Decatur Open City Hall Topics and Digests

March 3 Statements (1 on Beacon School Complex Renovation)

2012-03-03T10:52:34-05:00

I somewhat support the renovation

This is a unique complex that serves several community purposes. As I understand it, it serves as the police department, a ballet school, a community gym, drum circle gathering place, parking lot for a critically needed sports field, a basketball court, playground, and a theater playhouse. However, I have never really understood what all was in there. It seems all hidden, convoluted, prone to flooding, and mysterious. As we invest in municipal buildings elsewhere, I think that we should continue with this complex. For example, the building of the Performing Arts Complex at DHS exposed what a huge need our community had for such performance places. I foresee that DHS will reach capacity soon. Also, it seems as if the police department has had to make do with its surroundings while demands (Homeland Security, etc.) have increased.

That being said, I would like to see this considered with a long-range plan for utilization of the renovated Rec Center and potential future improvements to the Library and the pool (into Glenlake West?). There is some wasted space in that region (the old funeral home and the kudzu lots surrounding the Marta). This could all be revitalized to match the improvements to the Decatur Housing Authority, Global Health Center, etc..

More about 'Beacon School Complex Renovation'

Please indicate the extent to which you would support or oppose financing that would use tax funds for the renovation of the old Beacon School complex, including construction of a new Decatur Police Department headquarters on West Trinity Place.

March 1 Statements (2 on Beacon School Complex Renovation)

2012-03-01T16:34:37-05:00

I somewhat support the renovation

I would support this effort only if we already have the funds available and it would not raise our already very high taxes. We have several projects underway already and this may put us into debt.

I would also like to see the City open up to development of new housing in the City. There are developers ready and willing to build new homes here but the City keeps turning them down. What good is a new fire station and police station if we don't have new housing for folks to buy when they move to Decatur???? The Commissioners need to start approving new housing projects to keep our city alive and growing.

More about 'Beacon School Complex Renovation'

February 29 Statements (6 on Beacon School Complex Renovation)

2012-02-29T00:37:30-05:00

I somewhat oppose the renovation

It would be nice to modernize the complex, but only if taxes aren't raised. We've got a new firestation #1 in the works and the rec center, too. The city should wait a few years, putting money aside until sufficient funds from the current taxes are saved to pay for any police station/Beacon Hill renovations. It's what Decatur citizens have to do - save until you can afford what you want.

I somewhat oppose the renovation

I support the renovation but I am a big believer in only doing things that can be paid for out of the current income. While I know that is an idealistic view of things, I would rather not take on an additional tax burden.

The question is pretty vague and I would need to know more details to give a more definitive answer.

I strongly support the renovation

If anyone has ever spent time in this building, it is about time that major repairs are initiated.

I somewhat support the renovation

I agree with several other people that this is a project in need of funding, but that the funding should come from current revenue.

I also like the comment that suggested involving private development which would include low-cost space available to artists and other creative endeavors.

I strongly support the renovation

This renovation was discussed in the last strategic planning go-round, and we even have architectural plans to support this, so I am surprised this is on the forum. Our police department headquarters/court facilities need a dramatic update. The dance studio and art studio facilities there are outdated and worn. It is embarrassing to me that we spend money on new light fixtures and questionable signage for the city, but have not yet pulled the trigger on this renovation. The renovation supports maintaining some of the historic value of the Beacon Complex, but updating the building to make it much more functional and user friendly. I fully support this.

I somewhat support the renovation

More about 'Beacon School Complex Renovation'

February 28 Statements (19 on Beacon School Complex Renovation)

2012-02-28T12:41:21-05:00

Name not shown inside Decatur

I somewhat support the renovation

I somewhat support renovation of police dept. IF existing taxes are to be used.

I somewhat oppose Beacon Hill renovations based on what I know today.

In general, I feel the issues presented on this forum are vague enough (e.g. current taxes v. new taxes; not including what the renovation is intended to provide, etc) that I don't feel great answering one way or another. But I will continue to answer..qualifying my answers as best I can.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I somewhat oppose the renovation

Why wasn't this covered under the long term plan or under the stealth bond indebtedness? Beacon Hill is a hell hole. I'd place modernizing public safety offices over modernizing the recreation center any day. How did this slip through the cracks? Big Oops! Is there no end to more and more taxation in this fair town?

scott drake inside Decatur

I somewhat support the renovation

New Police Station is very much needed. Unsure what other ideas are included in the property re-development...with the Rec Center under construction we may not need two community centers for activities. I'm sure some other good ideas could be incorporated in the re-development.

Ken Rosskopf inside Decatur

I strongly support the renovation

Strongly support to improve and enlarge police and court facilities, but if I am correct in understanding that part of the Beacon School complex is occupied by private businesses or for profit making activities, then I think that those private entities should pay their proportionate share of the renovations and should be included in the planning process.

Rob Pope inside Decatur

I somewhat support the renovation

Name not shown inside Decatur

I somewhat oppose the renovation

It is difficult for many families in our community to take on more cost at this time.

Although the need for renovation of the old Beacon School Complex and construction of new Decatur Police Station are of great interest.....more taxes is not the sensible answer at this time.

In my opinion we need to wait until our community has a better financial footing.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I somewhat oppose the renovation

While Beacon Hill needs renovating, I don't believe the police station does! I've been inside and its more than servicable.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly oppose the renovation

Name not shown inside Decatur

I somewhat support the renovation

I definitely would support funds to construct a new DPD headquarters. I would likely support funding for renovating the old Beacon School, depending on what it would be used for and how much public funding would be required. I don't approve of the currently planned $15-20 million project that would not add any additional uses to the space. Instead, I encourage the city to explore a public/private partnership that would include community art space, but also provide living space at market rate and live/work or retail space for art projects at a reduced price. It would seem possible to create a real artists community that is partially subsidized by additional housing and retail space.

Walter Winn inside Decatur

I strongly oppose the renovation

Name not shown inside Decatur

I somewhat support the renovation

I somewhat support this proposal and, like a previous poster, would like additional information to clarify my position. If the proposed renovations are to be paid for out of currently received tax revenue then I'm all for it. However, if the proposed renovations would require a tax increase then I do not support it at this time. If the renovations are important and are a priority then they should be paid for with existing revenues and other budget items should be deferred.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly oppose the renovation

We are in difficult times and use tax moneys normally implies
higher tax bills unless we are talking SPLOTS money (which still
is a higher bill but one that people are by now used to it).
Given current times, we should concentrate on crucial use
of tax money. It is my opinion that Beacon Hill can wait.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly support the renovation

Every other City Department has or is getting new facilities or having theirs extensively renovated. It's s wonder how our police department can operate effectively in the facility they're in. And, it give a great opportunity to restore and interpret a building that was a major part of Decatur's African-American history.
The HOST settlement that was recently decided in favor of the City would supply more than adequate funds in no tax increase.

Steve Provost inside Decatur

I somewhat support the renovation

Greg Levine inside Decatur

I somewhat support the renovation

Name not shown inside Decatur

I somewhat oppose the renovation

I somewhat oppose because I am a bit unclear to the question. If this is simply a budget question for existing taxes, then I would have more support. If this requires, or would lead to a need for more taxes, then I strongly oppose. Can you give some clarity to the question?

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly support the renovation

It is a historical complex that needs to be preserved and I am sure the Police Department should be upgraded.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly support the renovation

Name not shown inside Decatur

I somewhat support the renovation

More about 'Beacon School Complex Renovation'

February 26 Statements (1 on Traffic Enforcement)

2012-02-26T23:31:14-05:00

It is about right

I would prefer speeders to be the focus instead of minor violation. We still have speeding issues with people coming into Decatur (especially on Church Street) and driving through the neighborhoods. I would like to see the majority of efforts there . However, I would like to say, I think our police department does a wonderful job!

More about 'Traffic Enforcement'

Do you think that the current level of traffic enforcement by the Decatur Police Department is too little, too much or about right?

February 25 Statements (2 on Traffic Enforcement)

2012-02-25T09:00:40-05:00

I say too little

Car drivers put pedestrians at risk. We need more oversight to make our sidewalks and pedestrian crossings safe. Right now it is not safe for our kids to walk, especially on Ponce. Decatur will not be a "walkable" city until car drivers are forced to change their attitudes.

I say too little

More about 'Traffic Enforcement'

Do you think that the current level of traffic enforcement by the Decatur Police Department is too little, too much or about right?

