Contact County Commissioners About GM Plan

August 23, 2010

Click here for telephone numbers and e-mail addresses to contact the DeKalb County commissioners about the GM redevelopment plan. Please see below to read my recent article on the subject.


Taxpayers Shouldn’t Become Developer’s ATM

August 20, 2010

Drive north on Peachtree Road and Peachtree Industrial Boulevard through Brookhaven, Chamblee, Doraville and into Dunwoody and the view is startling. Shopping centers are empty like the ghost towns of the Wild West.

Town Brookhaven is finally sprouting major anchor stores, but is having trouble filling its smaller retail store fronts. Chamblee Plaza? Nearly empty. The new “Super H Mart” center adjacent to the GM site? It’s nearly empty, too.

The CoStar Group, a national real estate analysis firm, says the vacancy rates of retail, shopping centers and offices in North DeKalb are at catastrophic levels when you compare them to the national average. With so many empty store fronts, why would county officials push so hard to use our tax dollars for a supersized mixed-use project at the site of the former GM plant in Doraville?

Consider this:

- In the North DeKalb zip codes 30319, 30338, 30340, 30341, 30346 and 30360, the vacancy rate for shopping centers is 23 percent compared to 14 percent in DeKalb County as a whole and 10 percent in the City of Atlanta.

- The vacancy rate for North DeKalb office buildings is 24 percent compared to 18 percent in the county overall and 20 percent in the City of Atlanta.

- Retail vacancy rates are 17 percent in those zip codes, 11 percent in DeKalb overall, and 9 percent in Atlanta, according to CoStar.

The county’s elected officials are considering using a special allocation of $36 million in federal stimulus bonds on the 165-acre GM site with visions of creating another Atlantic Station. These bonds come with a high price tag to the taxpayers. DeKalb officials would use the stimulus bonds as a $36 million “gift” to an out-of-state developer, New Broad Street of Florida.

Worse yet, county taxpayers would have to pay the principal and a majority of the interest on these bonds. It’s very likely that means higher property taxes for you and me because the county doesn’t otherwise have the money to make the payments.

In ordinary times, the developer wouldn’t have to rely on county taxpayers. There would be more private investment to help finance the project. But these are no ordinary times. We’re in the midst of the worst commercial real estate market in memory. Private investors don’t want to provide the financing for an overly ambitious mixed-use project consisting of shopping, apartments and offices. The county wants the taxpayers to step in and do what private investors won’t do: bear the risks of this project.

If a new restaurant, retail shop or gas station, for example, wants to open for business, investors take the risk whether it prospers or fails. The same should be true for this project. DeKalb taxpayers are not a bank. They are not in the business of providing corporate welfare to jump start a project the private sector would never finance.

This is the most ambitious project we’ve ever seen county officials attempt to tackle, and it comes during a deep recession. It is not the taxpayers’ job to finance the next Atlantic Station and add to the already glutted market a new supply of retail and commercial space.

The definition of insanity, according to Albert Einstein, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We should heed the lessons of the “real estate bubble” and steer clear of risking taxpayer funds for further overdevelopment. After the bubble has burst, don’t use our tax dollars to create another bubble!

There are two final things to consider:

1. The GM site ultimately will be redeveloped if the county does not intervene. It’s arguably the most valuable parcel of available commercial property in the county. It’s on a major highway (I-285), a major north-south artery (Peachtree Industrial), and a MARTA station. In better economic times, something that private investors and market forces will support will be built there. I’m confident of that.

2. These particular stimulus bonds are supposed to be used for public infrastructure projects, not for private development. When used properly, they are a cheaper way of financing these projects. The county already has a list of infrastructure needs a mile long, not the least of which is the water and sewer system upgrades that they plan to fund with massive increases in our water bills. The bonds could be used to defray those costs. They also could be used for projects such as street repairs, new sidewalks, intersection upgrades, and parks.

The DeKalb County Board of Commissioners will vote on this matter next Tuesday, August 24.

Commissioner Elaine Boyer has pledged to vote against it. I encourage you to contact the other six county commissioners (Rader, Johnson, Barnes-Sutton, May, Gannon, and Stokes) and urge them to vote “no” as well. In particular, Commissioner Jeff Rader appears not to have taken a position as of yet. You can find the commissioners’ telephone numbers and e-mail addresses by clicking here.


