Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is this UN Agenda 21? Please go to You tube and look up Rosie Korie who is an expert on UN Agenda 21 "smart growth" "Sustainability" "Open space growth" which is nothing more than Globalist foreign interest dictating to N.W.O. DC how to cram people into small areas whereas in the US, whereas the likes of Ted Turner, Bill Gates and the uber rich in general can and do buy thousand of acres of land as opposed to leaving those "Open spaces" for public use.
Please educate yourself on UN Agenda 21 aka smart growth which is nothing more than a land grab by the uber rich.
Also under UN Agenda 21 "Open spaces" are " Federal government owned" as opposed to State/People owned and as we have seen the Feds keep people out of areas under the threat of gun in the name of secret and security which in reality is not supposed to be secret nor is it in the best interest of the American people. Like the huge NSA complex in Utah, how is data mining the whole world/USA the best interest of everyone? it isn't it is "hyper control freaks" of uber rich which now is one and the same as our supposed "elected" official.
No, the opposite is true. The NPU is getting their way.
Well, at Lindbergh the NPU voted against it because there is an SPI which doesn't allow suburban style big box. However, the city overruled them and changed the zoning to let it to go forward.
At Grant Park the NPU also voted against big box but the zoning was not as clear against it. (Why I don't know, since it is supposed to be part of the Beltline). In any event the city let is also letting that one go forward.
Is this UN Agenda 21? Please go to You tube and look up Rosie Korie who is an expert on UN Agenda 21 "smart growth" "Sustainability" "Open space growth" which is nothing more than Globalist foreign interest dictating to N.W.O. DC how to cram people into small areas whereas in the US, whereas the likes of Ted Turner, Bill Gates and the uber rich in general can and do buy thousand of acres of land as opposed to leaving those "Open spaces" for public use.
Please educate yourself on UN Agenda 21 aka smart growth which is nothing more than a land grab by the uber rich.
Also under UN Agenda 21 "Open spaces" are " Federal government owned" as opposed to State/People owned and as we have seen the Feds keep people out of areas under the threat of gun in the name of secret and security which in reality is not supposed to be secret nor is it in the best interest of the American people. Like the huge NSA complex in Utah, how is data mining the whole world/USA the best interest of everyone? it isn't it is "hyper control freaks" of uber rich which now is one and the same as our supposed "elected" official.
I hope it doesn't play out that way. Yes, the rich are buying huge tracts of land but I'd like to think they are just looking for some elbow room.
Status:
"Pickleball-Free American"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,464 posts, read 44,074,708 times
Reputation: 16840
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
Well, at Lindbergh the NPU voted against it because there is an SPI which doesn't allow suburban style big box. However, the city overruled them and changed the zoning to let it to go forward.
At Grant Park the NPU also voted against big box but the zoning was not as clear against it. (Why I don't know, since it is supposed to be part of the Beltline). In any event the city let is also letting that one go forward.
When did that happen? I thought the 12/2 vote shot down their latest proposal. I find nothing to this effect on Google.
I'm not against city-hood, but I am in some cases.
This whole notion that an area can take expensive commercial properties from the county and they can make a "city-lite" has got to stop.
No, you're adding a layer of government. You either do for a real tangible reason, for a desire to offer increased or specialized services.... or there is no reason to do it.
Look at the Sharon Springs website. That is a great example. They are promising lower taxes, yet somehow fix the funding gap for the cost of services/home. Reading between the lines, the biggest thing they are advertising is controlling development. I read that as naive-ness on the potential city. If they form a city for that purpose, they are in for a rude awakening when they actually have to play by the realities state law, landowner's rights, and economic demand.
Forsyth is a suburbanizing exurban county. I don't believe there is much the city could do differently to curb growth that the county is not doing.
In the case of Fulton and Dekalb, those cities really wanted to take on control of certain services they felt that county level management was causing them to subsidize other portions of the county. In Forsyth, this isn't a concern. They just want to reign in on zoning, once they move in, It is a classic case of move in and stop try to stop the development only after you do, and I find it doubtful there is much they can do.
I'm still a little irked over Peacthree Corners. They took a HUGE chunk of commercial and industrial land away from potential annexes from Norcross, when Norcross was more open to providing those businesses increases services and Peacthree Corners was forming, not to perform more services, but to take land before Norcross, Berkely Lake, or Duluth could take it.
I don't like the "city-lites." Either be a city or don't. Don't force the county to provide services. Make it optional for the county.
Texas has 2 main classes of cities, home rule covers most over 5,000, general law covers those under (with 3 types of general law cities with different powers and requirements). In Georgia, cities get to a la carte pick which services they want to provide, so its almost like an infinite number of city types. They should be required to be responsible for everything except basic county services (Sheriff's department-as opposed to police, courts, etc.). Allow them to contract with the county. However, now, we end up paying legal fees when our cities and counties sue each other because they can't agree on the price for the a la carte services the county has no choice but to provide for the cities. If it was optional, they wouldn't be suing over price, they would simply be looking for a different provider.
Tucker is barely going to do anything other than zoning. La Vista Hills intends to be a real city. Peachtree Corners, as I understand, is basically just about zoning.
I don't like the "city-lites." Either be a city or don't. Don't force the county to provide services. Make it optional for the county.