February 24 Statements (2 on Traffic Enforcement)

2012-02-24T11:30:19-05:00

Name not shown inside Decatur

It is about right

Barry Hall outside Decatur

I say too little

Thanks for offering the survey.

We in Oakhurst use College regularly for downtown trips on foot and bike. The problem stretch for speeding runs from city-limit west to S. McDonough.

Road re-design is needed from MARTA to Atlanta Ave.

Until then, speeds of 50 m.p.h. persist, especially eastbound.

This is probably the least-pleasant walking and biking section of road (east-west, in the city, that is) on our side of the tracks. And, it's all down to speed. Speed of motorists, that is.

More about 'Traffic Enforcement'

Do you think that the current level of traffic enforcement by the Decatur Police Department is too little, too much or about right?

February 22 Statements (15 on Traffic Enforcement)

2012-02-22T07:00:47-05:00

Name not shown inside Decatur

I say too little

Need more enforcement of cars not giving way to pedestrians on crosswalks

Name not shown inside Decatur

I say too little

I live on South Candler Street in the Winnona Park area and it is a raceway at all times. Several accidents have occurred right in front of my house. I can hear them racing by right now! Set up a speed trap until people get that the limit is 35!!

Name not shown inside Decatur

I say too little

Vehicles that ply up and down Church Street between Commerce and Medlock often exceed the speed limit at speeds of 50-60 mph at times. Most often, speeders also ignore speed limits during school morning and afternoon times.

anne studstill inside Decatur

I say too little

The traffic diet for my street (W Ponce) has been a big improvement, but illegal passing in the bike lane and speeding are hardly ever ticketed. Think I have seen the cops handing out tickets only twice in the last 9 months. Please follow up these great traffic calming measures with some reinforcement from the DPD. And don't hesitate to ticket those marta buses that routinely roar by at 50mph+, only to wait at the next traffic light. The drivers should be held to the same laws as the rest of us, if not stricter.

Name not shown inside Decatur

It is about right

Seems like there's good enforcement of flagrant violations without being too heavy-handed about enforcement. It would be nice to see DPD following traffic laws more consistently, though. I see lots of speeding patrol cars (without their lights/sirens on, of course), failure to signal, and failure to stop.

Name not shown inside Decatur

It is about right

Name not shown inside Decatur

I say too little

Too many people, including police cars, do not stop for me when I am clearly crossing in a pedestrian crosswalk. I often feel like I am in a real life version of Frogger.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I say too little

I appreciate seeing City of Decatur police enforcing speed limits while kids are heading to and from school. I'd like to see more enforcements on side streets that run off major roads. Our street off Scott Blvd. is often used by people trying to quickly get to North Decatur. It's frightening to see how fast these drivers go on a street where so many kids play.

scott drake inside Decatur

It is about right

It is impossible to be everywhere all the time so I think the police do a good job. Certain areas might need a bit more attention than others...like on Ponce with the new lane structure....cars just go around others that are turning and into the bike lanes and people that live on that street can be in danger just trying to turn into the driveway. The officers could use a bit more judgement on warnings vs tickets. I personally got a ticket coming down a street in my neighborhood in the morning after running to the store. To access my house I would have needed to travel into downtown Decatur, go around by the CVS and turn on Ponce and then turn by Cafe Lilly just to access my house when I was on the other side of the city trying to just go home at 8:30am. I know we don't want business people coming into work cutting through the neighborhoods and I'm all for that....but people that live in that neighborhood, come on. I think the officer could have used a bit better judgement once it was known that this where i live and I'm cutting through to save time. Overall I think they do a great job and if we can have more officers out at times the better.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I say too little

I feel that DPD does a great job in so many respects. Anytime there's been any type of problem near my home and I've called them they've been there within seconds. When it comes to traffic enforcement I am afraid to say that I am often disappointed. I live on a major road in Decatur, SR 155. As with other major roads in Decatur, cars fly down the streets at truly excessive speeds. MARTA buses too. I've also seen DPD set a bad example by going too fast as well. If they're in pursuit or have sirens on I understand but many times they do not. I am such an admirer of the DPD but wish they could do more to enforce posted speed limits.

Name not shown outside Decatur

I say too little

The bicyclists in Decatur are completely out of control and the Decatur police appear to overlook it on a regular basis. Personally, I believe that bicyclists that choose to ride in traffic (ie- on roads over 25 mph) should have to apply for a license and they should only get that license after they take a written exam that tests their knowledge of the law of the road. Then there would be no excuse for "mistakes" or "misunderstandings."

The way that bicyclists drive in Decatur is unsafe for them as bicyclists, but it is also incredibly unsafe for motorists as well. When I have to pass a bicyclist in rush hour, it is incredibly difficult to do that in a way that is safe for me, the bicyclist, and my surrounding motorists. The LAST thing that I want to do is to try to do it AGAIN because the bicyclist refuses to wait in traffic like everyone else (ie- goes around everyone). They should recieve tickets for speeding around traffic.

Name not shown inside Decatur

It is about right

While I haven't received any tickets on my bicycle, I'm aware of several who have. I realize cyclists are subject to the same rules of the road, and many flaunt those rules, but the trespasses I'm aware of don't seem to warrant the level of punishment.

Danny Ingram inside Decatur

It is about right

There are some signals and signage I don't like, but so far I haven't been ticketed when I ignore them, so I'd say its about right. I have ridden along with Decatur police officers and I know they mainly care about the safety and consideration of drivers and pedestrians. They do a great job of caring for us citizens, and if you treat them with respect they will treat you the same. They don't seem to be out to increase city revenues with tickets or harass commuters, like some nearby municipalities.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I say too little

The enforcement is about right in most respects, except for the chronic problem of cars filling intersections during red lights. In my experience this happens mostly on Church St at Commerce and Sycamore, and it happens many times every day.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I say too little

The traffic at east ponce and commerce is out of control, mainly due to speeding. I believe patrolling similar to what Avondale Estates does outside the elementary school may help.

This intersection is very busy with pedestrians, cyclists, strollers, the elderly and is very dangerous at times. I once had a contractor tell me he would be concerned for the safety of his crew while working outside on my property.

There are churches, a hospital, a playground, and private residences here and traffic calming measures are badly needed to improve safety and quality of life.

In general terms, I think traffic enforcement could improve some. There are so many drivers who drive with parking lights on, no headlights at the appropriate times, no lights on when wipers are on, nonworking taillights and brake lights, motorcycles that break decibel regulations.

More about 'Traffic Enforcement'

Do you think that the current level of traffic enforcement by the Decatur Police Department is too little, too much or about right?

February 21 Statements (29 on Traffic Enforcement)

2012-02-21T10:37:54-05:00

Name not shown inside Decatur

I say too little

I would prefer more enforcement in areas where commuters cut through our residential neighborhoods and in certain areas where everyone knows people speed. For example, on the east side of Decatur on Ponce, the speed limit drops from 45 mph to 30 mph when traffic crosses Sam's Crossing, but few people slow down. Considering the heavy pedestrian traffic going to the MARTA station and Glenwood Academy, we should make more of an effort there and in similar places.

Dave Gleim inside Decatur

It is about right

Extensive traffic calming measures throughout the city have served well to slow speeds. Would suggest looking at ways to incorporate "smart technology" into traffic lights at key intersections to reduce excessive idling of vehicles and mitigate emissions, particularly on College Avenue lights and coordinate improvements with DeKalb County around the Avondale MARTA Station.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I say too little

In general it is good... but traffic enforcement on Church St from Commerce to Trinity is lousy. I rarely see police officers along there... pedestrians ignore lights, crosswalks, etc. Bicyclists only apply "Same Road, Same Rules" at their convenience.
Many drivers headed north on Church turn left onto Ponce despite the no left turn sign. I have lived in downtown Decatur for 5 years now... walk it a lot... have seen one pedestrian ticketed for jaywalking in that time. I love that Decatur is a walkable city but unless we turn the entire downtown area into a pedestrian mall then road laws should be enforced for all.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I say too much

Too much emphasis on traffic light enforcement. Not enough on speeding

Ken Edmonds inside Decatur

It is about right

Name not shown inside Decatur

It is about right

Decatur Police seem visible and responsive in regards to traffic enforcement. We appreciate their work in keeping our community safe. Would like to see even more speed enforcement on Scott near the dip close to Westchester ES. Since CSD is considering converting Westcheser back into a school, safety and speed enforcement on Scott will be critical.