DeKalb County Strategic Planning Meetings

August 9, 2010

DeKalb County is hosting a series of strategic planning meetings throughout the county billed as “FOCUSS” meetings (which stands for fiscal accountability, opportunity, community, unity, safety, and sustainability). The meetings appear to be a good opportunity for citizens to talk with county officials about the future of the county.

Two of the meetings will be held relatively near our community. Here are the dates, times, and locations:

Monday, August 9
6:30 to 8:00 p.m.
Georgia Perimeter College, Dunwoody Campus
Building C, Room NC 1100
2101 Womack Road
Dunwoody, GA 30338

Monday, August 23
6:30 to 8:00 p.m.
Emory University
MacMillan-Gambrell Hall, Tull Auditorium
1301 Clifton Road
Atlanta, GA 30322


A Parks Bill for Everyone

July 10, 2010

You may have seen recently in the news that the City of Dunwoody obtained the parks within its boundaries from DeKalb County at minimal cost pursuant to state legislation.

The legislation that enabled this to happen was amended into a bill that I sponsored, House Bill 203 (click for more information), but not before I changed the language in ways that benefit all of us, whether or not we live in the City of Dunwoody.

The parks language in the bill does not just apply to Dunwoody. It applies to every city in DeKalb County. So, for example, if the City of Chamblee or City of Dunwoody were to annex the areas containing Murphey Candler Park or Blackburn Park, or both, that city would be able to obtain those parks from DeKalb County for the same low cost. Also, if citizens in Brookhaven ever decide that they want to form a new city, that city would get the same deal in obtaining Brookhaven Park on Peachtree Road and Ashford Park on Caldwell Drive.

This is not to say that any such incorporation or annexation is imminent. That’s a decision that will remain primarily in the hands of our neighborhoods, and also in the hands of any city governments which might become annexation partners. The bottom line is that proper maintenance of local parks is one of the reasons that local citizens choose to become part of a city.

Critics have suggested that this is stealing parks from DeKalb County and giving them to cities. I reject that notion. They’re not DeKalb County’s parks. They’re not any city’s parks. They’re public parks.

One of the provisions that I insisted on including in HB 203 is a provision that says citizens who live inside a city and those who live outside a city have to be charged the same fees, to the extent there are fees, for the use of any park that is acquired by a city pursuant to the legislation. Thus, a city can’t charge residents of unincorporated areas more for using “city” parks and recreation facilities.

Evan and I take our kids to the playground at Brook Run from time to time. We don’t live in the City of Dunwoody. After the incorporation of Dunwoody, I’ve seen firsthand how DeKalb County has allowed the park to deteriorate. It affects all of us. I am confident that the City of Dunwoody will be a much better steward of the park.

HB 203 also deals with parks bond funds. There are approximately $7.5 million dollars in general obligation bond funds (not tax funds from the county treasury) that the City of Dunwoody says were promised for improvements to Brook Run prior to the 2006 DeKalb County parks bond referendum, but DeKalb County is now holding back these funds and won’t use them for Brook Run.

HB 203 provides that, if a city can prove to the satisfaction of a Superior Court judge that county documents and the statements of county officials in the run-up to a bond referendum promised X amount of bond funds for particular projects at a particular park, and the county is holding back the funds, the city gets X dollars of the bond proceeds to use for those particular projects at that particular park.

The point is that county officials should be held to the promises they make to voters and taxpayers when seeking to win their votes in a bond referendum. This provision, too, is written to benefit other areas that may join DeKalb cities in the future.


GM Redevelopment Plan? Taxpayers Beware.

June 21, 2010

When a county commissioner talks about spreading “risk” and “cost,” taxpayers should run in the other direction.

Those words were quoted from a recent edition of the DeKalb Neighbor (click for link) in which Commissioner Jeff Rader talked about the potential redevelopment of the Doraville GM plant: “We … need to spread risk and cost of this to other stakeholders. [Otherwise] the county will have to service the debt and use taxpayer funds to pay back that money.”

The GM redevelopment is a project that taxpayers need to be watching closely. Very closely.

New Broad Street, the developer of Florida’s Celebration community (click for link), is proposing a partnership with DeKalb County where the developer and the county will acquire the GM site and build a supersized mixed-use center with condos, apartments, retail stores, office space, and hotels. The county is proposing to use a special allocation of federal stimulus bonds known as recovery zone bonds to help finance the redevelopment of the GM site. The “benefit” of using these bonds is that the federal government subsidizes 45 percent of the interest.

