Editor's Note: On Wednesday, Oct. 22, the DHA and Rough Draft Atlanta held a candidate forum in advance of the Nov. 4 election at Stage Door Theatre. Below is a transcript of the forum, which has been edited for clarity and style. Tim Brown moderated the forum, and Cathy Cobbs, managing editor of Reporter Newspapers, and Bob Fiscella, past DHA president, asked questions of the panelists.
Because length of the forum, this story contains several of the questions that were posed to the candidates. You can watch the entire forum on Vimeo here, which was recorded and edited by Jimmy Economos.
Thank you to the Dunwoody Homeowners Association for allowing us to have this forum. My name is Catherine Lautenbacher. I am from a Navy family. I have an engineering degree and an MBA. I was in the Air Force as an intelligence officer for four years, followed by time in the manufacturing business, I took time off to raise my children, and in that time, I found nonprofit work.
I was president of the Mill Glen Association, the swim team, swim club, the Dunwoody Nature Center, and the Community Assistance Center. And now I serve as a trustee for The Nature Conservancy for the Georgia chapter. My day job is with Leadership Perimeter.
Rob Price - District 2, Post 2
Hi all. I'm Rob Price. I'm a 25-year resident of Dunwoody. I moved here in 1999 with my wife, Jenny. I have two kids. My oldest daughter is a graduate of Dunwoody High School, and she is currently at UGA. My youngest daughter is currently a student at Chamblee High School. I've represented Dunwoody on the city council since 2021, and prior to that, I served on the planning commission for four years.
I'm currently on the board of Create Dunwoody, which is an arts and cultural organization here in the city. My education and employment background include more than 30 years of work experience with public policy and environmental science.
The goals I have for my second term are to build on the success of the last four years. I want to continue to improve the quality of life in the city in all areas, from public safety to transportation to arts and culture and parks, basically to make Dunwoody an even better place to live through steady and incremental improvements. I also want to continue to foster economic development, to maintain a strong local economy, and keep our taxes low. And finally, I want to continue to provide responsive constituent service. Thank you.
David "DZ" Ziskind - District 2, Post 2
Good evening. I'm David Siskin. I'm running for the Dunwoody City Council because I believe our city deserves leadership that listens. Plans strategically and puts residents first. I've lived in Dunwoody for the past 20 years as a small business owner, husband and father of three boys who attend Vanderlyn Elementary and Peachtree Middle.
My family and I chose Dunwoody for its strong community, excellent schools and quality of life. My priorities are straightforward. Keep neighborhoods safe with well supported and accountable public safety, be a responsible steward of our tax dollars by prioritizing essential services before asking for more investing in critical infrastructure, better roads improved, improved drainage and connectivity for everyone, supporting sensible, responsible zoning that protects neighborhood character while allowing smart growth and enhancing our parks and green space that makes Dunwoody special.
As a small business owner, I understand the importance of making tough decisions with limited resources while delivering results. This campaign is about ensuring Dunwoody remains a city we're all proud to call home. Thank you,
Wendi Taylor - District 3, Post 3
I'm Wendy Taylor, and what motivated me to get my master's in Industrial and Systems Engineering was I really liked to solve problems and deliver solutions and do it for the least possible money, and I had a long career.
I've had a long career doing this for a lot of clients, and really enjoyed that. But what I found even more special was actually kind of a secondary career, which is been a voluntary one, and I've been blessed to help so many people in around the world, as far away as Afghanistan, the Philippines, Kosovo.
Here at home, I have been serving as a board member for LifeSouth community blood banks for over 10 years.
Tom Lambert - District 3, Post 3
My name is Tom Lambert, and for the past eight years, it's been my honor to serve you as your district three city council member. I'm a proactive leader, and I'm proud to have championed initiatives that delivered real results for Dunwoody, including the creation of dunwoody's entertainment districts, which have sparked millions in private investment and brought new restaurants and gathering spaces to our community, to spearheading the capital improvement plan, which ensures priorities, prior prioritization, transparency and accountability for city projects.