Grace Ann Young inside Decatur

I say too little

Because our speed limit of 35mph is too high for our neighborhood residential street, there may be fewer drivers exceeding the speed limit than on other residential streets with a 25mph speed limit. We need the speed limit reduced on our street, Sycamore Drive. As it is, we do need more police enforcement to prevent drivers from driving through the stop signs! Double danger....running stop signs at 35mph in a neighborhood. Please help us get this speed reduced!

Name not shown inside Decatur

I say too little

I understand our police dept is small and traffic enforcement must be balanced with other duties. I trust the City to manage that balance appropriately. That being said, if possible I would like to see more frequent and more stringent enforcement of traffic laws, and I'd like to see enforcement targeting pedestrians as well as cyclists and motorists. I think the three worst problems -- most frequently occurring and also most likely to make conditions more dangerous for everybody -- are speeding cars, rolling through stop signs, and pedestrians who walk against the light at signal-controlled intersections. I think cracking down on everybody will help contribute to a calmer, more civil traffic culture in Decatur.

Name not shown inside Decatur

It is about right

I'd like to see enforcement focused on school opening & closing times and afternoon rush hour.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I say too little

Too much speeding

Name not shown inside Decatur

I say too little

I'd like to know how many tickets have been written for cars passing on the right on West Ponce, when those cars pull into the bike lane & pass illegally.

I appreciate the effort to slow traffic on Howard since the limit was increased. Now, please slow traffic on Scott.

Name not shown outside Decatur

It is about right

I think what needs to be worked on is the pedestrian zones. We need to make them safer for people and much easier for drivers to see pedestrians attempting to cross.

Name not shown inside Decatur

It is about right

I think there are some corridors in Decatur that seem to have a high number of cars traveling at unsafe speeds such as S. Candler. While I do occasionally see traffic enforcement there, I seem to see this far more frequently on Dekalb/College. While I understand that part of this is due to the schools there, I would like to see more enforcement on S. Candler.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I say too little

There needs to be more enforcement on Clairemont Avenue and Scott Blvd, especially where the streets intersect and where they start to leave the City limits.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I say too much

Okay, I will tone it down. The officer who stopped me seemed unreasonable and too-quick to ticket, without any attempt at discussion. He would not even consider a Warning ticket when clearly he could have used discretion over a very disputable charge.

But of course I paid my $200+ fine before I did the brain damage that was surely to be inflicted by going to court.

Maybe this will not be zapped

Name not shown inside Decatur

It is about right

While I'm not happy with myself if I get pulled over for driving over the speed limit or not stopping completely at a stop sign, I think it's important that traffic laws be enforced evenly and consistently. Not only does that result in greater road safety but it discourages crime in general. A place where police are visibly enforcing the law is not a place where criminals want to hang out.

I do think that the police have to use good communication skills and show respect to citizens even when they are issuing citations, warnings, or even arrests. I have heard some concerns in the community after the DHS commencement arrest last year at the high school and because police were interviewing students at the high school recently without parents or lawyers present. While the law must be consistently enforced, most citizens are good, trustworthy folks even if their traffic behavior needs disciplining.

Name not shown inside Decatur

It is about right

it is fine as is.

Peter W WAKEFIELD inside Decatur

I say too much

...but I wish there were an option "too much in some areas, not enough in others." I much appreciate the speed monitoring that the city police do--especially along the thoroughfares of Clairemont and (on the rare occasions when they tread on the state road) Scott, both of which have posted speed limits that are 5-10 miles per hour too fast IMHO. Police presence clearly makes access to Clairemont Elementary a much safer proposition on the mornings when a squad car is parked along Clairemont Road. I would be very interested to see the "pace car" technique tried in Decatur as well.

On the other hand, the police surveillance and close scrutiny (I could be persuaded to say "harassment") of bicycles, skateboards, even pedestrians, strikes me as overblown and somewhat delusional. I have attended informational sessions at the police station where our officers described gang threats and other criminal activity as on a level with Los Angeles, whence they had drawn their tactics and training manuals. I have been detained while walking about 50 yards from my home, my ID demanded, then a background check run. The officer's explanation was that there had been suspicious activity in the neighborhood.

I understand that people do very bad things. But in a civil society, one must balance risks against liberties. I think Decatur is exemplary in many ways. But I frequently see in police attitudes and activities that are not consistent with the needs or aspirations of our political community.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I say too much

Overkill

Name not shown inside Decatur

It is about right

I think it is about right even though there remains rampant speeding on Church Street north of downtown. It would probably take a permanent stake out to even make a dent in it, which isn't a realistic use of resources.

Name not shown inside Decatur

It is about right

Name not shown inside Decatur

It is about right

Specifically with children walking/biking/scootering to school in the morning and back home in the afternoon, vehicular drivers should be sensitive to speed limits and traffic laws. And because Decatur is becoming more pedestrian friendly traffic enforcement should be and important part of our city to keep pedestrians safe.

Name not shown inside Decatur

It is about right

We need more cooperation of motorists when nearing or crossing the
pedestrian zones...especially as nightfall comes on.

Kevin Wyatt inside Decatur

It is about right

Enforcement seems about right, but many of the school crossing guards could use some additional training. As I understand their function, they are supposed to be safely shepherding the kids across the intersection (in a safe and efficient manner for both the kids and the drivers). Many of them seem to have the idea that their job is to stop traffic for as long as possible - holding up cars while they wait for kids to run up the block to get to the intersection, etc.

Others (around Renfroe), attempt to direct traffic in addition to their duties as crossing guards. When they do this, it is often in direct conflict with posted traffic signage.

Keith Forrester inside Decatur

I say too little

The only guide I have is based on how many cars I see rolling through stop signs and red lights and how many bicycles I see on a daily basis ignoring most traffic laws. Based on that, I'm guessing people aren't getting the message and that enforcement could be heavier if you're looking at it as singular issue. That said, based on officer priorities it could be that traffic enforcement is about right when balanced with all other duties.

Name not shown inside Decatur

It is about right

About right with the exception of West Ponce on the hill between the post office and the fork at Scott Blvd. In that case, not nearly enough. I see a revenue source and a safety problem at that location

Name not shown inside Decatur

It is about right

I do think the no turn signs into your own neighborhood are a bit much when you have to go around onto commerce or clairmont to get on you own street three houses away.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I say too much

Name not shown inside Decatur

It is about right

I don't have any issues one way or the other.

More about 'Traffic Enforcement'

Do you think that the current level of traffic enforcement by the Decatur Police Department is too little, too much or about right?

February 19 Statements (1 on Tree Ordinance)

2012-02-19T18:15:03-05:00

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

A home owner should have all rights concerning trees on their private property. The city should not interfere with the decisions of homeowners to protect their home and lives should any threat what so ever be felt from a tree of any size. The city tends to regard only the perceived negative impact of "development" and by doing so, they make it difficult for home owners to manage trees for any other reason. I believe the city should instead look at policies to keep trees healthy. As our tree population ages, they become tremendous hazards unless properly cared for. Our city does not support by ordinance or education, the appropriate care for trees - they only want to keep all trees at all costs. There are no "tickets" given for dangerous trees and neighbors must live in fear of every storm or gust of wind. We all love trees, but in pushing ordinances to protect trees only from removal, you are very shortsighted in protecting your citizens from harm and property damage. I strongly oppose any new ordinance without corresponding tree health maintenance ordinances.

More about 'Tree Ordinance'

To what extent do you support or oppose changing the City’s tree ordinance to regulate the removal of healthy trees of a minimum size (e.g., 6” caliper) on existing single family properties where such trees do not interfere with permitted building improvements?

February 17 Statements (2 on Tree Ordinance)

2012-02-17T11:00:28-05:00

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

Absolutely not! There is enough regulation of home owners' private property as it is. This will discourage the removal of dangerous trees and could cost lives. A much better approach and use of taxpayer dollars is to offer free saplings to homeowners who have removed a tree.

I strongly support changing the ordinance

I strongly support such an ordinance provided that there is an appeal process of some sort and provided that the minimum tree size is reasonable. The example above states 6 inches, which is a rather small tree. I would not support a minimum size that small.

I think such a change to the ordinance is needed in order to protect trees, which provide part of the charm in Decatur and certainly add to our overall property values. Increasing infill new builds and significant home additions have resulted in several issues, including the destruction of trees.

More about 'Tree Ordinance'

February 16 Statements (6 on Tree Ordinance)

2012-02-16T07:32:43-05:00

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly support changing the ordinance

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

I don't believe the city should have the authority to tell a homeowner which trees can or cannot be removed. What if a tree is a nuisance- like a sweet gum, or prevents a family from installing a child's playground or other recreational surface or equipment. The homeowner should be able to make their own decisions about their own property without government interference.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly support changing the ordinance

I strongly support an extension of our city's tree ordinance to protect mature trees from developers and misguided homeowners who have little care for or understanding of the value of trees to our neighborhoods and our city.

