Home > Gwinnett.talk > Archives > 2007 > December > 13 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USCounty to take another run at passing a TAD
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
No doubt some Gwinnett County boosters are mystified that eight cities could accomplish what the county could not: pass a tax allocation district referendum.
The county put the measure on the 2006 general election ballot. It lost by a narrow margin.
Last month, eight cities inside Gwinnett managed to pass TAD referendums of their own.
So the county’s trying again. The commissioners have asked the state Legislature to call for a second referendum on the issue in a March special election.
It makes your brain tired trying to explain what a TAD is. Suffice it to say, that it is a revitalization mechanism that allows property owners in blighted areas to use their taxes to pay for improving these places.
If you need a propeller-head’s explanation, visit www.dca.state.ga.us. Search the site for TAD.
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment | Categories: Gwinnett Insider
Comments
By Paul
December 13, 2007 8:31 AM | Link to this
It’s probably a good thing, but I voted NO last time because it was too vaguely worded and nobody seemed to be providing enough specifics to remove my doubts.
By BobG
December 13, 2007 8:58 AM | Link to this
A TAD focuses public dollars on a particular area, like impact fees, which is generally good. TADs are bad because they depress a segment of the Net Tax Digest (like exemptions), creating greater pressure to raise property taxes on everybody else.
By Michael H. Smith
December 13, 2007 9:26 AM | Link to this
Tax districts under whatever new label used – pick your favorite flavor - are costs past onto the consumer. After doing as instructed, a quick click of the link revealed this under issues addressed by TAD:
• Financial Institutions resistant to new development ideas
• Inadequate public facility capacity for attracting new development
• Not enough innovative economic development taking place
• Not enough jobs or economic opportunities for local residents
• Unattractive or declining town center
• Undeveloped vacant sites close in to town
Hmm…. The mind wonders amongst this sundry of issues where exactly was government during the time that all of these unpleasantries began to occur and in fact became the sad reality.
So the best way to deal with broken government is to excuse it, create new tax schemes loaded with pork, pass off the responsibilities and praise it all, if for know better reason than the spectacle on display.
By now I’m sure this little rip, has torn a few feathers off of the high flying politicos. So explain to me dearly elected, if as the case seems to serve the moment, that I now have to depend on CID, CIA, TAD to get things done that my government should have taken to task, then why do I need any of you fine ladies and gentlemen parading around as my dysfunctional government?
By mike
December 13, 2007 9:48 AM | Link to this
its amazeing the commisioners want a special ballot to raise and control more money. lets publicly talk about the bs mandatory residential trash removal program the county is raming down our throats.!! or better yet lets put this issue on the special ballot instead!!!!!!!!!!!!
By Pete
December 13, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this
Not to hijack this thread but in response to the trash removal program, I for one will be very glad to only have one trash and one recycle truck per week in my neighborhood. The truck traffic is causing the subdivision roads to break down prematurely and having trash at the street everyday of the week really makes things look bad. I’ve been in Gwinnett over 16 years and was surprised when I moved to unincorporated Gwinnett from Lawrenceville that trash was handled as it is. It has gotten much worse in recent years as more trash haulers have entered the business. Even though we tried before, we cannot get everyone to agree to the same hauler so every day of the week, some hauler is in here.
By Chuck
December 13, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this
An amen for Pete. Most counties have found that the cost does indeed decrease with the bidding process, not to mention that they are then answerable to someone. Best of all in our case would be the easing of the illegal dumping by “you know who.”
By Bruce Wicox
December 13, 2007 1:46 PM | Link to this
No Chuck who, the old time Gwinnett residents that still haul their own trash because they were here before the haulers, the ones who live too far out for the haulers to bother with or is there someone else you had in mind?
I like the idea of TAD and plan on supporting it, just because the county was lack in addressing problem areas in the past, it would be crazy not to address them now.
By Michael H. Smith
December 14, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this
I oppose these CID, CIA, TAD plans. Government needs to be held accountable not only for past failures but as well for the present ongoing failures, which these CID, TAD and CIA schemes will neither address or correct. Insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results. In this case government is redefining insanity as doing the same thing twice applying twice the efforts at twice the costs and expecting different results. DUH!