The Mableton Review

10/21/2026

An opinion piece by Yashica Marshall

Mableton Is Not Mulberry

*Local control should begin with the people, not simply end with their tax bills.*

There is a difference between having local government and having a government that actually listens to the people it serves. I believe that distinction is getting lost in much of the conversation surrounding Mableton and its decision to establish its own police department.

I've heard quite a bit about "local control" and why having our own police department is supposedly necessary to achieve it. But I think we need to have a more meaningful conversation about what local control actually means and who it is supposed to benefit.

Local control isn't about a handful of neighbors, many with little or no experience in municipal government, deciding what should happen with everyone else's property and dollars. Winning an election doesn't automatically make someone an expert in public safety, municipal finance, or running a police department.
Local control should be about engaging the people, respecting their concerns, and working collaboratively to make decisions that impact their everyday lives.

That brings me to the City of Mulberry.

Like Mableton, Mulberry is a newly incorporated Georgia city evaluating whether to establish its own police department or continue relying on county services. But what interests me isn't whether Mulberry ultimately creates a police department. It's how the city is approaching the decision.
Rather than treating a municipal police department as the inevitable outcome, Mulberry established a Public Safety Advisory Committee to evaluate three options: creating its own department, continuing with Gwinnett County Police, or maintaining county services while expanding its Marshal's Office.

The committee scored each option, and a city department ranked highest. However, instead of treating that recommendation as the end of the conversation, city officials are discussing how to bring residents further into the process.Committee documents estimate residents currently pay approximately $10 million for county police services, compared with a projected $12.5 million for a city department. Those figures give residents something meaningful to evaluate: What additional services would they receive? Would the benefits justify the expense? Could another arrangement deliver comparable results at a lower cost?

And perhaps most importantly, Mulberry officials are considering a public referendum as early as 2027, allowing residents to have a direct say in the decision.

Think about that. Elected officials recognizing that possessing the legal authority to make a decision doesn't eliminate the value of allowing the people who must live with its consequences to help determine the outcome.
That doesn't diminish local government. It demonstrates respect for the people who gave that government its authority.

Now consider Mableton.

In January 2026, Mableton sought a feasibility study to evaluate the financial, operational, and practical considerations of establishing its own police department. The city's solicitation specifically indicated that commissioning the study did not constitute a decision to establish one.

Yet, by June, the city announced plans to move forward with developing its public safety operations. On July 13, the City Council approved a 4.5-mill Public Safety Special Service District tax, projected to generate approximately $21 million annually.

And residents still had not been provided the completed feasibility analysis.

In Mulberry, the evaluation is being used to help inform the decision. In Mableton, significant decisions were made before residents could examine the very study commissioned to evaluate their feasibility. What, then, was the purpose of commissioning an independent study if the public couldn't review its findings before consequential financial decisions were made?

I'm not suggesting that Mableton didn't face legitimate challenges in negotiating police services with Cobb County. It did. But the agreement extending county police services through May 2027 provided additional time for planning and evaluation. A completed feasibility study could have helped determine the actual costs, realistic implementation schedule, and whether continuing or modifying county services represented a more financially responsible alternative.

Instead, residents received a substantial new tax obligation while still seeking answers about the long-term costs and justification for the city's direction.
And for many households, those questions aren't academic. Seniors on fixed incomes, families already struggling with affordability, and property owners facing increasing tax obligations deserve to know why this expense is necessary and whether more economical alternatives were adequately considered.

People can support public safety and still question whether creating an entirely new police department is the best use of their tax dollars. I recognize Mableton has held public meetings, including a public safety town hall. But we should not confuse public notification with meaningful public participation.
Explaining a preferred course of action after it has been announced isn't the same as inviting residents to help evaluate the alternatives before that direction is chosen. Allowing residents three minutes at a podium isn't necessarily the same as involving them in decisions that will affect their finances for years.

And that brings us back to the most striking distinction between these two cities.

In Mulberry, elected officials are considering asking residents whether they want their own police department. In Mableton, residents are asking elected officials for the opportunity to reconsider whether they want the city itself.

Those aren't identical questions, but the contrast should give us pause.

Mableton residents have organized, petitioned, attended meetings, and questioned the financial implications of the city's decisions. Not everyone agrees, but the level of disagreement should be an opportunity for elected officials to reflect on how they engage the community, not simply an inconvenience to overcome.