The older growth, magnificent trees that Decatur is so lucky to have are a tremendous asset to community life and to the property values of all Decatur residents.

These great trees belong to all of the community. This canopy and these trees are a living testament to Decatur as a community of people working together to have a place to live that is wonderful. They are the symbol of what we are here - a community of people who care about the long term livability of our city and neighborhoods.

We should all should do our duty to protect our natural heritage. It does not take a genius or a visionary to see what things will look like here if we do not do something to slow the destruction of the canopy - just slow down and remember what it was like only ten years ago. The broad tree canopy does not belong just to individuals but to all of us.

This ordinance is long overdue and is a result of great compromise. This ordinance is not particularly strong. It is simply stronger. It will slow, not stop, efforts to take the canopy from all of us one individual building permit at a time. You still want to remove all of the trees on your property for a larger garage and a bigger patch of turf grass? This ordinance still lets you do that. You just have to slow down and at least acknowledge that your community wishes you would re-think the project and take the rest of us and the future residents into consideration - be a good neighbor.

If someone values turf grass and open sky to a tree canopy then there are many urban choices - you do not have to destroy our neighborhood to get what you want. If you value trees and a high ancient canopy and moved to Decatur because that value seemed to be respected then speak up. When a neighbor who is afraid of trees takes the advice of someone who makes the bulk of their living taking down trees and then decides to take the tree away from their neighbors, their neighborhood, their community and from the genetic heritage of the species is sickens many of us. Trees self prune by dropping limbs and they quite naturally get some hollowing with age to become lighter - they are not dying when they do this but living. Our own lifespans are short compared to theirs and it can be hard to tell what healthy trees even are for those who have not taken the time to study and observe. This short sighted fear and dollar influenced behavior is hurting everyone around you - your community. It is encouraged by the "killer tree" stories that are a mainstay of television news. I would ask you to calm down and think.

Often it is the oldest tree - the one that has been through many years of drought, late season ice storms, drowning storms and heat waves - that is removed from the gene pool and the community canopy. These are frequently replaced with small developer trees that are then replaced with each successive homeowner (they are not so big after all) like a fashion statement. The canopy, once gone, is not replaceable in our lifetimes or our childerns. I want to protect it for me, for my community, for species strength, for children who deserve to know great trees and for future generations. Lucky byproducts? Cleaner air, more birds, cooler summer afternoons and something to get me to raise my eyes to the Creation.

The "property rights" argument seems so selfish and shallow. Of course you have legal rights and that is a great thing until your rights hurt the community. I cannot open a strip club in my back yard even though it is my property can I?

That tree is my tree too. It shades my backyard and three others too. It helps to create a neighborhood. Last summer's kite is almost gone now but I still see a piece. Canopied neighborhoods have better property values for the entire neighborhood - people want to live somewhere beautiful and green, surrounded by trees older than any human. It makes us happier and more connected and stimulates a sense of wonder and awe.

If you are afraid of trees then please find a home that does not have any great trees instead of taking them away from all of us now and for the future generations. I live in Decatur, actual Decatur, because of the value placed on community and the trees are a vital part of that. I cheerfully pay the higher taxes because Decatur is about community.

If you moved here because the school system is great and you want to turn Decatur into another "safe" cookie cutter subdivision then expect some resistance from those of us who live here because we just love it. We got good schools because of community and an understanding that the actions of a single person have an impact on many others and should not simply be ignored for short term satisfaction.

A stronger ordinance will not stop the destruction of our canopy but it may slow people down enough to think about why they really think they want the trees gone and how that tree removal has a very real impact on everyone around them. Do you really need to be able to quickly remove from neighbors and future generations a vital community and environmental asset? Maybe if you have to slow down and at least hear your neighbors opinion you will have second thoughts or work with them. If you are the "my way or the highway" "Me. Me. Me." "because I want to" guy then why are you in Decatur at all?

Joy Provost inside Decatur

I strongly support changing the ordinance

The City of Decatur has a pretty weak tree ordinance. Our tree canopy is an important asset not only to individual homeowners, but to the community. Trees help prevent run-off, help lower utility usage and provide sanctuary for our birds and wildlife. They are part of the infrastructure of the community.

My neighbor's trees hang over my yard and are vital to my enjoyment of my property. If I where concerned about the safety of my property caused by the safety of my neighbor's tree, I could compel my neighbor to address this issue. That makes trees not just part of individual property ownership, but part of the community.

We have been successful in maintaining our tree canopy for several years. However, recent new development has put that canopy at risk. If we don't do something about this rapid, recent tree loss it will take years to correct. Not 5 or 10 years, but 25 to 50 years.

Micah Lipscomb inside Decatur

I strongly support changing the ordinance

Most of the development in the city involves single family development, and we are
quickly losing our canopy cover, especially in Oakhurst. Trees play a vital role a green infrastructure for our city, cleaning the air we breath, the water we drink, and reducing the urban heat island effect. A decision on the economic impact of regulating trees also needs to account for the role of trees as green infrastructure. In addition to being an aesthetic asset, they also save the community money. The way the question is posed narrowly focuses the discussion on what will probably be the most constroversial item. However, there are several other issues that should be addressed with a revised ordinance, such as the provision for minimum soil volumes for trees planted in urban areas, providing goals for canopy cover, etc. Our community deserves and needs a better ordinance. A collaborative compromise can be made that addresses all concerned parties.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

I oppose for the same reasons as all the others, primarily property rights.

More about 'Tree Ordinance'

February 15 Statements (6 on Tree Ordinance)

2012-02-15T09:20:01-05:00

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly support changing the ordinance

The 2 most important assets Decatur has over other towns are the progressive and thoughtful populace and the preservation of natural habitats to include all the glorious trees! No one should bulldoze a lot. There is no way to replace what has been lost. We have needed these kinds of initiatives for a while.

Keith Forrester inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

Strongly oppose, which by the way does not mean I hate trees! This is not another area where I should have to go asking for government approval to do with my property what I wish. Current regulations now in place are more than sufficient. The entire issue seems to be a waste of time. A tree canopy is a renewable resource and we should continue to renew it, and I don't see clear-cutting as some type of Decatur issue. Adding red tape adds no benefit. Also, holding infill houses up as some type of scapegoat is crazy. I believe that before all the original homes were here, there was much less of a tree canopy and any new construction will more often than not include the addition of new trees which bodes well for a continued growth and renewal of the canopy.

What this boils down to is a neighbor trying to decide what's right for me and this ordinance gives them the power.

In another vein, as soon as you involve the city there will be plenty of folks who will ignore a tree problem because they can't face the hassle of dealing with their government. So, that old tree that should come down today is ignored until the hazard it was becoming has now turned into a tragedy.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

I strongly oppose changing this ordinance. I also oppose any change the will burden homeowners with additional fees/taxes to remove a tree from privately owned property.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I somewhat support changing the ordinance

*I am opposed, to a point, to interfering w/ rights of property owners.
*I like the idea of "within x feet of foundation" exclusion
*Re: expansion/renovation - aren't those jobs required to permit anyway (anything large enough to require a permit that is) and tree issues would already be assessed/covered?
*I don't know if contractors/builders are already regulated in tree removal by virtue of being commercial? I would want to know that.

I like the idea of preserving our leafiness - just not sure how it can be best achieved.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

I believe we need to allow our citizens to make the decisions as to what is appropriate for thier own properties and not have the city government impeed that process.

Rather than staff an office that maintains these permits, I would rather spend that money on planting trees in public spaces throughout the city.

Thank you for requesting my feedback!

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly support changing the ordinance

Trees are coming down like crazy in Decatur. We need to protect ourselves from becoming another barren suburb and our quality of life.

More about 'Tree Ordinance'

February 14 Statements (29 on Tree Ordinance)

2012-02-14T00:23:01-05:00

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

Point #1: Most folks I know in Decatur value trees and will voluntarily preserve them when possible, and plant trees as needed. I do not feel that it is necessary for home owners to ask permission to do something that is already being done responsibly.

Point #2: Trees can be deadly when they fall. Even healthy trees can fall in inclement weather. I do not fault anyone for not being willing to take the risk of having a 100 ft. tall oak tree crash into their bedroom. Nobody should be required to assume such a risk.