I've made a personal commitment to professional growth, earning 171 credit hours of municipal government municipal training through the municipal government Institute at the Carl Benson Institute of Government, and was elected to serve as district president, appointed to the board of directors to the board of directors to the Georgia Municipal Association, because knowledge and leadership matter.
My service began long before I was elected, serving in volunteer leadership roles in our schools, as a youth coach, and a Scout leader for more than two decades. I love this city, and I've devoted much of my adult life to making it the best it can be. Together, we've made real progress, and with your support, I'll continue providing experienced leadership and proven results for Dunwoody's future. Thank you.
I've got the first question, and it's kind of a view from 30,000 feet. Since we've become a city in 2008, in your opinion, what has the city council done right? What has the council done wrong? Or list the issues that you feel we need to address after 15 years?
Tom Lambert - District 3, Post 3
Oh, yeah, sure. So 15 years we're kind of beyond the toddler phase and starting to kind of walk on our own and take big steps as a city. And I think it's time to move on from from the toddler phase and be stronger as a city.
I think city council has done a good job. I think we've been very responsive to our residents. I think that's where everything starts for me. My priority always starts with, with what the residents want, and the conversations I have with our community every single day.
And so I think we've done we've delivered services. We've kept the lowest tax rate in all of DeKalb County by delivering increased services to our residents. Right now, the city's finances have never been stronger, and with our police department, I'm incredibly proud of them. You know, I give all the credit in the world to our brave men and women that serve on the police department, but our role as city council has been giving them, giving them the resources they need to be successful in their jobs, and we have given salary increases to make sure that we're recruiting and retaining the best police officers, and we've also invested heavily in technology, and those results, those investments, have paid dividends.
Our crime numbers have been steadily declining for the past two years, and we're on pace in 2025 to have the lowest crime numbers in our city's history. But we also need to invest in community spaces as well. You know, one of the big things I heard when I first got on council was, you know, "I'm tired of going to Roswell and I'm tired of going to Brookhaven or Alpharetta,"
And that was the impetus behind creating the entertainment district, because basically that created the situation, the catalyst for new restaurants and entertainment destinations to come to the city. And we've seen millions of dollars in private investment into public spaces as a result. I also am very proud of what we've done in our parks like Brook Run. If anyone was at the Groovin' on the Green concert a couple weeks ago, that was amazing. Over 3000 residents out there. It was a lot of fun, and that's what really, I think our job is. It's about creating community and building our community and building things that we're proud of.
Rob Price - District 2, Post 2
All right, so question is, what did we do right, and what did we do wrong? So I think the time you have to keep in mind time when you're answering this. So when the city first started, we were focused on the basics. Get the police up, get the roads finally started, paving just kind of catch up to a lot of neglect. And I think now we have finally reached the point where we are caught up and we can start doing what I call the extras.
We can start putting effort and funds into arts and culture in the parks, into the amenities that make the city a better place to be. So I wouldn't say that I think any councils have done anything wrong. I just think the needs have changed over time.
One area where I think we need to focus more is anticipating change. And I'll give a good example of this. I think about the Georgetown area. We don't currently have any plans for that, but it was developed in the 70s. It's going to be redeveloped. We need to think about what is that going to look like. I have been pushing, and we are doing this this year, a small area plan that will do just that.
So I think kind of anticipating change for the future is important, because change is going to come whether we're here for it or not. Another area where I think we need to focus is on what I call the transition zones. So Dunwoody is kind of like two cities, right? We've got Perimeter, which is kind of our urban downtown, and then we've got, you know, the suburban areas that we all love.
And where those two connect is where friction seems to develop in the city. So that's an area where we need to really pay attention and focus, and I think that's why.
