in the past 15 years? you guessed it – City Hall
Bloated? arguably.