Point #3: We have a lot of shade and, at some point, may want to clear out a tree or two for the sole purpose of having a vegetable garden.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

This is another attempt to force the canopy rules that were proposed earlier. If anyone remembers, that tree ordinance was taken off the table because Commisioners had not even studied its contents or implications.

Peter W WAKEFIELD inside Decatur

I strongly support changing the ordinance

Our fragile forest, a great resource and the essence of our environment here in the Piedmont, is aging and radically affected by human actions. Decatur, a leader in many sustainable policies should take the lead here again, actively and consciously to consider each tree that might be destroyed.

dj metz outside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

I oppose any change the will burden homeowners with additional fees/taxes to remove a tree from privately owned property.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly support changing the ordinance

I strongly support this, but invasive exotic trees should be excluded. 6 feet from the foundation should also be excluded. People should be able to remove trees and put money into a recompense formula to plant trees as well as two years of care for them. This change will increase the amount of work for the city staff. You don't want to get in the position of taking much of the recompense funds to pay for the new staff expense. I also think the amount of impervious surface should decrease and less variances should be given for increasing impervious surface, especially to developers.

Jason Chernock inside Decatur

I somewhat oppose changing the ordinance

I appreciate the city's intent to craft a balanced approach to protecting our tree canopy and private property rights. Before I would support a more stringent tree ordinance, I would need to understand more about the problem. Is healthy tree removal widespread? Is it mostly due to single family construction, subdivision construction, or existing home owners making the decision? The last thing I want is to create a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

I removed a dead tree from my property soon after buying the house, and I appreciated how easy it was to solve this problem. The city should keep the individual decision of existing home owners as easy as possible. One solution may be to leave the decision on removing a single tree alone, but adding more scrutiny to decisions that involve removing multiple trees.

Danny Ingram inside Decatur

I strongly support changing the ordinance

As the president of Friends of Oakhurst Green Space, I strongly support an extension of our city's tree ordinance to protect mature trees from developers and misguided homeowners who have little care for or understanding of the value of trees to our neighborhoods and our city. The mature, majestic trees with which Decatur is so richly blessed are a tremendous asset to the community life and property values of Decatur residents. Property owners who actually see Decatur as a home, and not just an opportunity to make a quick dollar, value our trees and have an understanding of their contribution to the value and richness of Decatur's unique and thoughtful priorities. The great trees which long predate most of us belong to all the community and deserve the respect and protection which honors these giants as some of the most valuable residents of our city. These trees are a part of what makes Decatur such a great place to live, and those of us who have "put down roots" in our community need to speak out against anyone who would turn our beautiful green city into another clear-cut subdivision such as those which blight Atlanta's suburbs by stripping the valuable tree canopy which has covered the region for thousands of years. Such clear-cut mentalities destroy the natural habitat of native wildlife, further increase already dangerous levels of air pollution by removing the cheapest and most effective removers of airborne pollutants, and greatly dishonor a heritage of valuing land and natural space that threatens to destroy one of the most unique features of the Atlanta region. It should be a crime to terminate the life of a healthy tree for no other reason than to promote the growth of a resource devastating grass lawn or provide a few more square feet to a bloated over-sized "mini-mansion" completely out of character for our historic diverse community. Anyone who cannot understand that a mature tree is a valued neighbor to be honored and respected, and not a troublesome eyesore to be eradicated to make way for a bigger garage, have no place among the progressive and thoughtful residents of Decatur. Those individuals who serve the citizens of the City of Decatur on the City Council should do their duty to protect our natural neighbors. This ordinance is overdue. Chainsaw jockeys who thrill at dropping centuries-old trees into lifeless crashing heaps should be stopped before they further devastate a valuable treasure that will require many centuries to restore. The State of Georgia is home to the greatest diversity of plant life of any region in the northern hemisphere of our planet. We must stop the destruction of our incredibly rich natural heritage by individuals who do not value what Decatur residents value. Our natural heritage is shared by all of us, and we must not allow the lot-by-lot deforestation of our community by individuals who do not share our values as good stewards over the graceful resources entrusted to us.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

I strongly support developing incentives for all Decatur property owners to preserve and even expand our tree canopy. I do not think the way to do it is by trying to preserve every individual tree now growing inside the city limit by "regulating" tree removal on private property. The variety of home sites, the diversity of tree species, and the range of potential circumstances are so vast, we'd wind up creating yet another arena for variances. Much better to approach it by encouraging and even rewarding people for removing invasive species, planting species that are appropriate for specific sites, and educating us all about which species work best in different situations.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

This proposal will put in place a barrier to removing dangerous trees. We had a death of a young father in Decatur from a fallen tree a few years ago, and I would hate to see that happen again. Property rights should not be usurped from Decatur citizens this easily. Trees grow like weeds around here, and can become dangerous so quickly. Trees are also a very renewable resource. Every spring tons of new leaves and trunk material are added that were not there the year before. Decatur residents, do not surrender your property rights. If you think you need to trim your own canopy, you should be able to do so without going through expensive hurdles, or even roadblocks, to remove trees that could kill you or your family someday.

Name not shown outside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

This is an intrusion into homeowner's rights to use their own property as they see fit. Furthermore, that's a really low cutoff to have strangers telling yoiu what you can and can't do on your property.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

The current ordinance is perfectly adequate to prevent wholesale removal of trees from a lot by a developer. Whether one of my neighbors wants to remove a tree on her/his property for whatever reason they may have is NONE OF MY BUSINESS. Yes, it may affect me. I may hate the results. It's still NONE OF MY BUSINESS unless there is some actual physical damage to my property. Existing homeowners should have the right to use their own judgement to decide how many and what type of trees are in their own yards. If we want to impose a regulation on tree removal, I think that they are more properly applied to a developer tearing down an old house and replacing it with new construction as that is the situation that is most likely to result in large scale removal of trees. Trying to create a one-size-fits-all regulation that applies to homeowners and developers alike will only succeed in creating ill will between homeowners and City Hall since the developers will simply add any increased costs into their business model, while homeowners will be stuck with intrusive rules and bureaucratic hassles. In my opinion, the current ordinance is an acceptable balance between the desire to prevent tree loss and the property rights of homeowners.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I somewhat oppose changing the ordinance

A new law regulating what a private property owner can do seems a little too much. The existing tree ordinance should be enough to protect the majority of the trees without being a burden on homeowners.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly support changing the ordinance

I support this as one of my neighbors cut down a lot of trees in his back yard which faces due east as does mine and I have sun all day everyday from sunrise to sunset. However, I can see where homeowners may see this as intrusive to their private property rights. Pam Hughes

Name not shown inside Decatur

I somewhat support changing the ordinance

I would like to see the type of tree (hardwood, softwood, conifer) be a factor in the requirement of a permit.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

I absolutely oppose this measure. The city hasn't made a case that this is necessary, and it imposes undue, unnecessary burdens on property owners.

This is simply another burden on property rights that just makes it more difficult to manage one's property and personal safety.

As example, if I have a tree that damages drains, sidewalks, driveways, or frequently drops large limbs or poses a danger of life or property, why should I have to request permission from the city before I can remove? Would the city possibly deny me the right to protect my family from falling limbs that cause property damage or, god forbid, serious injury or loss of life? I suggest that the city would not like to be in the unenviable position of actuary, taking bets on whether even a healthy tree may or may not fall in a windstorm, killing one of its families.

The city hasn't made a case that this is an issue for municipal government to interfere in. In fact, it's ludicrous to claim critical need to manage minute changes to the tree canopy of a tiny municipality, when all around Decatur counties permit clear-cutting and massive overdevelopment. These tiny changes to policy, changes that impinge a property owners rights, will have little to no effect on the overall cleanliness of the air around us. Further, I've seen no evidence that failing to impose these regulations would create a health hazard, an ecological disaster, or a fundamental change in the character or culture of our city.

This is an ordinance, a cause, looking for a reason to exist. And there simply is not one.

I strongly oppose this measure.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

Regulation not needed.

scott drake inside Decatur

I somewhat oppose changing the ordinance

I think we need to allow property owners some rights to do certain things on the property they own without having to always go back to the city for permission. If I want to cut down a small or large tree on my property for whatever reason I should be able to. Even though we don't always agree with property owners and what they do sometimes on the property they own...they own it and can do as they please.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

Tree work is expensive enough. This sounds like a money grab from the city. Let homeowners decide if they want to cut their trees or not. This is not the city's business. Unless the city wants to be responsible for a lawsuit if a tree falls on a house that a homeowner was not allowed to cut, stay clear of this!