David "DZ" Ziskind - District 2, Post 2
So since we become a city, we've done a number of things, well, a number of things, right, if you will. The 3P's [police, paving, parks] are really, I would say, the reason, primary reason why the city was started. You know, we have a wonderful police force that is, as of recently, back up to full strength after a little bit of decline following COVID. We've got a full strength police force.
We're investing in technology such as a drone for the police, things like that. So really, some proactive measures there. Paving. Another good thing we're seeing, good stewardship of our roads, taking care of paving. Cities close to completing a 20-year paving plan to make sure all the streets are well taken care of.
And then our parks. You know, it's very interesting, because parks weren't originally part of the city when Dunwoody became a city, and after a couple of years, the city of Dunwoody, was able to procure Brook Run and other parks from DeKalb County for $100 an acre. And of course, you know, Brook Run is our crown jewel, one of the largest in the area.
What we can do is better financial stewardship, better job of listening, better job of long-term strategic planning, and really fostering trust, listening to what people. Want, and being able to deliver on that..
Wendi Taylor - District 3, Post 3
Initially, we had very specific goals, and we had a very, very good city council who paid attention because they were members of the community, and they had spent lots of effort in actually getting opinions and making sure that they could actually have a sustainable city based on a budget of $16 million. And they had 10 employees, and now we have way more employees, and the salaries are more than double what they were originally. So that's a short period of time for salaries to be more than double.
Catherine Lautenbacher - District 1, Post 1
I think that the city was set up nicely. It was a small budget. It was small in its scope, and did a good job. I think now, when we fast forward 18 years, we want to have have it meet the needs that we all would like to see.
One area is the police we are almost full of the funding that the police chief has asked for, but police chief will tell you that our police force is reactive. We can respond when a crime happens. We would like to get to the stage where we are proactive, and that will be more police. The police cost the most. The police cost the most in our budget. They're valuable. I feel that we need to improve the police department beyond just getting drones beyond the technical areas. I think we need to get more police officers.
Cathy Cobbs
Given the city's freeze on increasing the millage rate, how do you propose to continue to offer robust services the voters expect and want without the option of raising additional tax revenue, and what about the improvements in citywide investments?
David "DZ" Ziskind - District 2, Post 2
So as we've seen recently, you know, there is budget fluctuation. I think it's very important to get a firm handle throughout the year, to have proactive budget planning and forecasting, so that we know a number that at the beginning of the year is very similar to the end of the year.
As we've seen this year, we have a fairly significant surplus that the city is looking at how to invest. The city budget has grown quite a lot since the city first started. I think the real The answer here is prioritization. So we have a fixed amount, and rather than looking to raise taxes, I think what we do is prioritize. We know what we have. We know what's coming in. We know values. We know approximate from the commercial side of things, as well as the rest of the tax base, we need to prioritize with what we have and do well with what we have, looking at strategic investments, looking at prioritization, making smart decisions, not overspending on a maintenance facility at Brook Run park, you know - going 250 percent over budget, two and a half, $3 million. We need to really prioritize and make smart investments with what we have, and I believe we have sufficient to make, make some good choices.
Wendi Taylor - District 3, Post 3
Well, I think our priority has been misguided. In in recent years, we have have not been focused on a lot of the basics that really need to be handled. What has happened with the with the infrastructure is that the city now has a stormwater department and and has employees, but we charge the city charges residents for stormwater repairs that are a stormwater system in front of their property or in within their property, even if it was caused by something upstream or failing system that was put in well before they bought the house.
So that is, to me, a really egregious mistake on the part of the city changing that policy. The other thing too is that we have had clear message from voters that a lot of the projects that were in the covered by the $60 million referendum in 2023 and was soundly rejected by by citizens, that a lot of those projects they right now the city council is really trying to find ways to get ahead and do those projects despite them not being approved.
