By Jon Gillooly
Marietta Daily Journal Staff Writer
ATLANTA - A House Judiciary subcommittee on Friday moved forward a resolution that would nullify the Georgia Supreme Court's Feb. 11 ruling that local governments cannot use school tax revenues to help underwrite redevelopment efforts with tax allocation district subsidies.
The subcommittee voted 3-2 to send the proposed constitutional amendment to the full Judiciary.
Voting for the resolution were state Rep. Pam Stephenson (D-Decatur), who is acting as Grady Memorial Hospital's CEO and is chairman of the controversial board that oversees the hospital, state Rep. Edward Lindsey (R-Atlanta), and state Rep. Wendell Willard (R-Sandy Springs), who are both attorneys.
Voting against the resolution were state Rep. Steve "Thunder" Tumlin (R-Marietta) and state Rep. Mike Jacobs (R-DeKalb County), who are both attorneys.
House Resolution 1364 is authored by state Rep. Chuck Martin (R-Alpharetta), who works for the tax-consulting firm Ryan & Company.
The resolution must pass both the House and Senate by a two-thirds majority to be placed on the November ballot. Even then, a majority of voters must approve it to become law.
Tumlin, an original member of the Marietta Redevelopment Corp. board, which has the power to recommend to the Marietta City Council that it authorize TADs, said earlier this week he opposed a constitutional amendment, nullifying the high court's unanimous decision.
"I think education needs every dime we can give them," Tumlin said. "I don't think we should use their money anywhere else. I'm for redevelopment also, I just don't think we should use education dollars for it."
Tumlin chairs Cobb's legislative delegation.
A similar effort to amend the constitution is underway in the state senate, with Cobb state senators Judson Hill (R-east Cobb), John Wiles (R-Kennesaw) and Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock) saying they would support such a proposal.
Among those in attendance during the subcommittee hearing on Friday were TAD lawyer Sharon Gay of the Atlanta firm McKenna Long and Aldridge and two Marietta City staffers.
jgillooly@mdjonline.com
Comment on this Story
Posted Comments
Well, I guess we're about to find out how deeply in the pockets of developers our state legislators are. If the use of TADs had been restricted to their original intent -- making possible redevelopment of brownfields or hopelessly derelict areas -- the matter might never have come up before the state Supreme Court. Instead, it turned into a 'free money' land-rush. Now it will be fought out as a fight between developer and schoolchildren.
Sadly you know nothing about Tad's and how they really work.They are used to in about every state in the u.s. and create revitalization of depressed areas. The costs of taking down old buildings and leveling sites to rebuild is VERY expensive.Without Tad's the areas simply wouldn't be redeveloped as with the epa cleanup,asbestos from old buildings etc. the costs are too high.What you would then attract is older buildings,the homeless,drugs,high crime,and transient criminals.I urge people to really understand tad's and how they work then to read comments by people who don't investigate them.
Maybe that's how TADs work on the planet you come from, Joe, but it ain't how they've worked out in Cobb County. I'm not alone in my wariness of them; the Cobb County School Board and the Cobb County government are holding 'em at arm's length, too. (And BTW, telling people they 'know nothing' is so persuasive...)
Sadly, Joe, you know nothing about the law and fail to recognize the doctrine of personal responsiblity. The law (the Georgia Constitution) restricts the use of educational tax monies to education only. Developing shopping centers is not education related. As for cleanup, such costs should be borne by the property owners either in a reduced sales price for the property (reduced by the cleanup costs) or by having to correct the problems in compliance with applicable codes, ordinances and other requirements. I'm tired of bailing everyone out and I absolutely oppose using TADs for this purpose, thereby allowing property owners to sell contaminated or blighted properties to developers for the equivalent of a lottery win. I've already bailed out Katrina victims, appear to be in line to bail out lenders and homeowners, and now seem poised to bail out owners of contaminated or blighted property (and then there's the uninsured and social security to deal with). Quite simply, I'm tired of writing the check to everyone other than me.
Hey Joe, What about Alan Fairchild's point that if TAD money is used for cleanup and so forth, taxpayers pay for the cleanup of contaminated sites, not the companies that contaminated them? Additionally, companies will have no fear of contaminating sites, since they know that they will not be prosecuted for it, and the taxpayers will foot the bill?