Rep. Benfield Gets the Signatures To Introduce Annexation Bill
Decatur Metro | February 2, 2010Updates coming in as we speak! uh…comment!
The AJC reports that Representative Benfield got the 10 signatures from the DeKalb delegation today to introduce the bill to the General Assembly. What’s next?
The twin bills — which would allow Decatur to annex 10 properties and Avondale 23, to meet at Sams Crossing- will be read and assigned to the intergovernmental affairs committee on Wednesday.
Once the committee affirms the bills comply with local rules, they could be bundled with several other local bills and voted on, as early as Friday, Benfield said.
Even so, the measure would then go to the Senate, for review by that delegation and vote by the whole body.
I suddenly feel ill.
Oh boy… it’s going to get interesting.
Now recruiting for someone to run against STUCKEY!!
Look at her entire career as a state representative, and she’s been outstanding, and without scandal like too many other state rep’s. We are lucky to have her and Mary Margaret Oliver.
I second that.
I think Stephanie carried her district with something like 80% of the vote in the last election.
Hmmm, is that change I feel in the air?
Remember. When you support the government treading on anyones rights, however “good & important” the cause, you could be the victim the next time.
This “legislative” annexation procedure leaves the affected property owners in a taxation without representation position. Avondale will take their tax money and the property will be unable to vote.
Consider, just for a moment, as if you had bought the affected property, paid property tax on it for years, maintained it to code (not pretty, but to code) etc and now the government is allowed to TAKE it!
In its time burning witches was “legal” dide that make it right?
We all do not realize it but every time the government says”revenue streams” they are talking about US!
If you want an eye opener I would suggest going to your city council meeting or the GA State Rep meeting which happen every Monday at the State Capitol
“Avondale will take their tax money and the property will be unable to vote.”
Can you explain this observation?
Hell yes I can explain. Owners of commercial property do not have the right to vote in a jurisdiction unless they also live in the jurisdiction. It is that simple. No representation with lots of taxation. I have already posted in another section that, if Avondale had something to offer, owners would be beating a path to their door for annexation. Look at your commercial strip. I sure do not see how it is better than the unincorporated parcels. That argument is bogus on it’s face.
“and now the government is allowed to TAKE it”
HDog, it sounds like you’ve confused annexation with eminent domain. Study up on ‘em, it will ease your mind.
Here’s the thing, though — Stuckey has already publicly called these properties “blighted.” That’s a potential step 1 towards eminent domain. The Supreme Court has (quite wrongly, in my view) made it very easy for local governments to take blighted property, even if it’s being done at the behest of a private developer.
Maybe taking the properties is not under consideration — I don’t know. But it is not unreasonable to worry about it, given the comments being made in this annexation process. It’s blighted, the cities want to control development, etc. — well, what better way to take it, knock down the existing buildings, and start from scratch?
None of this bothers me at all, honestly. If the property owners don’t like it they can sue, right? There is recourse for the owners if they don’t want their land taken.
That said, if they really are angry over annexation, then it seems that they’ve grown used to the lax oversight of the county, let their properties rot, and now they don’t want to have to comply with a more stringent set of rules.
Well, it is so hypothetical at this point, probably not worth a detailed discussion. But let’s just say that the recourse of spending year, and tens of thousands of dollars in litigation is not the greatest recourse.
Oh, it wouldn’t be cheap, but this just shows that the government is not necessarily stealing property. I also read in the comments on DNO that one of the outspoken property owners owes a great deal of back taxes…that doesn’t bode well for Avondale if the annexation goes through.
Stealing is not the question — if the government takes your property, it does have to pay you for it. That said, a forced sale is not always welcome.
Probably the most important question around all of this – Who gets to claim the original Waffle House?
That would be Avondale I think – it’s east of Sam’s Crossing.
If we don’t get the Waffle House then hell to the no
I wonder if Waffle House money was behind the lobbying effort?
I do understand the difference between annexation and ED (Eminent Domain … not the other … though the two may be linked), but I digress.
Anyway, There are similarities. Though it is privately owned and property taxes are paid, in this case, legislatively, the government can take the property even when the majority of the property owners in the affected area do not want it to happen. Once it is annexed, the property taxes will go up and the property values will go down (AE has lower zoning density). And lets not forget that most of that area is zoned M-1 Heavy Industrial ( the broadest zoning designation). Is the next step the change the zoning against the owners wishes?
In response to Naamans question above. When these commercial property owners become part of Avondale, if, they are not residents, they will have no ability to vote on issues in Avondale.
Sorry for the snark Naaman, but I gotta say, ” More stringent set of rules” ….. ??
