|
City of South Fulton
proposal continues to cause division
Submitted by
Dominique Huff on Wed,
08/29/2007 - 12:32am.
The last area of unincorporated Fulton County has a decision to make
and whatever happens, some will not be happy. While many other areas
such as Sandy Springs and Chattahoochee Hills Country pushed hard
for their cities, some are slowly regretting their decision.
Recent reports state that the new north Fulton cities of Milton and
Johns Creek are having problems from ethical violations to not be
able to start up public safety services within their proposed
timeline.
“Who are you running from and where are you running to,” south
Fulton commissioner Bill Edwards stated to the Atlanta Story during
a recent visit to his office. “The people who were annexed into
Atlanta didn’t leave because they wanted out of the county; they
left because they did not want to be in the city of South Fulton.”
The city of Atlanta was one of several cities that annexed land from
unincorporated south Fulton during the period allowed by the
legislature.
According to Edwards, much of the annexed land was annexed through
the 100 percent, single landowner method. He cites the high
development and zoning standards the county places on developers as
one reason large tracts were annexed into other cities. “We are not
going to let you build anything that is not of quality,” he said.
“Other cities will let you build whatever. Union City, I found out
is maxed out on sewer capacity.”
Andre Walker, spokesman for the Citizens for the city of South
Fulton political action committee considers incorporation a good
choice for the area. “Any way you slice it, the city can be
financially viable as long as we elect fiscally responsible people,”
he said. “The naysayers asked us about the status of the new
feasibility study and when it came out, they tried to discredit it.”
Two Georgia State University professors, Robert Eger and John
Matthews conducted the study looking into the viability of the city.
“It is our opinion and supported by our overall findings that the
city of South Fulton is financially viable under our analyses,” they
wrote in the report. “We find that conservative estimates can
provide the city of South Fulton with a 1.6 percent of revenues in
the reserves balance.” The latest study, released earlier this month
factored impact of the annexations that occurred.
The study assumed three items in budget making for the proposed
city. The data was based on the city operating with a millage rate
of 5.731 per $1000 in tangible value and keeping the tax policies
already in existence. The city would receive, based on the US Census
of 2000, a share of the local option sales tax (LOST) revenue and
continue with the current zoning, planning projections and growth
estimates as provided by the Fulton County demographer and Atlanta
Regional Commission.
“Although we are confident in our verification of the data, the task
of predicting service costs and the revenue potentials of a new city
from a county based municipal-like service base assumes that the new
city will provide the identical set of services offered through the
county,” Edger and Matthews said in the report.
Benny Crane, president of the South Fulton Concerned Citizens (SFCC)
praised the report. “I’ve always believed that the city of South
Fulton would be fiscally solvent,” he said. “This new report just
confirms my long-held belief with hard facts and figures. We are the
last ones standing and we are going to make this happen.” The SFCC
came under fire as report became public after the initial election
date of June 19. The election was pushed back due to clearing up the
boundaries of the city with HB 725 and giving the county enough time
to promote the election. On top of all that, the Department of
Justice had to approve the voting districts.
Despite the setbacks, Crane said the SFCC is still active and
vibrant. “We are holding meetings and campaigning, we are working to
get more people on board with this campaign,” he said. “There is
nobody out here advocating starting a city that would not succeed.
It would be more prudent to be annexed into an existing city than
creating one that would be in red ink.” Walker concurred with
Crane’s statements about the viability of the proposed city.
“We should become a city because we are financially viable. It will
provide local control and all six of our elected officials will live
in the city,” he added. President of the South Fulton Democrats
Denise Street-Robb is calling for all residents to join her
organization in voting for the new city. “I believe in the city of
South Fulton and local control of local issues,” she said. “Forming
[the city] will give all South Fulton residents more local control
over issues that are important to them.”
Edwards countered the claim about local control and reminded
everyone that he along with commission chair John Eaves lives in
South Fulton. “I love hearing about this local control stuff and how
they tell folks that only one person lives in district seven,” he
said. “For those who want to see local control in action, just look
at East Point, College Park, Union City and so on. Everyone is
arguing about something.”
While laughing at the other cities, he did point out the arguments
on the Fulton County Board of Commissioners. “Do we argue in Fulton?
Yes,” he explained. “But, only those items are publicized. Look at
some of our other votes, we simply vote and move on. Sometimes the
votes cross racial and party lines.”
Despite problems other cities are having, state representative Roger
Bruce, who represents Sandtown, says no one, is asking to undo the
incorporations. “They are working through their problems,” he
explained. “Just like when you build a new house, you have to
customize it and that’s exactly what we have to do with the new
city.” Bruce has two children enrolled in the Fulton County school
system and wants to see them remain in the schools.
“I think this will be a very good thing for the area. It was good
that those who wanted to be annexed were given the opportunity to do
so,” he said. “Now, those of us left have the chance to incorporate
and become a city.” He explained that the city would have a strong
city manager form of government with a policymaking council. He also
added that if the area does not incorporate, then they could be
annexed into existing cities.
“We need to take control of our own destiny and stop begging others
to do it for us,” he said. “My role was to get people the right to
choose. I said how I feel but I have not been pushing my own
opinion. I want people to go out and get their own facts.”
The Sandtown Community Association (SCA) has already made up their
minds on the city hood issue—no thanks. Betty Burke, president of
SCA reports that in December 2005, the organization created their
own committee to evaluate the information provided on city hood.
After eight months of reviewing the financial case, and the huge
startup challenges in a new city, we decided that city hood was not
a viable option, she said.
The SCA pointed out faults with the feasibility study provided by
SFCC concerning the viability of the city. “It falsely concludes
that we are receiving higher levels of police and services than we
need. The slim surplus they projected would easily turn into a
deficit, requiring huge tax increases when [the city] encounters the
same widely publicized problems as the new north Fulton cities,” she
said. “It is our belief that given the current increase in crime,
and lack of viable resources to curb what is happening; city hood
would not offer our community the best option.”
Edwards thinks Sandtown is strong enough to defeat the referendum.
Walker urges residents to vote, as it will provide the people with a
chance to decide what is going to happen their community. “South
Fulton and Fulton county as a whole, is changing and the question
before us is whether we control the change ourselves or allow folks
who don’t even live in South Fulton dictate the change to us,” he
explained. “In the city of South Fulton, we can control the change
ourselves, and that’s why I will be voting yes on Sept. 18”
Walker also pointed out that the legislature is studying Fulton
county operations with the joint study committee. The committee is
charged with analyzing the county’s method of operations and making
recommended changes through legislation in the next session. “If we
vote yes, a large portion of what the committee would have to do is
off the table. The county would only be responsible for
constitutionally mandated services,” he explained. “If we vote no,
then we would be at the mercy of the committee. We would also be at
the mercy of the other cities. Even if every Democrat voted against
legislative annexation, we couldn’t stop it.”
While some cities reportedly have annexation petitions on their
desks for processing pending the defeat of the election, Edwards
thinks all the cities got what they wanted. Atlanta police chief
Richard Pennington reported during a town hall meeting, that his
department didn’t have enough resources to adequately service the
newly annexed areas, he said.
“Atlanta is in over there head, they have to worry about what they
already have. Same thing about the other cities,” he said. “I don’t
see the annexations moving forward like we had previously. Again, no
city can just take you to their city. You have to petition for that
to be done.” When asked about the financial viability of remaining
unincorporated, he spoke favorably.
“We been through a lot but we are still here. The Shafer Amendment
did not hurt us,” he explained. “We still have growth and
development coming. We are vibrant. You paid for the police, fire
and other services, why would you want to buy what you already have
paid for already?”
|
