Rick Badie / My Opinion

By Pompano

October 28, 2008 6:38 PM | Link to this

TAD’s would be horrible for Gwinnett! Our County Gov’t already works extensively with the developers in the community to raid the taxpayer coffers. Just look at all of the shady land deals, stadium deals, etc that already take place on a regular basis. The Gwinnett School Board is terribly irresponsible with taxpayer funds - they sure don’t need another mechanism to line the pockets of their cronies!

All TAD’s will accomplish is to increase the size of the pot that these thiefs get to steal from. They’ve maxed out the number of hands in the current cookie jar - now it’s their goal to siphon off funds from our children.

By Steve

October 28, 2008 7:42 PM | Link to this

This sounds like a greenlight for more corruption. What happened to Sunday alcohol sales? Did I miss the vote?

By Dave Walker

October 28, 2008 9:50 PM | Link to this

This is nothing but big government, corporate welfare and a taxpayer handout/bailout for developers.

Schools taxes should be used for schools and to educate our children.

Not to subsidize private development.

Vote “No” on Amendment No. 2.

By Sloan

October 28, 2008 9:55 PM | Link to this

Everywhere I look, there is McCain/Palin signs. Oddly enough though, as I was driving to stone mountain this weekend I saw a lot of Obama signs in Lilburn. I consider myself mostly a moderate. I lean more to the right then the left. But this year, I am going to vote democratic. I’m not a fan of liberal views, I don’t believe in support for single moms, tax credits for unresponsible people, or any of the nonsense that usualy comes with the left but this time around I’m going to bite the bullet and go with whom I feel is better for the country at this point in time.

By Joeventures

October 29, 2008 6:06 AM | Link to this

Actually, the area now known as Centennial Park was a very blighted area before the TAD was enacted. Were you around before the Olympics? That area was a total wasteland.

As a general rule, TADs naturally work best in blighted areas, which is one reason I voted yes. Also, multiple studies have been conducted on TADs’ effect on school systems and show a very strong net benefit to schools.

By T

October 29, 2008 6:08 AM | Link to this

I personally believe that the TADS program could indeed help many areas of the county where re-development is the only hope.

The cynical side of me is very cautious.

I like you Rick, fear that the areas that really fall under the definition of TADS will get passed by for say … something like a pet project that a developer and a commissioner are in bed together on.

Okay, let me get that ugly image out of my head for a minute and try to make a profound statement here …

Okay, I got nothing, I’m still afraid.

By vince

October 29, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this

While there may be some cases where TADS would be beneficial, they have been totally abused, and cannot become another “tool” for local governments. Atlantic Station is a shining example of how misused TADs are. Not a blighted area. TAD funds were being paid to a developer for any project they built that encouraged pedestrian activity….like parking structures, and walkways. So, TAD funds were GIVEN to a developer who was using the “free” money, to improve and drive up the price of their land. Now property values have fallen, tax revenues are down, and the City of Atlanta gambled away all that money that was supposed to go to schools.TADs are no different that the ponsi schemes that got the US into this financial mess.

By Stan

October 29, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this

When I break this issue down to it’s simplest form, do I want school monies to be spent to help fund development/redevelopment, it is easy to say no. School money should ONLY be spent to fund education needs. Pay as we go, there is no need to come up with creative financing, that will only get us in trouble.

By pete

October 29, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this

Whoa, vince @8:43. Atlantic Station is a shining example of how misused TADS are. Not a blighted area. Wow, I don’t know how long you have been around Atlanta but AS is the poster child for TADs working!!! It was an abandoned steel mill that was an environemental disaster due to all the years of steel production prior to environmental controls. I have been to some of the businesses in the surrounding areas both before and after the redevelopment and it certainly is a major improvement. Property valuse may have fallen from their peak but the overall tax digest of the area is orders of magnitude higher that before. TADs are designed to operate for 20+ years. Does that mean that all of the projects, especially later in hte project have as high an impact as those in the beginnging, no. But that is part of the overall average projections. Some projects do better, some not as good but overall things go up. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Ikea store alone or perhaps one of the office towers alone doesn’t generate more taxes than the previous use!

By Joel

October 29, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

I completely agree with Rick in that not every project deserves a TAD. TADs are for the extreme cases were redevelopment will not happen without this funding mechanism. To Rick’s point on Centennial Olympic Park does not fit in the category of where a TAD should not have been used. Some may remember that COP used to be a declining warehouse district- Now it is one of the best and brightest parts of our city. Since it opened there has been millions if not billions of dollars of investment around that area. I doubt that significant investment would have taken place if steps were not taken to revitalize the area.