I don't believe residents should have to become municipal finance experts, attend every meeting, or file open records requests just to understand why their government is making decisions that significantly affect their household budgets. Yes, residents have a responsibility to remain informed. But elected officials also have a responsibility to make information accessible, provide meaningful explanations, and create genuine opportunities for participation.

That isn't spoon-feeding the public. That's respecting the public.

Mulberry hasn't perfected the process, and its officials still have difficult questions to answer. There is no guarantee that residents will agree with the ultimate decision. But good government doesn't require everyone to agree. It requires a process that allows people to understand, question, and meaningfully contribute before decisions are made on their behalf.

Mableton is not Mulberry. Our circumstances, obligations, and relationships with our respective counties are different. But the fundamental responsibility of local government should be the same. You cannot champion local control while treating the people whose money funds that control as though their participation is optional.

Local control isn't simply bringing government closer to the people geographically while keeping them at a distance from the decisions.
It is recognizing that the people who fund their government deserve more than an explanation of what has already been decided.
Because ultimately, good government isn't measured by how much authority elected officials can exercise over the people.
It's measured by how responsibly they exercise that authority with them.

And that, to me, is what real local control should look like.

10/21/2026

This incident occurred yesterday in Mableton’s district 6. Thankfully Cobb County police apprehended the suspect.

Police say the gropings happened at the Panera Bread, Target and TJ Maxx stores in the shopping center.

10/20/2026

Drafted by: Darryl Duling

Why Mableton Could Face Dissolution: When City Lite Becomes Something Else

In November 2022, voters approved the creation of the City of Mableton.

The proposal was presented as a limited-services municipality, commonly described as City Lite. The idea was to establish local control over certain municipal responsibilities while Cobb County continued providing major services.

Four years later, the conversation has changed.

Mableton is preparing to establish its own police department. Residents have received property tax bills. The city is considering redevelopment powers through Tax Allocation Districts, while additional municipal facilities and infrastructure are being discussed through SPLOST.

These developments raise a fundamental question.

How much can a city change from its original proposal before residents begin questioning whether the government they approved is the government they now have?

The City Lite Question

The original City Lite framework matters because it established expectations.

Supporters of incorporation emphasized the benefits of local representation, planning, and control over development.

But the creation of a municipal police department represents a significant expansion in operational responsibility.

A police department requires personnel, vehicles, facilities, equipment, insurance, training, and ongoing funding.

That expansion may be justified by changing circumstances, including the difficulties negotiating police services with Cobb County. But justification requires more than explaining why the city wants to move forward.

It requires demonstrating the financial and operational consequences.

This is why the independent police feasibility study matters.

Residents should be able to examine the analysis supporting the city's decisions.

The Trust Question

Government operates on more than legal authority. It also depends on public trust.

When residents believe the scope of government is changing faster than its leaders are explaining those changes, confidence can deteriorate.

And once that confidence deteriorates, every additional proposal becomes more difficult to evaluate.

A new tax is no longer simply a question about revenue.

A proposed municipal facility is no longer simply a question about construction.

TADs and SPLOST are no longer considered only as financing mechanisms.

They also become questions about the city's direction, priorities, and accountability.

That does not establish that any particular proposal is inappropriate. It demonstrates why transparency becomes increasingly important as government responsibilities expand.

The Dissolution Movement Is Already Real

The discussion about dissolving Mableton is no longer hypothetical.

Residents have organized a petition requesting that the Georgia General Assembly consider legislation providing a lawful path to dissolution or another opportunity for residents to decide the city's future.

Their stated concerns include taxation, overlapping government services, financial sustainability, and the difference between expectations before incorporation and the city's present direction.

Other residents continue to support incorporation, arguing that local government can provide greater control over zoning, development, and community priorities.

Both perspectives deserve examination against the city's actual performance.

What Would Dissolution Require?

Dissolving Mableton would not happen automatically because residents sign a petition or express dissatisfaction.

It would require action through Georgia's legislative process, along with resolution of the city's existing legal, financial, and service obligations.

That distinction matters.

Creating a city establishes an institution with responsibilities that cannot simply disappear overnight.

Any serious dissolution proposal must explain what happens to existing contracts, employees, public services, property, and outstanding debt.

The same financial scrutiny applied to establishing a city should also apply to any proposal to dissolve one.

The Bigger Question

Mableton's future should not be evaluated solely through promises about what the city might eventually become.

