Free-For-All Friday 10/23/15
Decatur Metro | October 23, 2015 | 7:36 amFeel free to use this post to make comments and ask questions about local topics not yet discussed here over the past week.
Feel free to use this post to make comments and ask questions about local topics not yet discussed here over the past week.
Pierce
Robertaich
Geoff
DecaNed
Robert Butera
InStitches
Decatur Reads
TOK
lumpintheroad
the other Kat
At Home in Decatur
Todd
Would anyone be interested in using a forum for decatur to discuss local happenings, events, and things like “free for all”?
This would be just like eavbuzz.com – you could list yard sale items, ask people in your neighborhood for local recommendations, and voice your opinions on anything you want.
Just putting it out there!
I’ve given thought to this, but what I’ve come to realize is there are so many forums out there. There are ones contained within individual communities, like the Metro readership, and then there’s Reddit, Nextdoor, Facebook groups, email lists, etc. I concluded that if I added one more it would probably struggle to find an audience just because there are so many outlets. As far as Decatur goes, it’s hard to improve upon what Metro has built.
Thanks Dan. I agree regarding the creation and hosting of a full-fledged forum. There are a ton of options out there already and the time and energy required to maintain and moderate it would be substantial. Sam, if you’re looking for any sort of specific Decatur-based forum, there might already be one out there.
There’s Nextdoor, with the bonus that people are validated to residential address. Right now City of Decatur seems to be split in multiple groups. You can post by topic (general, classified ads, crime/safety, free, lost/found, recommendations) and to your own group or to chosen nearby neighborhoods. This page shows the “territories” https://nextdoor.com/neighborhood/decaturga–decatur–ga/
Just a note about the nearby neighborhoods in NextDoor. The site decides which neighborhoods are nearby. I live in Lenox Place. The City of Decatur neighborhoods east of downtown and Oakhurst are not considered nearby for us.
Lenox Place is a “nearby neighborhood” of Oakhurst on NextDoor so you should be able to see us.
The site will enable more nearby neighborhoods for you, but you need to convince one of your Leads to request it.
There are also facebook pages for the various Decatur neighborhoods, and I believe Oakhurst and Decatur Heights still even have listserves. Ask your neighbors what they use.
Thanks for your input, all! I am not on the facebook so I didn’t really think of that.
I just know how much I used the EAVBuzz forum for buying/selling/local recommendations that I figured it could be of good use. I’m not looking to try to make some money or anything, just a community type thing for my new home 🙂
The Decatur subreddit can go months without a post.
OTOH the Atlanta subreddit is the most useful place I’ve found online for Atlanta news and happenings.
There is a yahoo group decaturchitchat
It was created as an offshoot of the Decatur Freecycle site. It covers a lot of what you may be looking for. 🙂
FOUND Thursday evening 10/22/15 on Superior Avenue: A FitBit wrist band. If you lost it, call me to describe it and I’ll meet you to return it. 404-373-6142
Rick,
We got the following post on the CGLNA-listserv about a lost fitbit. She might be the owner of the one you found.
o:
From:
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 08:39:24 -0400
Subject: [Clairemont/Great Lakes] Lost Fitbit
My black Fitbit fell off my arm on a walk in the neighborhood Wednesday night. If anyone found it, I can be reached at 404-245-4846. Thanks so much!!!
Julia Yeager.
Thanks! We’ve gotten in touch and the FitBit is awaiting pickup.
Can anyone point to some clear differences on the issues between Eric Tumperi and Scott Drake and between Tony Powers and John Ridley?
All I want to know is who plans on building junderscore’s moat.
As do I!
Yes – it sounds to me that Tumperi and Ridley are willing to move away from the defining concepts in the Downtown Strategic Plan – in place since the 1980s and reaffirmed twice via public process, most recently in 2010.
