Open Letter to Jill Chambers

While the case I reference in this letter is not a Doraville case, there have been similar cases all over Georgia.  Like most of you, I saw or read about those cases, and thought the family probably did something wrong.  Until now; until people I know became involved.  A resolution to examine the methods and goals of this agency has been passed by the Georgia Senate.  The House resolution is still in committee. 

March 28, 2006
The Honorable Jill Chambers

Via Email

Dear Representative Chambers:

I have met you on several occasions in the district, and have always been impressed with your concern for individuals. I spoke to you at the Doraville Civic Center a few years ago, at a meeting concerning the schools in our area. Thank you for coming to that meeting, and your obvious concern for education and for children.

House Resolution 1939 is currently in the House Children and Youth Committee. I hope that it makes it to the House Floor, and if it does, I beg you to vote in favor of it.

Recently, acquaintances of mine have been in conflict with the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services. Rachel Bortz, whom I have met, dropped her five-month old son. She treated his injuries in much the same way that I treated my own children’s at the same age—just as the APA recommends, when there is no loss of consciousness: ice pack on the bump, observation over the next 24-48 hours (Steven P. Shelov, M.D. et al., The American Academy of Pediatrics Caring for Your Baby and Young Child, Birth to Age 5, pages 473-474). Her mother (the child’s grandmother) and other adults witnessed the injury and helped soothe her son. Tragically, her son died five days later, on January 1, 2006.

When the mother was interviewed by police, she was in shock and grieving. She did not recall the fall from five days previous until approximately an hour after the interview ended. Her older son, three year old Jackson, was taken by DFACS and placed with his paternal grandparents. The Bortz’s clarified with their lawyer (and the judge has since agreed) that the court order specifying unlimited visitation meant just that—no limitations with regard to time. However, DFACS removed their son from his grandparents just days later, saying that since Rachel and her husband had spent two nights there, they were in violation of the court order. To be clear, the family understood that the investigation was appropriate. They didn’t like sending their son to his grandparents, but were cooperating. They did not violate the court order. They were not aware that DFACS can establish additional restrictions on their visits. Had they known the additional restrictions, they would have cooperated. Even after Dylan’s autopsy report showed no symptom of ‘shaken baby syndrome’ or signs of trauma other than a normally healing skull fracture, Jackson remains in DFACS custody, and in the temporary care of other family members. The immediate family has not had time to grieve together since the younger son’s death. Jackson was not allowed to attend the memorial service. (While I don’t like children at funerals, this decision should not have been made by a governmental agency but by his parents.) Their next hearing is scheduled for April 3, 2006.

Since hearing about this double tragedy, I’ve read as much as I could about DFACS. Quite frankly, I’m shocked and scared. There seems to be little oversight or accountability for this department, and no one to intervene when they overstep their bounds. The Governor can’t (or won’t), the Judicial Branch can’t (DFACS is not obligated to abide by a court order), and DFACS doesn’t seem accountable to the Legislature at all.

As a child, I was abused, so I know that children are the victims of horrific crimes and need protection. Yet to allow a single department of government such leeway to act as judge, jury, and jailer on the basis of whether they “feel” a child is at risk is to risk disruption and even greater danger to the innocent children they were established to protect.

I am forwarding a copy of this letter to Representative Manning, the Chairman of the House Committee on Children and Youth, in the hopes that she will send House Resolution 1939 to the House floor for a vote. I believe that the Georgia Senate passed the corresponding resolution, SR-1270 by a vote of 46-0. I hope that you and the other Representatives will have the opportunity to show their support of Georgia families as well.

Respectfully yours,
Bryan S.

Cc: The Honorable Judy Manning
http://www.doraville.org

If you would like to read more about the Bortz case, their story will be on WSB’s Family2Family special, airing Monday, April 3 at 8:00pm.  You can also read their story on their website: Save Jackson Bortz.  The full text of HR 1939 is available at the Georgia General Assembly website, linked here.