Rob Price - District 2, Post 2
So one factor to keep in mind with this is that residential property taxes make up about seven percent of the total city budget, so they're an important part, but they're not the major part. So to me, we need to focus on developing the other parts of our budget that we do have the ability to try to grow. So for me, that's economic development, and the city has made a lot of strides in this area.
Recently, we have our Edge City 2.0 plan, which really focuses on how the perimeter will develop. That's kind of our economic engine. We just finished a comprehensive plan that will help guide businesses that might want to come in to let them know where their particular operation might best fit. I think we do a good job.
And I personally have tried to do as much as I can to support local businesses in the Chamber of Commerce, to make businesses feel welcome and to help smooth and address any issues or problems they're facing. I think it's also important to invest in our commercial nodes. I'll give a great example of this. We're looking at the Village Crossing project right now. That's a nice streetscape improvement for the village, which should improve the look of the area, the walkability and the ability to move around in that area, and honestly, the ability for traffic to get through that area more quickly.
And I think if we focus on quality-of-life issues, if we make this a place where people want to work and live, then our economy will thrive and we'll be just fine in terms of our revenues.
Catherine Lautenbacher - District 1, Post 1
I think we know that we pay very small amount in taxes, very small in city taxes. So where does the revenue come from? We can look at the business taxes. If we want to bring businesses to this community, we need to build trails.
I'm going to say trails, but I really mean sidewalks. People need to be able to work and then walk to a mall, walk to shops, walk to restaurants. It's connectivity that is the key to financial success for us, for economic development, the businesses moving in are only interested in areas in which they have their workers they can walk.
So that is a very important piece. I would say that we have plans. We have trail plans, we have park plans. We have road infrastructure plans. We're going to just keep doing it, doing it slowly, but keep doing it.
Tom Lambert - District 3, Post 3
The city does a lot with a little, and we've done a lot, and that's not an accident. We have very strong fiscal management tools in place, and we're very responsive to the needs of the city and prioritizing those and directing funding to that. One thing to understand that's important about our city funding is that not all money is the same. Funding is basically in silos. Our general operating budget, we can use that money on anything. SPLOST is dedicated that it can only go to transportation and police by state law that's mandated, and a little tiny bit to maintenance.
Our hotel-motel tax can only go to tourism generation in the Perimeter area. And you know, my opponent mentioned stormwater, that's a utility, and that all the funds that are raised in the stormwater utility have to go directly to stormwater and we recognize we have a backlog. We don't get a lot of money in that stormwater utility. When we received our ARPA funding from the federal government, we received $18 million and we dedicated $5 million of that, catching up on our stormwater backlog. So the city is aware of that, and we're putting our money to good use and trying to prioritize where that's going and where the greatest need is, and we've always done that.
And so moving forward, really, Rob mentioned economic development - I think that's important. One of the reasons our budget's growing is because our tax status has grown, and one of the reasons our tax status is growing is because we've invested a lot into economic development. And I believe it's really difficult to convince outside people to invest in your community if you're not willing to invest in yourselves, and so we need to focus on projects that increase quality of life and economic development for our citizens.
Bob Fiscella
At the city's retreat in March, there was discussions on increasing city revenue amid growing operational cost and with inflation. Since the city's tax millage rate is already capped, it was reported that officials were considering the creation of a special tax district to help fund public safety, thus bypassing a vote by the citizens, which was not the intent of the city's founding fathers. My question is, if elected or re elected, would you consider raising funds through creation of a special tax district? Why or why not?
Rob Price - District 2, Post 2
So I'm going to spend part of this answer explaining special tax districts. The establishment of a special tax district does not establish a tax so you can create that without putting a tax in. The second is, unless you create a new tax revenue source, you can't fund that. So if it was going to be paid for by residential property taxes, we still can't increase the residential property tax as described in the city charter, even if we split it between residential property taxes and a special tax district.
One reason I like the special tax district is because if we put our public safety expenses into that, and we had some council down the road needs to raise funds, they can say the funds will be raised specifically for public safety, for an extra ambulance for police.
