Monday, March 28, 2016

Defining Public Expression

Consider this unexpected find as I cruised North Peachtree through Kingsley at lunchtime:

What is it?

Is it inappropriately placed trash?

A code violation?

A practical joke?

House flipping debris?

A First-Amendment-protected expression regarding the state of the world or our community today?

Or even a public art installation?

Who decides?

Who enforces the decision?

Who is allowed to express their emotions about the subject and who is required to stay quiet?

Food for thought for your Monday in advance of tonight's City Council meeting.

Friday, March 18, 2016

RIP Father Peek

Almighty Father, strong to save,
Whose arm hath bound the restless wave,
Who bidd'st the mighty ocean deep
Its own appointed limits keep:
O hear us when we cry to thee
For those in peril on the sea.

O Trinity of love and power,
Our brethren shield in danger's hour;
From rock and tempest, fire and foe,
Protect them whereso'er they go,
Thus evermore shall rise to thee
Glad praise from air and land and sea.

Ill priest answers the call to heal

Beloved Dunwoody priest with leukemia passes away

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

The Dunwoody Homeowners Association has NOT voted to endorse the Crown Towers Proposal as of March 15.

The article printed in last week's Crier was disputed the moment the exec board became aware of it.

The DHA posted the following statement to its website and social media:
The Dunwoody Homeowners Association (DHA) wishes to correct errors reported in an article published today in the Dunwoody Crier newspaper.
The DHA has been negotiating with Crown Properties the terms by which the DHA may or may not endorse a zoning change which would allow for the construction of two residential towers on property that was formerly the home of the Gold Kist company. These negotiations are ongoing and no conclusion has been reached as of this date.
The Crier incorrectly reported that the DHA board voted to endorse the residential construction.
The Dunwoody Homeowners Association wishes to correct this report. The DHA has not voted to take any action to endorse or oppose the zoning changes that would allow the residential additions.
The DHA voted to develop a list of potential conditions. The DHA’s approval was and remains contingent on reaching an agreement with the developer on those conditions. Some of these conditions involve concessions it is unlikely that the developer will agree to make.
When the DHA board takes a vote on this matter, it will distribute a statement of the result on its website, social media, and via email.
For further information, please contact the DHA.
A letter was printed in today's Crier repeating this statement but the Crier has decided to stand by the story.

A more accurate account was posted in the Dunwoody Reporter newspaper.

The DHA's intent has always been to determine if the developers were willing to negotiate standards that would enable the DHA to endorse the development.  To date, that has not happened.

Any reports in other outlets claiming the DHA has issued endorsement or approval of this project based on the Crier's report are just as inaccurate.