Attn Georgia Voters
Just in case you were not aware, there are three constitutional amendments on the ballot this November (or earlier if you are early voting). I know these things surprise a lot of voters at the booth, so I thought I would share them here so you can decide in advance how you want to vote. I highly recommend reading the full version of the proposed amendments (available at a link from the above referenced page) before you make your final decision.
These summaries are from the AJC:
AMENDMENT 1: 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 landowner will forestall development.
My Opinion: Conservation is mostly always a good thing and the bill does allow for penalties if companies agree to not develop for 15 years and then do so anyway. I wish terms, such as "conservation use" and "forest land" were defined, but, as of now, my vote will be Yes.
AMENDMENT 2: 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 the 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.
My Opinion: This is a more difficult one and, imho, boils down to schools v. redevelopment. I think our schools are in sad enough shape without taking money away from them, even for projects I think are necessary. If school tax funds had been left out of the proposal, I would have voted yes, but as it stands, my vote will be No.
AMENDMENT 3 - Would let counties and cities approve “infrastructure development districts,” meant largely for developers. Essentially, developers would enter into a development plan with cities or counties. Developers could borrow money to pay for infrastructure/amenities (streets, sewers, golf courses, etc.) in their development, 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. They also say only government should have the right to assess fees.
My Opinion: As an example, developers can borrow tax money to create a new subdivision and then add fees to the purchase of homes to pay back the tax money? Umm, geee, they already do this with private money and recoup that money in the sales price so why should the taxpayers subsidize more development, especially in this economy? My vote is No, let the developers take the risks, not the taxpayers.
Feel free to discuss!
These summaries are from the AJC:
AMENDMENT 1: 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 landowner will forestall development.
My Opinion: Conservation is mostly always a good thing and the bill does allow for penalties if companies agree to not develop for 15 years and then do so anyway. I wish terms, such as "conservation use" and "forest land" were defined, but, as of now, my vote will be Yes.
AMENDMENT 2: 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 the 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.
My Opinion: This is a more difficult one and, imho, boils down to schools v. redevelopment. I think our schools are in sad enough shape without taking money away from them, even for projects I think are necessary. If school tax funds had been left out of the proposal, I would have voted yes, but as it stands, my vote will be No.
AMENDMENT 3 - Would let counties and cities approve “infrastructure development districts,” meant largely for developers. Essentially, developers would enter into a development plan with cities or counties. Developers could borrow money to pay for infrastructure/amenities (streets, sewers, golf courses, etc.) in their development, 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. They also say only government should have the right to assess fees.
My Opinion: As an example, developers can borrow tax money to create a new subdivision and then add fees to the purchase of homes to pay back the tax money? Umm, geee, they already do this with private money and recoup that money in the sales price so why should the taxpayers subsidize more development, especially in this economy? My vote is No, let the developers take the risks, not the taxpayers.
Feel free to discuss!