What I’ve heard sounds to me that Tumperi and Ridley are more interested in limiting downtown development and focus on moving cars around town. From what I’ve heard they would prioritize cars over walkability. To me, it sounds like they miss the idea that walkable compact development has not only been the golden goose that led to Decatur’s renaissance well before the schools were on their meteoric rise, but that it also holds the key to getting the tax burden taken off the backs of homeowners. In my opinion, we need to continue developing under performing land downtown so we don’t have to annex and because of increased tax collections from our valuable commercial properties.
From what I’ve seen and heard, Powers and Drake are wiling to continue the trajectory of developing downtown, creating opportunities for greater commercial tax collections and more diverse housing options. Someone please correct me if I’m interpreting this wrong.
This states my own observation, in a nutshell. I would only add that Mr. Ridley has already had his shot at elected office, and was shown the door. No need to repeat the experiment.
You also have to look at community involvement. Who is invested in the community in terms of their business and has volunteered their time on behalf of the community?
I hope the candidates will respond themselves, but from the one forum I attended, I didn’t get the impression that either Ridley or Tumperi wants to move away from the Strategic Plan, only that they may have slightly different interpretations of how it should be implemented. The plan offers broad-based goals, but surely there are more ways than one to achieve them. My understanding of Ridley’s comments was that he wanted only a temporary moratorium on further downtown development until Decatur could evaluate the effects of the projects already completed or underway. I can’t argue with wanting to better understand the potential effects of development, and I hopeTumperi, Powers and Drake (as well as Breedlove, Johnson, and Smith) feel the same way.
And I seriously doubt that any of the candidates favor cars over pedestrians. I did get the impression that Ridley wants to see a comprehensive traffic study related to new development. With The Place on Ponce, The Arlo, The Alexan, and the Callaway project collectively adding over 1000 households to the downtown area just by themselves, it seems naïve to pretend there will be no impact on traffic. Adding all of these households and their vehicles while reducing the number of lanes on major streets, making pedestrian- and cyclist-friendly modifications, and employing other traffic calming measures certainly seems like a recipe for increased traffic congestion if nothing else. I don’t understand why the planning and development group hasn’t asked for a comprehensive study already.
I walk as much as I can in Decatur, but at many times of the day, idling motorcycles, cars, trucks and buses are just a few feet away, contributing both air and noise pollution to the pedestrian experience. I hope all of the candidates are open to evaluating all effects of development – both negative and positive – and choosing Decatur’s path forward accordingly. Increased commercial tax revenue is great, but let’s not pretend that it comes with no cost.
I don’t think it’s naive to think something that’s demonstrated in the data will continue if the strategy remains consistent. Between 2000 and 2014, we added hundreds of downtown units on par with what’s happening now and built our evening “tourist” traffic considerably, yet overall traffic counts across four key downtown measurement spots went down:
2014 48,620 vehicles
2000 51,100 vehicles
When we began downtown redevelopment in earnest I agree, we were taking a leap of faith based on a hunch. Now we’re continuing a strategy that’s proven to work. Downtown housing has not added appreciably to our traffic overall and to suggest that it has (or will) strikes me, politically speaking, as pandering just a bit.
If any politician tells you they’re going to “fix traffic” they’re lying.
I don’t think it’s naive to think something that’s demonstrated in the data will continue if the strategy remains consistent. Between 2000 and 2014, we added hundreds of downtown units on par with what’s happening now
Now we’re continuing a strategy that’s proven to work.
————-
So how exactly does a continuation of the strategy not result in a further gentrification via taxation of poor folks and our elderly on fixed incomes in neighborhoods/communities?
Apartments are charged property tax at their full appraised value because they do not qualify for homestead exemptions.
How is the construction of more downtown apartments going to lower property taxes?
Whah? I thought we were talking about traffic. At least I was, as was the comment I was responding to. But to answer your question…
We’re all (or darn near all) looking for tax relief on single-family homes and, as best I can tell, we as a city have two realistic ways of achieving that. First, as some candidates have spoken to, is budget cutting / service reduction. The second is revenue from other sources.
