Gold Dome Live is moving!
Our new spot will allow us to get the news to you even faster and make commenting easier. Please bookmark the new site and sign up for our rss feed:
http://blogs.ajc.com/gold-dome-live/
AJC.com > Legislature > Blog > Archives > 2007 > April > 16 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USHouse puts off decision on private development districts
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Georgia’s House has put off a decision for a day on a proposal that would allow private development districts to tax homeowners because proponents are still trying to round up several more votes for the measure.
Senate Resolution 309 is a proposed Constitutional amendment, meaning supporters need to secure votes from two-thirds of the House membership, or 120 votes.
Rep. Ron Stephens (R-Savannah) said this morning that he and other proponents are seeking between two and five more votes for the measure.
A House vote was scheduled today for the bill and companion legislation — Senate Bill 200. But House Republican leaders decided this morning to table it for a day to give supporters more time to secure votes.
Stephens said some opponents might be under the mistaken impression that the legislation would give the development districts the power to seize property through eminent domain. SB200 specifically blocks the districts from having that power.
Similar legislation died in the General Assembly last year partly because of concerns that the districts would have the power to condemn private property.
“We want to make sure people understand what the bill does,” said Stephens, chairman of the House Economic Development and Tourism Committee, which endorsed the proposal last week. “There is a lot of misinformation.
“This is a way for developers and homeowners to tax themselves for expensive infrastructure without taxing the rest of the county. That is the whole essence of the bill.”
The legislation — which would also have to be approved by voters — would grant the districts the power to issue tax-exempt bonds to raise money for roads, sewers and other infrastructure needed to support their planned communities. The districts could then tax the homeowners in their communities to help pay off those bonds.
Supporters say the measure could boost economic development in Georgia and help cash-strapped counties and cities that are struggling to keep up with the state’s growth.
Nicknaming the districts “private cities,” critics say the legislation would create taxation without representation and could lead to suburban sprawl.
Permalink | Comments (3) | Categories: politics
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By MIke Davis
April 17, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this
I can’t wait to vote against my state senator who introduced this nefarious bill. This is absolutely ridiculous. It is the brain child of certain developers who want residents to pay for the developers’ expenses in developing land.
By John Carbonell
April 17, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this
There is a gross misunderstanding of this bill. An IDD would be the product of a planned growth business relationship between the local government and a developer based on local land use plans and regulations. The only property owners affected would be future buyers paying market price for homes, commercial pads, etc. It takes the infrastructure development cost burden for roads, utilities, etc off of existing voters, non-district property owners and local government funds.
By Steve
April 19, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this
This bill has not had the opportunity to see the light of day! Most citizens of Georgia have never heard a word about SB 200 or it’s potential advantages or disadvantages, is there something we should know? Let’s slow this train down and either let more people on or off, but to rush this through is wrong. If developers want this bill that bad then let then help get the word out to the public, and let our representatives have more time to tell us how this will help or hurt our future groth in Georgia. The Republican party in Washington spent there way out of office with poorley conceived pork spending and self serving legislation . Let’s not do the same thing here in Georgia. If IDD’s are a good thing then so be it, but not at the expence of our fellow Georgians. S.M. Arnold Loganille, Ga.