So you basically carve out the portion of your tax revenue that you use for that purpose. So it actually provides to me, greater clarity on what your taxes are being spent on. If a council needs to do a tax increase down the road. We are fortunate in that we had a really good year. I don't think we're going to need it. I don't think the next council will need to worry about doing a any kind of tax increase, or trying to put anything before the voters, but creation of a special tax district does not, in and of itself, create a tax. We would still have to have a vote to create a new tax. So that's, I think, a little bit of a confusion on that issue.
Tom Lambert - District 3, Post 3
So I'll start off to write off and say, and I've said this before, I don't support violating the charter and raising above the millage cap. I, more importantly, I don't think there's a reason to, you know the city, we all remember what happened five years ago.
COVID came and shut down the world, and there was impacts to the global economy and to the office markets, and we got into very hyper conservative mode, and we tightened the belt strap as tight as it could go, because we weren't certain what was going to happen to the world.
And there was a lot of concern within the community about the city's there was dialog about the city's finances are in ruins, and the sky was falling. But if you remember, I was the one person standing up at all the meetings and saying, "Our city finances are strong."
And I wasn't just saying that a blind optimism. I was saying that because I dug deep into our financials, and I understood the market, and I understand where it was going. And so I don't think there's a need to do that. Now, at the retreat, there was a discussion. And just, you know, the retreat is a strategic planning session.
And so I don't think when you're when you're planning, that you should take anything off the table. You should listen and hear everything. But I didn't think it was anything that was going to be necessary for the city now or in the future, looking way down the road there, if the citizens are looking for additional services, we will have to figure out how to fund it.
If, for some reason that we want to expand our police force or add a fire department, we're going to have to figure out a way to pay for those things. I'm not suggesting we do those the fire department right now, but those are situations where we have to get additional revenue, and then we're gonna have to have that discussion. But if we do, I support doing it in a public fashion, whether the residents vote on that, whether or not we move forward with that.
Catherine Lautenbacher - District 1, Post 1
I think I agree with Rob that the special tax district would give us money that could be targeted. It could be targeted to police and police vehicles and police officers and police technology, all of that that could lower the rate at which the other taxes are levied on the citizens. I think that's a good idea. I think it's a fair idea, and I think it's important to fund the police.
Wendi Taylor - District 3, Post 3
I don't think it's a tax problem. I think it's a spending problem. I really think we should not violate that upper middle mileage rate. And Mr. Lambert says he wants to take it even further. And we just had the rate raised to 3.04 which was the max allowed by the charter into 2023 and that was after then the bond referendum, which would have allowed a whole lot more debt we have right now.
We have $10 point.5 million in debt, and I think that we shouldn't have that in debt. We should focus on the basics, get rid of debt, and actually not, not go to big projects like the betrayals, which is so oversold, so oversold. There is, I mean, 69 miles of 12 foot wide concrete slabs beside roads that people, I mean the ones that are built already are not even being used. This is a ridiculous over spend, and it was inspired by developers who sold it to this to city staff, who sold it to city council. This is not representing what people in I know District 3 want. We have loads of places where we will be so much we will have to give up so much in order to have those paths. And it's just not fair.
David "DZ" Ziskind - District 2, Post 2
The question was, Do I support city council creating a special task tax district? No, that's that's a simple path to a future tax increase controlled by city council. As a project manager, I manage projects that are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. If you want to allocate a certain amount of money to police to other things, you do that within the budget process, and you allocate those things for those purposes.
City council's job is prioritizing spending within the existing budget. We need to rebuild trust, as we saw through the failed bond referendum, citizens by 57 to 43 percent or so voted that down. They did not trust the city to take that additional money and spend it in the way that they thought was appropriate. So city council's job is to spend within the existing budget, if there needs to be an existing source of revenue.
