18 comments

  1. Chris says:

    I’ve got no beef with the first one.

    I have a major issue with School Boards deciding if they will join into a TAD. That will create a large financial incentive for developers to get involved with school board races, and front candidates whose sole reason for running will be to cast a vote in favor of a TAD project.

    A local school board race, that might have had a budget of $5-10k, will suddenly bloom into a $50k race. It will become the same kind of mess that judicial races are becoming.

    School Board races should be about one thing and one thing only – which candidate is best to oversee the education (or not) of children. Not whether a candidate will vote to allow school dollars to go towards paying down bonds in a TAD.

  2. Icarus says:

    I haven’t decided on the first one. I recognize that it is a tax/benefit transfer, just trying to decide if the benefit of maintaining large tracts of wooded land are worth the extra expense to the rest of us.

    On the TADs, I’m against anything that allows the city of Atlanta to keep its bond factory going.

    As for the IDD’s, again, not sure turning over taxing powers to benevolent developers is good public policy.

    So as of now, I’m undecided, no, and no.

  3. Clint Austin says:

    Jason – I understand to some degree what you’re saying, but the original TAD amendment was approved by a large majority of the people, TAD’s have been used for 20+ years all over Georgia with a great deal of success (couple problems here and there but no trend of problems), and every TAD had to be approved by a local referendum of people and approved by all local governments.

    At some point, doesn’t all that voter and government approval and oversight matter, especially when Amendment 2 will only bring the law back to where it was before the lawsuit?

  4. IndyInjun says:

    hahahaha…..Amendment #1 allows the land to be clear-cut and remain in conservation use…..The penalties for reverting to commercial or other development is negligible.

    The existing CU costs $180 million shifted to homeowners from landowners and now this will be expanded without limit.

    These things always pass, so 95% of Georgians are looking dead at a self-inflicted tax increase, all the while screaming about high taxes.

    Politics is the playground of thieves versus the fools.

    The thieves always win by making the unpalatable taste like ice cream.

  5. griftdrift says:

    “The penalties for reverting to commercial or other development is negligible”

    Actually that’s not true if this works like individual covenants which I believe it does.

    Recently I let an agricultural covenant lapse. These covenants freeze your property value for ten years so having one is a huge tax savings. The reason I didn’t extend mine was because I would have to sign up for ten more years and I didn’t want to be tied up for that long. If I had signed and then decided a few years down the road to break it, I would have had to pay the taxes on the previous year not only at the higher property value for that year but also at double the rate.

    That’s a pretty severe penalty.

  6. griftdrift says:

    First of all I should have said years not year. You have to pay the penalty for every year you received the benefit for the covennant.

    Second, not at much as bargain as you think. Do you really think the amount a properties value would increase in one year would so greatly offeset you paying DOUBLE the amount owed on taxes on the higher valuation the previous year?

  7. Jason Pye says:

    It already don’t like public education and I don’t like paying property taxes.

    So why should my school tax dollars go to the interests of rentseeking developers? This is cronyism at it’s worst.

    The Georgia Supreme Court got it right. You don’t tax people for something and then spend the funds for something else

  8. Clint Austin says:

    Jason – with all due respect, I’m going to press you on this point.

    The people voted for the original TAD constitutional amendment by a large margin. Since that time, every TAD enacted in Georgia has been first approved by a referendum of the people in that area and then all the local governments.

    If you take it as a given that the Supreme Court can use one part of the Constitution to overturn another part of the Constitution (which is what they did) – at what point does the will of the voters matter in this?

    Especially since not one dime of existing school has been – or ever will be – used to support a TAD?

    Just saying…

  9. Bill Simon says:

    Clint,

    WHO are the “people” you claim who voted for a TAD by a wide margin?

    If you say it is people in our Legislature, those aren’t “people” that really count as we have witnessed what drives some of THEIR decisions…like, for instance, the dunderheads in the House last year who voted in favor of Barry Fleming’s bill to make it tougher for Florida Gator alums unless Florida made it easier for UGA alums to get license plated in Florida.

    Talk about stupid-ass legislation being passed, THAT one convinced me of two things: 1) Barry Fleming is a royal dumbass, and 2) the rest of the House ain’t all that bright either.

    SO, voting on TADs doesn’t impress me at all.

    TADs are exactly what IndyInjun said, an more, actually: corporate welfare with the ability to take land based on some arbitrary definition of “blight.”

  10. IndyInjun says:

    The “royal dumbass” was the headline host for a reception for PAUL BROUN Wednesday night.

    Politics is truly a very strange sport, when s guy can run a vicious negative campaign totally savaging the victor, then host a fund raiser!

Comments are closed.