To Vince’s (@ 8:43) point- I’m not sure what you are basing your argument on. If an abandoned, contaminated steel mill does not qualify as blight I’m not sure what will. Atlantic Station required astronomical investment in remediation and infrastructure. This I feel 100% safe in saying- Atlantic Station would not be there were it not for TADs.

One thing that is getting lost in this argument is that TADs are around and will continue to be around. Your vote on Amendment 2 simply gives local control back to local boards of education and allows them to decide whether or not they would like to invest in the future of their community. Schools are losing a significant portion of their property tax revenue on these declining areas. The OFS property that Rick mentioned has cost Gwinnett County Schools millions (roughly 4 million) in revenue over the past decade.

Atlanta Public Schools negotiated immediate benefits when deciding their position on the beltline TAD. That TAD actually funded the construction of Centennial Elementary.

By BW

October 29, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this

Our school board didn’t need a TAD to build that palace to themselves, oh, we need the money for the children, right.

If you want to continue to see decay, empty stirps malls, abandoned Wal-marts and Publix’s vote no on TADs. If you want to improve the county and increase property values, vote yes.

It is that simple.

By bobby

October 29, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this

A Gwinnett County PTA president recently sent a mass email to her database encouraging the recipients to vote against Amendment 2. I replied to that database with the following comments: (although the response is long, please read to the bottom because there is a current case in point that I am involved in and I would like to hear your evaluations)

A vote FOR amendment 2 would be a WISE VOTE on Nov. 4. Here’s why:

A ruling by the Georgia Supreme Court in Feb. 2008, forbids local school districts from even considering the use of property tax dollars to help pay for revitalizing blighted or underdeveloped areas within our community. Amendment 2 on the Nov. 4 ballot simply allows a local school district to evaluate the merits of allocating property tax dollars to private developments that may not materialize unless a private / public partnership is forged. School districts are not bound by this amendment to guarantee property tax dollars to private developers. They can reject allocating their portion of property taxes going to any private development they deem to have a negative impact on our schools.

The question is WHY? Why would J. Alvin Wilbanks, Superintendent of Gwinnett County Schools, say, “From the school system’s perspective, development can increase the growth digest (property taxes) which could have a positive impact on the community and its schools”? (AJC columnist Rick Badie, Feb. 26, 2008)

The reality is: we wouldn’t have any schools unless private money was used. In fact, all monies a school or any other government agency receives come from the private sector. Schools and government agencies only exist because private individuals or private developments are taxed. A private developer who brings a project that creates jobs (producing income tax and sales tax) and increases property value (thus increasing property taxes for education) is to be commended, not vilified. That’s how our economy works to the benefit of all, especially the school system. A better question is: Do we have the right people in government to make wise decisions?

Please allow me to share a case in point that I have been working on for 2 years with Gwinnett County leaders. You decide if this private / public partnership benefits Gwinnett County citizens, especially the school system.

Our $500M proposed mixed-use development is seeking a $45M investment from the County through the creation of a Tax Allocation District (TAD). If Amendment 2 passes, then the Gwinnett County school board could allocate its portion of property taxes to the TAD. The County, then, receives the following benefits:

One time benefits: $27M 1. $21M land donation (Have you ever heard of such a thing from a developer?) 2. $6M solution to legal damages case

Over 30 years the following economic impact will be realized 1. $2 Billion in direct economic impact from tourism related spending 2. $149M in property taxes 3. $62M in sales taxes 4. $60M in hotel/motel taxes

The grand total in benefits (verified by County Economist, Alfie Meek), besides the hundreds of jobs it will create in Gwinnett County, is almost $2.3 Billion. The return on investment to Gwinnett County is over 4,000%. An even greater advantage to this project, unlike most TADs, is that there will be no burden on the school district. The only residential property constructed on the property will be for active adults who won’t have children living with them. Therefore, Gwinnett County schools will only benefit from the increase in property values surrounding the TAD.

In a time when property values are declining dramatically (see AJC article) the way we benefit our schools is by creating responsible public / private partnerships. The other alternative is to increase property taxes that each of us pays. Higher taxes are rarely ever wise. Even more so in the economic times we are facing.

By Joel

October 29, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this

That is an excellent point Bobby. Many are confused and believe that this has to do with everyone’s taxes. The fact is that if we fail to take advantage of this tool for investing in our community’s future it is the general taxpayer that will bear the burdon due to falling property tax revenue. This is a way to boost the local economy without raising taxes.