If we feel so strongly that we cannot control existing spending. But again, let's look at the number of full-time employees we've added outside of police officers, outside of public safety. So we now have deputy directors of all departments. We have assistants. In some cases, the administrative or the executive assistant has an administrative assistant. So, we just need to prioritize our spending and spend it on smart things that citizens want.
Cathy Cobbs
In 2023 a bond referendum for parks and trails was voted down by a wide margin. Many feel that if the question of funding parks on the trails were separated, the parks would have had been embraced and the trails voted down on their own. Today, except for the decision to spend $5 million building out Homecoming Park, we have two pieces of relatively vacant land and unfunded projects at established parks. If you had to do it over again, would your stance be different on how to approach a similar referendum, and should we take another shot at it? Why or why not?
Wendi Taylor - District 3, Post 3
I think the voters spoke, the voters spoke, and we should not ever consider going against the voters. And I think this current city council, in years past, at least many of the members of it have have been trying to work around with the vote. I do agree that there were some good, good things in that, in on that list of projects. But the problem was, is that the and that the city council, our members - Mr. Lambert and others have have actually admitted that they, they were, they were trying to get the money, and then actually they were going to figure out and change.
They had the power to change which of those projects would actually be implemented. So it basically took the the they were going to choose what they wanted their pet projects and and not what what the voters wanted. And I think a whole lot of voters did not trust the city council to go to put them in in debt $60 million over 20 years. I believe it was, and there is no, no reason that we need to revisit this at all. I mean, they spoke, and that project, which was sold to to the city, basically, it's a developer's dream. I mean, think of all of the people, all the companies that are going to profit. It's a cash cow for them, and it's a boondoggle.
Catherine Lautenbacher - District 1, Post 1
Thank you. The I not recommend another bond referendum for the voters. I feel we've we've passed that point. That's two bond referendums that have been denied by the citizens. That's fine. I feel we are going to build out these parks this year. We should almost fully well this, in this coming year, the $5 million will be devoted fully to Homecoming Park, which would almost completely build that out.
We will look at what shows up for the next year, because it's Wildcat Park in my district that I'd like to build up, but I'll wait. I will wait. And I think that's that's a prudent way to go. At this point, the bond referendum was about the bond. The question wasn't, do you want trails? The question wasn't, do you want parks? The question was, do you want the bond? And that voters said,
No, that's fine. We can build out trails. We can improve the sidewalks at a much slower rate. I think that when we build on Mount Vernon, it won't be a 12-foot sidewalk, it'll be a six-foot sidewalk or an eight-foot sidewalk, and that will make a large difference to people who have to traverse that road. We can do this. We're going to do it slowly.
Tom Lambert - District 3, Post 3
I think it's important we talk about the bond to talk about where it originated, and it originated with a project list that was put together from a citizen's committee. A lot of those people are in the room tonight, actually. So it became so we had a large list of capital, a wish list, and we convened a citizens' committee that prioritize those projects, and kind of said, here are the things we want the city to focus on. So we took that list, we evaluated it, but obviously we did not have the money available to do that, so we proposed a bond referendum to pay for constructing those projects. And it's not as crazy an idea as a lot of people have said. And over 70 percent of local government projects nationwide are funded with municipal bonds. And there's a reason for that.
It's the most cost effective way to do it. You spread the cost out over all over generations who are going to be utilizing those, those amenities, the interest rates, and it's tax free, and it's a cheaper way to do it, if you try to save up the money building cost inflation is far greater than what you would have paid in inflation.
But the bond failed and and we've accepted those the results of that election. No one's ever tried to say anything otherwise, we accept it and we move on. I still think there's a demand in the community for those amenities, and so it's our challenge to figure out how to fund that. We're still moving forward, as has been mentioned, we've put some of our surplus money to work, and we're going to focus on building Homecoming Park, and we'll move on to the other parks as we move forward with available funding that comes there. It's going to take a longer to get there, but we'll do our best to deliver what the what the citizens want.