The first is strictly political and not really what we’re talking about here but the second is fairly clear. Each of these apartment buildings coming online is looking to be tax positive — potentially to the tune of six figures yearly per project. So, in the right political conditions, that’s a legitimate revenue source that could potentially offset residential obligations to some degree. The more projects, the more revenue available for discretionary use. Whether it would be used for this purpose would be up to the commission, but nothing can be at their discretion if it doesn’t exist in the first place. Increased downtown commercial revenue constitutes real dollars with the potential to fuel tax relief at the neighborhood level. So in my opinion, the more we can build downtown into a thriving economic engine, the more options we’ll have.
As for gentrification, right now Decatur has extremely limited rental housing and quite high demand for such housing. Thus, all our aging apartment stock is experiencing price escalation that’s not commensurate with its inherent level of amenity or value. By creating more housing that actually targets the people trying to rent here, our aging stock can go back to what it’s supposed to be: rental in a good place at lower cost.
Some of the candidates have, in their comments since the campaign began, come across as either open to preventing downtown development, open to scaling back the pedestrian infrastructure I credit with the creation of downtown’s growing value, or seemingly against new, *different* people moving here. I’m all for difference of opinion but, personally, I’m against all three of those things. Which will make my choice of candidates fairly simple.
Didn’t make it past -” The first is strictly political and not really what we’re talking about here”
Could any reader clarify how “budget cutting / service reduction” is not related to tax revenue?
Are services provided by personnel?
What is the city’s largest single expenditure category by a wide margin?
The status quo bias in Decatur is high property taxes and the planning thus far has not alleviated the issue, or gentrification.
Personally, simple vehicle counts from four data collection points don’t strike me as a “comprehensive” traffic study. Where were those counts taken? Do the locations reflect typical travel patterns through the city? Do we have any data on travel times between data collection points if they are at ends of a regularly used route? Did counts at some locations decrease and counts at others increase between collection dates? If so, has traffic load simply shifted to a route where we don’t collect data? (BTW, when I check the GDOT traffic counts for Decatur, I find that several do show an increase from 2000 to 2014.) Are drivers who used to pass through Decatur simply now avoiding the city’s roads and potential delays?
I’ll admit that perception often differs from reality, but I’ve read far more than one DM commenter who thought traffic in the city has worsened in recent years. I don’t see a candidate’s response to that concern as equivalent to “pandering.” However, I long ago learned that my imagination is far too limited to envision the full range of human sexual proclivities, so if I’ve inadvertently helped a candidate appeal to the baser instincts of those who love traffic in all the wrong ways, I apologize to readers who look to DM as a family-friendly blog.
If you’re suggesting that adding 1000 households (and the accompanying commercial/retail space) to downtown Decatur will have no effect on traffic, well, I just find that hard to believe. We’ll have to disagree.
I haven’t heard any of the candidates claim they will “fix traffic,” but I’ve attended only one forum.
Agreeing to disagree is AOK by me. I’m not here to advocate for or against any particular candidate and have refrained from naming anyone in this thread for that reason. Just here to share my own personal take.
Many have heard each of the candidates express their various views online, in their literature, or in one or more forum so they can draw their own conclusions as I’ve drawn mine.
T’is all good. Vive la démocratie!
Neither candidate for the at-large commission seat has made any statement or issued any literature that makes me think they want to make any material shift from the long term plans and goals, including making the City more walkable. If anything, Ridley’s willingness to shift the Callaway Building to the school (which desperately could use that property) and not see it developed is aimed at enhancing the walkability issue. (Powers has voted in favor of the Callaway Building being commercially developed in his committee work and is backed by folks who have, to this point, refused to re-consider that development.) In my book, it’s actually the school board candidates who have a greater voice on the traffic issue. As long as we use a two-grade school tucked in a corner of the City that draws from the entire City, we create huge amounts of traffic. Whatever FAVEs advantages on the academic front — and there are some, although they don’t outweigh the disadvantages — the school system’s impact on our traffic is horrible. Yet, I see none of the school board candidates (both of whom have frighteningly little history here) willing to put that configuration on the table. I hope that shifts as we begin to look at re-drawing lines when adding another school to accommodate the growing population.