Eric Nicoletti inside Decatur

I somewhat support changing the ordinance

I would like to see non-native tree removal excluded. I've removed privet larger than 6". Also, differentiating between hardwoods, conifers, and smaller, flowering trees would be good (e.g. cut off for pines would be larger). I am opposed to any measurement of canopy, caliper should be sufficient.

Take out some of the hassle from homeowners, how about a simple photo of the tree submitted with the permit (electronic, please?), as opposed to a full blown tree survey. The City's arborist could make a site visit if necessary.

Also, lets be clear - trimming/limb removal should not constitute "removal".

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly support changing the ordinance

Oakhurst

Dan Loudermilk inside Decatur

I strongly support changing the ordinance

The idea that trees "belong" to the person that owns the land is an outdated concept. Trees affect the environment far beyond the extent of their canopy. For example, if my neighbor suddenly decided to cut down his large oak, my summer cooling bills would escalate more than his would! Shouldn't I have some say in the matter since it will have a direct effect on me?

Trees are just as important as the soil and ground cover to the environment, and we would not allow a person to mine or excavate the soil on their property to the detriment of everyone else just because they presently own it. Trees not only benefit the property where they are located, but also provide a continuous environment for the entire area in concert with the other trees and vegetation. Trees in a neighborhood must be managed just as we manage trees in a forest.

I like the idea of measuring the canopy of the trees as that values oaks over the pine trees. I do not believe that this ordinance would be a big burden on individual home owners, and I do think that issues such as this that impact a neighborhood need to have some input from all of those who may be affected.

I do think the ordinance should allow homeowners some leeway to remove a tree but then replant in other areas of the property to reestablish the shade and habitat that was lost.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I somewhat support changing the ordinance

I'm supportive of the concept of strengthening Decatur's regulations regarding tree removal, but I hope an allowance could be made to allow easy removal of dead or severely diseased trees that would otherwise require authorization to cut down. We recently removed a long-dead dogwood, and it was enough of an irritant to remove it and the stump WITHOUT going through any additional steps. An unintended consequence of making removal of trees (dead ones we should encourage removal of) is that we discourage property improvement and encourage blight.

I'm sure a balance can be reached, however, and I appreciate Decatur's continued focus on finding practical ways to encourage green living.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

Name not shown inside Decatur

I somewhat oppose changing the ordinance

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

We don't need a regulation for everything. Given the attachment that most people have for their trees (and everyone else's for that matter), I don't think wanton tree removal is a big problem and don't believe there is a need to add to the cost of government over it.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly support changing the ordinance

Name not shown inside Decatur

I somewhat support changing the ordinance

Name not shown inside Decatur

I somewhat support changing the ordinance

More city services have been outsourced, causing normal permitting processes to be a big pain and making the policing process appear to be a revenue-driven process, so I am nervous about creating more regulations. I support the maintenance and expansion of our tree canopy, but I am nervous about how it will be managed.

Leo Ferreira inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

Surely someone in charge understands the difference between the term 6" (meaning 6 inches in diameter) and 6' (meaning 6 feet in diameter). Were I not permitted to cut "trees" greater than 6 inches in diameter, I would not be permitted to cut back many of my older altheas (rose of sharons).

If 6 inches was indeed intended, I object stongly. If 6 feet was intended, I will think on it. However, I would strongly suggest clarification before you accept this data as gospel.

More about 'Tree Ordinance'

February 13 Statements (26 on Tree Ordinance)

2012-02-13T15:23:10-05:00

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly support changing the ordinance

I strongly support regulation of healthy tree removal on private property within the City of Decatur. Trees provide a number of community benefits that are not limited to the property where they are rooted. Tree removal impacts all of us community-wide. When healthy trees are removed, replanting should be required (matching tree removed inch per inch) within a certain geographic area.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I somewhat oppose changing the ordinance

I'd like to know exactly how big of a problem this actually is before adding more regulation that limits private property rights. Right now, there's no data showing whether 1 or 1000 healthy trees are being removed from single family properties. Although it may be difficult, I suggest that the city try to gather a reasonable estimate of how many healthy trees are cut down in Decatur each year that would be affected by this ordinance. Seeing an estimate of the scope of the problem would inform the conversation greatly.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

I think it is more beneficial to encourage people to maintain existing trees or to plant new ones without draconian regulation that will turn people against the city government. The city government has a good reputation with the citizens, and I think carrots will help maintain that view and gain better results.

Eric Myracle inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

It's my property. If I want to remove a tree for any reason that's my business. This is Decatur: not California, not Dunwoody, not a cookie cutter subdivision with a home owner's bored. Oops, I mean board. Obviously being green is fashionable right now, but a large part of the appeal of living here is being able to be as we are and do as we please.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I somewhat oppose changing the ordinance

The intentions are very good, but at some point there must be a limit to what our government or any government imposes on its citizens.

I feel this goes too far in the direction of government interference in our private affairs.

I would prefer to see an economic arrangement that imposed fees on people for removing trees simply because they wanted to.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly support changing the ordinance

I strongly support regulating tree removal because mature trees are one of the many charms of Decatur. I believe having regulations in place will cause citizens to think twice before removing trees, and if there is a good reason to remove the tree, there shouldn't be a problem getting a tree-removal permit.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

I believe that is over-regulation and if I need to remove a tree, I should be allowed to do that. Sometimes you need to trust citizens to do the right thing and do not need to regulate it. You need to understand that we live in the city because we like it and want to maintain that, you do not need to cram it down our throats.

Alan Pinstein inside Decatur

I somewhat oppose changing the ordinance

In general I prefer keeping government intervention to a minimum when the negative public externalities of private behavior are minimal.

While I am sympathetic to the arguments about trees being good for the environment and having an effect on property beyond the official owner of the tree, the trouble comes in the reality of the government policing and enforcing such an ordinance. We have friends in Fulton that have gone through horrible hoops just to remove scrub trees during a renovation. The amount of time, money and frustration that it has caused them is absurd.

I think in general our community is very sensitive and supportive of trees and it would be more politically appropriate (and viable) to have the community support generalized tree planting programs than to try to police trees on private property.

Name not shown outside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

Who owns my property? Me or you? If it's my property, then they're my trees, and I should be free to add or remove them as I so desire. Please stop with the Big Brother regulations.

Name not shown outside Decatur

I strongly support changing the ordinance

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly support changing the ordinance

The mature hardwoods are an important element that makes our neighborhood and city special and once removed takes generations to replace. An ordinance that protects our natural resources and works to mitigate the loss of the existing canopy to accommodate the ongoing in-fill redevelopment needs to be put in place.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I somewhat oppose changing the ordinance

Eve Wyatt inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

If the proposed changes are anything like those changes proposed several years ago, I am very much opposed. I made my opinions clear to the city commission at that point. The proposed ordinance "to preserve Decatur's tree canopy" attempted to control what existing Decatur residents do on their own property with their own trees. They are not "Decatur's trees." Residents would have been required to get a tree survey to do any sort of project that involved "turning dirt," including building something as simple as a sidewalk. Not only did the ordinance seek to prohibit removal of trees but went far beyond the scope of "preserving the tree canopy" by requiring property owners to ADD trees to the property, even if the property never had any trees, until the lot was covered with 40% tree canopy. I personally have three sweetgums and a hickory that all produce giant ball bearings that make walking treacherous in my own yard, not to mention smashing windshields. I have a hard time getting anything but mud to grow in my yard because of all the trees, but that doesn't mean I want to cut them down. But if I decided to add on to my house and a tree is in the middle of where the house needs to be, it should be my decision to remove it, not the decision of the government.

As I stated in my previous letters about the issue, if the perceived problem is clear-cutting to make way for new infill homes, let's address that specific issue rather than painting every situation with the same brush. Nobody likes to see clear-cutting of a property for the sake of convenience, but the previously proposed ordinance went way, way beyond the preservation of mature trees on infill properties.

The funny thing is that I hear people complain about other people removing trees, but when they realize that a tree ordinance would cause hardships for themselves if they decided to remove a tree on their own property, they suddenly become very quiet about the issue.

Ken Edmonds inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

I strongly oppose this proposal. I concur with the previous statements by others who oppose, so no need to duplicate.I will say there are so many reasons why a homeowner may want to remove certain trees that do not fall into the narrow definition above, including a potential life threatening safety hazard. I can just imagine having to deal with a "committee" to approve removal of a unwanted tree on my personal property! This is ridiculous!

