Avondale Estates Leads Charge For College Avenue Annexation This Time Around
Decatur Metro | January 12, 2010 | 12:43 pm
A year after Decatur led a failed effort to annex a portion of College Avenue into Decatur and Avondale Estates’ city limits, Avondale Estates has now taken the lead and is making a serious effort, during the current state legislative session, to bring this strip of “blighted” land under the two cities’ jurisdiction.
In a letter to his community this morning, Avondale Estate mayor, Ed Rieker, urged Avondale residents to contact elected state and county representatives and urge them to support Rep. Stephanie Stuckey Benfield’s effort to pass legislation that would bring College Ave land west of Sam’s Crossing into the city of Decatur and land east of the Crossing into Avondale’s city limits.
The mayor’s letter includes an attachment that summarizes Avondale’s argument to approve the annexation, which Rieker promises he “will also be distributing…to those elected officials at the state and county level that we are lobbying to help State Representative Stephanie Stuckey-Benfield pass the annexation legislation during the 2010 session that started today.”
Among the mayor’s stated reasons for annexation are to “regulate future growth and development, increase the presence of law enforcement and to beautify the gateway into our city.” Rieker notes that the area under consideration, which consists of 23 properties belonging to nine separate owners, has become “blighted and considered by residents an area prone to criminal activity”.
The packet also includes the map above, a chart showing that an Avondale annexation along College Avenue to Sam’s Crossing would only create a $10,000 loss in revenue for DeKalb, while generating a $32,000 increase in city taxes for Avondale and a crime report documenting the 20 crimes took place around the annexation area between 11/2/2009 and 1/5/2010.
City of Decatur City Manager Peggy Merriss confirmed to DM that while Avondale is leading the charge this time, Decatur supports the effort to “close the gap between the two cities” and that land west of Sam’s Crossing would come Decatur’s control if the legislation is passed.
So we’ll get a couple of used car lots and a possibly defunct tire place. The map (and my memory) is a little fuzzy, but I don’t think there’s much in the way of residential in that spot.
The first thing that will happen is the businesses there will close due to the higher taxes. Then it will take forever to find tenants to rehabilitate the properties and start operating. Meanwhile, it will continue to deteriorate into even more of an eyesore.
On the other hand, maybe it will be beneficial in the long run. Who knows?
There isn’t any residential along College Ave in that area. It’s all commercial. When this annexation came up early last year, fewer folks had an issue with it than the broader annexation for the precise reason there was no residential.
Public opposition on this issue came mostly from current property owners in that strip (though I recall that the Waffle House guys were for it).
Don’t forget about the person who posted the “Annexation is Legalized Stealing” sign on the corner of Arcadia/Sams Crossing and College!
Yes, the guy with the big sign owns the property its on, and its some of the nastiest-looking property along College Ave! Across from him is a used tire store that keeps stacks and stacks of tires all over the property, apparently completely unseen by DeKalb Code Enforcement. I pass that way twice a day, and each time I am disgusted anew by how terrible that stretch of College looks. Hooray for Avondale Estates for leading the way!
That billboard guy, according to Dekalb tax records, is Joseph Gargiulo. I did some checking and am told that Allen Kirwan who lives in Avondale and who serves on the city’s downtown development authority distributed some documents at a meeting in December that showed this guy owes the county $76,997.20 in back taxes for last year. He may have paid them by now but who knows.
So far my legislator friends say the most outspoken opponent of late on the topic is Erik Haagensen of Mudfire Clayworks and Gallery on Laredo Drive, which isn’t even being considered for annexation. What is unfortunate is Avondale Estates residents support Erik’s business and have for years. He also puts on the RAD Studio Cruise, which for the past couple of years the City of Avondale Estates has supported and provided in-kind services in support. So the legislators are miffed as are Avondale Estates residents as to why Erik is fundamentally against this annexation.
Hi Ben,
For the record…there were about fifty property owners active against the proposed legislation last year. My property was included in last years proposal. The property is supposedly not in the proposed legislation this year, but one can’t be sure until the final law is written or not. I have invested my life savings in attempting to build a cool community where people can come and learn, and create, and connect with other people and get away from their worries. I can’t help but be concerned about the future of that and speak out.
My opposition to the annexation of commercial property is purely based on the fact that commercial property owners do not have a say in the matter, unlike residential property owners. It strikes me as undemocratic and un-American that you have the freedom to choose what county or city you want to buy land in, and that later someone can come along and undo that choice after you have chosen to invest your life savings. And you have no say in it. No vote. Nobody asks you if you want it, nobody tries to woo you to consider it. Nobody offers you anything. It is all about taking from you and control.
It simply strikes me as unfair.
