It's Not Who You Know, It's Who You DON'T KNOW

As we enjoy the holiday weekend and remember those who gave their lives for our country, may we also be reminded of the values and principles our nation was founded upon.  Big corporations may be considered "people" in some modern twist on logic, but they certainally were not around when our country was first founded upon the ideals of "by the people, for the people."  What does that idea mean to you?  

Let's think about "for the people" for a moment:   If you did not have any strong zoning complaints or issues with code enforcement or our local parks before you heard about plans for new cities, why would you now support the idea that a city is what we need?  If you felt that it was necessary to protect the borders of Tucker, why would you now support the "compromise map" between Tucker and Lakeside that actually goes beyond our known borders and encroaches into other neighboring communities?   It's the same complaint we all had when the LCA announced their plans more than a year ago.

Do you know exactly who is speaking up for "Tucker" in these meetings and negotiations?  Have they explained themselves to your satisfaction in terms of exactly who they are, how they got involved and why they feel so strongly that they wish to lead the community?   Will they run for city council positions or do they wish to step away from the reins once they have accomplished the task of getting a referendum on a ballot?  

How much are they willing to tell you about their plans?  What do they really know about running a city?  If they do not appear to be knowledgeable about your neighborhood or the issues you bring to them to consider, then how willing are they to find the answers for you or point you to the right people?

Okay, let's consider:  government "by the people."  Yes, they are people.  We know that much.  Is that where the qualifications end?  Is that the only thing we need to know about them?   Does it matter that they will not tell us who drew their map and why those boundaries were suggested?  The map did not look like the Tucker we've always known, so who drew the map?  A simple question has become a thorn in the side of this movement because no one appears to know the answer.  How can anyone lead you toward forming a city if they do not even know or understand the reasons behind the map they want you to approve?

A "compromise map" was reported at the end of the last legislative session.  Have you seen it?  Where, exactly did you see any suggestion that Tucker was treated fairly in this compromise?  What about the rest of the taxpayers in DeKalb County?  Were they represented in this "compromise?"  Where were the concessions made on behalf of other proposed cities that would equate to the concessions agreed to, reportedly, by "Tucker?"   

Who drew the map?  Who negotiated on our behalf?  Who is the true leader of this city movement?  Why are they listed with the state as being a "for profit" corporation?  How much money did they actually raise and did all of it go to the Carl Vinson Institute for a study that was never actually needed?

How is the Tucker Parent Council involved and why do they insist that the two things, cities and schools, are not related?   That's certainally not what the cities of Dunwoody and Brookhaven are saying.  They are moving ahead with plans to start new schools, charter clusters, new systems - whatever they can manage to do within the constraints of the state constitution because they know the very real downside that can befall a community that does not attract new homebuyers (many of whom are families).  And, to many people, the downside also means a lack of economic growth when companies looking to relocate to the Atlanta region have multiple options.  

What are the Tucker education advocates doing in the middle of all this city stuff if it does not have anything to do with the schools?  Are they dropping the ball in one area in order to run a play for another team?  They may very well be honest people with the best of intentions, but their actions are not making a lot of sense from the public perspective.    Transparency is vital to any group that is claiming to represent a large majority of others, especially without any known process for gaining true public input.

And, one last question:  Who Asked for the Placeholder Bill for Tucker in the first place?  Without it, we could have truly lost Tucker to Lakeside without a seat at any negotiation table.  We had very little time to act when we learned about the borders LCA had drawn originally.  Did the current Tucker "leaders" (self-proclaimed) include that person or group of people when they held their closed room deals?  Did they include those people in their city advocacy and outreach?  If not, then why?

I actually do know the answer to those last few questions because I do know who requested the placeholder bill.  It was "Save Tucker!" which is the only true grassroots effort in this entire city process.  We are the only group that has never asked anyone for money and has never intended to put candidates into office, or control the way your neighborhood is zoned.   The only true group of citizens who are actually trying to band together and stick up for the taxpayers and property owners of Tucker is the one group that is consistently left out of the major discussions and negotiations by the politically connected special interest groups.   

How can you claim to represent Tucker residents and not want the power of Save Tucker! on your side?   If that doesn't make you think twice about what sign you are willing to place in your yard, I don't know what will.