LAST WEEK: SHOULD LAVISTA HILLS ORGANIZERS HAVE FOUGHT VOTING RESULTS?
LaVista Hills Alliance, a pro-cityhood group, decided not to contest their 139-vote defeat in court. A legal challenge was the last opportunity to try and overturn the Nov. 3 referendum’s results, according to the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office.
LaVista Hills fell short by 1 percent of 13,733 votes cast.
Organizers for cityhood said they weighed the costs of court battles and felt it better to let the law handle the issue.
On the other hand, voters overwhelmingly voted to form a city of Tucker. The new city will include more than 33,000 residents from the Perimeter to the outskirts of Stone Mountain.
We asked readers that with the strong support for Tucker, should LaVista Hills have continued fighting for cityhood?
Here’s what some readers had to say:
The LaVista Hills cityhood movement wisely decided not to pursue disputing the vote totals. No one should want to attempt to create a new city with a vote as close as this one, even had the totals gone the other way. A citizenry that divided would have provided a most unstable foundation for a new city. Ironically the LaVista Hills movement did spawn the creation of the City of Tucker with an enviably strong base of support, partly because of Tucker's continued use of the DeKalb Police—and partly from fear of the now non-existent threat of LaVista Hills encroachment. —
Ellis Loyd
Lavista Hills Alliance showed very wise judgement in deciding to not pursue further action at this time. Even by adding the large Northlake mall commercial complex, which lies in an area that has been considered part of Tucker from the time roads in that area were still unpaved, the economic viability of Lavista Hills was still somewhat in question. Perhaps more importantly, making the move to cityhood, a totally optional move, should have far more than fifty percent support from those involved if it is to result in an effectively functioning city. — Chuck Davenport
What does a new city need to get up and running properly? Solid community support. What the Nov. 3 vote unequivocally demonstrated was that half the community didn't even want this city. This is not solid community support. Supporters of LaVista hills showed wisdom to let the election results stand. — John Sawyer
LA Vista Hills voters said NO, by a 139 margin, to a disparate collection of neighborhoods that didn't coalesce. The 151105 AJC Article by Mark Niesse "Why one city passed and another one failed" included a noteworthy "about" figure for percent of registered voters who actually voted – 40 percent in the La Vista Hills area. Conversely of registered voters (about 34,432) in the La Vista Hills area, 60 percent didn't bother to standup – leaving some 20,699 voters not represented in the voting - better to let it go. — Jim Warner
As to whether LaVista Hills should pursue their fight, I don’t think so. Even if more votes went their way they would still have a very divided city. Tucker would still be Tucker even if the vote had gone otherwise. What spurred the Tucker cityhood enthusiasts was the unasked for and bold attempt by the inside the perimeter folks to include this area under their proposed domain.
I voted against cityhood , believing the “The devil you know is better than the devil you don’t”.
City of Tucker leaders will have very little to govern. Most county services will continue. So whatever is left will be left to who knows who to do who knows what. — Bob Blahnik
Dionne Kinch for the AJC
When last year’s legislative session ended, Decatur’s annexation master plan not only died ingloriously in the Senate, it lost crucial real estate in Suburban Plaza and the four commercial centers at North Decatur Road and Clairemont Avenue.
Indeed, Suburban has been coveted by the city almost since it was originally built in 1958.
With the general assembly rolling around again, and with the annexation plan eligible for both revision and another Senate vote, should the city again go after Suburban?
If the cityhood for LaVista Hills had passed, there would’ve likely been a grim tug-of-war for Suburban. With LaVista at least temporarily dormant it appears there’s less urgency for Decatur to annex.
But Decatur has had a residential/commercial tax digest of 86 percent/14 percent, give or take for decades.
If Suburban looked pretty good in 1958, it looks a whole lot better now. A total 320,000 square feet is being re-developed, with 150,000 of that belonging to Walmart, which opened earlier this month. LA Fitness opened last week, and other stores will continue coming on line through the summer.
With more commercial property Decatur residents would have less of an overall tax burden. Nevertheless annexation has not been historically popular.
Business owners potentially getting annexed don’t like it because they’d have to pay more taxes in the city of Decatur. Decatur residents often express opposition because of the fear of rupturing their small-town ambience.
Meantime the residential neighborhoods near Suburban have been unequivocally against—they haven’t been included in Decatur’s annexation plans because the city doesn’t want to add to its overcrowded school system.
Tell us what you think at communitynews@ajc.com.
About the Author
