Read on Twitter
meanwhile, the case of @julian_bene challenging some Fulton Development Authority commercial property tax breaks is in front of Judge Brasher now: #atlpol
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNEqWmcOUUeiNJwNQUyb2Ww/live
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNEqWmcOUUeiNJwNQUyb2Ww/live
It's just getting started. I don't know the details of the challenges.
Jargon watch: "bond for title" = a property tax break.
In English, the public agency takes part ownership of a property. That agency doesn't pay property taxes. Thus the property tax bill for the whole property is reduced for the beneficial owner, a company/developer.
In English, the public agency takes part ownership of a property. That agency doesn't pay property taxes. Thus the property tax bill for the whole property is reduced for the beneficial owner, a company/developer.
This is how Atlanta & Fulton & others pass a property tax breaks to companies. Here's a map of where that's been authorized to happen in Atlanta: https://saportareport.github.io/tax-discounts/index.html
“What we’re trying to is grow the tax base,” says Al Nash, executive director of Fulton County's development authority
One of the deals Bene is challenging is $5.5 million property tax break over 10 years for the Interlock, a mixed use place on the west side of Northside near Tech
Nash says the developer will help the adjacent womens shelter, where women are like "prisoners" within it, it's unsafe, no sidewalks, no interface to the community, he says.
Nash says you can't assume developers will come to any specific neighborhood like Beltline or Midtown. Have to evaluate every site individually.
(Of course, what critics say is that developers will indeed come to Beltline, Midtown etc)
(Of course, what critics say is that developers will indeed come to Beltline, Midtown etc)
Nobody has to "prove" one way or the other that a developer needs or requires a tax break to make their development happen.
Basically Fulton's metric is "Will the development raise the property taxes on the parcel by at least 5x?"
In practice, developers also typically bring slides saying that the particular site is sloped or has a creek or is polluted; or that they're gg to build sidewalks or straighten out a road or (which they have to do anyway on BeltLine) build some below-market-rate housing.
Nash says these aren't tax "abatements." "What's billed is collected," he says.
Yes, because these work by cutting the billable amount on a property.
Yes, because these work by cutting the billable amount on a property.
Anyway, accountants call them "abatements."
https://www.gasb.org/cs/ContentServer?c=Page&cid=1176166268596&d=&pagename=GASB%2FPage%2FGASBSectionPage
https://www.gasb.org/cs/ContentServer?c=Page&cid=1176166268596&d=&pagename=GASB%2FPage%2FGASBSectionPage
What's amazing is how convoluted these transactions are.
Atlanta City Council has passed a resolution asking Fulton Dev Auth to stop doing tax abatements in Atlanta.
Nash says he hasn't read the resolution. Nobody's served it to Fulton, he says. He's only read newspaper reporting on it.
Nash says he hasn't read the resolution. Nobody's served it to Fulton, he says. He's only read newspaper reporting on it.
Ditto for Atlanta Board of Education's resolution on the same, he says.
DAFC board can't respond to anything it hasn't been served with, he says.
(Note, the documents are online)
And Invest Atlanta has sent a letter to DAFC also asking it to step out of Atlanta.
But the Development Authority of Fulton County is under the jurisdiction of the state Legislature. DAFC is not obliged to listen to Fulton or Atlanta or anybody.
But the Development Authority of Fulton County is under the jurisdiction of the state Legislature. DAFC is not obliged to listen to Fulton or Atlanta or anybody.
Here are some 2019 docs:
Invest Atlanta's letter to DAFC:
https://saportakinsta.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/DAFC-jurisdiction-ltr-6.28.19-Copy.pdf
Dafc's response:
https://saportakinsta.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/DAFC-LETTER-TO-INVEST-ATLANTA.pdf
Invest Atlanta's letter to DAFC:
https://saportakinsta.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/DAFC-jurisdiction-ltr-6.28.19-Copy.pdf
Dafc's response:
https://saportakinsta.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/DAFC-LETTER-TO-INVEST-ATLANTA.pdf
Atlanta City Council's request that DAFC stop doing lease purchase bonds in Atlanta:
https://atlantacityga.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=SplitView&MeetingID=3193&MediaPosition=&ID=22417&CssClass=
https://atlantacityga.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=SplitView&MeetingID=3193&MediaPosition=&ID=22417&CssClass=
Why would you keep doing actions in Atlanta that Atlanta objects to, Nash is asked.
"We have the right to do what we do," Nash says.
He says what they do are good things.
"We have the right to do what we do," Nash says.
He says what they do are good things.
Everybody agrees that the property tax base goes up by A LOT when you build a new building on a vacant polluted sloped lot.
The disagreement is whether a property tax break should be given to those projects.
Different folk have different answers.
The disagreement is whether a property tax break should be given to those projects.
Different folk have different answers.
Bene's attorney asks DAFC's accounting firm if they've ever contacted a developer to see whether the development would have happened without the abatement.
No, says E&Y's Jeffrey Rash. It's not in the scope of his work.
No, says E&Y's Jeffrey Rash. It's not in the scope of his work.
I, maggie lee, cannot emphasize enough -- nobody's required to prove a development wouldn't happen "but for" a tax break.
All anybody has is the developer's word that they need it for some reason; and the law doesn't even require that.
All anybody has is the developer's word that they need it for some reason; and the law doesn't even require that.
It is not in anybody's "scope of work."
And this happens across the country.