 

March 28, 2006 | Bryan S | 2 Comments »

Open Letter About School Reform

Below is a letter to the AJC that you may post to doraville.org. The AJC publishes about one-tenth of the letters it receives, but it’s now rare that anything I write is published. I’d estimate the AJC publishes less than 5% of my letters—guess I write too often or there’s some other reason.

Dave Bearse

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To The Editor:

The rigidity of Perdue’s classroom size legislation burdens school districts, particularly small districts and especially small elementary schools. The legislation could mandate kindergarden classes as small as 10 students. (A school with 21 kindergarten students would be required to have classes of 10 and 11 students each at nominally 50% higher cost. A school with 61 kindergarten students would have to have three classes of 15 and one of 16 students at a nominal 25% greater expense than two classes of 20 and one of 21. Pity planning at schools with a number of students near thresholds that require a change in number of classes.)

The property tax and other burdens that the class size legislation will impose on small and/or poor districts will be in some measure an unfunded mandate as well as lawsuit ammunition for state takeover of school funding. The latter may be desired given that many of those in power desire a state sales tax to replace local property taxes. It’s very disappointing that the principle of local control that was loudly proclaimed when out of power has been nearly abandoned when in power—shades of George Orwell’s “Animal House”.

School districts with multiple elementary schools can realign attendance boundaries to meet the law’s requirements. It must however be remembered that this General Assembly also saw fit to enact legislation (again ignoring the principle of local control) encumbering the changing of school attendance boundaries by Boards of Education. This classroom size legislation like the Voter ID legislation was not thoroughly thought through and most likely will have to be revisited. Parents of children that are subject to or will be shifted from one school to another in response to this legislation and taxpayers in general who will be footing the bill should at election time consider the current state leadership prefers to shoot first, ask questions later.

It’s an election year though. Perdue rode to power on teacher disenchantment with Roy Barnes’ education initiatives and even poorly thought out legislation is preferable to none because Georgia after four years of Perdue administration is still dead-last in K-12 education by most standards of measurement, with no indication that that standing is changing.

March 25, 2006 | Dave Bearse | 1 Comment »

Buffer Zones for Streams

There has been a lot of rancor on the neighborhood message boards lately about a proposal to bring buffer zones around streams up from 25′ to 50′. On one side are Tom Hart and his supporters, who are claiming that this is an environmental issue that needs to be passed now. On the other side are property owners concerned about how this proposed ordinance will impact their future home values.

I have to admit that if this thing passes, I’m worried about how my own property rights will be affected. There are little streams and run-off ditches all over my neighborhood–including one right next door. If anything ever happened to my house, and I wanted to rebuild, how would my options be limited by a change in the buffer law? What if I ever wanted to sell my home–how would the change in the ordinance affect the value of my land?

Whatever the city ends up doing on this, I certainly don’t think the council should rush into anything. I will actively campaign against any council member who ends up lowering the value of my home–I’m sure a number of other citizens feel the same way.

March 24, 2006 | Joseph Geierman | 1 Comment »

30340 is #16 in Home-Value Appreciation

Forbes has put together a list of 20 US neighborhoods with the highest appreciation of home values. It was interesting to see the Doraville zip code at #16 on this list–primarily driven by growth in the Liberty Heights area. While Doraville proper’s home values have seen somewhat stagnant for the past several years, this can only be a good sign. Here’s what the article said about Doraville:

ZIP Code: 30340
Neighborhood: Doraville/Liberty Heights
2005 Median Sales Price: $225,450
Total Price Appreciation 2003 to 2005: 44.1%
Appreciation for New Homes: -21.1%
Appreciation for Existing Homes: 53.7%

This ZIP, northeast of Atlanta, extends from the Liberty Heights neighborhood in Gwinnett County to Doraville in DeKalb. Declining crime rates and improved infrastructure have made blue-collar Liberty Heights more desirable, while suburban spread has also pushed prices up for the ranch homes and townhouses that abound.

Thanks to Patrick for posting this on the Northwoods mailing list.