IMHO, the disadvantages of the 4/5 model are balanced by the advantages. But the equation is totally different with two 4/5s. I think the K-5 model is much better than the two 4/5 model.
Hello Geoff, the downtown development from 2000-2014 did not result in “the tax burden taken off the backs of homeowners,” especially the poor and those on fixed incomes. In fact, the 100s of apartments built between 2000-2014, charged property tax at their full appraised value and not contributing to school overcrowding, did not alleviate the tax burden. Could you help DM readers understand how the 100s of apartments currently being built and starting next year are going to reduce the tax burden (assuming the apartments starting next year with a yet to be determined mix of 2 and 3 bedrooms will not exacerbate school crowding and therefore increase taxes needed to cover operational costs)?
Concerning the ratio of residential to commercial property values – the planning from 2000-2014 resulted in a % of overall property values for 2014 that was 85% residential and 15% commercial. This planning also did not result in the tax burden being taken of the back of homeowners. Moving forward, how will the currently approved commercial and mixed use developments create opportunities for greater commercial tax collections, reducing the tax burden? Should residents expect the mix to be 80% residential and 20% commercial in the next few years?
Not sure what you are talking about, as most of the multifamily built in the period 00-14 is owner occupied and qualifies for homestead exemptions. It’s the new rental projects just coming on that will pay on the “fully appraised value” that you cite.
The tax burden is mostly related to the huge increases in values of single family homes and the replacement of smaller ones with large homes. Not sure what could be done about that, as a moratorium on tear-downs, etc. would never fly, legally or politically. And even if you cut property taxes down to near zero for aging or low income owners, that probably wouldn’t stop them from cashing in on the big increase in their home’s values.
I do agree (if I understand you correctly), that there seems to have been a failure to attract new commercial (non-residential) property to the tax base.
Hi brianc, Scott mentioned hundreds of apartments being built downtown and their effect on traffic from 2000 – 2014. I believe those apartments and ones that will be built are charged property taxes at their full appraised value and do not receive a homestead exemption. Multifamily homes (not apartments) do receive a homestead exemption as you write.
Asking another way; what is the data demonstrating that downtown apartment development is reducing overall property taxes in the city of a Decatur?
I don’t think anyone has said that increased downtown commercial development (in whatever form) *will* reduce taxes. What I’ve said is that it’s a tax-positive revenue stream with room to grow and, in the right political hands, *could* become a viable tool for offsetting residential taxes. What I’d like at this point is commitment from the candidates that they would, in fact, prioritize this objective in terms of policy and budgeting.
Or, barring that, I’d like to hear their alternate ideas for increasing revenue and/or reducing expenditures. Some, as I mentioned earlier, have talked budget cutting in principle but not as it relates to specific programs or positions (at least not at the forum I attended or literature I’ve received). So I’m interested in that as well.
PS: I mentioned “units,” not apartments, and was referring to the condos built during that period. Condos differ from apartments in terms of ownership but not significantly in terms of occupancy numbers. They also, as brianc mentioned, receive Homestead exemptions.
Thanks for the candor Scott. It is currently not known if the downtown development will actually alleviate or exacerbate the tax burden that is causation for gentrification in Decatur’s neighborhoods and communities.
Not sure if any candidate needs to provide specifics with regards to reducing services, capital expense projects, or personnel. This uncertainty is analogous to the uncertainty of the mixed use developments. Would the city manager be tasked with providing these tax reducing feasibility concepts?
Finally, what is the evidence that the mixed use developments will lead to greater socioeconomic diversity within Decatur? Are the 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units more affordable in Decatur than comparable units in surrounding areas? Wasn’t a figure of $2,500 given as the rent for a 3 bedroom?
Thanks for the forum DM.
I would argue that gentrification is the cause of the “tax burden”, not the other way around as you have it. After all, it’s assessments that have driven the tax increases, not the millage rates. Assessment increases are a result of gentrification, particularly in Oakhurst.
Hello Marty.