However, the remaining principal and interest on the bonds would have to be paid out of the county treasury. That’s our tax dollars the county is gambling with. Whenever you read news stories that the county is thinking about shutting down recreation facilities and judges are reading the Riot Act to the CEO and county commissioners about the judicial budget (click for links), you have to wonder what the county is thinking when they consider using the very same tax dollars for risky development projects.

Some officials in the county government are going so far as to talk about increasing our property taxes to help pay for the bonds to redevelop the GM site. That should be a complete non-starter.

When Commissioner Rader was talking about spreading “risk” and “cost,” he was talking about the county’s efforts to shake down the Doraville City Council to use the city’s funds to help pay for the project, because the GM plant is located inside the City of Doraville. That’s still using tax dollars. It’s robbing from Peter to pay Paul. Doraville would be right to say no.

The DeKalb County Development Authority would be responsible for issuing the bonds to help pay for the New Broad Street project. Generally speaking, in DeKalb County, the use of our tax dollars to support the projects of a quasi-governmental authority requires a voter referendum. This referendum requirement is the result of a law I authored in 2007. As part of this year’s House Bill 203 (click for link), however, the General Assembly granted the county a one-time exemption for the stimulus bonds now being proposed for the GM site.

The reason for the exemption is that the stimulus bonds had a June 30th “use them or lose them” deadline. It would have been impossible to hold a referendum under this time constraint. The consequence of not meeting the deadline would be that DeKalb’s allocation of stimulus bonds would be reallocated to other local governments in Georgia. Those local governments would then be able to use the bonds for infrastructure projects like improvements to roads and sewers. Infrastructure is the real purpose of these particular stimulus bonds, not risky development projects. DeKalb either has obtained or is attempting to obtain an extension of the June 30th deadline.

Furthermore, I considered it an important safeguard that the county commission would have to conduct an open public vote on an intergovernmental agreement to spend our tax dollars to repay the stimulus bonds. This safeguard exists whether or not the referendum requirement applies to these bonds. The county commission has not yet voted on an intergovernmental agreement to use our tax dollars to repay stimulus bonds for the New Broad Street project at the GM site. In addition, the commission would have to vote to approve any property tax hike that is proposed for this purpose.

The commissioners absolutely should oppose such an agreement or tax increase. The county is in no position to bear the “risk” and “cost” of a supersized development project using our tax dollars. In a recent article in the Dunwoody Crier (click for link), Commissioner Elaine Boyer appeared to suggest that a majority of the county commission is prepared to reject a tax increase for the GM redevelopment plan.

To make sure this happens, your county commissioners need to hear directly from you. You can find their contact information at web.co.dekalb.ga.us/boc/contact.html if you would like to voice your opposition.


Appeal Deadline Extended to June 10th

June 7, 2010

I have just received word from a constituent and have confirmed with the DeKalb County Tax Assessors’ office that the deadline to postmark or hand deliver your property assessment appeal letter has been extended through Thursday, June 10. Apparently this is due to some reassessment notices that were mailed out late. Scroll down for more information on how to appeal your reassessment notice.


Update on Assessment Appeals

June 4, 2010

As an addendum to my posts over the past couple of weeks about filing an appeal to your reassessment notice, in addition to appealing to the board of equalization or binding arbitration, you also have the right to choose non-binding arbitration.

There are significant differences between non-binding and binding arbitration. In binding arbitration, if you lose, you can’t appeal to the superior court and you must pay for the arbitrator. If you win, the county pays for the arbitrator. In binding arbitration, you’ll also need to get a formal property appraisal from a certified property appraiser.

Non-binding arbitration works differently. You can appeal the arbitrator’s decision to the superior court and you and the county will share in the costs of the arbitrator, regardless of who prevails.

The board of equalization process is at no cost to the taxpayer.

Remember, your appeal letter must be postmarked or hand delivered no later than June 7. You should only file an appeal if you received a reassessment notice in May.


June 7th Assessment Appeal Deadline

June 3, 2010

I have recorded this YouTube public service announcement (PSA) about appealing your property assessment. The DeKalb County Tax Assessors mailed out reassessment notices toward the beginning of May. If you received a reassessment notice and wish to appeal it, your appeal letter must be postmarked or hand delivered no later than Monday, June 7.

Please click here to read an article that I posted last week about the appeal process.

If you find this PSA helpful, please consider forwarding it along to your neighbors. They might find it useful as well.