March 19, 2006 | Joseph Geierman | Comments Closed

It’s Official…Doraville is a Speedtrap!

I don’t think that this comes as a surprise to anyone who lives in or regularly drives through Doraville, but our fair city has recently been recognized as the #1 worst speed trap in Metro Atlanta, and the #2 worst speed trap in Georgia. According to the AJC:

51 Georgia cities [...] in 2005 had court fine collections that exceeded the sums the municipalities raised in property taxes.

Most were small towns in rural Georgia, but five metro Atlanta cities, including Lawrenceville, made the list. The other four are Doraville, Clarkston, Austell and Morrow.

Of the five, Lawrenceville in 2005 ranked second behind Doraville in the total amounts of money these cities raised in revenue from their city courts.

Factoring in the populations of all 51 cities, Doraville dropped to second behind the tiny town of Remerton in per capita revenue raised from their city courts.

The moral here? If you’re going to get robbed…do it near an interstate, because that’s where all the cops are!

March 17, 2006 | Joseph Geierman | 29 Comments »

Dunwoody Bill is Pulled from Legislative Consideration

This weekend, the AJC reports that state senator, Dan Weber, has withdrawn his bill for Dunwoody’s incorporation so that the financial implications can be studied some more. According to the paper:

Some budgetary questions were answered on Saturday through the feasibility study, conducted by the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of Georgia at Athens. According to preliminary findings, homeowners may have to accept a tax hike.

The study examined three metro Atlanta cities — Kennesaw, Peachtree City and Duluth — and assessed how much the municipal governments spend per capita. That number was $491. But, for Dunwoody to match the services and spend that much, it would need at least an additional $65 per capita in income, according to the research.

It’s probably a good idea for the people in North Dekalb to wait and see how things go in Sandy Springs before jumping on the incorporation bandwagon. My only question is how does this affect Doraville’s annexation plans (no mention was made if Weber will also pull the Doraville annexation bill).

March 12, 2006 | Joseph Geierman | Comments Closed

North Dekalb Incorporation/Annexation Progresses

It looks like Doraville’s annexation plans are progressing through the state legislature. Here’s what was posted on the Oakcliff Neighbors e-mail list early this morning:

On the Senate side,

SB 566 Chamblee, City of; change corporate boundaries

(1) Weber,Dan 40th

SC: SLGO HC: Status: 03/01/06 – Senate Read Second Time

SB 567 Doraville, City of; change corporate limits

(1) Weber,Dan 40th

SC: SLGO HC: Status: 03/01/06 – Senate Read Second Time

SB 568 Dunwoody, City of; provide for charter; incorporation; boundaries; powers

(1) Weber,Dan 40th

SC: SLGO HC: Status: 03/01/06 – Senate Read Second Time

SR 1114 Restructuring of DeKalb County Government; create Senate Study Committee

(3) Weber,Dan 40th

SC: RULES HC: Status: 03/08/06 – Senate Read and Referred

________________________________________

And on the House side, this update from Jill Chambers.

[...]

From: Jill Chambers [mailto:jillchambers@msn.com]

Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 6:20 PM

Subject: Doraville annexation resolution

Please post to your neighborhood websites. This resolution was read for the first time in the House today. We did one for Chamblee, too. You can also access it at this link:
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06//versions/hr1697_LC_97_0674_a_2.htm

thanks, Jill

06 LC 97 0674

House Resolution 1697

By: Representatives Chambers of the 81st and Jacobs of the 80th

A RESOLUTION

Expressing support for the process of the City of Doraville’s proposal for annexation of neighboring communities; and for other purposes.

