Amendment 3

The last of the proposed amendments.  Discuss:

Amendment 3

To authorize the creation of special Infrastructure Development Districts providing infrastructure to underserved areas.

Senate Resolution No. 309
Resolution Act No. 373
Ga. L. 2007, p. 775

“Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to authorize the General Assembly to provide by general law for the creation and comprehensive regulation of infrastructure development districts for the provision of infrastructure as authorized by local governments?”( ) YES ( ) NO

This proposal authorizes the General Assembly by general law to provide for the creation and regulation of infrastructure development districts. The purpose of such districts will be for the creation, provision, and expansion of such infrastructure services and facilities as may be provided for by general law.

Counties and municipalities affected by the creation of infrastructure development districts will have the authority to approve creation of such districts. The general law providing for the creation of the districts will provide for the establishment of an administrative or governing body for the districts. Such administrative or governing bodies will be able to impose and collect fees and assessments within each district and to incur debt according to powers and limits set by statute.

The General Assembly has enacted a law to provide for the creation and regulation of infrastructure development districts. This law will become effective only if the constitutional amendment is ratified by the voters. This law is 2007 SB 200; Act No. 372, found at Ga. Laws 2007, p. 739.

19 comments

  1. Game Fan says:

    No clue. “The devil’s in the details”. Whenever you say “yes” to politicians and change you better have some Vaseline® on standby.

  2. Clint Austin says:

    How can anyone possibly shoot down another tool to promote jobs and economic activity in these times?

    All this does is allow a local government to use this if they want to…

  3. Joeventures says:

    This has already been tried in other states, and it is not turning out to be a tool to promote jobs and economic activity.

    If you think overextending our economy with sub-prime and variable rate balloon mortgages is a bad idea, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

  4. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    “governing bodies will be able to impose and collect fees and assessments within each district”

    🙁

  5. Tea Party says:

    I dunno, I have studyed this one and so far, cannot find anything wrong with it. It is essentially a ‘condominium structure’ that taxes business/residents in the IDD area. Those folks choose to go to the IDD area or vote on it and benefit from the proceeds.

    Where else are IDD’s being misused?

  6. Tea Party says:

    The paper posted by Thomas Wheatley certainly does address ‘governing bodies’ as a potential downside to IDD’s. Florida, which has CDD’s similar to IDD’s, has seen governing bodies not following the law, leading to problems.

    The paper lays out recommendations to avoid such issues.

    This is a really technical bill, way beyond what any average citizen would have been able to study up on. I suspect people will dismiss IDD’s as they are hard to understand, therefore must be bad.

    Frankly, they could be helpful, if we learn from Florida/other areas. If interested, that paper should help anyone decide, thanks!

  7. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    People will vote for it for the simple reason that they don’t understand the amendment or think “Well it must be helpful because it’s a proposed Consititutional amendment and the Constitution is a ‘good’ thing.”

    Look, most of us on here work in governemnt, politics, or follow things very closely. The average person has no idea the implication of this and other amendents. They especially don’t realize when they vote to give some special interest or a sector of the economy a sizebale tax break, they’re voting to increase their own tax burden. All they see is ‘tax credit/deduction’ and think, oh that must be good.

  8. Bill Simon says:

    Clint,

    “How can anyone possibly shoot down another tool to promote jobs and economic activity in these times?

    All this does is allow a local government to use this if they want to…”

    Since when is it the responsibility of government to “promote” or even create jobs?

  9. GOP Girl says:

    I’m sorry. All that infastructure wording just reminds me of an old SNL skit using the ending “istification” one too many times…..

  10. griftdrift says:

    Bill, this actually isn’t the government creating jobs. If its like CDDs in Florida is allows a developer to float bonds just like a local government and then collect fees from residents and businesses within the district to pay back those bonds.

    I want to research it more but I’m for it in the philosophical sense.

  11. Game Fan says:

    Generally speaking the past few years these guys don’t “decentralize” in the traditional government sense unless they’ve already “centralized” via Wall Street. Beware of pre-packaged solutions.

  12. Bantam says:

    What if you’re authorizing the government to put more options in the hands of private industry?
    This amendment seems to be about new development paying for itself, rather than burdening an already struggling rural tax base with the costs of new infrastructure.
    The academic paper was pretty helpful, dispite a handful of irritating typos.

Comments are closed.