Business Insider

By zeke

June 18, 2008 8:54 AM | Link to this

NO! DO NOT LET THESE POLITICAL HACKS TAKE SCHOOL MONEY FOR THEIR LIBERAL SOCIALIST WANTS! IT IS CRIMINAL TO TAKE TAX MONEY FROM TAXPAYERS FOR ONE USE, BUT, BECAUSE POLITICOS USE IT FOR SOMETHING DIFFERENT!! PRIME EXAMPLE IS THE 400 TOLLS THAT WERE TO HAVE GONE AWAY LONG BEFORE NOW, THEN, WE WERE TOLD THEY NEEDED TO STAY FOR MAINTAINENCE, BUT, WERE USED TO FUND OR MAINTAIN OTHER PROJECTS!! CRIMINAL!!

By gee12

June 18, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this

I think the point Mayor Franklin is missing is that if all property taxes were lower there would be more development, without the TAD incentives and this would generate more revenue.
Taxing the city in to oblivion and then congratulating yourself for some development, due to a TAD is not a good policy. It’s simple really, even politicians should be able to understand: Lower taxes = developmentand growth. High taxes = people go elsewhere and everything goes to hell

By saf

June 18, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this

Yes, the tax dollars collected after the TAD expires far exceeds the tax dollars collected on undeveloped land. It has built a vibrant emerging community and I applaud those who’s efforts made it possible.Yes, I agree schools need money to operate but how much will ever be enough. Infinity?

By Joeventures

June 18, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this

Zeke and gee12 are wrong on some of their facts — most notably, a TAD is not an increase in property taxes.

Having said that, several of the developments mentioned in the article here do not make for a good case for TAD funding.

TAD funding should be a benefit to public spaces, not private developments. Centennial Park is an example of TAD funding put to good use. Centennial Place — a private development — is not a good example.

The Beltline’s transit, trails and greenspace would be terrific examples of TAD funding put to good use. A lot of people are in fear that too much of the Beltline TAD will, instead, go toward private developments.

This is too important an issue for developers to demand any public funding for private benefit. Otherwise, this issue can become little more than a political Achilles Heel for anyone who supports TADs.

Certainly there are better examples of TAD money put to good use.

By Ras

June 18, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

The key point left out of the argument that TADs “take” money from our schools is that the tax revenue that TADs benefit from would not exist if not for the redevelopment. TADs are designed to be used in areas were property values are declining. When the TAD is established those property taxes are frozen. This means that the schools receive EXACTLY THE SAME amount of revenue for the lifespan of the TAD. They also stand to receive quite a bit extra as improvements are made and the TAD reaches its sunset.

I do agree that TADs should be used only in cases where redevelopment would not take place because over overwhelming costs of infrastructure improvements. Your elected officials are the ones that make the decision on how to use them so you shouldn’t throw out a tool just because you aren’t sure how it will be used. You should probably attend the public hearing (required on every TAD proposal)so your voice is heard.

By atl

June 18, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

I do not understand how any politican in the State of GA would make such a request to tap into already strapped education funds to further re-development projects that may have very little impact on the school districts that would have received those tax revenue dollars; have any of them looked at recent test scores?

There are a few simple things that could encourage tax revenue growth for this city however, Mayor Franklin has chosen to overlook these moves and attempt to deplete required resources to further her agenda. It is not hard to see that her administration has fiscally failed this city; and I am starting to believe that she is oblivious to the real issues that have caused this city’s tax revenue to suffer. She is encouraging a massive commerical property assessment increase that will probably promote more businesses to move outside of the city limits; she has extinguished most if not all activities that encouraged tourism and revenue growth; she has penalized many bar, resturant, and nightlife owners by upholding a policy that has been on the books for years, but prior administrations did not enforce. These moves have minimized the APD’s ability to enhance, train, and expand the police force to address rising crime in many City of Atlanta communities, hindered TAD dollars that could be applied to various other projects, etc. It is disappointing that this city has been brought to it’s knees and residents of the metro area and city can only hope that the next administration will reverse many of the damaging factors that hinder the catalyst of growth for the Metro area from further expanding

By anon

June 18, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

It should be clarified that the BeltLine TAD dollars are to fund infrastructure improvements in the public realm. It will pay for transit, parks, streetscapes, trails, public art and things of that nature. The reasons developers will want to be around the BeltLine is the amount they can make off their developments. It’s simple, if their is no transit, this development won’t come…the TAD is paying for public improvements, not private (in this case).

Secondly, it should be noted that the TAD is not actually taking money out of the schools. I don’t think the board of APS or any school district around the country would sign up for anything along those lines. Also, a lot of the development that TADs bring in do not bring a lot of school age children in. The condos on Ivan Allen Blvd are a great example of a TAD development that brought a minuscule amount of children, but a lot of benefit to the area.

