Comments on: Rep. Benfield Gets the Signatures To Introduce Annexation Bill

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:37:07 +0000

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.

By: HDog

HDog — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:11:11 +0000

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

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:05:35 +0000

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.

By: George

George — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 03:42:15 +0000

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?

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:45:13 +0000

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.