Breaking up is hard to do

A credible effort is underway to make Buckhead a separate city from Atlanta. But who's for it and against it may surprise you.

Walter C. Jones

February 1, 2008

One of the most pivotal issues of the current session of the General Assembly probably won't be decided until the waning hours, the breakup of Atlanta.

A credible effort aims to make Buckhead a separate city from Atlanta. Well-off homeowners naturally pay more taxes than the low-paid or poor who require the bulk of government services. The same frustration also has fueled GOP efforts to shift away from property taxes toward greater reliance on sales taxes.

Opponents of breaking up the city and county always use two arguments. First, they fret about loss of money for services. Who would fund the parks, libraries, senior-citizen centers, police stations and fire coverage if the rich people have their own cities? Clearly, there's no appetite in the rest of Georgia for state government to pick up the tab. Second, critics argue, the secessionists merely are making an old-fashioned power grab in the legislature to replace what they haven't been able to win at the ballot box.

But among the opponents this year are many of Atlanta's business heavy hitters, such as the Buckhead Coalition, which has hired lobbyists to make the case at the Capitol against further division.

Why are the corporate leaders taking this stance? For one thing, the election of Shirley Franklin as mayor and the last several Fulton County Commission chairs, such as John Eaves, haven't left business leaders feeling ignored at city hall or the courthouse. Franklin and Eaves weren't their candidates originally for those posts, but they've shown a willingness to meet with and listen to the business community far more than Bill Campbell or Michael Lomax did.

But a bigger reason for their opposition is practicality. It simply would be bad for business if Atlanta went broke. "To see a headline in the New York Times saying,  ‘Atlanta bankrupted,' that would be bad for all of us," says former Atlanta Mayor Sam Massell, who has headed the Buckhead Coalition for the past two decades and whose admirers call "the mayor of Buckhead." Not only would such negative publicity dampen economic development, but it would herald the halt in new government projects.

The chamber of commerce crowd has its own list of government services it wants, from various transportation options to expanded policing, all of which will require money, leadership and commitment from government that simply won't happen with the distractions and ill will created by further division. The men and women who have risen to the top of their companies recognize from personal experience that size determines power, and they want a single local government powerful enough to accomplish their civic plans. Of course, supporters of separation say two smaller governments would be more efficient and less bureaucratic, a difficult concept for executives whose careers have been spent making their companies larger.

Under the gold dome, the politics generally favor separation. None of the leadership comes from the Atlanta city limits but from smaller cities and suburbs around the state. Their dislike of Atlanta is rekindled every morning they fight traffic to the Capitol for 40 days and smolders through their evening receptions, when leaders from back home complain their communities would prosper more if Atlanta didn't monopolize so many state resources. At the same time, these legislative leaders fundamentally believe in smaller, more local government. They've allowed other cities to be created, and they're not likely to automatically halt new ones.

The question will be how effective the lobbying campaign will be. Can the executives – who generally happen to be Republicans themselves – convince GOP leaders or will the Republican lawmakers representing disenchanted property owners prevail? Whatever the outcome, it's certain to be an undercurrent throughout the balance of the session.