It should also be evaluated through what the city has already done.

What responsibilities were originally proposed?

What responsibilities has the city assumed?

How have projected costs changed?

What services have improved?

What financial obligations will residents carry into the future?

And has city leadership provided enough information for residents to evaluate those questions independently?

These are measurable questions, not personal attacks.

Dissolution is one possible subject of legislative debate. Continued cityhood with greater transparency, revised priorities, or different leadership is another possible direction.

Ultimately, the debate is about whether the government is delivering the services, accountability, and financial stewardship residents expect.

The City Lite proposal established the starting point.

The city's record since incorporation provides the evidence.

And whatever Mableton's future holds, residents deserve a clear accounting of the distance between the two.

10/13/2026

The Mableton City Council will hold a public hearing and consider adopting the city’s first comprehensive plan at its October 14th meeting.

Mableton City Council will hold a public hearing Oct. 14 on its first comprehensive plan, Elevating Tomorrow Mableton 2045, and consider adopting the proposal

10/12/2026

A tragic incident occurred at Six Flags today. An investigation is ongoing.

Goliath riders were being evacuated four at a time.

10/11/2026

Drafted by: Darryl Duling

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE: PEOPLE ARE PI**ED

Mayor Michael Owens, the frustration isn't just about the tax bill. It's about everything that happened before the bill arrived.

To understand why some Mableton residents are angry, you have to look at the entire sequence of events—not simply the latest explanation coming from City Hall.

FIRST CAME THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH COBB COUNTY.

Mableton was created with the expectation of a limited-service, or “city-lite,” government. Yet policing has become one of the most expensive and controversial responsibilities facing the new city.

Negotiations with Cobb County dragged on, and residents watched the relationship between the two governments deteriorate.

After mediation in May, the city and county announced terms for a $13 million, one-year police services agreement. But the agreement stalled over a dispute involving municipal court authority and revenue.

Cobb County accused Mableton of introducing a new demand. Mayor Owens disputed that characterization and argued that the county's proposed language threatened Mableton's municipal court.

The two governments eventually signed a one-year agreement on June 15.

But by then, the public had witnessed repeated negotiating difficulties, an expired agreement, competing explanations, and uncertainty about the future of police services.

THEN CAME THE BLAME.

In his public statements, Mayor Owens has repeatedly emphasized Cobb County's role in creating the difficulties Mableton faces.

Cobb County certainly has its own decisions to explain. But here's the problem with making the county the central explanation:

Cobb County did not create Mableton's budget. Cobb County did not decide Mableton's tax structure. And Cobb County is not responsible for explaining Mableton's own planning process to its residents.

Those responsibilities belong to Mableton's elected leadership.

THEN THE TIMELINE STARTED RAISING QUESTIONS.

Consider the sequence:

December 2025: Public safety funding and the special service district were already part of city planning.

January 2026: Mableton issued a request for proposals for a feasibility study examining the creation of a full-service municipal police department.

March 2026: State legislation concerning Mableton's public safety arrangements was moving through the legislative process.

May 2026: Public safety expenditures were part of the city's budget planning.

June 2026: Mableton publicly announced preparations to establish its own Public Safety Division, including law enforcement services.

July 2026: The city moved forward with its 4.5-mill public safety tax.

October 2026: Tax bills began reaching residents.

Now, planning for a possible police department does not necessarily mean the decision had already been made.

Responsible governments should examine alternatives.

But that raises an important question:

If forming a police department was supposedly the alternative after negotiations failed, why were the preparations already underway months before the final breakdown?

Was the city preparing a contingency plan? Was an independent department gradually becoming the preferred option? And at what point were residents clearly informed of that change in direction?

These are reasonable questions, not personal attacks.

AND WHERE IS THE FEASIBILITY STUDY?

The city requested an analysis of the operational, financial, and legal implications of creating its own police department.

Yet residents have not been shown a publicly accessible completed study establishing the costs, assumptions, risks, and alternatives behind the decision.

Was the study completed? If so, where are its findings? If not, what information supported the decisions already made?

The public deserves to know.

THEN CAME THE TAX BILLS.

For many residents, the debate suddenly became personal.

It was no longer just a disagreement between government officials, a budget presentation, or another public meeting.

It was an actual bill arriving at their homes.

And residents were being asked to pay for a major change in public safety while important questions about its planning and long-term costs remained unanswered.

