Fresh Loaf

Plant Vogtle

The Fulton County Taxpayers Foundation and its president John Sherman filed a lawsuit Wednesday in Fulton County Superior Court over Senate Bill 31, a controversial piece of legislation that allows Georgia Power to begin charging customers in advance for two new proposed nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle.

The lawsuit names the Georgia Public Service Commission, the quasi-judicial state agency that decides how much you pay for your electricity, and Gov. Sonny Perdue, who signed the bill on April 21, as defendants.

During the legislative session, a diverse group of critics called the bill unfair because some industrial customers are exempt from the rate hike. They also said the issue belonged in the Georgia Public Service Commission, where a full-time staff examines and studies the complicated issue of nuclear financing. Georgia Power hired more than 70 lobbyists the push the bill.

In 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 unconstitutional on numerous grounds.

View the 53-page lawsuit here (PDF). It’s a long and complicated read for those not learned in the language of legalese. But it lays the groundwork of what’s sure to be an interesting battle over one of the past legislative session’s most controversial issues.

(Courtesy Nuclear Regulatory Commission)

Bookmark It

The new bill clamps down on what local government officials can consider a “blighted” area.

From Dave Williams at the Atlanta Business Chronicle:

Only neighborhoods truly in need of taxpayer-funded redevelopment would qualify as tax allocation districts under legislation signed this week by Gov. Sonny Perdue.

The legislation, designed to accompany a constitutional amendment ratified by Georgia voters last fall, tightens the definitions of “blighted” and “deteriorated” areas under the state’s TAD law.

…

Under the new law, only neighborhoods marked by substandard buildings, high vacancy rates and high poverty and unemployment could qualify as TADs. That way, only properties too unattractive to lure private investment could be redeveloped with TAD money.

School boards — which chip in the largest chunk of funding if they participate in a TAD — still have a choice as to whether they want to participate in the projects.

The tough economy has forced some cash-strapped school systems to renegotiate — or even rethink — their roles in TADs. Atlanta Public Schools and Atlanta Development Authority officials are in talks to split nearly $18 million that 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 wants to begin kicking in money this year.) Gainesville City Schools recently voted to opt out of a TAD in which it initially planned to participate.

Bookmark It

That Other Paper has a terrible habit of not printing our name. We’ve come to accept it here and find it almost laughable. The monolith decides what to acknowledge, we know.

So I was floored this morning while reading a Gay Talese-esque profile of John Woodham, the attorney who successfully battled the Beltline all the way to state Supreme Court.

During a recent weekday afternoon, an unshaven Woodham, dressed in an old fleece jacket and battered ballcap, returned from lunch carrying a piece of Fellini’s pizza and a Creative Loafing. He drives a Land Rover adorned with a “W” bumper sticker with a slash through it.

Emphasis added out of sheer amazement. This made me feel like an auto worker in Detroit who gets name-dropped during the State of the Union. When the editors opted to leave that reference in, did papers fly around the office? Did a portal to another dimension open, the fabric of time tear? Did Henry Grady rise from the ground and start high-kicking on Julia Wallace’s desk? The article also references comments made here.

But then again, since Woodham wouldn’t talk to the AJC, maybe saying that he was holding a copy of our paper was a clever way to describe him as a knowledgeable, astute, well-rounded man of immeasurable talent. Or a left-leaning badass.

Nice bumper sticker, too, John.

Bookmark It

The Supreme Court of Georgia has unanimously ruled that the use of school-tax revenue for non-educational purposes — in this case, to build the Beltline — violates the state constitution. John Woodham, a Fulton County resident opposed to the tax allocation district funding mechanism, represented himself in the case.

What does this mean? Well, it means the Beltline project is now without a whole lotta’ money. About $200 million. Trying to get the exact amount here…getting ranges from $200 million to $1.7 billion.

From the court’s press release:

But in today’s unanimous ruling, written by Justice Hugh Thompson, the Court agrees with Woodham that the use of school funds for non-educational purposes violates the Educational Purpose Clause of the state Constitution. The Court cites two earlier Supreme Court decisions in concluding “that school tax funds levied and collected by the school system cannot constitutionally be applied to benefit the BeltLine project.”

Full press release after the jump. More to come on this later.

(more…)

Bookmark It

Tomorrow will be a deciding factor in the push to get the Beltline underway. John Woodham, as discussed in these pages, will have his day in state Supreme Court tomorrow at 10 a.m. Woodham has argued that the funding strategy proposed for the Beltline — a tax allocation district that will freeze property taxes in a specified region and use the incremental gains generated to fund the project — sluices cash from schools and uses the funds for non-educational purposes, a violation of the state Constitution. It is the first time, even though several other projects have used the TAD strategy — such as Atlantic Station and Princeton Lakes — that it has been challenged in court. The TAD funds for the Beltline are estimated to make up $1.7 billion of the project — half of the total cost.

For the court docket, go here. Jane Hansen, the state Supreme Court public information officer, said the court will webcast the hearing live. Although a link is not available at the moment, she said it would appear here tomorrow. CL will also be there and keep you updated. The hearing is open to the public, so if you’d like to sit in, go here for directions to the Judicial Building downtown.

Bookmark It