I want to thank Dick Yarbrough for his objective, unbiased column last week about the Vinings cityhood effort, and his totally on target May 26 column about the cityhood efforts and local control of zoning.
In the first column, Mr. Yarbrough mentioned 3 Vinings surveys with widely divergent results.
The only scientific, unbiased survey was done by the Vinings Exploratory Committee.
The Vinings Exploratory Committee contracted with Landmark Communications to do the poll. That poll showed that 71% favored exploring cityhood; 13% opposed exploring cityhood; and 16% no opinion or undecided. The poll was done with a large enough sample that there was only a 5.6% margin of error.
That’s a pretty overwhelming result.
So what about the other two surveys that Mr. Yarbrough mentioned?
The first email survey was a very biased anti-cityhood rant. Therefore, I decided to send out my own email survey, which explained the real issues that in my opinion justified at least exploring cityhood.
As Mr. Yarbrough reported, my survey resulted in more than 96% support for getting a cityhood feasibility study. The vote was 174 in favor of getting a study, and only 6 opposed.
When people understand the real issues confronting Vinings, the overwhelming majority agree that we have to at least explore the cityhood option.
In his last column, correctly refutes the concern that a denial on Z-11 would have resulted in Cobb losing the case on a court challenge. I personally think it is extremely unlikely that Cobb would lose that case.. Mr. Yarbrough is correct that the BOC itself is adding to the reasons supporting all 4 cityhood efforts.