New cities get Senate OK

Mon, 03/13/2006 - 9:41am
By: Ben Nelms

Morgan Garris with Sen. Kasim Reed

It’s another step along the way. It is one that many said could not be done. Yet it sailed through the Georgia Senate on a 49-0 vote.

Keeping to his word, Sen. Kasim Reed introduced bills designed to give residents of unincorporated South Fulton County the opportunity to control their own destiny by voting to create the new cities of Chattahoochee Hills and South Fulton. If approved by the Georgia House and signed by Gov. Perdue, those votes will come later in 2006 and no later than 2007. The Senate move followed a similar one a week earlier to approve a public referendum in the John’s Creek community in North Fulton.

Though Reed made no detailed mention of the perhaps historic vote during Thursday’s meeting of the South Fulton Chamber of Commerce, he, along with Fulton County Commissioner Bill Edwards, continued what has become a familiar scene in locales around South Fulton in recent months. As in the many town hall meetings conducted all over unincorporated South Fulton, they continued to state their rationale for supporting citizens right to vote incorporation up or down.

Reed told the audience the town hall meetings showed him that residents of unincorporated South Fulton wanted local control, that they wanted to slow down and have time to make a decision and they wanted to keep the tax burden as low as possible. It was during the time frame of those town hall meetings that Fulton County Commission announced a three mill increase to property owners in unincorporated South Fulton.

Outlining a four-point process that encompasses the current incorporation discussion, Reed said the first is the legislative process in the Senate and House. The second step is providing the time to review and debate the issues between now and November. The third step is the time for action, the public referendum. And the fourth step, he said, will be the time after the election, when we begin to govern.

Edwards, who along with Reed has conducted multiple town hall meetings in recent months, stressed that the community conversation on incorporation must continue. The decision that will determine the future of South Fulton must be one based on a consideration of all the variables.

“We’re faced with a decision. My job was to make sure each and every citizen has the information they need before making the final decision,” Edwards said. “We have to talk about incorporation. We have to talk about annexation (by existing cities). And we have to talk what happens if we do nothing.”

An issue specifically on the minds of the existing cities of South Fulton, said Reed, is that of potentially being landlocked if the public vote for the cities of South Fulton (also known as Campbell) and Chattahoochee Hills meets with success. Reed told the audience he will do anything in his power to be fair.

“I won’t let these bills become a divisive issue between the cities,” he said.

Reed explained the rationale for his comment after the meeting.

“I couldn’t come here today and give a policy speech and ignore them,” he said. “What was developing was that their anxiety level was going up so high that they were getting concerned. At the end of the day that’s a fair concern for a city leader.”

After the meeting, Reed reflected both on the accomplishment of having the Chattahoochee Hills and South Fulton bills pass handily in the Senate and the remaining work ahead.

“I feel good about it. But I think that it’s not done,” he said. “It’s not going to be done until we get it through both chambers, so my focus right now is on two things. We have to keep holding this county together and not let anyone divide us and we have to have the passage of these bills through the House. I’m not thinking about anything else. I think we are finally, as a community, moving this process in the right direction and controlling it.”

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by twilson on Tue, 03/14/2006 - 7:00am.

Not to worry. The Dunn/Wells/Pfeifer team will sue and stop that crap!! Like man, who does this Kasim Reed dude think he is? Trying to create a city without their permission?

Submitted by thenatural on Tue, 03/14/2006 - 9:24am.

Jeez, Twilson, talking about negative! The county commission does not have a dog in this fight. If the establishment of a city will help the people of Fulton county then why would the Fayette County Commission care? Obviously, you like the idea of increased density, more traffic and more burden on the schools here or you would not be so gung ho on annexation. Answer this question please....can you name one annexation action taken by a city in Fayette County that did not radically change the use of the annexed property? A change that resulted in more traffic and a bigger burden on the infrastructure of the county. It amazes me that the same people that want to annex into a city are the same ones that complain about traffic and the inablity of government to maintain a proper level of services. If you continually annex property that is exactly what you will get, time after time.

And by the way, the county has no authority to sue over annexation requests. All they can do is communicate disagreement with the action to the annexing authority.

Submitted by dkinser on Tue, 03/14/2006 - 8:32am.

You missed one very important detail. These cities will be in South Fulton County and not Fayette, so the three amigos can't touch them.

Dana Kinser

Submitted by thenatural on Tue, 03/14/2006 - 9:27am.

Dana,

Don't confuse twilson with logic and facts. It makes it nearly impossible to continue the tirade against the county commission and sound credible.

Submitted by Fayetteresident on Wed, 03/15/2006 - 2:40pm.

"People that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"...

Submitted by robert m on Tue, 03/14/2006 - 5:27pm.

Don't confuse twilson with logic and facts! You wouldn't deny that the Fayette County Board of Commissioners will sue at the drop of a hat, would you?

Submitted by thenatural on Tue, 03/14/2006 - 5:59pm.

RM,

Of all the suits presently being contested in the courts the county commission initiated only one. The others have been instigated by those trying to either protect their turf, evade the rules, or have something to hide. I certainly would dispute the contention that the county would sue capriciously, they do not have a track record for doing so...but others do.

Submitted by Fayetteresident on Tue, 03/14/2006 - 10:46pm.