Texas has 2 main classes of cities, home rule covers most over 5,000, general law covers those under (with 3 types of general law cities with different powers and requirements). In Georgia, cities get to a la carte pick which services they want to provide, so its almost like an infinite number of city types. They should be required to be responsible for everything except basic county services (Sheriff's department-as opposed to police, courts, etc.). Allow them to contract with the county. However, now, we end up paying legal fees when our cities and counties sue each other because they can't agree on the price for the a la carte services the county has no choice but to provide for the cities. If it was optional, they wouldn't be suing over price, they would simply be looking for a different provider.
Tucker is barely going to do anything other than zoning. La Vista Hills intends to be a real city. Peachtree Corners, as I understand, is basically just about zoning.
In Georgia law cities have to provide 3 services.
I'm actually ok with this. The real issue I want to raise is some 'services' shouldn't be counted as one of the 3 city services. There are some things that are too easy, cheap to provide that doesn't offer tangible improvements. Most notably planning, code enforcement, and the operations of a single park.
I wouldn't want to make them have to do anything though. One thing I actually like about Georgia's smaller counties and large amount of unincorporated spaces is they actually provide services more efficiently. If you compare us to the northeast where you have a bunch of small tons next to each other they pay more per capita for water systems, sewer systems, police, fire, and especially schools. Our ability to cover these things over large areas gives us good economies of scale, but it also lets us change with trends.
Take schools. There is a cycle to how many families with kids live in neighborhoods over time. There is a surge when they are built, then a glut and then a smaller second wave trickles in. That process seems to take 30-40 years. The county has the ability to redistrict or operate schools in an area larger than a town and spread out costs. In a county some neighborhoods are surging and some aren't. They can average it off.
I also think in cities by referendum, there needs to be an extra step in the process somehow. Something to protect owners of businesses. I don't think they should have the power to vote or exempt themselves, but in the case of Peachtree Corners their city limits were drafted to go out of the way to include many businesses that were close to other existing cities. In fact the whole movement was spurred by one of those businesses wanting to annex to Norcross and they were looking for particular services from the city.
The problem with the city-lite concept was they aren't really offering the businesses anything, but they are drawing maps to take up as many businesses as possible to be a cash-cow or to keep another city offering tangible services to them from annexing them.
The biggest problem with counties is crossing borders. Absent from a stronger state DOT or regional organization, they can actually plan streets in a more hostile fashion from crossing borders. This happens with cities and counties. That was a huge issue with Sandy Springs and Cobb County with Abernathy and Johnson Ferry Roads. It took the state DOT stepping in and temporarily making it a state road to make anything happen on what needed to be better border crossing route when fewer other options existed.
I'm actually ok with this. The real issue I want to raise is some 'services' shouldn't be counted as one of the 3 city services. There are some things that are too easy, cheap to provide that doesn't offer tangible improvements. Most notably planning, code enforcement, and the operations of a single park.
I wouldn't want to make them have to do anything though. One thing I actually like about Georgia's smaller counties and large amount of unincorporated spaces is they actually provide services more efficiently. If you compare us to the northeast where you have a bunch of small tons next to each other they pay more per capita for water systems, sewer systems, police, fire, and especially schools. Our ability to cover these things over large areas gives us good economies of scale, but it also lets us change with trends.
Take schools. There is a cycle to how many families with kids live in neighborhoods over time. There is a surge when they are built, then a glut and then a smaller second wave trickles in. That process seems to take 30-40 years. The county has the ability to redistrict or operate schools in an area larger than a town and spread out costs. In a county some neighborhoods are surging and some aren't. They can average it off.
I also think in cities by referendum, there needs to be an extra step in the process somehow. Something to protect owners of businesses. I don't think they should have the power to vote or exempt themselves, but in the case of Peachtree Corners their city limits were drafted to go out of the way to include many businesses that were close to other existing cities. In fact the whole movement was spurred by one of those businesses wanting to annex to Norcross and they were looking for particular services from the city.
The problem with the city-lite concept was they aren't really offering the businesses anything, but they are drawing maps to take up as many businesses as possible to be a cash-cow or to keep another city offering tangible services to them from annexing them.
The biggest problem with counties is crossing borders. Absent from a stronger state DOT or regional organization, they can actually plan streets in a more hostile fashion from crossing borders. This happens with cities and counties. That was a huge issue with Sandy Springs and Cobb County with Abernathy and Johnson Ferry Roads. It took the state DOT stepping in and temporarily making it a state road to make anything happen on what needed to be better border crossing route when fewer other options existed.
Schools are separate (at least for now). No new cities can create school districts.
I'm not opposed to the cities contracting with the county. The city wouldn't have to specifically provide the service, only be responsible for it. If it was mutually beneficial, the county could provide it. Police is something I really think any decent sized city should provide. All the ones formed lately in the Atlanta metro have been pretty good sized. Fire/emergency can sometimes be provided more efficiently on a larger basis.
Texas has something called extraterritorial jurisdiction. That would resolve the issues with Peachtree Corners as another city couldn't annex something in another city's extraterritorial jurisdiction without their approval. Cities do certain planning (like road plans) in their extraterritorial jurisdiction. The largest cities control 5 miles from their boundaries. Its less for smaller cities.
There would be some overlap that would have to be negotiated if Georgia implemented something like that now, but it would prevent new cities from gobbling up commercial property from existing cities and would prevent issues like Brookhaven's property grabs and the disputes with Clarkston and Stone Mountain with Tucker and Lithonia with Stonecrest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
