Decatur’s current map leaves the only entrance to Clairmont Heights from the West through Desmond (limited also because Emory is directly adjacent and non-municipal major thoroughfares limited – only major thoroughfares not in a city limits are circuitous routes Druid Hills Road, Scott/Lawrenceville hwy). The result is any city other than Decatur would have to cross City of Decatur jurisdiction for police, fire, sanitation, and other services – not optimal and potentially preclusive.

Decatur’s prior annexation actions have resulted in effectively preventing Clairmont Heights from being annexed by any other city entity, with the exception of Atlanta (but the annexed Clairmont Heights entrances remains). Clairmont Heights is the only neighborhood for which Decatur has taken this approach, and it was done long ago. Medlock does not currently have this problem (but would if Decatur’s annexation plan moves forward, as Decatur proposes the same thing for the Medlock North/South entrances).

In essence this prior annexation serves as both a message and a substantive barrier in that Clairmont Heights annexation options are very, very limited due to Decatur’s prior annexation.

For those (few – I see only one or two vocal participants in this deliberation) who would oppose Clairmont Height annexation to Decatur, the question you should pose to your elected officials is: (1) why did Decatur annex the only 3 entrances to Clairmont Heights (and refrain from doing so with Medlock and other neighborhoods surrounding Decatur). (2) is it fair (right, legal?) for Decatur to annex entrances to neighborhoods without annexing those neighborhoods themselves, (3) is it fair (right, legal?) for Decatur to annex the businesses serving neighborhoods, obtain those tax revenues, and preclude those neighborhoods from other annexation, but without serving the neighborhoods themselves.

If the answer is that it is indeed fair to annex the neighborhood entrances and businesses without annexing the neighborhoods, then Decatur is a very much different type of community that the one I have come to know over the past 20 years. Honestly, I think rather this is the position of very few who do not possess the facts above.

Please report back your leader’s responses, it would be very interesting to know why Decatur would foreclose entrances to Clairmont Heights, and then not include Clairmont Heights in the initial annexation map. I think the answer lies in the democratic principles of self determination, which require Decatur to either annex the area or relinquish the entrances.

Assuming that you have success in offering up Clairmont Height’s support to COD in exchange for annexing “your” commercial properties, the Medlock neighborhood (which, by geographic boundaries, is rather inextricably linked to Clairmont Heights) ends up with limited or perhaps no options in the same fashion that Clairmont Heights fears so deeply.

Who is making those “we’ll still be neighbors after this” bumper stickers and t-shirts? I’m ready to place an order…

You are assuming that the positives for CoD from the commercial would outweigh the negatives from your residential. I am not sure that is the case, and if this is a package deal (which it isn’t), we might just say thanks, but no thanks.