The Debate/Vote for the Residential Infill Overlay District (RIOD)
February 2006
As I've said before, I'm not new to civic politics, but I'm relatively new to politics in DeKalb, and what I've witnessed in the last 24 hours was simply surreal.
First, there was the Planning Commission meeting at 6pm Monday evening, February 13th, 2006. Upon my arrival about 5 minutes after the meeting had started, the commission was hearing from Commissioners Gannon & Waldorff explaining the latest changes to the ordinance. As I flipped through the agenda and nearly two dozen pages I had picked up when I came in, I felt like an idiot as I was completely unable to figure out what they were talking about. Turns out I was not alone. About 20 minutes into the meeting, someone finally passed out a copy of the "new" draft ordinance to the audience, still warm from the copy machine. Since this new (and undated) document was not the one included in the official agenda, was it even legal to debate, much less vote on?
Commissioner Waldorff repeatedly argued that infill is taxing infrastructure, but doesn't explain how. New construction certainly affects infrastructure. But 1-for-1 replacement certainly does not. I would be interested in the details of her opinion of how she thinks it does.
Commissioners Gannon & Waldorff made their comments supporting the document, and the Planning Commission asked questions. The wisdom of requiring only 55% of owner support was debated. Since it takes at least 50% of owners to approve something like a street name change, it makes sense that at least that many should concur before something a drastic as a neighborhood-wide zoning change takes place. One member still bemoaned the loss of the county-wide ordinance. Broussard repeatedly grilled the planning director who stood there like a deer in the headlights, being asked to express legal opinions, for which he was in no position to offer. Clearly, since nobody in the room other than Gannon & Waldorff had even seen this document before now, I really couldn't understand the point of debating it. A couple of the Planning Commissioners concurred with this opinion.
The "hearing" aspect of this meeting was even more of a complete sham. After debating the new draft of the ordinance amongst themselves, the floor was then open to comments from the public. How is it supposed to be possible for anybody to render an intelligent opinion on a 9-page legal draft that was only made available a half-hour after debate on it had already started?
Then came time for the vote. A few voices of reason questioned the wisdom of doing so. But they were rendered mute against the contrary. The most hilarious statement of the evening came from Mr. Broussard, who literally said that even though it was an admitted fact that there was no possible way at this time that the Planning Commission could completely comprehend the changes within this new document and their implications, that they should just go with their "gut feeling" on it and pass it on as recommended to the Board of Commissioners. Does Mr. Broussard address all legal documents before him so casually? If so, I'd love the opportunity to sell him some bridges I know of.
Act two of this charade took place 10am on Tuesday morning February 14th, 2006. Well, actually it didn't, at first. There was 2 hours of talk about speed bumps that had to take place first, before the meeting had to be suspended for a funeral. It was clear that they were going to make this as painful as possible for those citizens who wanted to see this thing through. The few who returned after 3:30pm were to be entertained by the final insult to the supposed democratic process, or lack thereof.
The Board of Commissioners, most of which who had less exposure to the document than those of us who had attended the Planning Commission meeting the night before had, entertained debate amongst themselves. One of the more amusing exchanges had to do with the selection of 28 feet. Why 28 feet? Why not 26 or 32? Gannon said that legal said they had to pick a number and 28 was it. We were then entertained by the logic behind the whole height issue, which really has been at the center of the whole controversy to begin with. The real problem was that the building department's interpretation of how a high a roof should be was resulting in roofs with peaks as high as 45 feet. So I finally get it! If we really want 36-foot high houses we should change the code to say 28? Just think of all the trouble that could have been avoided! Of course, I can't buy this at all. If all they wanted peaked roofs no higher than 36 feet, then why not just say the highest point of a roof must be no greater than 36 feet? Come on ladies; you aren't fooling anyone. It's because you don't want 2-storied infill houses, period.
Just when I thought this couldn't get any sillier, as an attempt to solidify their decision they asked the county lawyer to offer his opinion of the new ordinance draft. No can do, says the lawyer. He cannot comment on it because he hasn't had time to read it yet either.
That was good enough for the BOC. With their due-diligence complete, off they voted, and it passed overwhelmingly. At least I can offer kudos to Hank Johnson for rejecting this nonsense by voting "no", and almost offer them to Connie Stokes for at least being somewhat skeptical and abstaining.
Only afterward does the BOC allow the public to express what they think of all this. What was the point? I considered getting up to say something, but at this point it really would have been a waste of time. (And I pretty much would have only been echoing what Linda Dunlavy, the Building Association attorney had already said) They did what they wanted to do by following their "gut feelings", and went through enough of a charade to convince themselves that it was all done properly. To think I sacrificed a day of billable hours for this. Perhaps I can delude myself into thinking that I was as involved as a citizen of DeKalb might be.
On Monday evening, one of the Planning Commissioners bemoaned that that those who live in "unsophisticated" neighborhoods are at a disadvantage over the rest of DeKalb citizens because they lack the ability or initiative to find out what is happening to them and to be involved in county government. Heck, I’m supposedly “sophisticated” and I've attended nearly every meeting for the last 6 months, and still I barely know what is happening, and I sure don't feel like I've made much of a difference!
The details of these meetings from the county on-line are woefully incomplete: http://agenda.co.dekalb.ga.us/docdepot6/Search.aspx?Date1=2/13/2006&Date2=2/14/2006&Ord=-1
There is an upside to all of this. For the time being, the issue appears settled and we can get on with our lives and businesses. The neighborhoods where the majority honestly wants to put off redevelopment can petition to do so, and those who might otherwise want to invest in those neighborhoods will know to direct their resources elsewhere. In 10 years or so, those same residents will be petitioning for a process to dissolve their overlay when they discover that their neighborhoods are depreciating instead of appreciating like the rest of the county. And if this ever needs to get challenged in court, there's little doubt that the challenger will be victorious because of the complete disregard the county demonstrated for proper procedure and its own rules. I suppose the only downside will be the taxpayer dollars that will be wasted by the county in defending the BOC's actions in the inevitable lawsuit.
Now perhaps we should turn our attention to other dangerous issues, such as the talk of converting unincorporated parts of DeKalb County into a "city", so that the BOC can yield even more power (and taxes) over us. After this week's demonstration of their decision making prowess, I can't wait!
John McGrew
Comments welcome at Feedback@JohnMcGrew.net