I’m a pretty reasonable person, and I enjoy civic debate and exchanging viewpoints with people who might not agree with me. I don’t think there is anything wrong with having a different opinion and expressing it. Please remember, I’m not the one trying to force my plans on anyone else to their disadvantage. I have been on the receiving end and am simply speaking out against what I feel is an unjust imposition.
If anyone is miffed at me for expressing my view, then I would invite them to sit down over a cup of coffee and discuss it with me. I’d like to understand their viewpoint better and hopefully they can understand mine better. We might not agree at the end of the conversation, but we’ll both have more information and we’ll have made a personal connection that is meaningful.
I still patronize businesses in Avondale that are supporting the annexations. I am friends with Avondale residents that are supporting the annexation. I also have friends in Avondale that think the annexations are totally unfair and undemocratic…not everyone in Avondale agrees with the party line.
I think we can all be civil and be friends and do business and socialize and coooperate on some things yet have different opinions on other things. That’s the beauty of America!
Erik Haagensen
DM,
Yes, Wafffle House and Finders Keepers are for annexation. Only 2 out of 23 properties.
The attachment the Mayor distributed shows the crime in the proposed area but fails to show the crime stats in the area that adjoins the 23 properties. Can I assume that the criminals only do their business in unincorporated DeKalb County and become model citizens once they cross the city limits of Decatur and Avondale?
Commissioner Milliron’s blog states the following:
The DeKalb County Board of Commissioners held a luncheon this past week with the DeKalb County Legislative Delegation. Below is a list of recent Resolutions passed by the DeKalb County Commission and discussed and shared with the Delegation at the luncheon.
1. Resolution Expressing Support for Restraints on Annexations That Are Done Not To Provide New Services To An Underserved Area, But Simply To Increase A Municipal Tax Base and Legislation To Allow Property Owners To De-annex Themselves From Municipalities.
There are 8 other resolutions but this is the only one about annexation.
Rep. Stuckey-Benfield has tried and failed to have this area annexed for +10 years. One reason is the area is Not Underserved by the county. The DeKalb Delegation has agreed with the majority of property owners and refused to send the legislation to the house floor.
I personally feel that Avondale Estates needs to address their own strip of College Avenue. I lost count on how many store fronts are empty. Their current “gateway” has a 2-3 story unfinished building of rusting metal. Lovely.
Avondale also has a budget of approximately $2.7 million per year, current surplus of $800,000 and 45+ employees for 2800 residents. Wow, maybe they need to tighten their belt without trying to get an additional $35,000 from property owners that don’t get a vote in the matter.
Full disclosure: I am a home owner in Avondale Estates and Decatur. I have a business in DeKalb County and own commercial properties. I am only slightly bitter. Thanks DM. I appreciate your blog.
I am unclear as to why an Avondale annexation would equal beautification of E. College Ave. Decatur Girl is right; AE has many empty storefronts. And other than the residential area south of College Ave., Avondale has needed a makeover for years. It’s pretty clear there has been no large scale renovation since the 70’s. Who’s to say anything will change if AE annexes?
And yeah, that rusting metal frame has been there for at least a year now. Nice.
I won’t say that annexation will equal beautification, but it does offer an opportunity for this blighted stretch. Are you happy with the way things are now? There are many empty storefronts lots of places right now– not only in Avondale. Decatur has had it’s share, too. One of the reasons for the number in Avondale may well be the unattractive stretch one must drive through from Decatur in order to get over to it.
That steel frame is also a casualty of the economy. It is a ghost of the grand plan of a developer who was to bring the Publix and other retail to downtown Avondale. It hasn’t been a terrific time for commercial real estate investment and so all construction stopped.
Avondale is certainly not without challenges but there are a number of good citizens trying to make things better. I believe annexation would make a difference.
Really?
“One of the reasons for the number in Avondale may well be the unattractive stretch one must drive through from Decatur in order to get over to it.”
Have you ever driven through New Jersey? I drive through it annually to visit both NJ and cities further north. The view of New Jersey from I-95 has never stopped me from going further if I have a destination. This is just so funny–that people don’t go to Avondale because of the unattractive stretch you have to drive through to get to it.
I personally don’t go to Avondale because they don’t have anything to offer me.
I did live in the first house on Arcadia behind the car place–my backyard abutted the liquor store–for 4 years. Boy, that was fun!
Since everyone has an opinion, I’ll proffer mine: I believe annexation is unethical, and I feel for those who are under threat of being annexed. If they wanted to be in either city, they would have moved there.
Good points Decatur Girl.