How to Appeal Your Reassessment Notice

May 27, 2010

They’re at it again.

The DeKalb County Tax Assessors have sent out reassessment notices. Having received one this year, and having heard from many of my constituents who have received one, it appears that there is a common thread in this year’s crop of reassessments.

The common thread is that, if you filed a Form PT-50R Georgia Real Property Tax Return (click for an article that I previously wrote on how to file this form), the tax assessors included the amount that you provided on your Property Tax Return as the “previous year’s value” for the bygone 2009 tax year. Then, the assessors increased that amount to what had been your 2009 assessment amount, telling you that the old 2009 amount would be the “current year’s value” for the 2010 tax year.

Through a clever sleight of hand, the tax assessors are telling you that, even if you filed a Form PT-50R, your property assessment hasn’t been changed for the current tax year. This is absurd. It shows that the tax assessors never bothered to look into your assessment after you sent in your Property Tax Return.

There are two things you should know:

First, you are not alone. I have received scores of calls and e-mails from constituents who have been treated the same way by the tax assessors.

Second, you can fight back. You can appeal your reassessment notice, if you received one. To do so, you should write a letter that includes the parcel identification number for your home (which is found on the front of your notice of assessment change) and your name, property address, and daytime telephone number. You should enclose documents that show the sales prices or fair market value of comparable homes in and around your neighborhood.

You also will need to state in your letter whether you want your appeal to be heard by the Board of Equalization or by an arbitrator. Under Senate Bill 240 (click for information), which was bipartisan legislation sponsored in the State Senate by Senator Chip Rogers and in the House of Representatives by Representative Kevin Levitas, you have the right to choose binding arbitration.

The way this arbitration works is that you and the tax assessors will each have a chance to present evidence to support the value that each has assigned to your property. Based upon the evidence, the arbitrator will then choose which value is correct. In other words, the arbitrator will not “split the baby” between the values. He or she will choose your value or the tax assessors’ value on an either-or basis.

You should only choose arbitration if you have a high level of confidence in the value you have assigned to your property and sufficient evidence to prove that your value is closer to the actual value of your home than the value that the tax assessors have assigned to it. This is because the losing party will have to pay the arbitrator’s fees. If the tax assessors lose, the county pays for the arbitrator, but if you lose, the costs of arbitration become your responsibility.

Therefore, if you are less confident in the value that you believe is correct, you should choose to have your appeal heard by the Board of Equalization. The Board of Equalization process comes at no cost to the taxpayer, regardless of whether you prevail.

In addition, you should consider including language in your letter that says something like this:

“O.C.G.A. § 48-5B-1 provides that my property assessment may not be increased between the 2009 and 2010 tax years. I am filing this appeal because I received a notice of assessment change reflecting an assessment increase between the 2009 and 2010 tax years.”

As part of House Bill 233 (click for information), which was legislation that I helped to pass, your property assessment cannot be increased between the 2009 and 2010 tax years. Raising your assessment between 2009 and 2010 is exactly what the recent notices sent out by the tax assessors appear to do.

The assessors likely will argue that the language on the notice after the asterisk “based on taxpayer return” means that the tax assessors never really accepted the value that you wrote on your Form PT-50R as the actual value of your property for 2009. However, if you read your reassessment notice closely, the actual language printed on the notice appears to have a different meaning than this.

If you plan to appeal your reassessment notice, please make sure that your appeal letter is hand-delivered, or is mailed and postmarked, no later than June 7, 2010 to the following address:

DeKalb County Board of Tax Assessors
120 West Trinity Place, Room 208
Decatur, GA 30030

If you have further questions, you can call the DeKalb County Property Appraisal Department at (404) 371-2471 or (404) 371-0841 or visit their website at www.co.dekalb.ga.us/propappr.


Governor Signs Jacobs Bills into Law

May 27, 2010

Today Governor Perdue signed three of the bills that I pushed during this year’s legislative session: SB 250, which contains my anti-bullying amendment; HB 1345, Georgia’s new Kosher statute; and HB 451, Revised Article 7 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which deals with electronic documents of title in warehouse and shipping transactions. Click the links for more information about each bill.

Sometime soon, I plan to write at greater length about the anti-bullying bill and the Kosher bill. In the meantime, here are excerpts from press releases about these two significant pieces of legislation:

Agudath Israel of America on the Kosher Bill:

Agudath Israel of America commended Governor Sonny Perdue and the Georgia General Assembly upon the signing into law of the Georgia Kosher Food Consumer Protection Act on Thursday.