Let me see if I can make my case for downtown development as a way to ease the tax burden on single family home owners:
Downtown is our most valuable real estate. Values, based on tax records, get up to $10million an acre for some of the “newer” office buildings such as 160 Clairemont (built in the early 80s, again according to tax records). The land at our one established multifamily apartment building, Ice House Lofts (built in the 90s), appraised at over $5 million an acre. Even with crazy high new values of our single family homes, values have a hard time getting near $5 million an acre – although I’ve found a couple cases were they are near that, but that is not widespread. Further, overall, the commercial land downtown takes less money to service on a per acre basis. So why wouldn’t we maximize our development were the value is the highest? We can build up, and not have to try to expand out (annex), and add far greater amounts to our commercial tax base.
Every new dollar collected on commercial land downtown goes toward swinging the tax-burden pendulum away from home owners. We have a lot of under-utilized land downtown. I’m certain we could reasonably find at least 10 acres to build high-density commercial (which includes apartments) buildings. Done right, that’s at least $100,000,000 in new tax digest, based on the 160 example, if it’s land not currently not on the tax roles. By comparison, Suburban Plaza (20 acres) was appraised at $13.5 million (that’s $5 million less value than the high-density development at 160 on 10 times MORE land).
Downtown is not built-out. The city is not built out. We have fewer people living here now than we did in the 1960s. We need to continue to densify at our core for many other reasons, in my opinion, but one of the biggest reasons is the value we get by developing there is greater than developing anywhere else. The value we get by developing downtown is also greater than the value we get from annexation. It seems right and prudent, financially, to do so.
The last round of development downtown did not swing the pendulum away from home owners because it actually helped to increase the value of the single family homes, thus increasing their corresponding tax payments. As stated previously, Decatur’s renaissance began with an improving downtown that attracted attention. An improving downtown improved surrounding home values. At this point, we need to double down downtown because there is still huge upside there. We can get $100,000,000 new dollars onto the tax digest during the current wave of development (if you’re picking up what I’m putting down up above). There’s no way we want to pick up $100 million in single family home values. That would be some serious gentrification.
Bottom line – we have a lot of expenses coming up in the next couple decades. Adding millions of dollars onto the tax rolls downtown means we can work to keep diversity of incomes in the neighborhoods and still come out way ahead. As it stands, those wringing their hands about gentrification are basically asking that we find a way to keep overall home values from appreciating so we can keep homeowners of all incomes. If that is something that ends up happening, the only way to cover our growing expenses (read: grow the tax base) is to increase commercial development. And there is one logical place to increase commercial development – in our commercial cores.
Our higher density commercial cores hold the key to our longterm financial sustainability, but only if they are allowed to fully develop. I appreciate your consideration this line of thinking.
Thanks Geoff. The case for commercial downtown development as a way to ease the tax burden on single family homeowners is understandable. However, the strategy is dependent on commitments from commercial entities to establish operations in Decatur. For example, the vacancy rate as of 2014 was a little of 9% for office space in Decatur. No vacancy would be preferable. Unrealized commercial potential likely served as an impetus for the initiation of annexation discussions in 2008, and more seriously in 2012, in order to fulfill goal 9 of the 2010 Strategic plan – expand and diversify the city’s revenue base.
“A key objective for consideration of annexation was the possibility to expand and stabilize the property tax base. An analysis of the annexation areas shows that the City’s real property digest would go from the existing ratio of 85% residential property/15% commercial property to 76% residential property/24% commercial property. In addition, a financial cost/benefit analysis of annexation areas indicated that estimated revenues would exceed estimated expenditures for the City and that after the first year, estimated revenues would exceed estimated expenditures for the City Schools of Decatur.”
Where is the similar analyses for the currently approved commercial and mixed use developments?
Taxes continue to rise for single family home owners which can be absorbed by some, but not by others. Until commercial potential is realized to ease the tax burden on single family homeowners, perhaps others strategies or mechanisms should be explored. One strategy might include decreases in city expenditures.
Alternatively, is the unassigned fund balance for the general fund available for spending at the discretion of the city?
