Saturday, March 6, 2010
Kingsland backing TAD for Chip Drury's development?
I just heard from a reader that Kingsland is set to back the TAD for Chip Drury's Laurel Island development that St.Marys rejected. Has anyone else heard this? Details?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Gotta admire the orchestration of all of this. Impact fees gone and meanwhile there's 42,000+ residential units slated for Cabin Bluff (taxpayers will have to cough up the approx. $95 million to cover infrastructure etc.) and how much to make up the shortfall for Drury's Dream?. You might want to check with Cecily Hill for details.
Look at the article in the Friday edition of the Tribune & Georgian. Its posted in the legals.
http://www.colstate.edu/redevelopmentpowers/TAD.pdf
Okay, I've checked and that is indeed the section of the O.C.G.A. (in the T&G legals) that addresses TADs. But are we sure that the immediate motivation is to play ball with Drury and not some other development in Kingsland?
Drury went and got this developer from Kansas City. The developer is intending to build a mall of some sort at the nearest 95 ramp to Drurys property. Once this is approved Drury will be able to piggy back on this to develop/re-develop his property.
You know yourself once the first TAD is approved its open season from there.
Which would be where - Exit 6?
YES!!!!
Jay what is your interpretation of 36-44-14(b). There is alot of conversation circulating about this paragraph. Most are saying that this means since the Kingsland Council voted this in unaminously this will NOT have to go before the public for a vote.
Not trying to be a smart ass but is English the native language of those questioning the intent of the language in the section?
It reads:
(b) All tax allocation bonds, notes, and other obligations shall be authorized by resolution of the local legislative body, adopted by a majority vote of the members thereof at a regular or special meeting and without the necessity of a referendum or any electoral approval. The resolution shall state the name of the tax allocation district and the aggregate principal amount of the tax allocation bonds authorized.
It's crystal clear to me. No referendum is needed.
Anonymous,
The council supporting the resolution unanimously has no bearing at all. A referendum will be held to either grant or deny the city having those said "redevelopement powers". If they are granted then the city has them until a similiar action to cancel them (legislative action that is). A referendum would not be required on each individual project (there are guidelines that a project has to fit to qualify). I have been interested in hearing the first wave of rumors/thoughts on this. I do think its interesting that Kingsland accepted public comment tonight on a DCA revolving loan grant of$500,000. The idea is this state money can be used for relocating business to the area and as its paid back the city can use the payments to invest and help grow existing business. Every so often a thread pops up that the cities and the county arent doing anything to bring in jobs and add a little diversity to our tax rolls. However, just to prove to everyone we are a damned if you do and damned if you dont community, as soon as a agency starts looking into creative ways and available resources they are a bunch of ignorant crooks.
While the Kingsland City Council might well be jawboned into a referendum, my reading of the applicable code sections says that Georgia cities have inherent redevelopment powers not subject to a referendum. They may be enacted by a simple majority vote of the council.
TITLE 36. LOCAL GOVERNMENT
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ONLY
CHAPTER 44. REDEVELOPMENT POWERS
O.C.G.A. § 36-44-5 (2009)
§ 36-44-5. Power of political subdivision
(a) Subject to the limitation of subsection (b) of this Code section, a political subdivision may exercise any powers necessary or convenient to carry out the purposes of this chapter, including, but not limited to, the power to:
Belay my last! I stand corrected (by further reading).
TITLE 36. LOCAL GOVERNMENT
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ONLY
CHAPTER 44. REDEVELOPMENT POWERS
O.C.G.A. § 36-44-22 (2009)
§ 36-44-22. Approval of local law; expansion of authorities by localities prohibited
Redevelopment powers under this chapter may not be exercised by any political subdivision unless so authorized by a local law relating thereto, which local law may limit but may not expand those redevelopment powers established by this chapter as to the local political subdivision to which the local law is applicable. Such local law, and all amendments thereto, shall become effective only if approved in a special election by a majority of the qualified voters voting of each political subdivision directly affected, which special election shall be held as provided in that local law, but in conformity with the requirements for special elections pursuant to Title 21.
So, if Kingsland has not yet voted in these powers unto itself under a prior referendum, which I take it they have not, then they must hold a referendum.
However, once they get those powers, their actions thereafter are not subject to referenda - only majority votes of council.
Jay your last post is 100% correct. Cecily asked the mayor to see if council would adopt a resolution that she could introduce with the legislative act in Atl. If people dont want the city to have redevelopement powers then the people will vote it down. It seems to me this is democracy at work.
Post a Comment