Lawmakers Hold Hearing on Proposed Cities of Tucker and LaVista Hills

From left to right Reps. Mary Margaret Oliver, Mark Hamilton, Buzz Brockway, Barry Fleming and Howard Moseby listen as Tucker Cityhood spokesman Frank Auman addresses the committee.  Photo:  Jon Richards
From left to right Reps. Mary Margaret Oliver, Mark Hamilton, Buzz Brockway, Barry Fleming and Howard Moseby listen as Tucker Cityhood spokesman Frank Auman addresses the committee. Photo: Jon Richards

What was supposed to be an hour and a half public hearing on the proposed cities of LaVista Hills and Tucker went for more than three hours, as a Governmental Affairs subcommittee heard twenty minute presentations from groups promoting the city of Lavista Hills and the City of Tucker in central DeKalb county, followed by extensive public comments from the audience, which filled the hearing room at the Coverdell Legislative Office Building.

The five member subcommittee is tasked with drawing one or more maps of possible cities after groups representing Tucker, Briarcliff and Lakeside failed to reach agreement on city boundaries by a November 15th deadline. Briarcliff and Lakeside decided to simplify things by combining their efforts and proposing the city of LaVista Hills, but controversy still exists, because both proposed cities are claiming territory along I-285 in the Northlake Mall area, and along I-85. You can see the two proposed cities in this map on the Tucker 2015 website.

The quest to form cities in an area that stretches from North Druid Hills Road on the West, I-85 on the North, Gwinnett County on the East and U.S. 78 on the south has gone on for much of the 2013-2014 legislative session, and because a new session will begin in January, the committee’s effort is the last chance to finish the process without starting over completely next year.

The AJC covered the hearing, but I was present and live tweeted the proceedings. I’ve put together a compilation of my and other tweets, which you can see below the fold.

9 comments

  1. NefariousLlama says:

    Yeah, yeah, the boundaries are important and all, but let’s just focus on the real issue here: the godawful name that is ‘Lavista Hills’. When do we get to vote on this travesty? Who came up with this uninspired testament to mediocrity? Lavista Hills is what you name a cemetery, not a city.

    If this cityhood happens with that name, I’m pulling up stakes. Won’t catch me living in Lame-town (which is still a better name than Lavista Hills).

    • analogkid says:

      It’s a really bad name. A friend of mine who lives firmly within the uncontested footprint of LVH said he would have preferred to name it “El Barrio Blanco.”

    • George Chidi says:

      If 285 is the border, the LaVista Hills referendum will lose — 4 to 3 if not 3 to 2. They need the OTP crowd to have a shot at it. But there’s a vocal, voting group of folks north of Midvale Road don’t want to be perceived as connected to “those people” in Tucker, with a school that is majority black and only about 11 percent white.

      Yeah. I said it.

          • Harry says:

            Aren’t they already in that cluster? Aren’t the setting of school boundaries a responsibility of the county school board? That’s how it is in Gwinnett anyway. Just wondering how being in or out of Tucker would have any bearing on the school attended.

      • gcp says:

        In terms of tax digest Lavista Hills does does not need anything OTP.

        As for the N Midvale area (Livsey, Stonegate, Henderson Park, Northcrest) well that’s as much Tucker as Mathews, Cofer Bros. , and Tucker High. In other words, its Tucker.

        What’s not Tucker? Northlake Mall which is Lavista Hills.

Comments are closed.