The Facts: What Are the Real Reasons Behind the Opposition to Greenhaven?

I noticed a group calling themselves Citizens Against Cityhood in DeKalb (CACD) have formed to oppose CCCSD's efforts to incorporate much of southern DeKalb County into Greenhaven. We welcome them and their counterpoint to the cityhood argument. CACD presents a great argument to leave southern DeKalb in its current status quo. After all, don't try something new, 
keep it the same and much of the reasons why Brookhaven, Dunwoody incorporated and now Stonecrest, Lavista Hills and Tucker want to form a smaller and more accountable localized government, will prevail. 

They argue, "Quality of Life and small town values will be lost if the cityhood is promoted in DeKalb.  We are a suburb of Atlanta.  We live here in unincorporated DeKalb because we do not want to be in an urban center." I'm not understanding how incorporating an area that will provide three municipal services will make the area change into something approximating East Saint Louis. Based on the logic in the CACD article, Sandy Springs, Brookhaven, Dunwoody, Johns Creek, Milton and Peachtree Corners lost their suburban-ess, quality of life suffered and small town values disappeared after becoming cities. 

There are border issues with the proposed city of Greenhaven and the City of Lithonia, Stonecrest, Stone Mountain, and Decatur. I'm not aware of any border issues with Stone Mountain and Decatur. I'm a bit surprised seeing that Greenhaven and Stonecrest are having border issues because of this.   

In addition, there are several serious tax issues that should be resolved with DeKalb County as it relates to all these new cities attempting to avoid their tax obligations.  Passing these cityhood bills will create greater issues with DeKalb County pensions and bonds accounts. The tax and funding inequity will ultimately in up in court, Particularly since many lawmakers appear to be ignoring their fiduciary responsibility with allowing the new cities to avoid the pension and bond payments to the county. This is a great point. 

The Carl Vinson Institute report was a feasibility study and it only evaluated the financial viability of the proposed new city. This is correct and this is the purpose for getting this done, to see what the proposed city would look like on paper. 

The report was based on minimum city services: Parks and recreation, zoning, and code enforcement. Most of the new cities in the past decade initially only provided three services. Sandy Springs, Brookhaven and Dunwoody didn't have their own police force until later. Greenhaven is probably the most like Peachtree Corners (in Gwinnett County), it provides three municipal services. 

The report did not include and qualitative data or resident interviews. The feasibility study is just that, showing if the new city would be fiscally feasible. They are never subjective. 

The study did not use similar city demographics to compare costs, and the report did not consider the impact of the new city impact on the DeKalb County as a government. The report compared the area to Columbus, GA, Atlanta and Clayton County in some of their data analysis. 

The report does not validate the necessity or efficacy of forming a new city.  The report did not consider the views of the residents of the affected area. Again, the feasibility study just shows if the new city would be fiscally feasible. You are correct in saying that the report doesn't validate the necessity (or if the city is needed) or the efficacy (or if its creation will produce the desired result of economic development, etc). The report's final statement is that it is not against or for the city. 

The Communities and Neighborhoods did not have the opportunity to opt in or out of any of the boundaries of the proposed cities. We are being told that we only have the ability to say Yes or No at the end of process during the referendum.  This does not make any sense.  We should have some say so at the front end of the process, to rather communities are included in the new city boundaries.  What if, where you lived, this was done to you?   A group of people, that have not been elected by anyone, drafts up a city proposal, creates a boundary map, and creates a charter and then ask the state to sanction it.  You would be outraged, like I am. 

In most cityhood initiatives, a small group initiated the idea and it got bigger and if it got legislative approval, the residents in the area are allowed to express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction via the ballot box. This process is not illegal, sneaky or malicious. The CCCSD has reached out to churches, senior citizen groups, businesses, neighborhoods and had many meetings since last summer regarding this. I agree that their was not much coverage in the AJC initially, or the major TV stations, the CCCSD reached out as much as possible to get the word out. It would have been great to have the entire decision-making community out to every meeting or on all of our social media pages.   

There are disputes over which neighborhoods should be included in the boundaries with Decatur, Lithonia and Stonecrest and other communities.  There should be a timeout in order to keep this frenzy from becoming a nightmare for everyone. I agree, if this is going on, then it should be resolved. 

Hwang and Sampson, two researchers found that by the late 2000s, racial composition did in fact have a significant effect on a neighborhood's chance of improvement and ultimate gentrification. The neighborhoods that saw the most improvement met a minimum threshold proportion of white residents—about 35 percent—and a maximum threshold of black residents—about 40 percent.

These researchers found that the difference in reinvestment levels between neighborhoods of 35 and 45 percent black residents was more than twice the gap in extent of gentrification between neighborhoods of 5 and 15 percent black residents.

While I'm familiar with Hwang and Sampson's research, this research focused mainly on Chicago neighborhoods. Atlanta's experience with gentrification flies in the face of Hwang and Sampson's research. Old Fourth Ward, Kirkwood, Reynoldstown and Edgewood are notable eastside neighborhoods which all had majority black populations when the gentrification wave hit them, albeit in different time periods. 

With highlighting this research, it seems that you're suggesting that a majority black area would find it hard to attract gentrification. Gentrification is still considered a controversial subject mainly because people are displaced who's been in the area for many years with wealthier people and more upscale businesses which increases property values and ultimately taxes. This is a free market, people should buy where they want and better an area as they want. Many of the above areas have seen an increase in the quality of life and retail choices and also many residents, mainly older residents, have lost their homes because of not being able to afford the steep tax increases. I'm on the fence about gentrification, it's neither good or bad. 

Written by: 

Ari Meier handles the social media and content creation for CCCSD and is a resident and advocate of the future Greenhaven. His day job is Social Media Marketing and Content Creator at Hawaii-based real estate solutions provider, PEMCO Limited. He's also an author of three books, a modern painter and plays keyboards in his indie rock band, blue.math.