• Welcome!
    Logout|My Dashboard
  • May 4, 2016

Talk Back to The Crier: Parkway, DDI, hunting, sanitation, ethics case, Save Dunwoody signage - Dunwoody Crier: Talk Back To The Crier

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard

Talk Back to The Crier: Parkway, DDI, hunting, sanitation, ethics case, Save Dunwoody signage

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 11:03 am


To the Editor:

Thomas Jefferson said, “The people would rather deal with familiar problems than unfamiliar solutions.” We recognize that in order to best address current “new solutions” it’s important to provide the perspective and critical thinking which underscore several of the city’s upcoming projects.

After four years of citizen-driven planning for parks, roads and land use, the city is now moving forward on the construction of the Brook Run Park Multi-Use Trail, the Dunwoody Village Main Street project and the further study of a roundabout at the intersection of Womack and Vermack roads.

A great deal of thought along with expert planning, design and preparation has gone into these projects. It is time to act. Our citizens know that stagnation and clinging to our familiar problems may lead to a prolonged downturn in property values. The city is charged with providing for the safety of the community and repairing and enhancing infrastructure. These projects are critical, affordable and sensible investments for our long term future.

Here are the basic facts:

• Brook Run Park – The city is installing Phase 1 (7/10 of a mile) of a multi-phase 3.5-mile, 12-foot wide multi-use trail for walkers, cyclists, and runners. The trailhead is located in Brook Run Park and the path will continue in future phases through the park across to the new parks in the Georgetown development off Chamblee Dunwoody Road. The trail will attract citizens to the 102-acre park, and provide a safe off road amenity for healthy living and social recreation.

• Dunwoody Village Parkway Main Street Project – Citizen plans call for Dunwoody Village Parkway to be the backbone of a revitalized downtown in Dunwoody Village. This investment in a new “Main Street” streetscape for Dunwoody will spur economic redevelopment. The project will include wide sidewalks, old growth and new street trees, benches, and enhanced landscaping. The new Dunwoody Village Parkway will be pedestrian and cyclist friendly, providing for a safe and attractive stroll through a revitalizing downtown center. We expect that private outlay will follow public investment in this critical area of the City.

• Womack and Vermack Roads – The city is reviewing concept plans for a solution to the traffic congestion and unsafe conditions at this four way stop. Following independent, expert analysis the intersection has earned an “F” rating. The city is looking at a roundabout as a possible traffic solution. This intersection serves four schools and is one of only a couple east/west thoroughfares in the city. Pedestrian safety and improved traffic flow at this intersection are the key planning objectives.

Frankly, doing nothing is not an option. Dunwoody was built on a vision of progress. These are exciting times for Dunwoody and I look forward to seeing the plans the citizens have devised come to fruition. As always, we will pay as we go and use your money wisely to create a city which serves the needs of all 46,000 citizens.

Mike Davis

Mayor of Dunwoody


To the Editor:

I am definitely against the parkway project. I have been here for 38 years and the parkway is the only pretty street with sizable trees in the village. If you must build something, why not just put sidewalks and a bike trail on the outside of the two lanes and you still have one good-sized single lane left each way. 

I can’t imagine where all the people will come from to use the sidewalks and bike trail. How many people do you ever see walking around the village? Also, in the late afternoon there are a lot of cars turning left off the parkway and heading toward Dunwoody Club. If you only have one lane and you happen to be a car about 15th in line wanting to turn right, you will be waiting through several lights to do so.

I just think it is one bad idea without a very definite gain/improvement. The entire area would look bare without those center trees. Taking them down is easy, but think of how long it took them to get to their current size!

Ray Clauser



Diverging Diamond

To the Editor:

I saw the half-page ad for the new Diverging Diamond Interchange in the Nov. 28 edition of the Dunwoody Crier.  I enter 285 and exit 285 via the Ashford Dunwoody exit every day to commute to work and have for the last 14 years. 

The statement in the ad is that this new intersection is ‘a proven, cutting edge, low-cost project that provides congestion relief for Perimeter.....the DDI can reduce delays in evening rush hour up to 20 percent.’

There is nothing about this statement that I find true.  Low cost?  My understanding is that this reconfiguration cost $6 million.  In whose definition is a $6 million expenditure considered low cost? Every time I have passed through this intersection in evening rush hour, it has added at least 10 minutes to my commute. 

This new configuration prevents traffic from moving through the two lights quickly.  I cannot imagine how this new configuration reduces delays.  I think the owners of this project need to ride with me home from work every day.  I am to the point now where I am avoiding this exit in evening and going to Chamblee Dunwoody. 

I sincerely hope that other areas that are under consideration for a DDI get deeply involved in understanding how this may or may not improve traffic flow.  In my opinion, this project was a terrible waste of money.

Meredith Barclay


To the Editor:

Mike Adler appears to be a very experienced and safety conscious hunter. However, there was one glaring omission from his dissertation. Although he mentions getting written permission from the land owner whose property he is hunting on, what he does not mention is that in order to track a deer wounded or otherwise onto an adjacent/neighboring property he must also have the written permission from that property/land owner. 

I believe many hunters have misinterpreted the law as stated in Georgia Statute 27-3-1. Because a hunter is obligated to track a wounded deer they are of the belief they have the right to do so on a neighbor’s property without that property owner’s permission. The first sentence of the statute is perfectly clear. There can be no pursuit of wildlife without permission from the landowner….it is unlawful. 

But just to make sure of my understanding I called the Department of Natural Resources and talked with the captain in charge who told me I was absolutely correct in my interpretation. 

The rest of the statute can be seen by searching Georgia statute 27-3-1. It also references the fines and possible loss of a hunting license. 