Yah, Commercially speaking, Avondale is the poster child for shabby and uninviting. They are so mired in bureaucracy. There has always been a lot of talk and committees saying what is going to be done and why they can’t do it etc yet nothing happens.
Fact: The biggest commercial project in AE in the past 15 years is City Hall.
Could it be that AE is really a gated residential community (with no gate) that wants to stay residential. The AE government is the glorified neighborhood association with no real ability or intention of growing a combined use city. Should AE disincorporate? Now there is an interesting question to ponder.
Again, take an objective look at their commercial area, if I was a resident I would be outraged.
HDog –
Agreed on almost every point. It makes me shudder to think a municipality will act in this way. Yes, I know it’s legal, but it’s just…and I’ll use a sophisticated legal phrase here…’icky’. Who’s property is next? For what cause?
I think the two cities owe the property owners a much better sales pitch. If they can’t convince a significant majority of property owners that it’s a better deal for them, then it’s probably *not* actually a better deal.
And if it’s not actually good for the property owners….then we’re on dangerous ethical ground, aren’t we? We’re annexing private property – in essence, involuntarily taking their money from them – so existing city residents don’t have to pay higher taxes. In that context, it’s just a little unsettling. Or shall I say, “icky”.
If a property is truly abandoned, a nuisance/safety hazard (crack house) that’s one thing. I will say i have very limited knowledge here, but most of the times when i have read about eminent domain, the home/business owner rarely wins against the government/big developer. That makes me uncomfortable. I won’t push my views on anyone else but this is a short decent/recent read. Yes, i know it’s different than GA blah blah blah
Robin Hood in Reverse –
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2430970/posts
And whoever threw those rocks really needs to get their a%& kicked. There’s never an excuse for that type of BS.
We totally NEED to annex those properties to Decatur and to Avondale Estates. They all look like the ghetto. There is no doubt that annexing those properties will increase the value of each. I suppport Rep Benefield completely in this effort.
Hang on Jack
Who “needs’ those properties to be beautified — The rightful, legal owners or their nearby neighbors? If it’s so obvious that the value would dramatically increase, they’d be jumping at the opportunity to be a part of either city – But they aren’t.
Isn’t likely that they believe that the increase in taxes won’t be offset by the assumed additional benefits? The fact is, annexation won’t drive additional business, or draw in more customers. Given the glut of empty retail space in both cities (creating a ‘renters market’), being outside city limits would, in theory, make rents cheaper for lessees, and more likely to attract viable tenants.
And it certainly won’t beautify the physical environment. Quite the opposite – with higher taxes, they’ll have even less money for improvements or renovations.
I understand the motivations for annexation – and I agree with some of them. But we can’t let emotions and rhetoric trump reason and fairness. That’s gotten us all into a lot of trouble recently, hasn’t it?
Jack, I agree they are trashy looking.
Kinda blends with the trashy or at least shabby downtown strip y’all have eh?
As to increasing the property values – You are wrong!
read my entry above – Values are based on fact not the fantasy AE has that
there is inherent worth just because ……..
How easy it can be to take others property/money because you feel justified.
Do not read this as, in any way, justifying the sign killers. I will bet, if asked , they felt just as justified as you do. Does that make it right?
That, my friend, is why we have the rule of law
Rock throwers and sign killers, shame on you! If in fact it was intentional destruction related or not to this issue
Sorry guys, but you are totally wrong. I have restrictions on what I can do with my property here in Ga and in Florida. I do not always like them, but understand the importance of property restictions, convenants etc. I do not like driving past stacks of used tires on my way out of Dodge in the AM. It is ridiculous that this type of thing is allowed.
Again, I do understand your feelings. But that does not change the fact that those properties have been zoned M1 heavy industrial for ever. Could be a concrete plant, recycling business etc
The owners bought them that way. Just because you have decided you do not want to drive by stacks of tires (by the way, I do agree with you on the aesthetics of that) does not mean that all of a sudden their zoning should be downgraded.
It might be a really interesting dialogue (exchange of ideas) to explore how does Avondale Estates gets a more aesthetically pleasing 2/10ths of a mile there without violating the rights of the folks that own them.
My concern still is that when, as individuals, we allow the gov’t to infringe on something or someone we do not like, approve of etc we are opening the door for that same infringement in our own lives
Good argument!! The long and short is that the owners of the property should have input. The approach by Avondale and Decatur is as bogus as their arguments. No today, no tomorrow, and No until the owners have input. The reality is no one wants to be in Avondale, because of their high handed attitude and resistance to change.