Marty – I can’t answer your specific question about “where” the cost/benefit analysis is specifically for downtown development. However, I can say this – we already provide services downtown. The costs for additional services (excluding educating kids) to new buildings will be marginal up to point. The city should absolutely figure out what that point is, but I’m certain we are not close to it. There is fresh analysis to back me up on this general concept of the fiscal benefits of downtown development coming from organizations such as Smart Growth America, Strong Towns, the Congress for the New Urbanism and a super smart dude named Joe Minicozzi out of Asheville. I would urge anyone to google “downtown development” and any of these other entities for detailed discussions on why increasing density in any downtown makes good sense, particularly from a fiscal standpoint.
As for those pesky kids we have to educate, you get zero of them from building office buildings and something fewer per residential unit with apartments vs. single family homes. Maximizing our land downtown is the best way to grow our tax base without adding large numbers of kids to our schools and without adding new costly infrastructure to service.
The final thing I’ll say, because I don’t know the answers to all of your questions above – our office space vacancy is around 10%. It’s at or below the regional average. I would call our downtown office market relatively healthy. Just like the unemployment rate, it is impossible to have zero vacancy. Leases come up at staggered times, etc. There are not huge swaths of empty office space downtown. In fact, there is about 200k square feet empty right now, according to a report I’m looking at. We should work to fill that, but the fact is, the owners of office buildings are paying taxes to Decatur whether their space if filled or not. Their tax bill looks the same if their building is 90% full or 19% full. So just filling up the space doesn’t, in and of itself, add to our tax digest.
Additional downtown development DOES add to our tax digest at elevated levels we can add nowhere else in the city or on the annexation map.
“Alternatively, is the unassigned fund balance for the general fund available for spending at the discretion of the city?”
By law, a reserve must be maintained.
“By law, a reserve must be maintained.”
————
Thanks Steve. Decatur has a substantial reserve through which the city could demonstrate active empathy. At the end of 2014, the unassigned fund balance for the general fund was $5,474,611 or 26% of total general fund expenditures. This amount is available for spending at the government’s discretion as it is unassigned fund balance as defined in the City’s financial policies and in accordance with Statement 54 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).
Since no one has posted about kids in restaurants or reckless cyclists in a while, clearly we’ve figured out those issues. I’m proud of you Decatur.
cyclists in restaurants is the new problem.
Especially when they go tip tapping around in those silly shoes. So annoying.
Glad to see so much competition for Decatur’s elected positions. Sad to see some of the candidates treating the public space like their own property by placing campaign signs in public rights-of-way. I hope this was a transgression of well-meaning volunteers and not the candidates themselves. Take ’em down!
Mel, I was just coming to post the same thing. Please take your candidate signs out of public spaces! You can’t do that. I am sure it is an innocent mistake, but still…
You have a good point, but, frankly, I have seen very little of this.
If you’re talking about the railway, I’ve thought of that as well but keep deferring my outrage because it’s not actually public space. It’s private property that’s treated — rightly so, IMO — as public space. So what are the rules with that? (Not that I think any of the candidates phoned up CSX for permission or anything…)
I suppose the rule should be don’t put signs on public property and don’t put signs on private property without permission.
As Lyrics Only Guy surely said at some point:
Sign, sign, everywhere a sign
Blockin’ out the scenery, breakin’ my mind
That’ s exactly what the rule is.
The lot where the city recently razed the little church across from FAVE seems to have sprouted a few.
Public space signage issues aside – am LOVING the “Battle of the Yard Signs” at the moment. Some yards have so many signs that it is hysterical.
“Battle of the Yard Signs”… when’s the festival for that?!
In case you need something to do Sunday afternoon…
Sherlock’s Decatur is hosting a winemaker from Uruguay on Sunday, Oct. 25th from 2pm – 4pm. He will be talking about his wines and sampling three wines too. If you’ve never had a Tannat – or a wine from Uruguay (and who has?) come by the store. It’s a free tasting so stop by if you are wandering the streets – or waiting for the parade.
But please, no reckless bike riding in the store.
