Sunday, October 26, 2008
News, In this Issue..., Politics

Election guide 2008

The Sunday Paper examines Atlanta’s House and Senate races, explains three proposed Constitutional amendments, and looks at how Georgia may vote in the presidential contest

The 3 Amendments

By Mark Woolsey

        Near the bottom of the ballot, you’ll find a trio of state constitutional amendments that sound as exciting as the ingredients on a medicine bottle. Why even bother to touch the screen? Because your vote may greatly alter the kind of place Georgia is in 10, 20, 50 or even 100 years. So, as the saying goes, choose wisely.

Amendment One: “Shall the constitution of Georgia be amended so as to provide [that] the General Assembly by general law shall encourage the preservation, conservation and protection of the state’s forests through the special assessment and taxation of certain forest lands and assistance grants to local government?”

   This amendment would clear the way for tax breaks for those owning 200-plus acres of forest land if the landowners keep their tracts development-free for 15 years. If they don’t, local governments can go after the offending landowners for the taxes they would have collected. Supporters claim that the change will allow landowners to pay property taxes more competitive with neighboring states.

    “You compare forest land in South Georgia and in neighboring Florida, and you see that in Georgia, property taxes run $15 to $17 an acre, and in Florida it’s $3 to $4 an acre,” says Jim Stokes, president of the Georgia Conservancy, one of a number of environmental groups in support of the amendment.

    The Georgia School Boards Association opposes it, concerned that lawmakers will fail to reimburse schools for lost taxes when times get tight.
   
Amendment Two: “Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to authorize community redevelopment and authorize counties, municipalities and local boards of education to use tax funds for redevelopment purposes and programs?”

    Amendment Two was put on the ballot after the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that using property tax money usually slated for schools to instead help finance development in Tax Allocation Districts (TADs)—Atlantic Station is one such district—was unconstitutional.

     Proponents say tax revenues allocated for schools, which account for more than 50 percent of property taxes collected in the city of Atlanta, are needed; otherwise, many projects will stall. But opponents like Patrick Malone claim the districts amount to corporate welfare. They say someone will have to pay for the cost of educating the kids whose families move into TADs.

   “They give politicians a blank check, and they have no discipline,” he says of TADS.     “And as far as this giving local control, do you want local control like Clayton County has local control?”

      Backers, including the development-minded nonprofit Central Atlanta Progress, strongly dispute that.

      “It restores a tool in the toolbox that we have had in the economic development area,” says CAP president A.J. Robinson. “And in this difficult economic time, it seems appropriate not to take away a best practice tool that we have used for 25 years.”

Amendment Three: “Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to authorize the General Assembly to provide for the creation and comprehensive regulation of infrastructure development districts for the provision of infrastructure as authorized by local governments?’

      This new kind of district would bolster public improvements in both urban fringe and poorer rural areas. Counties and cities would create the districts, and developers would sell bonds and pass the repayment cost, through fees, to people and businesses moving into the development. The bonds could be used only for such things as roads, lighting, water and sewer lines. The idea is to give developers more money to spend on amenities to lure homebuyers and businesses.

     Georgians for Quality Economic Development, created by the state Chamber of Commerce and a county commissioners group, backs the plan. It’s better than counties “going out on a limb and financing a 30-year bond issue that an entire county’s taxpayers would be on the hook for,” says Cam Kirbo, the group’s president.

      Some consumer advocates and environmentalists are taking a considerably more critical view.

“We are concerned that these private cities will promote growth away from central cities onto undeveloped land, encouraging sprawl,” says Saskia Benjamin, growth management program manager for the Georgia Conservancy. And she charges that in other states, defaults on such districts have left homeowners on the hook.

     Kirbo responds: “Out of 400 of these done in Florida, there have been two, maybe three defaults. And the bondholders have then gone out and found a new developer, like a bank reselling a repossessed home.” SP