THEN CAME THE MESSAGES FROM THE MAYOR.

Mayor Owens has addressed residents directly, including appeals to his “fellow residents” and “fellow citizens,” while explaining the city's decisions and responding to public criticism.

After the backlash surrounding the tax bills, another lengthy statement followed—the one that required roughly ten screenshots to capture.

But here's what leadership needs to understand:

The length of an explanation is not the same as the strength of an explanation.

Residents can read ten pages and still have the same fundamental questions they had before page one.

What changed from the original city-lite vision?

When did establishing a city police department move from a possibility to the city's preferred direction?

What did the feasibility analysis establish?

How much will the department cost to create, operate, and sustain?

And why should residents feel confident in the process that brought us here?

Mayor Owens, people aren't necessarily angry because they don't understand what you're saying. Some are angry because they've been paying attention to what has happened.

Every negotiation, every announcement, every budget decision, every new tax, and every public statement becomes part of the city's record.

You cannot evaluate public trust by looking at the latest statement in isolation. You have to examine the decisions that preceded it.

The city has an obligation to provide public safety. That isn't in dispute.

But providing public safety and providing accountability are not competing responsibilities.

Residents should not have to choose between the two.

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.

The tax bill may have triggered the latest round of anger.

But the frustration has been brewing for months.

And another lengthy explanation will not resolve it without clear answers, accessible documentation, and a willingness to acknowledge the concerns behind the criticism.

The real question isn't why people are upset. It's whether City Hall is listening to what they're upset about.

Editorial Commentary | Mableton Public Safety & Accountability

10/08/2026

Drafted by: Yashica Marshall

Several months back, I informed you of HB 1213 The Redevelopment Powers Law Bill being passed and what the law means. We will be asked to vote on extending these powers to our City Council and Mayor in the upcoming election and I wanted to provide you again with an overview to keep you informed and help you determine whether to vote YES or NO to the question. Voting is important, understanding what you are voting for is crucial. Enjoy.

Understanding Mableton's Redevelopment Powers Referendum and Tax Allocation Districts (TADs)

What are residents actually being asked to approve?

On November 3, 2026, Mableton voters will be asked the following question:
“Shall the Act be approved which authorizes the City of Mableton, Georgia, to exercise all redevelopment powers allowed under the 'Redevelopment Powers Law,' as it may be amended from time to time?”

This question arises from Georgia House Bill 1213, enacted in 2026, which proposes granting the City of Mableton redevelopment powers under Georgia law.

Although the ballot uses the broad phrase "redevelopment powers," a central purpose of this authorization is to allow the city to establish Tax Allocation Districts (TADs) and use tax allocation financing to support redevelopment projects.

Approval would also authorize the city to issue tax allocation bonds and incur other redevelopment obligations as permitted by state law.

What is Georgia's Redevelopment Powers Law?

Georgia's Redevelopment Powers Law was enacted in 1985 and is codified at O.C.G.A. § 36-44-1 et seq.

The law permits qualifying cities and counties, once authorized through the legally required process, to establish specially designated redevelopment areas and finance improvements using anticipated increases in property tax revenue.
These designated areas are called Tax Allocation Districts, or TADs.
The objective is to encourage investment in areas that have experienced limited development, deteriorating conditions, or other circumstances meeting the law's redevelopment criteria.

How does a Tax Allocation District work?

When a TAD is created, the Georgia Department of Revenue certifies the district's initial taxable property value, known as its tax allocation increment base.

This base establishes the starting point for determining how much additional property tax revenue is generated as property values increase.
As property values rise, the additional property tax revenue attributable to growth above the base may be directed into a dedicated redevelopment fund rather than immediately becoming available for ordinary government operations.

That revenue can be used for qualifying redevelopment expenditures, including infrastructure improvements, public facilities, site preparation, and other legally authorized redevelopment costs. The city may finance these improvements through available funds, agreements, or tax allocation bonds that are repaid using designated revenues.

A TAD does not itself impose a new property tax or automatically increase the existing tax rate. However, it changes how certain future property tax revenues are allocated.

For example, if a property's taxable value increases after a TAD is established, some of the additional property taxes generated by that increase may be committed to redevelopment costs rather than general government services.

The original tax revenue associated with the district's established base generally continues to flow to the applicable taxing authorities.

Does a TAD guarantee economic development?

No.