By zeke

October 29, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this

NO NO HELL NO!

By givemeabreak

October 29, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this

I live in NW Atlanta quite near a TAD proposed project - Bolton Road and Marietta Blvd. The area right now is an abandoned shopping center and burnt out buildings. It is a haven for drug deals, prostitutes and vagrants. I wont even drive by there after dark. The proposed development would include road improvements and a “live work play” neighborhood with a supermarket (which the community does not have) and other essential services. It also would have money to fix a fire station that the community desperately needs.

Right now that area is not generating much money for the schools, the city, or anyone besides the criminals that inhabit it. Bringing in 400 condos and big name retailers will be a huge benefit to the community and will bring in tax revenue for the schools for years to come. Without it, my neighborhood is not safe.

I despise Emma Darnell for delaying the project long enough to get caught up in this mess with her political games and ego stroking.

VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 2 AND FIX UP OUR CITY

By Stan

October 29, 2008 5:02 PM | Link to this

Hey Bobby, Joel and givemeabreak How much do y’all get paid to post that crap? Please don’t expect me to take the three of you at your word that your just concerned citizens.

By givemeabreak

October 29, 2008 5:09 PM | Link to this

Stan, How much do I get paid? Well, if you consider hoping that I can live in a safe neighborhood and not worry about getting mugged at CVS “paid” then I guess a lot. Drive by the intersection of Marietta Blvd and Bolton Road sometime. You’ll see what types of places will be helped by this amendment.

Ask any APD Zone 2 officer you happen across how that intersection is, and how bulldozing that blight will help the community and I’m sure you’ll vote YES on amendment 2 with the rest of us.

By Stan

October 29, 2008 5:13 PM | Link to this

Sorry, I’ll be voting NO to this piece of garbage legislation as should everyone else =)

By BW

October 29, 2008 7:17 PM | Link to this

“Please don’t expect me to take the three of you at your word that your just concerned citizens.”, maybe informed citizens would be s more fitting discription Stan.

By Michael H. Smith

October 29, 2008 9:02 PM | Link to this

Should they [TAD] be allowed at all?

Nope!

Better question: Why should WE ever have the needs of such ridiculous funding schemes to give subsidies to “private sector for profit developers” or as so many prefer to call them, the “G-R-E-E-D-Y DEVELOPERS”?

Noticed now that Gwinnett voters refused to bail MARTA out, MARTA is running to FEDZILLA for a bailout.

No MARTA, No TAD, No BAILOUT.

By Michael H. Smith

October 29, 2008 9:08 PM | Link to this

Oh yeah….

Play Bailout - NOT!

By Cindy

October 29, 2008 9:45 PM | Link to this

I wondered where you were…

By BW

October 29, 2008 11:10 PM | Link to this

MHS, the Marta vote was back in the late 80’s or early 90’s, the ignorance of the county back then gives us the gridlock we now enjoy.

Now we have a chance to improve our county, as we did so many years ago, but as Gwinnett usually goes, ignorance will prevail.

Vote yes on amendment 2.

By Michael H. Smith

October 30, 2008 12:59 AM | Link to this

No MARTA, No TAD, No Bailout…

Vote No on amendment 2.

Check your MARTA vote history.

Ignorance is not doing comprehensive statewide commuter rail using existing rail rights-of-way, under a public-private joint venture.

Play Bailout! - NOT

By Sally

October 30, 2008 7:43 AM | Link to this

They tried using TADs in my neighborhood, which has a creek running through it, and which is filled with people from Poland, and……

By Pompano

October 30, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

bobby’s example represents a perfect reason to vote against TAD’s. The developers provide a BS projection of financial impact to county with no future accountability. They walk away with their cash on the front-end while 10 years from now we’re left holding the bag.

You will never be able to convince me that the individuals we elect to the school board have the expertise or ability to fully analyze the info being presented to them by developers (nor should they be expected to possess this ability).

By jim d

October 30, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this

IMHO, all of these amendments are garbage. But II is the worst of the lot.

VOTE NO ON ALL 3

By LB

October 30, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this

I pre-voted NO for the redevelopment. The reason is because Gwinnett has been burned by developers over and over. I can not trust that the money would be used properly. When I see all the new development then look at all the ghost towns in Gwinnett it makes me mad. It seems like developers are like a tornado coming through creating new development but leaving behind empty buildings. The developers should have very stiff penalties for the damage they have done to Gwinnett and not be supported by this money. Needless to say the great attraction of illegals used to do the jobs while Americans are unemployed. That’s why I voted no.