And to those complaining about the city’s property tax, the city only receives about 23-24% of your property tax bill, while the county and the school board receive the rest. The arguments should be redirected at those entities. The city also does not receive much state assistance. Cities like Boston and Chicago, Portland, and so on all receive a general revenue assistance since they serve as regional centers, Atlanta does not.

TADs or TIFs as they are called in other cities are a common practice to improve the city. Chicago has over 200! It is a tool used to improve our city centers. They are also in use all over the state, so it is not just a City of Atlanta practice. The bill has received bipartisan support, so its is not just the ‘flaming liberals’ pushing this forward.

By atl

June 18, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this

Anon in your comment you stated that the city receives 23-24% of property tax revenue and the rest goes to education. In the same statement you pointed out that diverting additional dollars to TAD would not come from school’s budget; but would that not be taking tax revenue declared for school budget uses?

To debate the next point Boston, Chicago and Portland have considerable general revenue funds to draw from, however these cities have also encouraged active tax growth and measures that encourage this growth more so than Atlanta. Drive down the main streets within the City of Atlanta after a business hours and it is a desert town. The City’s failed marketing campaigns have not generated a spur to business in much of the area; yes there are a series of high end residential and commerical developments, but with the current credit environment, Atlanta traffic concerns, and unfavorable nightlife policies many of these projects sit empty or are on the verge of sputtering. Revenue designated for this fund can be increased by addressing more favorable policy measures that will make the City of Atlanta more attractive for current residents to frequent after business hours, attempt to bring back convention business, possibly encourage increases in residential sales and rentals in prime locations. Through exercising these potentials, area businesses will potentially increase in sales while develops will see an increase of taxable residents thus increasing potential tax revenues.

By anon

June 18, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

ATL,

I side 23-24% go to the city and the rest to the County and Schools, not just schools. Also, the money for the TAD would be taken from the property tax growth increment that the new development would generate. It also needs to be restated that a lot of the development the TAD will/would create won’t generate a lot of school age children. Say 10000 units come, maybe 1000 would have school age kids, since most are probably going to be condos. Those other 9000 w/o kids would still pay their normal property tax bill. The school would recieve their share from the frozen taxable amount, the county and the city the same. The property tax growth from the frozen amount however, would go to the TAD to pay for transit, parks, and other public good. So it could be argued that the school systems actually come out better in the end, when they have these 9000 extra tax payers w/o children paying into the school system. Sorry for being so long winded.

I don’t argue with you the City of Atlanta’s streets are deserted after the close of business hours, but who is to blame here?

The bottom line is the city more dense in terms of residents. Density gives you better transit options, as well as more people on the street which increases safety. Very few assualts take place when there are 400 other people on the same sidewalk, however, walking that dark street alone is a different experience. The historic sprawling of the city left us all with this problem, now its up to the city and other government entities to try and remedy it.

Lastly, I agree the economic climate hasn’t helped the city fill a lot of these new beautiful (and sometimes not so beautiful) buildings. However, we all know the economy goes in cycles, and the same booming economy that backed the construction of these projects will rear its head again. Will it be in two yrs? five? I don’t know, but when it does, Atlanta will have a further increase in its tax base. You also have to recognize that these measures are for the long term growth and viability of the city, not the short term. In two or three yrs these buildings may be where their builders thought they would be. TADs are a nationwide tool…every major city uses them to spur development where it other would be non-existent. If you look at a lot of the development in the city that has taken place, it would not be there without a TAD, thats why it was put in place. There isn’t a TAD at the intersection of Piedmont and Peachtree, but there is one at the intersection of Simpson Rd. and Northside.

By JoeShmoe

June 18, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this

Some people here are clearly not understand the TAD mechanism. TADs DO NOT take money away from schools. Bonds are sold to finance the grants to developers which must be used for infrastructure. The increase in taxes generated by the development within the TAD district is used to repay the bonds.

A) Schools get just as much money as they got before the TAD development and

B) When the bonds are repaid, shcools and the city in general get a windfall in increased taxes.

This method has been very successful for the city thus far in increasing the tax base of the city and funding numerous school projects.

By atl

June 18, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this

The basis of my arguement is not to address short term needs however long term plans for the economic viability of the community.

Are their immediate fixes that could begin to impact the shortfall in the near term and encourage business growth…YES. Many aspects of the City of Atlanta’s taxing ability have been maxed out and the city has begun to adopt a strategy of robbing peter to pay paul which is completely a deviation from strong fiscal responsibility. I.E. Atlanta’s City Council opting to audit the City’s spending before approving SF’s restructuring plan.