David "DZ" Ziskind - District 2, Post 2
in my opening statement, I said our city deserves leadership that listen listens. The bond failed because of council. The bond failed because of the way it was put together, and ultimately it was a referendum on trust. Do the citizens trust the government, the City Council, to spend money in a way that they think is prudent? This $60 million parks and trails bond failed because there wasn't that trust.
There wasn't that cohesive agreement on what projects we want to do, how to set them up and keep them not anti parks and not anti trails. I've got three young kids, including the one at Peachtree, 12-year-old who enjoys going up and down Mount Vernon. And yes, I would like to see improvements there.
And yes, I would like to see improvements to our parks. We have to approach this by prioritizing what we do, rebuild that trust, decide what projects we want to go after, and go after them in a smart way. We need to think about, for example, Homecoming Park, you know, that was bought in anticipation of the bond referendum going forward? Was there contingency planning if that did not go forward? What would be done there? What are the issues with, for example, storm water management, water management on that parcel, as well as Village Mill, which it backs up to. So we need to look at this. We need to prioritize, and we need to approach the spend smartly.
Rob Price - District 2, Post 2
All right. Well, a lot of stuff's already been said. I think I'll just kind of start off with the vote in 2023 is done to me. There's no reason to revisit that issue. The residents said they did not want to spend extra. I'm not going to ask them to spend extra again with another bond asking. So then the question is, you know, what do we do now?
Tom mentioned the citizens group. We still have that list of 20 priority projects. To me, we work through those. A number of people have talked about building out Homecoming Park. Obviously, we'll do that and move on to Wildcat, in terms of trails, let's focus those where there is high use and high need right now and where we can get other people's money. And a great example of that is in the Perimeter, where the perimeter Community Improvement District will pay a lot of the cost of these, of these projects, where we can get some grant money, and while we're able to use very little city money.
So, you know, we'll keep working at a slower pace to get these projects that were identified by the citizen's committee put in. I'm honestly in favor of acquiring parkland, new parkland, the city has very little available space, even if a piece of land has to sit for 10 years and a later, city council can do something. We're vastly underserved by parkland, especially over on that, you know, something else, we can work with private entities on what are called POPs, private, privately owned public spaces, so places where people can hang out. Ashford lane is a great spot, an example of this.
Bob Fiscella
Last month, city council unanimously voted to deny a rezoning application for an affordable senior housing project on the property that is now occupied by LifeSouth. iI there a more appropriate location for affordable housing in Dunwoody, and would you be in favor of such a project, even if it was rental units?
Tom Lambert - District 3, Post 3
So affordable housing is a challenge, regional challenge, and I think Dunwoody answers need to fit done what he needs. We're already one of the most dense cities in the entire state of Georgia. So density really isn't the answer. And that was the reason I voted no on that project. It was far too dense for where it was going.
So you know, to say, specifically, I think you know, the market will, will dictate what comes to us and what you know, and what doesn't, and then what each project is evaluated on its own. It's you can't pre judge. I mean, in the state of Georgia, we are a land property owners, property rights state, our courts and our legislature and the mayor and council act as a judge and jury.
Zoning hearings are quasi-judicial. So for me to come out ahead of a hearing and say, 'I'm going to deny that would kind of be like a judge coming up before a capital case and saying that guy's guilty. I'm going to throw the book at him.'
So every every case needs to be evaluated on his own, and that's what I've done. I pour myself into all of our rezoning cases. I'm very, very critical of them to make sure that they are consistent with the city's vision and what we want to be and and I have a proven record of voting no on a lot of zoning cases that were simply wrong for the city, whether they were too dense, where they were the wrong thing in the wrong place. There's several examples that I could point to, but I don't think I can get to them in eight seconds. So, but, yeah, so we need to continue what's doing, what's best for Dunwoody,
Catherine Lautenbacher - District 1, Post 1
I think, as Tom pointed out, we have a very dense city. It'll be rebuilds, tear downs. We in meeting, we did vote yes on senior housing that will be down toward the mall. We don't have the best, the best options. What I can say is that with our comprehensive plan we did, which we just passed, we have identified transition areas. So in district one, that'll be between my house and the Dunwoody Village.