TADs are intended to encourage redevelopment projects that might otherwise be unlikely to occur without public financial participation. Successful projects may generate new investment, increase property values, improve infrastructure, and expand economic activity.

However, those outcomes are not guaranteed.

The financial success of a TAD depends on whether anticipated development actually occurs, whether property values increase sufficiently, whether redevelopment costs remain manageable, and whether expected tax revenues materialize.

Additionally, some development might have occurred without the TAD, meaning the district may redirect tax revenue that otherwise would have been available for general government services.

TADs may also create concerns regarding displacement, changes in neighborhood character, the distribution of public benefits, and the long-term commitment of tax revenues.

For these reasons, careful financial analysis, public transparency, and meaningful community involvement are important.

Where can TADs be established?

Under O.C.G.A. § 36-44-8, the creation of a TAD requires a redevelopment plan and formal action by the local governing authority.

The law includes eligibility findings concerning development conditions or inadequately protected natural, historical, or cultural assets.

TADs are not simply limited to neighborhoods that generate relatively little property tax revenue. A neighborhood's lower assessed property values do not establish that its residents are failing to pay their fair share of taxes.

The relevant legal consideration is whether the proposed district satisfies statutory redevelopment requirements.

Are TADs already used in Georgia?

Yes.

TADs have been used in Georgia for decades in communities including Atlanta, Marietta, Rome, Woodstock, and other municipalities and counties.

One of Georgia's most recognizable examples is Atlantic Station in Atlanta, where tax allocation financing supported the redevelopment of a former industrial site into a mixed-use commercial and residential area.
The project is frequently cited as an example of public investment supporting substantial private development. However, the results of an individual redevelopment project do not guarantee that similar financing will produce the same outcomes in another community.

What happens if Mableton voters approve the referendum?

Approval would authorize the City of Mableton to exercise redevelopment powers under Georgia law, including creating Tax Allocation Districts (TADs) and issuing qualifying tax allocation bonds.

Approval would not itself create a TAD, designate a particular neighborhood for redevelopment, approve a specific project, or immediately authorize borrowing for a particular development.

Those actions would require subsequent steps under the Redevelopment Powers Law.

Once voters grant the underlying authority, however, the city's elected officials can approve qualifying TADs through the statutory process without conducting a separate citywide referendum for every proposed district.

A redevelopment plan must be prepared and approved, applicable public participation requirements must be followed, and other taxing authorities must provide consent before their qualifying tax revenues can be included.

School property taxes, for example, cannot simply be committed to a city TAD without the applicable governing body's required approval.

Georgia law also permits tax allocation bonds to be authorized by the local governing body without an additional voter referendum.

What role will Mableton residents have in future TAD decisions?

Under O.C.G.A. § 36-44-7, Georgia law requires at least one public hearing before a redevelopment plan is adopted. This gives residents an opportunity to learn about a proposed TAD, ask questions, and express support or opposition.

However, there is an important distinction between having the opportunity to be heard and having the authority to decide.

The law does not require elected officials to obtain majority support from affected residents before approving a TAD. Nor does it require officials to abandon a proposed TAD simply because most residents who express an opinion oppose its location or creation.
In other words, a public hearing gives residents a voice, but it does not give them a vote or veto over the final decision.

Unless additional legally binding protections are established, the ultimate authority to approve qualifying TADs will rest with Mableton's elected officials, subject to statutory requirements.

This means that residents voting to grant redevelopment powers should understand that they are not simply approving the possibility of future economic development. They are authorizing elected officials to make future decisions about where TADs may be established and how qualifying future property tax revenues may be committed, without requiring another citywide vote on each decision.

What happens if the referendum is rejected?

If Mableton voters reject the referendum, HB 1213 will not confer the proposed redevelopment powers on the city.

Mableton would therefore lack the specific authority sought under this legislation to establish and finance TADs under the Redevelopment Powers Law.

Rejection would not eliminate the city's other existing lawful economic development, planning, infrastructure, or redevelopment activities.

What should Mableton residents understand before voting?

The November 2026 referendum is not a vote on a particular development project or an identified Tax Allocation District.

It is a vote on whether to grant the City of Mableton a set of redevelopment and financing powers that elected officials may exercise in the future, subject to state law.

Those powers can provide additional opportunities to finance redevelopment, but they also permit future property tax growth within designated districts to be committed to redevelopment expenditures, potentially for many years.
Residents should understand both the potential economic benefits and the financial and governmental implications of granting these powers.