For strong metro such as Atlanta the focal point must begin with the hub of growth which is the City of Atlanta. As the hub grows urban sprawl is encouraged and the benefactors are the surrounding counties, however, the hub always benefits as a result of inbound communters, consumer retail spending, and business growth. What is happening is that SF’s is looking at a means of increasing the tax base by increasing residental living space and maxing out the assessable tax on these individuals. That is a reverse in ideology in my opinion; this city is a major tourism draw, but without encouraging tax revenue events that come with a metro city of this size, shortfalls are going to happen. City of Atlanta had a surplus when she came into power and now it has deficit…whose fault, I answer poor management of taxing revenue

By anon

June 18, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this

This is becoming a budget issue, when it was started as a TAD issue. All I have to say is TADs benefit cities longterm growth and prosperity. They wouldn’t be used in most major metro areas if they did not.

Encouraging tax revenue is your main point…TADs do exactly this! They encourage development that has hundreds of thousands of transactions, and thousands of residents that pay taxes, that will in the Beltline’s case go to public infrastructure.

You also bring up the fact that it bring tons of intown commuters and retail business. The city does not benefit from this. How does the city benefit from more people on its streets who don’t pay taxes on them?! Commuter do not spend a significant portion of their income in Atlanta. They may buy lunch here, but thats all. These people don’t go to Edgewood, or Little Five Points to buy anything, they go their suburban ultra-mega mall. These are the exact people who have left the city center high and dry for decades.
Also, Business growth is not such a given, a lot of businesses have taken to locating in the suburbs due to cheaper land. All these office parks wouldn’t exist if that wasn’t the case.

Plain and simple the city center does not reap some great benefit by serving surrounding suburbs. The people who benefit are the folks who live in the suburbs and use the cities goods and services free of charge because they aren’t taxed on them.

By npb

June 19, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this

A few important facts:

The proposed constitutional amendment would give school systems the CHOICE to participate in TADs. They are not forced to participate. School systems also have the ability to negotiate the terms of their participation.

For example, with the BeltLine TAD, APS was to receive $150 million of direct payments throughout the 25-year life of the TAD. They had also negotiated to receive up to $10 million for the development of new recreational facilities and athletic fields, subsidized transportation for APS students, and affordable housing for teachers and staff. They also received significant representation on all BeltLine advisory boards and the Atlanta BeltLine, Inc. Board of Directors to ensure that they had an active voice in BeltLine decision making.

Those are just the direct benefits they were to receive. They also benefit long term from the increased tax base and revitalized communities that the BeltLine will create.

Not only do TADs not take money away from schools, but they can also benefit schools in many ways, not just bring new economic development.

By Paul Breslin

June 20, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this

Mayor Franklin has it right when it comes to the TAD. Interestingly when you check the numbers TAD funding actually increases revenue for schools. As an advocate for smart government, this is a brilliant example of how our local government is a catalyst for a positive return for the citizens and those who take the financial risk. The TAD funding comes from a bond that is paid back by the increase property tax that is generated by the new project. This funding is just enough incentive for the risk takers to develop projects that otherwise would not be developed. For those who take time to understand how the process works you will agree…

By Joeventures

June 20, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this

@Paul Breslin — I think that’s a much smarter argument to make in favor of TADs. It’s a very easy, simple argument to talk about the “costs” — the sort of argument that it seems Georgians especially latch onto when it comes to anything having to do with government.

I see a huge problem with making the argument “Thanks to TAD funding, this private development was built, and this private development was built, and this private development was built.” It plays right into the hands of anyone with a desire to spread TAD FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt).

Discussing the benefits of TADs, to me, seems a more difficult task. So far, I have yet to hear (much less, formulate) a clear, simple argument that brings to light what the benefits of TADs are, and what those benefits mean to the average citizen.

The average citizen is not going to take the time to understand how the process works. As long as the FUD-spreaders of the world have their clear, simple argument to make, while the proponents just play right into the FUD, the FUD-spreaders are going to win.

By itsmeagain

June 20, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this

OK people, if you’re going to comment on the TAD’s, read up about what a TAD is and how it works. It’s no good to say that the “government is stealing money from poor little children” when you really have no idea what a TAD is and how it effects the schools…

By Joeventures

June 20, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this

@itsmeagain - Are you not aware about the upcoming referendum on TADs? This is going to be on the ballot in front of millions of voters. Do you really think a million people are going to go study the issue and carefully weigh the costs and benefits, or are they going to tune in to the arguments of zealots who claim to speak in the interests of taxpayers?

If a panel of judges (the GA Supreme Court) isn’t going to be impressed by the arguments that were made as to the benefits of TADs to school districts… how do you suppose the voters are going to feel, especially if they’re confronted with “go study it for yourself,” or “private developments receiving public subsidies is a good thing.” They’re not going to go study the issue or put a whole lot of thought into the matter.

Proponents need to do a better job of educating the public, and I don’t see anyone taking on that role — not effectively, at least.