On Roberts Road, we have said you can have a single-family home or a duplex or a quad flex. We can increase the housing that way, making smaller houses that are more affordable for seniors, for school workers, things like that. So it's a difficult problem, that is a solution that we have come up with. We are in general for affordable housing. But it won't be easy.
Rob Price - District 2, Post 2
I'll address the affordable housing part first, and then just talk housing in general after that. So I think land prices in the city kind of preclude a lot of affordable housing options. So to me, one of the most important things to do is to protect the existing affordable housing that we have a lot of that is apartment buildings over on that we do regular code enforcement to make sure that those buildings are maintained, so that the residents that live there have safe places to live.
The city is 48 percent apartments. We are heavy with apartments. We are heavy with single-family homes. We're missing what is called the missing middle, which is town homes, condos, quadplexes, places where a young couple or a an empty nester might want to live. So to me, that is the focus of housing in the city that we should be looking at. It touches on the transition zones that Catherine mentioned, also down on the Perimeter area.
I think a project that included some of that, but that also had apartments, if it was down near MARTA or a transportation node, could be considered. But I think we need to focus on the housing that we need in the city. If you talk to the Atlanta Regional Commission, they'll tell you build whatever housing is suitable for your community, just any number or any level of housing will help the housing issue in the whole metro area, if we have more housing stock, that might make housing more affordable in other areas. So anyway, that's I've kind of rambled a bit on that, but that's kind of my thoughts
David "DZ" Ziskind - District 2, Post 2
Affordable housing is an issue -rental units aren't going to solve that. They'll make money for the apartment owners, and we don't need any more apartment that was one of the key reasons why we broke away from the cab, and we're actually seeing, I think, the last to be done with, or the DeKalb approved apartments being built out now. But affordable housing is an issue.
We need to apply systems-level thinking to this. So if we're looking for quote, unquote affordable housing, what are we doing to have that near transit, increase job access, reduce parking requirements, things like that. Land is expensive, right? So be close to be close to transit, where you can reduce the number of cars.
Again, on this systems-level thinking, we need to think about infrastructure. We need to think about everything that's already strained. We need to think about our roads that are strained, utility systems that are strained. So adding density is only going to increase the challenge there. We do need to protect existing homes, existing properties. There are opportunities to build out. B
ut again, we need to do this in a in a smart manner, in a thoughtful manner, in a, you know, planning with this systems level mentality, we also need to consider, you know, retirees and seniors who may want to move out of their existing homes into a townhome or something where they can still enjoy Dunwoody but not have as much space to to work with. Thank you. And Wendy,
Wendi Taylor - District 3, Post 3
Mr. Lambert was for the Dominion complex that would be was absolutely opposed by everybody that came to speak at the at the city council meetings that discussed it, and it wasn't until the meeting two, two months ago, where after I had declared and Mr. Ziskin had declared his candidacy for city council, that they had opposition and recognized that 'hey, they better do what people in District 1 wanted, which was not to have that Dominion complex right there, because there were so many issues with the plan and it was not what was the best interest of any of any of Dunwoody.
What was interesting, though, is the right after that, the comprehensive plan was being worked on and put together and finalized for approval by the city council. Well, what happened was, is city staff went ahead and after having gone through the charade of getting all sorts of input from citizens about what they wanted in these different character areas across the city, what happened was, is that they talked to developers. Well, a developer, is what they said.
And I'm wondering if it was a consolation prize for Dominion who lost this project, which had been promised to them by city staff, at least the zoning changes and the waivers of construction requirements were promised anyway, it got tossed to District 3.