Hi TN, I'm back...
It may be true that the Three Amigos (aka Dunn/Wells/Pfeifer) initiated only one suit, but they are RESPONSIBLE for ALL of them! Their unreasonable "track record" leaves others no choice but to defend themselves with a law suit! So... you're not fooling anyone with your protests...

Just like the sign ordinance that they pulled out of their butts... it took the Citizens of Fayette Co. (after receiving citations from the Marshal's Office) to file a law suit against the County to prove that it was unconstitutional... Just one of the many examples I can list of foolish "rules" and ordinances that Dunn has established during his last 8 long years in office.

But you know, I bet he'd tell you the Federal Judge is wrong, because Dunn NEVER thinks he's wrong...

Submitted by thenatural on Wed, 03/15/2006 - 9:59am.

Let's define "unreasonable lawsuits". This all started in late 80's when the County Commission created the marshal's office in response to a problem with the Sheriff executing some of his assigned duties.
Fast forward to this century and the sheriff decides,without notice and for his own reasons, to reverse a long standing practice when he refused to incarcerate a drunk driver that was stop and arrested by a POST certified law enforcement officer who was a marshal. The county commission forced to sue as a direct result of the sheriff's refusal to execute the responsibilities of his office. Now tell me again, how that is the commission's fault?

The next issue concerned the construction, on county property that the sheriff does not own (you do as a tax payer), of a hangar for his helicopter(s) without permits, without compliance with county building codes and in disregard for the same process that ALL citizens must go through to build anything. The county advised him that the structure was illegal (by every definition on the books) and would have to be dismantled. The Sheriff sued to stop the process.
How is that the commission's fault? If you don't build it...they will not come (to tear it down). And this is the fault of the commission how?

The next issue was the sign ordinance. I did some research at the county on this one. The county established criteria for a sign ordinance (like all ordinance changes, it came from a study done by staff based current best practices) that was intended to prevent the "visual pollution" that is the result of the failure to have a vision of what you want your county to look like. If you need a reminder of the impact of poor control over signage, drive north on Hwy 85 through Riverdale. Yes, the county was sued and it was held that the ordinance was too restrictive. Would you rather that nothing be done? Would you rather that no limitations be put in place? You know as well as I do it simpler to ease restrictions that tighten them. You have to start somewhere. By the way, the ordinance has been rewritten and is in full compliance. Ok, this one was the fault of the commission. Darn, them for trying to protect the citizens of the county from visual pollution and going a little too far.

I guess you consider these actions to be unreasonable, not based on the facts, but based on the personalities involved.

Submitted by Fayetteresident on Wed, 03/15/2006 - 2:38pm.

OK... Let's take the hangar for example... It is CRAZY that Dunn would rather have the "building" torn down than work with the Sheriff's Dept. to comply with the building codes. For God's sake, this "hangar" is nothing more than a large shed that you could have in your backyard!!! The only way to stop Dunn from sending over the wrecking crew was to file a law suit. And you really call that the Sheriff's fault? I think we should take a Poll so you could see just how unreasonable Dunn is! The hanger houses a lot more than the helicopter(s). It houses all types of equipment. Equipment that could have been stored in the old Magistrate Building that Dunn had torn down to build a berm - how stupid and wasteful was that? You are so busy trying to defend "certain" people that you really just don't get it!

You talk about trying to "protect the citizens" and try to make your "cause" sound so genuine, but it's clear that you have your own agenda. So stop pretending that you really care about the residents and stop distorting the facts in your posts to serve yourself!

Submitted by thenatural on Wed, 03/15/2006 - 3:51pm.

Whose pretending? I make no pretense of my opinions on these issues. You put forth some points for discussion and I responded. Where am I factually wrong? The number of lawsuits? Who instigated them and why? Just because you disagree does not change the facts.

And here we go again, back to the old Magistrate building. I am repeating myself, but I will say again...it is my understanding that the cost of fixing and maintaining the building was prohibitive. You want to spend your tax dollars constantly repairing a building that has outlived its usefulness? I don't. Do you have any data, other than your own opinion, that would support having kept that building in place? If not just drop it. The fact that it was replaced by a berm is irrelevant as is the fact that it occurred while Dunn is in office.

If we follow your logic on the hangar it would be perfectly permissible for anyone to put anything on county property if they could afford to do so. It is county property, and to do so is illegal. That is the real issue here. The point here is that the sheriff has no right to put up the building and he has no right to ignore the codes etc. His charter is to uphold the law...not just the ones he agrees with or chooses to enforce.
In your mind..because he is the sheriff he is exempt. What is the harm in ignoring the codes...none...unless something happens (fire, structural issues etc.) and someone gets hurt or worse....who is ultimately responsible? The county...not the sheriff. You would be the first one to jump in and accuse Dunn of complicity that lead to a tragedy because that is your agenda.

You are absolutely correct that the hangar is a shed. A shed adjacent to a state of the art justice center that this group of commissioners fought to get built, and succeeded to deliver under budget and on time. When was the last time you heard of a government project that was on time and under budget?
So now that we have this great building, lets build some sheds on it...to what...class it up?

You seem to have real heartburn over my postings. You say that I do not care for the citizens. Exactly where in my postings have I made any comment that could be construed as "anti-citizen ?" I got involved in this discourse with you simply because your tirades should not go unanswered or people may start to believe them and that would be wrong.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.