Anyone know where I can find some concord grapes nearby? I found some hybrid ones recently but I am looking for the real deal dark purple ones.
I think I saw some at YDFM last weekend. I grew up in western NY and we had a bunch of them planted… so delicious!
When our lovely 1927 craftsman bungalow was built, apparently installing lighting in the living room was just not done (or the contractor had already unloaded the home and was minimizing expenses). In any event, we would now like to have two ceiling fixtures installed. Can anyone recommended a contractor that could handle the electrical/drywall/painting needed to handle this?
Anybody know if there’s anywhere I can get a sign to vote No on the school bond?
Saw a homemade one in Oakhurst during Porchfest, but I haven’t seen any professionally-made ones.
I’ll make you a sign as long as you promise not to put it in your yard and to vote yes on the bond. Decatur needs this.
Thanks 1491 which reminds me that in 1492, a famous dude left to sail the ocean blue (but not because of high taxes).
I suggest that you not place a “Hell No” or any like sign in your yard. Proponents of certain causes, whether for trees, dog-parks and school construction, can become more than a little irritated when someone publicly disagrees with them. So I suggest no to the “No” sign but yes to voting in this election.
During my time in Decatur, I have seen some interesting political signs the day after the election. For me, the “We Still Hate You…” sign that appeared in the Great Lakes neighborhood after the 2004(?) dissing those who supported traditional marriage is still my favorite.
Will you see any new signs on Wednesday, the day after the election? Probably no political signs but there will be more “For Sale” signs in front of many small homes, both the elderly on fixed incomes and younger people without kids, who will be hit hard by future tax increases. Many are property owners who own their homes outright and must write two checks a year to pay for Decatur taxes. For these people, a $500-$1,000 or more increase in taxes is simply unsustainable (a word I like to throw in every once in a while, kinda like Leviathan and Potemkin). And they know it won’t stop with the bond approval. Taxes will continue to go up. No candidate has suggested a freeze in assessments, cutting school spending or some other creative way to reduce costs. And the board has not promised anything either. You may hear something about proposing tax relief for those over 65 but this is only a tax shift. Those under the magic age will see their taxes rise even more.
So what to do? I could go to the Decatur “Halloween” parade and get my weird on (which means get drunk or stoned) or head to church. Hope to see you there.
“dissing those who supported traditional marriage is still my favorite.”
Ah…that weird euphemism (aka a lie) favored by those who really want to control OTHER people’s personal lives– but use language implying they are defending their own relationships.
Usual election year rant: no vote, no complaining. You had your chance.
I will complain all I want about the conspiracy keeping me from voting. How in the hell is someone as OCD as me supposed to vote at the “Clairemont East” polling place when it’s at least a mile almost due west of the “Clairemont West” location? Huh? How?
Vote twice
Oh, I plan on it. No, and Hell No, on the $75M boondoggle of a GO Bond!
Why, exactly, do you hate the children?
The illogic of the naming of the Clairemont West and East districts and polling locations has bothered me for years. Or did you remember that rant of mine and were pushing my buttons? New Election Day rant: why are CSD schools closed on Election Day if the students are all too young to vote? Meanwhile, most adult workplaces are not. I don’t think any CSD schools still serve as polls, do they? Or does RMS still? (I loved it ages and ages and ages ago when Westchester was a polling place and kids raised money by selling brownies and cookies outside.)
Renfroe’s still my polling place so that’s at least one.
And traffic and parking are so bad around there at the start and end of the school day that there’s no way it could handle voters too, not even the paltry 17% of voters that will likely bother to vote. Not sure that it makes sense for Renfroe to continue as a polling site, but given that it has, I see why CSD has to close.
Nope, my personal outrage over the polling location name fail arose independently. But I’m glad that at least one person agrees that it’s a travesty.
On a related note, I was sooooooo happy when I recently drove down Adair for the first time in a while and noticed that they finally corrected the signs to the north and south entrances of the apartments. I always wondered how people could stand to live in such directionally mismarked buildings.
Glad I never noticed that travesty. It would have irritated me no end.