Just a FYI- The Woodlands on Scott has cut down literally scores of trees that fall into this category. I assume their reasons are valid. Would they have to get approval from some "committee" for each and every tree?

Neil Norton inside Decatur

I somewhat support changing the ordinance

I like the idea of people having to think twice about removing significant trees on their property, and a permitting process would facilitate some education about tree care and tree benefits and perhaps avoid the removal of a tree unnecessarily. Ultimately, I do feel that if a homeowner wants a tree removed, it is their right to have it removed. In general, I feel homeowners in Decatur are already very sensitive to trees in the community and would not go out on a limb to create an ordinance to protect trees on private property. I'd rather see funds spent on the City assisting neighborhood tree plantings by offering an x amount of trees per year and free mulch. I would also like to see the tree bank fund go towards providing the infrastructure to plant healthier trees (more root volume) in the downtown area.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

Roots can get covered over by necessary site grading and kill the tree over time. The city doesn't need to be involved with this. The way the question is worded is too vague to respond other than oppose.

Steve Provost inside Decatur

I strongly support changing the ordinance

The trees on my property shade mine and my neighbor's homes, they intercept rain through their leaves and roots that would otherwise flood the community-wide storm water system, they cool the air in the summer around my home and my neighbor's homes, they provide habitat for wildlife that moves throughout the community, and the mature trees are a huge contributor to the character of the community that helps maintain property values and quality of life in Decatur. The trees in my yard may reside on my property, but they are part of an infrastructure that has impact far beyond my property lines.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I somewhat support changing the ordinance

The tree canopy is one of the assets that make living in the Atlanta area unique. But rather than impact single family property owners, I would suggest that more trees be planted in the public areas of Decatur. I, for one, appreciate the shade provided by the tree cover.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

I think most homeowners can make intelligent decisions about when to remove a tree and when not to. I really don't care for the government to "help me" make those decisions.

Kevin Wyatt inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

This ordinance represents a confiscatory taking. Decatur did not purchase the trees in my yard, did not plant the trees, did not water or fertilize them, does not pay for the services of an arborist to keep them healthy, but when I determine for whatever reason I want a tree removed, the city whishes to sieze control of my property (the trees in my yard) and require that I seek their approval of the disposition of my property!

Absolutley not!

Furthermore, if this measure passes I can assure you that there will never be a tree on my property that will reach a size whereby the city can sieze control of it. I will cut them down and fuel my fireplace with them before I let that happen.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly support changing the ordinance

I see absolutely no reason to remove healthy trees of any size for any reason unless they are an invasive species. I have been dismayed at the removal of many trees with apparently no consequence to the person removing the trees. I would be more than happy to serve on a board that would make decisions about tree removal. Thanks
Lea Whitfield
315 Second Avenue
lea_w_99@yahoo.com

Aaron Marks inside Decatur

I somewhat oppose changing the ordinance

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

Our ultimate goal should be for trees to be increasingly valued and for a culture of trees to become more pervasive. This is not accomplished, however, through increased regulation, which positions trees as potential sources of homeowner frustration and limited options rather than as important contributors to quality of life, our shared environment, house value and even energy costs.

Instead of harping on the removal of trees, something that often happens at the end or near end of their lives anyways, the city should look at ways to encourage or incentivize the *planting* of trees, something far more beneficial to the ongoing diversity and health of our overall canopy. City efforts should work towards developing a culture where trees are valued, planted and preserved on their merits, not propped up in service of a forced and inflexible mandate.

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly oppose changing the ordinance

Name not shown inside Decatur

I somewhat support changing the ordinance

Name not shown inside Decatur

I strongly support changing the ordinance

More about 'Tree Ordinance'

June 8 Statements (0)

2011-06-08T01:37:02-04:00

May 16 Statements (11 on Referendum on Sunday Sales)

2011-05-16T06:09:17-04:00

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

It makes no sense to ban alcohol sales at stores and not at restaurants. Completely faulty logic. So rather than have people go to the store and take their alcohol home to drink, we think it makes more sense for them to go somewhere to get drunk and then drive home? Time to set this straight. All or nothing. Also, given our recession, we could certainly use the extra tax dollars it would bring in. I say yea on this one.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes. I support Sunday alcohol sales.

Mark Eagle inside Decatur

Yes, absolutely. It is ridiculous one can go to a bar and buy alcohol, but not at the store. Maybe it will reduce drinking and driving?

Phyllis Gilbert inside Decatur

Yes, absolutely, positively yes. The law banning Sunday alcohol sales is arbitrary and discriminatory, and it's high time for citizens to get the opportunity to vote our way past it.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

I own a restaurant in and am also a resident of Decatur. I strongly support the right to purchase alcohol on Sunday and strongly support the decision to put this measure on the ballot.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes - I look forward to the opportunity to vote on this issue.

Ethan Davidson inside Decatur

Absolutely.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

I am in favor of approving this resolution and encourage the Commission to do so. Thank you, John Bacon.

Cheryl Legare inside Decatur

Yes.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Absolutely; this should be decided by the voters as it is clearly a topic about which people are very interested.

Helme Calfee inside Decatur

Please pass the referendum to allow Sunday alcohol sales.

More about 'Referendum on Sunday Sales'

Should the City Commission adopt a resolution asking for a referendum on whether to allow package sales by retailers of malt beverages, wine and distilled spirits on Sunday?

May 15 Statements (10 on Referendum on Sunday Sales)

2011-05-15T00:58:13-04:00

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes

Kyle Williams inside Decatur

Yes.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes - finally!

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes to Sunday sales! We don't need the government dictating our shopping choices.

Russell Wood inside Decatur

YES!

Debbie Campbell outside Decatur

Yes please!

Mark Burnette inside Decatur

Yes. This is a true no brainer. The only question is when the referendum should be held. To minimize the cost, it should be put on the ballot at a regularly scheduled election.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

I think it is time to allow Sunday sale of alcohol.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes to Sunday sales!

James Johnson inside Decatur

Yes. The citizens of Decatur are intelligent enough to decide this issue themselves.

More about 'Referendum on Sunday Sales'

Should the City Commission adopt a resolution asking for a referendum on whether to allow package sales by retailers of malt beverages, wine and distilled spirits on Sunday?

May 14 Statements (22 on Referendum on Sunday Sales)

2011-05-14T06:56:57-04:00

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes, please! It would be wonderful to be able to purchase wine while doing my weekly shopping on Sunday! G. Wakeman, Inside City of Decatur

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes, please. I often grocery shop on Sunday evening and being able to pick up alcohol at the same time would be nice.

Laura Fehrs inside Decatur

Yes, if held with a previously scheduled vote.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Please do pass the resolution. The current ban on Sunday sales is arbitrary, an unnecessary obstacle to shopping, and it does not make us look progressive and forward-looking to new companies and businesses. Thanks!

Annie Archbold inside Decatur

About time! Yes, of course.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Resounding yes!

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes, absolutely. We should have had the opportunity long ago to decide this issue.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes, the City should add it to the next regularly scheduled voting event.

Doug Eidle inside Decatur

Yes

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes, definitely!

Margaret Ciccarelli inside Decatur

Yes please! We'd love for Decatur to hold a referendum on Sunday sales.

-Margaret & Matt Ciccarelli
306 Westchester Dr

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes, definitely. This should be on the ballot.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes, of course!

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Absolutely.

Keith Forrester inside Decatur

Yes, of course we should have a right to choose.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Absolutely include on ballot.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

In City of Decatur, this is mostly a beer & wine retail outlet issue, not many real package stores in Dectur and they may decide to stay closed on Sunday. But having the option to vote is a must and hopefully our neighboring cities and counties will do likewise.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

I absolutely support the referendum, Decatur residents should be given the opportunity to vote on this issue and make their choices. The resistance to this issue by the GA legislature for so many years is beyond my comprehension.

Elliott Robinson inside Decatur

Yes. It's about having the opportunity to choose. "We the People" should not be an outdated ideal, but one that we actually practice. Referendums allow that to happen and this is one that is long overdue.

Robert Allison outside Decatur

Yes. Free trade is a good thing. Thanks to the Sate of Georgia for babysitting it's residents for so long.

Joy Provost inside Decatur

Yes. I agree that this is about the citizens making the decision on whether they want Sunday alcohol sales or not.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes

More about 'Referendum on Sunday Sales'

Should the City Commission adopt a resolution asking for a referendum on whether to allow package sales by retailers of malt beverages, wine and distilled spirits on Sunday?