Regarding the DeKalb resolution… (1. Resolution Expressing Support for Restraints on Annexations That Are Done Not To Provide New Services To An Underserved Area, But Simply To Increase A Municipal Tax Base and Legislation To Allow Property Owners To De-annex Themselves From Municipalities.)
This resolution will be a big problem for Decatur if they ever decide to take on a larger annexation again in the future since it’s pretty well documented that tax revenue is a key motivator. But with College Ave, while the extra commercial property tax is nice, I don’t think it’s the motivating factor.
And if we’re going to shun government institutions for being money-hungry, the county is the absolute worst. I point you to the weak arguments put forth by the County regarding the withholding of HOST funds from its cities for my evidence on that assertion. I’d say this resolution also backs that up.
I’m curious to know who will determine whether an annexation is motivated by increasing services or a tax base. The resolution seems to treat it as an either/or and it certainly IS NOT.
Making no statement on the merit (or lack of merit) of this particular proposal, the name of the resolution alone is laughable, as though providing new services or increasing tax base are the *only* two reasons municipalities ever pursue annexation. If that represents its backers’ ability to understand and acknowledge complexity and competing/complementary interests in our world, consider me unimpressed.
Agreed. I’m more than willing to have a discussion about the harmful effects of annexation on the larger, and increasingly poorer county, but resolutions like this are absolute garbage.
It’s like putting ridiculous restrictions on people who give to charities….Resolution: You can only give to a charity if you are doing it out of the goodness of your heart and not because it increases your public stature or improves your feeling of self-worth.
Or gives you a needed tax break. Amen.
How does that “tax break” work mathematically? Suppose you make $100 and there is a 10% tax. You have $90 and Sonny gets $10. Now suppose that you donate $10 to the Decatur Beer Festival Foundation, and the state tax statute allows full deduction of this donation, so you after you pay $9 tax on your $90 you are left with $81. If you really “needed” a tax break it didn’t help you because you have even less money in your pocket.
What the tax break does is to encourage activities society finds beneficial by paying you to give money to the activity. Sonny paid you a dollar to support the Decatur Beer Festival. And you still have to buy a ticket! Tax breaks like this do not have an end result of helping your pocket, they help your prestige, your feelings of doing something worthwhile, and they help targeted activities.
Likewise, I doubt the annexation would initially help the two cities financially, especially if there is a current property owner not paying taxes. If the goal here is that Avondale and Decatur band together to create something that has more visual appeal than the current strip of Collage Avenue with and appropriate code enforcement authority then I’m all for it. I’d pay more for a main street that looks better and supports pedestrian activity because all evidence shows that will increase the value of the property I own. If my small tax investment pooled with those of other property owners accomplishes that goal it is worth it to me.
FWIW, I do not live in Decatur, although I can see Decatur from my house. The Decatur annexation plan would pull me into the city which is OK with me.
It seems like a logical extension for both cities and the area obviously needs improvement. I can’t imagine why anyone in Decatur or Avondale Estates would be against this proposed annexation unless they were a property owner who was concerned about paying higher taxes.
Which brings me to my question. Can anyone cite a specific example of what a potential tax increase would be for a business or property affected by a potential annexation? Maybe Decatur Girl can shed some light on the subject?
If I were convinced that either Avondale Estates or Decatur could clean up College I might be for it. But let’s face it. Avondale’s portion of College is also an eyesore. Shabby “alpine” buildings with peeling paint, empty storefronts, and taped windows. Decatur’s stretch of College on the other side of the MARTA station isn’t any better. How about that VW place that has tons of rusting cars sitting outside it’s “store”. Or that big warehouse/church (just west of Ace HW) that has graffiti all over it?
The economy is so bad that neither Avondale nor Decatur is going to do anything to actually clean it up. They’ll collect their extra tax money and that will be that. Let’s see some plans and specifics about how they’ll clean College up. And none of that “we’ll encourage economic development, blah, blah, blah.” Let’s see some specifics.
Let’s call a spade a spade. This has nothing to do with “blight” or “crime.” It has to do with money. Avondale and Decatur have out of control property taxes and they want to do something, anything!, to avoid having to increase property taxes because the residents may revolt.
It’s certainly debatable whether Decatur and Avondale can use their available resources to revive this area, but I just don’t buy into the argument that it’s a money issue.
Avondale stands to gain $32,000 in tax revenue according to Rieker’s note. I’m assuming Decatur would gain less than that, since they would inherit fewer properties. That’s a pittance and certainly not worth the man hours that go into putting together and drumming up support for this legislation annually.
Maybe you consider it a pittance. Maybe Avondale doesn’t see it that way, especially if they have additional annexations in mind after this one. I don’t know either way, si I can’t simply dismiss the money issue on this one. And what makes me think it is an issue is, as others have poitned out, Avondale’s existing strecth of the street is not exactly 100% “unblighted.” They haven’t fixed their existing problems but claim some ability to add more space and fix that? It’s doubtful, at best.
