Comments on: Variations of BeltLine Expectations

By: KC Boyce

KC Boyce — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:21:34 +0000

As a former consultant to the BeltLine (starting in 2005 with the formation of the BeltLine Partnership) and former staff at Atlanta BeltLine, I can assure you that there was never any question of the legality of the City being able to issue TAD bonds for the BeltLine. Any “shakiness” was due to the increment being generated by multiple private projects + appreciation, vs. the single-developer approach of the City’s other TADs.

While it’s fair to discuss how Atlanta BeltLine structured the Mason deal (and, like most real estate deals, it wasn’t a slam dunk), the fact of the matter is that he was the owner of the NE Corridor of the BeltLine. The City had no choice but to deal with him.

I completely agree that there’s no entirely local solution to the transit problem, and that the BeltLine won’t be fully realized unless it’s completely integrated into a comprehensive mass transit system (note that I didn’t say “current” – our current mass transit system is a mess). And I would add that most of my former colleagues at the BeltLine and the City of Atlanta share the same perspective.

By: Karass

Karass — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:01:48 +0000

Who was responsible for the legally shaky strategy? The city? Beltline leadership? Other?

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:16:35 +0000

A couple of years ago, to much fanfare, the Gov announced his “Fast Forward” (or something like that) transportation initiative. Traffic light synchronization was a big part of that. Wonder what they did with those $$?

By: Andisheh Nouraee

Andisheh Nouraee — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:13:40 +0000

macarolina, I disagree. Regardless of John Woodham’s intentions, his legal argument was sound. It’s not Monday morning quarterbacking either. A year or so before the Ga Supreme Court backed Woodham’s argument, a former colleague of mine with good sources in the city said the city was aware its bond scheme for the BeltLine was legally shaky.

That city planners rolled the dice like that is the essence of bad leadership. Add in the Wayne Mason debacle, and it’s clear the city has no clue HOW do transit, much less the means to do it.

There is no local solution to our transit problem. The city, Metro Atlanta counties, and the state have to do this together.

What’s the point of a ring around Atlanta unless it’s fully integrated with the current mass transit system? And what’s the point of our current mass transit system unless it enlarges and expands?

None of that is John Woodham’s fault.

By: macarolina

macarolina — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:54:25 +0000

You can thank the guy who challenged the Beltline bonds for much of the delays on the project– supposedly in the name of taxpayers, the suit cost the project much money, momentum and opportunity. So frustrating to see one or two greedy individuals derail (maybe literally) such a big public benefit.

re the greedy individual– the same guy who filed the beltline bonds challege was the same individual who got recorded trying to shake down a developer in exchange for not challenging bonds or legality of the developer’s project. what a slime. And yes, I’ve purposefully deleted the guy’s name from my memory.