GEORGIA 2008: Ballot measures deal with taxes

Georgians voting early or heading to the polls Nov. 4 will have to make sense of three weighty proposed constitutional amendments that deal with taxes.

The three proposals were added to the ballot by lawmakers during the past two sessions. More highly publicized proposals, such as House Speaker Glenn Richardson’s plan to eliminate property taxes, never made it through the Legislature and onto the ballot.

AMENDMENT 1

This amendment would provide tax breaks to individuals and corporations that own more than 2,000 acres of land.

Under the amendment, forests would be taxed based on actual use rather than the potential development value, bringing Georgia in line with other Southeastern states. The lost revenue to cities and counties would be covered by the state taxpayers, at an estimated cost of about $40 million a year. In exchange, timber owners would have to agree not to subdivide or develop their land for at least 15 years, or face stiff financial penalties.

Conservation groups hope the tax breaks for the largest landowners will forestall development.

AMENDMENT 2

This amendment would allow school property tax revenue to help fund redevelopment projects. Lawmakers passed a law in 1985 allowing the practice, helping a number of projects, including Atlantic Station, spring to life.

The Georgia Supreme Court ruled in February that the state constitution prohibits school tax money from being spent on anything other than education. That decision cut the tax subsidies available to redevelopment efforts across the state —- from Atlanta’s Beltline loop of trails, transit and parks to Smyrna’s effort to overhaul aging shopping centers.

Critics say school tax money is too valuable a resource to be used to subsidize development costs.

AMENDMENT 3

This amendment would allow counties and cities to approve “infrastructure development districts,” meant largely for developers, who could borrow money to pay for infrastructure and amenities (such as streets, sewers, golf courses and so on) in their development.

They would then levy fees on the people who buy the homes in the development to pay off the bonds. Supporters say the so-called “private cities” amendment will help spur development in rural counties.

Critics say taxpayers outside the development could be stuck with the expense of building access roads and upgrading existing water and sewer systems to accommodate the new construction. Only government should have the right to assess fees, they say.