The bill had garnered unanimous support in both the House and Senate last month, “a testament,” says Agudath Israel Ohio Regional Director Rabbi A. D. Motzen, “to the personal effort of the bill’s sponsor, State Representative Mike Jacobs,” who worked with Orthodox Jewish community leaders in Georgia to promote the legislation. Representative Jacobs, Rabbi Motzen notes, “was involved in every aspect of the bill’s drafting – and redrafting – and garnered the necessary support for the bill’s passage.”

The revised Georgia statute will amend the existing kosher labeling law, enacted in 1980, in a manner that is patterned after the “public disclosure” models adopted in Maryland, New York, and New Jersey.

Public disclosure requires stores selling unpackaged food represented as kosher to inform the public as to the identity of the kosher certifier and other relevant information regarding the standards adhered to when making such a claim. Among other things, the bill also transfers oversight of the kosher law from the Georgia Department of Agriculture to the Governor’s Office of Consumer Affairs.

Though no court in Georgia deemed the state’s kosher law unconstitutional, a challenge was filed by local Conservative Rabbi Shalom Lewis and the American Civil Liberties Union. In response to the lawsuit, a bill was originally introduced in the House to repeal the kosher labeling law, but that measure was not brought to the floor for a vote.

“Had the current law simply been repealed, consumers would have likely faced an increase in kosher fraud,” says Rabbi Reuven Stein, director of supervision at the Atlanta Kashruth Commission. “Any store could have advertised its products as kosher without any requirement to substantiate their claim. House Bill 1345 does not replace the need for a reliable kosher supervisor or agency, but it will give consumers information about the kosher standards being used so they can make informed decisions.”

HB 1345 was co-sponsored by a bipartisan group including State Representatives Kevin Levitas, Joe Wilkinson, Wendell Willard, Michele Henson and Fran Millar. The bill was shepherded through the Senate by Senator Don Balfour. Testimony in favor of the bill was offered by Rabbi Yechezkel Freundlich of Congregation Beth Jacob, University of Georgia law professor Hillel Levin, and David Schoen, Esq.

Rabbi Ilan Feldman, of Congregation Beth Jacob and Dean of the Atlanta Kashruth Commission, had warm words of praise for Agudath Israel’s efforts. “Rabbi Motzen visited Atlanta several times,” Rabbi Feldman said, “and spent dozens of hours working on this legislation from his Cincinnati office. He used Agudath Israel’s national legal network to bring together the necessary experts and kept everyone focused on producing the best legislation possible under the circumstances.”

Governor Perdue on the Anti-Bullying Bill:

Governor Sonny Perdue announced today that he has signed Senate Bill 250, which strengthens Georgia’s anti-bullying laws. The law requires parental notification for students involved in a bullying incident and directs the state Department of Education to develop a model anti-bullying policy that can be used by local school systems. . . .

“Bullying has no place in our schools,” said Governor Perdue. “This legislation will help local systems address incidents of student intimidation and ensure that parents know when their child is involved in a bullying incident.”

The Governor was joined at the bill signing by the family of Jaheem Herrera [of DeKalb County] who committed suicide after being taunted by classmates.

Anti-Defamation League on the Anti-Bullying Bill:

Governor Sonny Perdue has signed into law an ADL-backed bill that provides Georgia schools with new tools for cracking down on bullying, including provisions that target the growing menace of cyber bullying.

S.B. 250 expands on previous state law, which covered just physical violence, to include “Any intentional written, verbal or physical act which a reasonable person would perceive as being intended to threaten, harass or intimidate.” The bill was sponsored by Republican State Representative Mike Jacobs, but also attracted broad-based bipartisan support. . . .

Voting on the bill took place at about the same time that the suicide of Phoebe Prince, a 15-year-old Massachusetts girl who had apparently been relentlessly bullied made national headlines.

Here in Georgia, many legislators said their concerns about school bullying came into sharper focus after seeing reports last year that 11-year-old boy Jaheem Herrera, a student at DeKalb County’s Dunaire Elementary School killed himself because, his mother said, he had been the victim of repeated bullying at school.

The new Georgia law establishes guidelines for dealing with repeat offenders and calls on the state Department of Education to develop a model policy on bullying that will give schools additional support for dealing with the problem. Individual schools will be required to update their own bullying policies to comply with the law’s new scope.