WHEREAS, the Georgia House of Representatives supports the right for municipalities to annex neighboring communities as a way of making these communities whole; and

WHEREAS, the local government derives from the people and belongs to the people; and

WHEREAS, the House of Representatives supports the right of the people to determine the appropriate type of local government for their communities; and

WHEREAS, Chapter 36 of Title 36 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated provides specific procedures for municipalities to annex neighboring communities, including procedures for notifying the public and receiving input from the public, exemplified in published maps, expansion of service studies, and advertised formal public hearings by the municipality; and

WHEREAS, the House of Representatives encourages full public notice, public input, due process, due diligence, and dissemination of accurate information in the annexation process.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES that this body supports this process in the City of Doraville’s proposal for annexation of neighboring communities pursuant to applicable law.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the House of Representatives is authorized and directed to transmit an appropriate copy of this resolution to the City of Doraville.

March 10, 2006 | Joseph Geierman | Comments Closed

More on the Single Famly Dwelling Ordinance

Below are the two most relevant codes I’ve found to my question about single-family residences made up of people who are not related to each other.

From the Doraville Zoning Code (Article IV, Section 402, #42):

42. Family: One or more persons occupying a dwelling and living as a single housekeeping unit, all of whom or all but two of whom are related to each other by birth, adoption, or marriage as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding house, rooming house, or hotel as herein defined. The term “family” is limited to “mother”, “father”, “husband”, “wife”, “children”, “brothers”, “sisters”, “step-children”, “step-parents”, “step-brothers”, and “step -sisters”.

Also from the Doraville Zoning Code (Article VIII ):

SECTION 809 DWELLING SPACE
MINIMUM LIVING SPACE:
Excluding bathrooms and rooms used for cooking, every dwelling unit shall contain at least 300 square feet each for the first two occupants and 200 additional square feet of floor area per additional occupant.
REQUIRED SPACE IN SLEEPING ROOMS:
In every dwelling unit of two or more rooms, every room occupied for sleeping purposes by one or more occupants shall contain at least 70 square feet of floor space for each occupant thereof.
MINIMUM CEILING HEIGHT:
At least one-half of the floor area of every habitable room, foyer, hall or corridor shall have a ceiling height of at least seven feet. The floor area of that part of any room where the ceiling height is less than seven feet shall not be considered as part of the floor area in computing the total floor areas of the room for the purpose of determining the maximum permissible occupancy thereof.

Based on this, it looks like no more than 2 unrelated people are legally able to live in any Doraville home that is zoned as a “single family residence.” Basically, if an unmarried couple living in the city own a house together and have a roommate to help pay the cost, they are breaking the law.

Why the city has gotten into the business of regulating people’s private lives, I have no idea. It seems to me that the best policy would be to get rid of the “family” definition altogether, and base everything on the number of people able to live within a particular square footage of space. Whether someone at city council will decide to propose this remains to be seen.

March 6, 2006 | Joseph Geierman | 5 Comments »

Doraville Newsletter — Single Family Dwelling Ordinance?

I’m glad the mayor’s office has been getting the “Doravile Newsletter” out on a regular basis. It would be nice if they could spell the city’s name correctly, but that’s a minor complaint. Probably the most helpful piece of information I found was that the city will haul away old garbage cans as long as they’re brought to the curb and marked trash. I’ve been wondering about this for a while, so it’s good to finally know.

I was a little bothered by something on the front page of the newsletter, though. It was a passage stating:

Single Family Dwelling: Single family dwelling in residential neighborhoods are to have only one family living in the house; that is: mother, father, brother, sister, and/or grandparents. Copies of the Ordinance may be obtained in city hall.

I know that this ordinance is really aimed at people (mainly immigrants) who rent houses and fill up every single room with tenants–sometimes 10 or more to one of our small neighborhood houses. The way it was put in the newsletter, however, it seems that the city has outlawed all house-holds made up of unmarried partners. This affects my household, and it affects the households of anyone else in the city who has “shacked up” with the significant other of their choosing.

I actually think that the ordinance must have been written more narrowly than that, but since the newsletter did not given any code to actually reference, I’m left scratching my head. A quick online search of the city ordinances did not turn anything up for me.

If anyone knows the wording of the actual code, I’d appreciate it. Otherwise, i’m going to be calling city hall sometime next week.

March 5, 2006 | Joseph Geierman | 1 Comment »