If 2 out of 23 business/property owners are against it, then I don’t think that the fact that some people with no residency or ownership stake think that strip is ugly really matters. Avondale Estates itself is not a model of attracting business and creating a pleasant business district. I agree with previous posters that Avondale Estates should really remove the mote from its eye first. It’s not like those buildings actually prevent AE from moving forward in its own development.
Note my sentence above:
Rieker notes that the area under consideration, which consists of 23 properties belonging to nine separate owners, has become “blighted and considered by residents an area prone to criminal activity”.
It’s actually 2 of 9 property owners.
Also, this annexation legislation also includes a Decatur annexation. Decatur DOES stand as a model for “attracting businesses and creating a pleasant business district.” Does that change anything for you?
I was going off someone else’s number above.
Actually, your post above mine convinces me it ain’t worth it!
Playing both sides here , DM baby? :p
There are lots of other good reasons for the two city governments to annex these areas.
The assertion that this is just a tax grab doesn’t add up.
What are the costs of added police, fire and code enforcement responsibilities that Decatur would be taking on? It seems the added revenue wouldn’t cover that.
What seems obvious to me is the owners are holding onto this land until they get an offer they can’t refuse. If Avondale and Decatur annex these areas, the higher taxes may force this sale.
Between the huge MARTA lot and the huge MARTA parking lot plus the ugliness of the railroad gulch, this would not be a desirable area for residential even if cleaned up. I could see big box stores moving in but neither Avondale nor Decatur support big box.
Perhaps a larger apartment complex might work if carefully planned.
One thing to consider here is, should Avondale and Decatur be successful with this annexation, they would then also have clear legal condemnation authority over these “blighted” areas–and the property owners would be able to contest only the FMV of the properties. As any lawyer who’s worked with city/county/state governments is aware (if they’re being honest, that is), once such authorities decide an area is “blighted” (the legal definition of “blight” is pretty darned broad), it can then rock-bottom the FMV. If either Avondale or Decatur had their eyes on this stretch to use for municipal purposes, it really wouldn’t cost them too much to put the wheels in motion once they annexed the property. Not saying this is either city’s intent, but it’s something to think about.
Lots of misinformation floating around along with some actual fact.
To clear up one thing.
The “rusting” iron sturcture you mentioned – you have better eyes than mine – I have not seen the rust, but will take your word for it. I call it the erector set. That structure is awaiting funding. I don’t know if you’ve noticed but no one is lending money so it is at a stand still. As soon as funding is available to the development company Avondale Estates can move forward with a development plan. The plan requires that building to be completed and then following that, there will be a Publix and other stores along the north side of North Avondale Rd/College.
Hope that answers one question.
I’d like to point out that neither Decatur or Avondale Estates is physically able to clean up an area (unless it is condemned of course). As I understand things in Decatur, the development plan requires new businesses to comply with the design and infrastructure regulations, but existing businesses do not have to change anything. The same is likely true in AE. If that is correct, then any “cleaning up” would only be done by a new owner once a property sells. This could be rather soon after annexation if a previous poster is accurate in the suggestion that some of these property owners are holding out for an offer they can’t refuse.
Quick question–has the City completely abandoned the idea of annexing residential properties or is it still planning on addressing this in 2011? As someone who lives off Katie Kerr, i’m hoping that the annexation of this area is still a possibility.
We’d love to be “official” members of Decautr and would gladly pay more in taxes to get City Of Decatur services…
In the least, a streetscape improvement could at least make an improvement to the road shoulder. It would be too costly to relocate the power lines, but at least it would be a start to get new sidewalks, lighting, trees…A redevelopment scheme is always a lot harder.
DeKalb doesn’t care to make an effort into small corridors like this, whereas the Cities have an interest in this key link between them. The county is too busy wasting money with streetscape and sidewalks on lost causes like Memorial Drive or Candler Road. They chickened out and wouldn’t even condemn rusting signs falling down in order to clean up the roadside for the Memorial streetscape, because property owners protested—a project that took years to get approved by GDOT.
I’m confused about the exclusion of the residential properties directly behind these commercial properties. I thought that was the whole uproar previously…that CSD didn’t want to include those properties, because they didn’t know if if would overload the schools. If the annexation didn’t have to include these properties, then why wouldn’t Decatur have just gone ahead and moved forward with the annexation?
Regarding this strip Joanna, the reason Decatur couldn’t just go ahead and annex was because a majority of the property owners in the area were/are against it.
Therefore, it has to go before the state legislature for approval.