Comments on: Supreme Court nixes Beltline funding

By: Atlanta Schools, ADA strike deal over TAD funds | Fresh Loaf

Atlanta Schools, ADA strike deal over TAD funds | Fresh Loaf — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:09:05 +0000

[...] Ivan Allen Plaza are examples of TADs.) In February 2008, the Georgia Supreme Court banned school boards from participating in the projects. In November 2008, Georgia voters approved a state [...]

By: Fulton Co. Taxpayers Foundation files lawsuit over nuke bill | Fresh Loaf

Fulton Co. Taxpayers Foundation files lawsuit over nuke bill | Fresh Loaf — Fri, 01 May 2009 22:14:08 +0000

[...] court documents, the foundation’s attorney John Woodham — the lone-wolf barrister who successfully fought the Beltline’s main funding mechanism all the way to Georgia Supreme Court — calls the bill [...]

By: Perdue signs TAD legislation | Fresh Loaf

Perdue signs TAD legislation | Fresh Loaf — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:22:58 +0000

[...] had already been generated from the Beltline TAD prior to a 2008 state Supreme Court ruling that said TADs were unconstitutional. (The school board says it still supports the Beltline, just that it [...]

By: netdragon

netdragon — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:00:18 +0000

Forgot the article… doh!

http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/041408/opinion_2008041400149.shtml

By: netdragon

netdragon — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:59:54 +0000

A better funding scheme was found for the Atlanta-Marietta commuter rail. The state can divert money from the leasing of the Western and Atlantic rail lines to CSX in future years, and get the funding upfront now.

By: Thomas Wheatley

Thomas Wheatley — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:06:11 +0000

Pat,

Woodham’s a real estate lawyer who lives in Buckhead. He previously fought a development along Lindbergh as well. He’s been reluctant to speak with the media and has, to this point ,let his actions speak to his motivations. But from what I can tell, he believes in following the state Constitution as it is written. He’s hinted that he’s not opposed to the Beltline, even saying in a release to the media that he’s looking forward to a successful project.

By: Pat Weaver

Pat Weaver — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:11:41 +0000

Enlighten me here … Woodham is from Buckhead?
I was told he was an Alpharetta resident. So, perhaps in error, I’d assumed this was a typical
installment of the “don’t tax my white A__ for the poor folks” saga. Not that Buckhead’s elite aren’t just as capable of the DTMWAFTPF maneuver … it’s just that they tend to be a tad more onboard with the notion of improving the metro Atlanta area as a whole.

I’m not saying there aren’t valid reasons for questioning use of TAD funds for development. Just curious as to who Woodham is and his motivations.
“Concerned citizen protecting our school funding” doesn’t quite ring true.

By: Joe Libertarian

Joe Libertarian — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 05:33:51 +0000

TADS/TIFS reward the owners of blighted property by bailing them out of their expended assets at taxpayer expense. The owners of property in blighted areas could and would invest in gentrification themselves if it made good business sense. But since it does not, the politicians step in, buy out the owners at premium prices with taxpayer money — and in the process, garner support for their re-election campaigns — and then proceed to garner more support for said campaigns by distributing the taxpayer-funded wealth to building contractors. The end result is that hard-earned taxpayer dollars are wasted on projects that would never be built if the decision was solely the result of free market forces.

By: Dale

Dale — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:12:47 +0000

Dear UnEducated Dipshit Who Can’t Read and Comprehend,

I should improve my research so that I don’t do stupid things like respond to “Overload”, rather than “Overlord”?

I have said OVER AND OVER AND OVER, TAD’s are not illegal, but the use of the SCHOOL funds was inappropriate.

A few quotes from my posts that you obviously did nto research,

“My Dearest Mr T. – the existence of TADâ€™s is not what is illegal, it is the misuse of TAD funds designated for education that is the problem.”

“other governments know the misuse of the TAD to be illegal, not the TAD itself. TADâ€™s are not â€œdingbat funding schemesâ€,

“TADâ€™s are still available and usefull”

So where did I say a TAD was illegal? I simply said the government should not have used funds directed to be used for educational purposes (as pointed out by another poster) to develop retail and commercial property.

Do YOUR research and comment intelligently on my post.

Moron.

By: Educated on TADs

Educated on TADs — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 23:32:08 +0000

Overload and Dale, do your research before you post ignorant statements. I guess you don’t realize that TADs are used in 48 of our 50 states to redevelop blighted areas (most states call them tax increment funds or TIFs). So does that mean they are illegal in all the other states?
ALSO, when a TAD/TIF redevelopment project area is created, the value of the property in the area is established as the â€œbaseâ€ amount. The property taxes paid on this base amount continue to go to the various taxing bodies as they always had.
IN OTHER WORDS, the funds to support the redevelopment DO NOT come from current revenues, but from future tax revenues, not otherwise expected to occur.

Get your facts straight before you post your opinions to the www for all to see.