Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2008 > June > 30
Monday, June 30, 2008
Feisty band of fighters takes on the TAD juggernaut
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The Internet that makes it possible for presidential campaigns to raise millions quickly may, a small band of Gwinnett County taxpayers hopes, make it possible for those without deep pockets to stand up against well-financed advocacy campaigns.
At issue now is a proposal on the July 15 primary ballot in Gwinnett that asks a question so arcane that only insiders can have a real clue as to what they’re being asked to approve. The question is this:
“Shall the Act be approved which authorizes Gwinnett County to exercise redevelopment powers under the ‘Redevelopment Powers Law’ as it may be amended from time to time for the purpose of improving economic and social conditions in depressed areas within the county?”
That proposed law would work in tandem with a proposed constitutional amendment on the statewide ballot in November. That question:
“Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to authorize community redevelopment and authorize counties, municipalities, and local boards of education to use tax funds for redevelopment purposes and programs?”
Suppose the Gwinnett question was asked this way:
“Should county commissioners be authorized to redirect increased tax revenues from up to 10 percent of the county’s total tax digest from the county general funds into the pockets of developers and financiers?”
That’s a version of Patrick T. Malone’s summation of the ballot question. Who’s he? He’s a partner in PAR Group, a national training and consulting company with strong opinions about tax allocation districts (TADs) and how they’ve been used elsewhere. But most importantly, he’s a taxpayer in Gwinnett who’s found other taxpayers who are determined to see if an Internet-based network can compete against a well-funded public relations sell.
He and others hope to get an e-mail chain from one taxpayer’s mailing list to another to piece together a campaign to defeat the July 15 referendum. The idea has been rejected before, said Malone. “I thought it went away,” he said, “but unfortunately, it resurfaced. It goes back to the idea that we are not smart enough to understand that ‘this is good for you, so we are just going to keep putting it on the ballot until you get smart enough to pass it.’ ”
Jimmy Orr of Bethlehem is another of those on the e-mail list working to build opposition. “We are just a bunch of loose-knit individuals, taxpayers, voters,” he said. “To be honest with you, we simply don’t have the funds to really mount an effective media campaign against the development industry.”
The problem they both have is that they see TADs as — in Malone’s words — “a kind of insidious form of corporate welfare” that has the potential to steamroll unchecked.
TADs can be abused. Malone’s not opposed to a limited number of them, like, for example, a proposed redevelopment of the old Lucent complex off I-85. He thinks Atlantic Station was an appropriate use. In short, if approved, they should be used on a limited basis in areas where redevelopment would not occur otherwise. Examples are truly blighted areas and those with other problems, like pollution.
The fact is, however, that unless the definition of blight is drawn so tightly that they aren’t used routinely to redevelop just ahead of naturally occurring growth, they do amount to little more than taxpayer giveaways.
When TADs are set up, the value of the property for tax purposes is fixed. The growth in value is diverted to the developer for a period of, say, 25 or 30 years. Therefore if a parcel is currently valued at $100,000 and with redevelopment increases to $1 million, taxes on the $100,000 will go to the city or county and taxes on $900,000 will go to pay off the money borrowed for redevelopment.
The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled that property taxes to support schools can’t be diverted to developers. The General Assembly overruled that decision with a proposed constitutional amendment that will be on the ballot in November. If approved by voters who fail to comprehend what it is they’re being asked to do, the state Supreme Court’s decision will be negated.
Permalink | Comments (52) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
The U.S. is powerless…
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The brutality of Zimbawbe’s Robert Mugabe is shocking. He stays in power because defeat in a reasonably fair election means that the army leaders who have carried out his atrocities would be at risk of arrest for crimes against humanity. So instead he threatens civil war and intimidates the opposition so that no genuine election is possible. The world tolerates it.
As horrendous as Mugabe’s conduct is, this is an instance where the United States can do nothing, even if it did not have its hands full in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Great Britain, as the former colonial power, can do nothing either, nor can the rest of Europe. Too much bad history. The United Nations, likewise, is limited. It’s peace-keeping role is essentially to stand between warring factions willing to pretend they intend to stop the slaughter. That’s not the case with Mugabge.
U.S. intervention is not a prospect. Participation in any kind of military force, even if that were an option, is off the table. The U.S. military is stretched much too thin already.
But with a presidential election looming here, Zimbawbe does present an example of what should be American security policy. The Bush policy of premption is a sound one. No nation that threatens us and no nation that harbors the terrorists who plot our destruction should ever sleep a wink with the certainty that the U.S. won’t strike.
There should be a delineation, however, between specific threats targeting the United States and other threats. Iran’s development of nuclear weapons threatens the world in general, and the destruction of Israel in particular. The world should act, but probably won’t. Israel, however, cannot allow it to happen. There’s some speculation that Israel could act before President Bush leaves office if Barack Obama is elected and signals a foreign policy that might tempt aggressors to test him.
The world, through the United Nations, has a moral obligation to intervene to protect human rights. The first responsiblity, however, is with regional players.
With Mugabe, that’s regional players in Africa. An opportunity will come this week at the African Union summit. There’s no hope or desire to attempt military intervention. But they could be bolder in denouncing his regime and in attempting to persuade him that it’s time to find peace in exile. In the custom of dictators who’ve stayed too long, Africa — and the world’s financial powers, including Saudi Arabia, Japan and now China — could buy him into luxurious exile. There’s not much of an alternative.
For the U.S., first concern is our national security. Second is threats to world peace, in partnership with other powers and possibly the United Nations. For Zimbawbe, the solution rests with those who are actually in a position of influence — and that’s other heads of state in Africa.
.