May 13 Statements (31 on Referendum on Sunday Sales)

2011-05-13T16:29:36-04:00

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes, of course...Ga one of very few states who do not allow.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes, absolutely. It's our right, and now also the law.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes - and approve growlers at the same time!

Eric Myracle inside Decatur

Absolutely. This is not about whether or not Sunday sales are a good idea; this is about who gets to make that decision. Senat bill 10 allowing the sale of alcoholic beverages following approval by a majority of voters in a local referendum has been passed. How could anyone possibly justify that the people should not be given the opportunity to decide this in accordance with SB10?

Semi-anonymous outside Decatur

Yes

Carl Black inside Decatur

Most definitely, although I thought liquor stores are not permitted in Decatur. Shouldn't the issue simply be whether existing retailers can sell beer and wine?

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Sounds like no brainer.

Grace Ann Young inside Decatur

Yes, indeed!

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes, this is a no brainer. We live in a 24/7 economy. I would bet that you may see crime on Sunday decrease as well.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes, especially since it will not be an additional cost to add the referendum in November. Thanks.

William Burbank outside Decatur

Yes. Of course. The citizens should have the right to choose. But more importantly is the rights of the people to have the opportunity to buy these products any day of the week, even if a majority disagrees. At one time the 'majority' was for slavery, and later the majority was in favor of the Jim Crow laws. The majority can be sincere, and yet still be sincerely wrong.

Bill Woolf inside Decatur

Allow the citizens of Decatur to decide whether to join the 20th century during the 11th year of the 21st century? That seems like a perfectly reasonable idea, though it is possible that someone will post a response telling me why it is not.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes. Adding this to a regular November voting day won't get me confused. Promise.

Alex Arnett outside Decatur

Yes. If you don't want alcohol sales on Sundays, then don't buy alcohol on Sundays. It's that simple.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

no - it will hurt restaurant sales and may thus deceaase our tax revenue within city limits

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes, and they should vote for allowing sales once they do.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes! This makes perfect sense

David Crenshaw inside Decatur

Yes! I do believe the citizens of Decatur should be able to decide on Sunday alcohol sales. We can always use the additional revenue! I would not be in favor of a special referendum but adding the question on the next ballot.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes!

Laura Mariani inside Decatur

Yes! Many people would be in favor of allowing Sunday sales.

Lee Coursey outside Decatur

Yes, absolutely. Thank you.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes absolutely.

Ken Edmonds inside Decatur

YES

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

I believe that the residents of Decatur should be allowed to vote on this issue. And, however the City Commissioners vote, for or against, the issue should still be put to a vote w/the voting residents of Decatur. Decatur is our City and we should be the ones to decide these issues. We already have too much government dictating to us.

David Smith inside Decatur

Yes, and especially if it can be placed on an existing ballot without costing taxpayers for a special election.

Ken Rosskopf inside Decatur

Yes, especially since the City can hold the referendum with a previously scheduled vote and little additional cost to the taxpayers.

Lain Shakespeare inside Decatur

Yes, please let the citizens of Decatur vote on this issue.

Nonie Ravenberg inside Decatur

Yes.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Decatur residents should be the ones to decide the issue, not the City Council. So, yes, put the referendum to a vote ASAP so that the citizens can have a say up or down. Thanks.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

Yes please.

More about 'Referendum on Sunday Sales'

Should the City Commission adopt a resolution asking for a referendum on whether to allow package sales by retailers of malt beverages, wine and distilled spirits on Sunday?

March 10 Statements (1 on New Websites)

2011-03-10T18:41:34-05:00

Some of the links don't work.
Let me know when it's finished.

More about 'New Websites'

What do you think about the new websites?

March 8 Statements (5 on New Websites)

2011-03-08T10:46:57-05:00

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

I'm still learning my way around it, but its attractive and in time I am sure I will appreciate it even more than the old one.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

The overall look and feel of the website is much better.

Regarding content, in browsing, I have found that various studies or pdf files about transportation, green space, etc. are old and dated or do not show a date. This information needs to be consistent for credibility. I'm sure that City of Decatur will also update this to reflect projects under way now and are current.

Also, I did not see a place where we, as residents, can check on the status of City of Decatur long term construction projects. I could not find the information for the Church Street Renovation long term plan. Where is it? This info should be presented in such a way that it is easy for anyone to find.

The blog websites should also include www.DecaturMetro.com. This one is not listed and is a very popular one.

Eve Wyatt inside Decatur

So far I really like the new Decatur web site. It's much easier to find what I'm looking for than with the old site. I even used the online service request form (although we haven't received any response or action from the request.)

I haven't checked out the tourism site.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

I like the new website, it looks like a fresh perspective with easy access to current events and news. The calendar is a great addition, and I love all of the photographs. I do wish that the visitor menu was better positioned, and it had a strong front page link to local businesses/restaurants- it is so important that we encourage our local economy! Also, I think there should be a more visible link to the Recreation Center. I will miss the old site that I had come to navigate so easily, but I think site this will ultimately be even more useful. Thanks for all of the hard work that went into making it happen.

Semi-anonymous inside Decatur

I think you've put a pretty face on the same content. I am eager to see more in the coming weeks! In particular, I wish the rec dept had an active and prolific content manager so that we could easily get info (that is not outdated) on Animal Crackers, soccer, etc.

More about 'New Websites'

What do you think about the new websites?

June 14 Statements (1 on Proposed Budget)

2010-06-14T09:25:56-04:00

I say yes

More about 'Proposed Budget'

The City of Decatur’s Revised fiscal year 2009-2010 and Proposed fiscal year 2010-2011 budget has been presented to the City Commission and is available to the public for review. The City’s budget is scheduled to be voted upon by the City Commission on June 21, 2010. Do you support the adoption of this budget by the City Commission?

June 4 Statements (1 on Proposed Budget)

2010-06-04T12:46:37-04:00

I am neutral

The City Manager is VERY fond of referring to city revenues as "tax investments"

Why then does she refer to tax investors as "tax payers"?

To call taxes "investments" is just smoke and mirrors because if one doesn't "invest", one will lose one's home.

More about 'Proposed Budget'

June 1 Statements (1 on Proposed Budget)

2010-06-01T15:25:45-04:00

I say yes

I believe the City of Decatur does a good job stretching our tax dollars in the best ways possible..

More about 'Proposed Budget'

May 27 Statements (1 on Proposed Budget)

2010-05-27T21:00:45-04:00

I say maybe

More about 'Proposed Budget'

May 26 Statements (1 on Proposed Budget)

2010-05-26T09:09:04-04:00

I say yes

More about 'Proposed Budget'

May 25 Statements (1 on Proposed Budget)

2010-05-25T14:08:08-04:00

I say yes

The City continues to operate efficiently and be good stewards of its resources.

More about 'Proposed Budget'

May 24 Statements (3 on Proposed Budget)

2010-05-24T11:40:06-04:00

lindsey mann in Decatur

I say yes

Semi-anonymous in Decatur

I say yes

Would be good to the specific roles 5 vacant full-time positions being eliminated. Also animal control has been an issue for several years. It would be good to see this made a priority budget item for animal control resources and training within the police department, mayor's office and community education.

Aaron Marks in Decatur

I say yes

More about 'Proposed Budget'

Proposed Budget

2010-05-24T10:51:11-04:00

Introduction

City staff have prepared a balanced budget that maintains existing service levels and keeps the existing millage rate. Highlights of the proposed budget include:

No change in the millage rate
No change in service delivery levels; continued focus on providing quality services
Elimination of 5 vacant full-time positions
Regular merit, recurring compensation increases for non-probationary employees are replaced with a one week, one time salary adjustment
Continued funding for the Strategic Plan update
Customer-service oriented, technology improvements: website redesign, GIS services/online mapping, online property tax information
Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements
Environmental initiatives (majority grant funded) and urban agricultural initiatives

The proposed 2010-2011 General Fund budget totals $18,488,060. This is slightly lower than the adopted 2009-2010 budget of $18,623,520. The proposed 2010-2011 budget anticipates using $700,000 of fund balance to close the gap between revenues and expenditures. This would result in a remaining fund balance of approximately $5,600,000 at the end of 2010-2011 or 30% of the operating budget. The City’s financial policies recommend maintaining a fund balance between 20-30% of the operating budget.

For more detailed information about the proposed budget and City priorities, you can visit the City’s budget resources page.

A summary of the budget and departmental goals can be found in these two documents:

The City Manager’s budget message (0.2 MB PDF file)
The department narratives (16.1 MB PDF file)