U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-28-2017, 08:24 AM
bu2
 
9,895 posts, read 6,370,830 times
Reputation: 4123

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronricks View Post
DeKalb can't even figure out how to get something as simple as a water bill correct.
They can't even figure out how to get a water bill out. They didn't bill for almost two months when they switched systems a couple of years back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-28-2017, 08:29 AM
bu2
 
9,895 posts, read 6,370,830 times
Reputation: 4123
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden View Post
Exactly. I acknowledge that there are plenty of perfectly legitimate and understandable reasons for people to try forming their own city, but I don't think the proper solution is to form that city.

If something is broken, carving off a functional piece of it, cherry-picking the best sources of revenue, and leaving everything else behind is just recipe for more and worse dysfunction.
Nobody has done that. The new cities have all been neighborhoods (with the exception of South Fulton which just took everything)-Milton, Sandy Springs, Dunwoody, Brookhaven, Stonecrest.

Atlanta metro would be better off if Sandy Springs, Brookhaven and much of DeKalb ITP were part of the city of Atlanta, but that ship has sailed. Without Sandy Springs and Brookhaven, I wouldn't want to be part of Atlanta. It wouldn't encompass a broad enough group to avoid being parochial like it is now, just like a lot of you inner Atlantans accuse everyone else of being.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2017, 09:42 AM
 
Location: Valdosta (Atlanta Native)
3,517 posts, read 3,051,520 times
Reputation: 2316
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
Nobody has done that. The new cities have all been neighborhoods (with the exception of South Fulton which just took everything)-Milton, Sandy Springs, Dunwoody, Brookhaven, Stonecrest.

Atlanta metro would be better off if Sandy Springs, Brookhaven and much of DeKalb ITP were part of the city of Atlanta, but that ship has sailed. Without Sandy Springs and Brookhaven, I wouldn't want to be part of Atlanta. It wouldn't encompass a broad enough group to avoid being parochial like it is now, just like a lot of you inner Atlantans accuse everyone else of being.
How is Milton different from South Fulton? Milton is literally the North Fulton version of what South Fulton just did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2017, 09:44 AM
 
597 posts, read 396,829 times
Reputation: 833
While this is a big deal politically and socially in Atlanta, it's not exactly odd to have the vast majority of land in a major metro area incorporated into towns and cities, especially land as close to the city center as Sandy Springs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2017, 06:37 PM
bu2
 
9,895 posts, read 6,370,830 times
Reputation: 4123
Quote:
Originally Posted by demonta4 View Post
How is Milton different from South Fulton? Milton is literally the North Fulton version of what South Fulton just did.
Look at a map!! South Fulton is about 3 different neighborhoods and a whole bunch of peninsulas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2017, 06:43 PM
bu2
 
9,895 posts, read 6,370,830 times
Reputation: 4123
Quote:
Originally Posted by goillini8 View Post
While this is a big deal politically and socially in Atlanta, it's not exactly odd to have the vast majority of land in a major metro area incorporated into towns and cities, especially land as close to the city center as Sandy Springs.
No its not odd, but of the largest metros, Atlanta has one of the smallest %s in the central city. Miami is similar. The rest of the top 25 or so have central cities that are larger as a % of total population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2017, 06:46 AM
 
Location: Valdosta (Atlanta Native)
3,517 posts, read 3,051,520 times
Reputation: 2316
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
Look at a map!! South Fulton is about 3 different neighborhoods and a whole bunch of peninsulas.
City lines are irrelevant in this case, Milton was the rest of unincorporated North Fulton. South Fulton did the same.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2017, 03:45 PM
 
597 posts, read 396,829 times
Reputation: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
No its not odd, but of the largest metros, Atlanta has one of the smallest %s in the central city. Miami is similar. The rest of the top 25 or so have central cities that are larger as a % of total population.
That's a nearly impossible stat to reverse. All Atlanta could do is incorporate parts of the county into the City itself, but even then, as the metro booms, the city isn't going to be much larger of a percentage of the metro than it is now. I guess it could become ultra dense, but while density may increase a bit, I don't see it increasing enough to make the City a significantly larger percentage of the metro population. I don't think there are any existing suburbs that are looking at being folded into Atlanta.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2017, 05:30 PM
 
Location: Prescott, AZ
5,554 posts, read 3,022,690 times
Reputation: 2254
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
Nobody has done that. The new cities have all been neighborhoods (with the exception of South Fulton which just took everything)-Milton, Sandy Springs, Dunwoody, Brookhaven, Stonecrest.
Whether or not they meant to, that is what is happening. People are segmenting themselves into the little clusters of familiarity. More often than not, those who can do this, are those areas with the most resources to make it happen. That is, they can gather the resources to perform the studies, run the campaigns, pay the fees, etc.

All these economically viable areas abandon the overall county, removing resources, and leave fewer and fewer areas capable of doing the same. That is, those who are lease likely to be able to afford their own campaign for city-hood, and least likely to make a functional city on their own, are the ones being left, and expected to do just that on their own.


Ultimately we end up with a balkanized metro, where, rather than trying to actually fix the root problems, those who are most able to secure their own enclave do so, and let the rest figure out how to handle a still, and now even more so, government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2017, 07:23 PM
 
1,473 posts, read 1,653,536 times
Reputation: 914
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden View Post
Whether or not they meant to, that is what is happening. People are segmenting themselves into the little clusters of familiarity. More often than not, those who can do this, are those areas with the most resources to make it happen. That is, they can gather the resources to perform the studies, run the campaigns, pay the fees, etc.

All these economically viable areas abandon the overall county, removing resources, and leave fewer and fewer areas capable of doing the same. That is, those who are lease likely to be able to afford their own campaign for city-hood, and least likely to make a functional city on their own, are the ones being left, and expected to do just that on their own.


Ultimately we end up with a balkanized metro, where, rather than trying to actually fix the root problems, those who are most able to secure their own enclave do so, and let the rest figure out how to handle a still, and now even more so, government.
Well said!

Furthermore, segregating the economically viable areas from everything else has already been proven to have the effect of intensifying all of the problems we keep trying to run away from.

I am theoretically in favor of cities versus county governments acting as cities as they do in Georgia which is a factor in the areas sprawl. It just seems completely backward to me that it is easier to form a new city from scratch than it is for an existing city to grow through annexation. It would have been better and less wasteful of resources to have the existing cities grow. Norcross and Peachtree Corners is a great example. I will agree that the DeKalb and Fulton governments make it really hard to argue against a desire for more local control. But in this instance, a corrupt and ineffective county government cannot be used as a cover. If local control were truly the primary concern, why didn't they just join Norcross and create a healthy, economically and racially diverse city? On the other hand, when only John's Creek and Dunwoody are mentioned as neighboring cities on the Wikipedia page, it kind of says a lot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:52 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top