Inviting discussion
Can I get some feedback on the proposed amendments? I'm OK with supporting the first one, and I know I'm not crazy about the third one. Flagpole had to go an endorse the second which has now royally confused me ....
Any discussion on the proposed amendment dealing with TADs and local school districts? I'm flexible on this.
Any discussion on the proposed amendment dealing with TADs and local school districts? I'm flexible on this.
posted by Jmac at 9:55 AM
8 Comments:
I would suggest, and voted thus:
1. Yes. This is part of Perdue's environmental initiative, and it is enhancing existing easements for smaller pieces of property. The goal is to preserve Georgia's forestry industry, which is being hammered by labor costs and cheap imports. 200-acre+ parcels would be eligible if they are placed in easements for a minimum of 15 years, and state government will reimburse much of the lost tax revenue to local governments. Other states suffering the same problems have seen massive amounts of property formerly in green space converted to housing developments and things along those lines, so I think this amendment is totally worth voting for. Plus, honestly, with the economy being what it is, I think there's some chance of timber producers facing hardship without it.
2. No. TADs are a useful tool, but I have issues with the definition of "blighted" and I also don't like the speculative nature of TADs. Third, TADs generally place an unfair tax burden on the remainder of the taxpayers.
3. No. Hell no. A thousand times no. Private cities = generally not good. Plus, I'm very concerned about the way this legislation might undermine the comprehensive planning process that all counties in Georgia participate in, by driving development in areas where it is not planned and therefore creating a precedent for development along entire routes where it is not planned.
As my letter in today's Flagpole indicates, I suggest a Yes vote on #2. I actually think that is has a lot in common with the Sunday sales of alcohol issue. In the same way that the alcohol proposal would simply allow local governments to permit Sunday sales, the amendment simply gives schools the option to make their new property tax revenue available to fund TADs.
See my letter in today's Flagpole for why you should vote in favor of #2. It doesn't force any school district to give up its property tax revenue but simply gives local districts the option to help to fund TADs. In this sense it's just like the Sunday sales of alcohol issue... No one is forced to do anything, it simply give those who would wish to do something the ability to do so.
richmart
Where is it shown that the amendment proposed leads directly into "private cities?"
Not saying that it doesn't, I just haven't seen that argument or entailment demonstrated.
My views
1
2
3
TADs have a track record of working. The other two are speculative. I support no. 1 and not no. 3. But TADs are a no brainer. This idea that they are "taking money from schools" is ridiculous. They make money for schools by incenting an incredible amount of taxable development that would not occur otherwise. Nicki does make a good point that the definition of blighted could be tightened up.
This explanation from Creative Loafing is decent:
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/amendment_3_crunch_time_for_private_cities_/Content?oid=584141
I voted yes on #1, but I could understand voting no on it. It's a question of whether environmental concerns outweigh removing land from the property tax rolls. Also, I figured there's not all that much "forest" land in ACC that isn't already protected, so from a narrow, localist perspective, it doesn't make a big difference.
I voted no on #2. I'm with Nicki that it makes me nervous, and, while it may be optional for the school district to use that money for development or not, I'm very opposed to anything that might take away from school funding (yes, even though I voted yes on #1).
No on #3. Obvs.
Post a Comment
<< Home