My neighbor Marie Brumbach mentioned her opposition to hunting in residential areas such as Dunwoody and Sandy Springs in a previous Crier article. After so doing she was labeled an “uneducated lady” by some hunter who authored an article in another publication. If he’s reading this he may want to get a little education of his own – read the statute.

 I have talked with friends that are hunters who said they would never hunt in an area as populated as Dunwoody or Sandy Springs. Aside from the safety issues, they feel it’s no challenge as these animals are too accustomed to humans and are almost semi-domesticated. They don’t consider it sport. 

I also called my insurance company to see how they felt about this situation. They said if they were not notified of this activity prior to any hunting on an insured property and there was an incident where either a person was injured and/or property damaged they would possibly fight payment of a claim and would suggest the insured/homeowner look for another insurer. 

I appreciate Mr. Adler’s concern for my safety, although I’m a bit skeptical of his altruistic motives. Many years ago I had a near miss with a deer while driving at night and it was scary.  But I think the numbers he presented don’t give us a clear picture of those who hit a deer. How many of them were intoxicated, how many of them were speeding, how many of them were not wearing their seat belts, how many of them ignored a deer crossing sign, how many were lighting a cigarette, how many were on their cell phones, or texting or changing a radio station, etc. 

And considering that many people do these things on a daily basis when they get behind the wheel, frankly I’m more fearful about the everyday driving environment then I am about hitting a deer. 

I suggest all of you who are opposed to bow hunting in our residential neighborhoods make you voice heard… call, email or write your mayor and city council members. But first ask your neighbors if they hunt on their property or allow anyone else to do so and politely tell them they do not have your permission to track an animal on your property.

Robert Pashaian



To the Editor:

On Saturday, Dec. 1, DeKalb County sanitation trucks and crews were used to place notices on mailboxes all over Dunwoody announcing that recycling and yard waste pickups would be combined to the same day. 

While I think that combining the pickups is a great cost-saving measure on the county’s part, was deploying actual sanitation trucks and crews on a Saturday the best use of county money?  Were the crews paid overtime for these deliveries?  Why couldn’t the crews give out the notices on the same day as a regular trash pickup? 

Sure it might take a few more seconds during each trash pickup to put the notice on a mailbox, but how much money did this separate effort cost the county and its taxpayers?

Larry Peck


Ethics Case

To the Editor:

Speaking as a founding member of the Dunwoody Homeowners’ Association, the precursor of the city of Dunwoody, it is my belief and conviction, that the present council pay the $90,000.00 that the stupid ethics controversy cost.  The pay off to anattorney of $50,000 was a gift of taxpayer money and was not earned nor owed.  What is wrong with these people? 

Either pay the money into the city treasury or offer your resignation.  Other than that we should start a recall.  However, the latter would cost and waste a lot of money.  Please, just resign and allow some non-politicians take over the city.  Take the proposed parkway and roundabout with you.  One of the councilmen told me over at the farmer’s market one morning that he did not approve of fat government, but helped create it! 

Bill Hurst


Save Dunwoody Signage

To the Editor:

Did I miss the holiday sale?  Buy one sign, get two free?  Aside from a small cluster of homes in very close proximity to the Vermack/Womack intersection, it seems that the overwhelming majority of Save Dunwoody signage is seen in triplicate (Dunwoody Village Parkway, Vermack/Womack Intersection, Brook Run Forest 337 Trees).  Considering these three initiatives are completely unrelated, it appears increasingly evident that the aptly anointed moniker of C.A.V.E. (Citizens Against Virtually Everything) is not only appropriate but alive and well in our sleepy little slice of suburbia. 

One has to look no further than the Dunwoody Tea Party blog to see how the leaders of this anti-everything crusade really feel about the environment, though it is refreshing to see so many born-again tree huggers. 

My only wish for Christmas is that the vocal minority be required to read the Dunwoody Village Master Plan, in its entirety, before purporting to represent the masses in their opposition.  This extensive and well-researched 189-page plan was not drafted overnight.  I applaud the long-term vision set forth by our elected officials and strongly encourage them to move forward with their efforts to revitalize our community.

Darrell Farlow


To the Editor:

I am writing this letter to let the citizens of Dunwoody know about an incident last week. 

While I was driving, I noticed a crew of Dunwoody city employees taking “Save Womack-Vermack intersection” and other “Save Dunwoody” signs from the homes of my neighbors. I inquired as to why they were pulling these signs. They said that they are required to pull all signs that are not 10 feet from the curb. I said that I wasn’t familiar with this policy and they indicated that this information is available on the city of Dunwoody website. I then asked if I could retrieve all of the signs in the flatbed of the truck so that I could return them to my neighbors. They said “no.” I was then told that the signs would be trashed. I ran to all of the homes of my neighbors to move their signs back a few feet. As I drove around the neighborhood, I noticed that several signs that were inches from the street and not removed. I recall numerous political signs that were only inches from the curb during every election, including those supporting our current elected Dunwoody city council officials.  

I can’t help but think that this was a politically charged move. If our opinions differ from those of Mayor Davis, are we not entitled to express our own views? city council members, you earned the votes of Dunwoody citizens because we believed that you would “hear” us and be our voice, not ignore or try to silence us. 

Bridgette Uhde

© 2016 Dunwoody Crier. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
  • 2 Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.

1 comment:

  • timfear posted at 6:35 am on Wed, Dec 12, 2012.

    timfear Posts: 2

    Darrell Farlow nails it. Having all three signs in your yard does seem to indicate you're against any change at all. Why did we even vote in a city if all we wanted was the status quo?