Comments on: 75% of Decatur Supports “Financially Positive” Annexation

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 24 May 2010 18:50:54 +0000

I am sure that everyone wants to annex property that adds to the tax base but does not utilize services. That is a no brainer. What is a problem is that the properties annexed can not benefit more than the cost of being in Decatur. I say this because, location near the city is as good as being in the city, without the increased tax cost. That is why most commercial property owners near the city do NOT want to be in Decatur or Avondale. No benefit for the added cost. Now, if they are serious about growing, they need to negotiate with the property owners. But that is a non starter, because they want it all one way, and that is the rub. I might also add that if there was demand for more intense uses, DeKalb would love to rezone for those uses because they want more money as well. As long as we are in recession, all of the schemes are on hold……

By: Harpua

Harpua — Mon, 24 May 2010 18:00:21 +0000

I realize that the city and schools need new revenue sources to keep residential property taxes and services at current levels, and annexing commercial tracts is the key. I definitely support annexation that would be financially positive for both.

However, it is not possible to annex new commercial without also annexing some adjacent residential. I really hope they go over the school enrollment projections in these new residential areas with a fine-tooth comb. I am concerned that future school enrollment (i.e. 5-10+ years out) could be underestimated, as a higher % of families with school-age children are attracted to the newly annexed neighborhoods to get access to CSD. If these projections end up way off, it could be the financial ruin of our independent school system (but hopefully not!). I realize the status quo could also lead to financial ruin, but I don’t want to do anything that would hasten that result. Hopefully those in charge will make a good decision.

By: HDog

HDog — Mon, 24 May 2010 17:48:25 +0000

What Thomas said. Enough with the Tooth Fairy economics already

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 24 May 2010 17:43:41 +0000

As a multi-decade plan, Columbia Park is alive and well but stalled by the economy, and is obviously one of the factors that would need to be considered in any annexation discussion.

The BellSouth lot is always empty because the negotiation you suggest has already happened. They moved/are moving to a facility outside Decatur. The parcel is part of the project area.

The difference between waiting on the Avondale LCI and, for example, annexing Suburban Plaza, is that SP would provide tax revenue immediately with no initial outlay in infrastructure. Not saying it’s better or worse. Just pointing out why the city might lean one way over another.

By: hispeedsoul

hispeedsoul — Mon, 24 May 2010 17:31:45 +0000

I believe that’s what Columbia Park was suppose to be, but it’s not panning out. There were some major plans for that area, as found on city of Decatur’s homepage – avondale-Decatur LCI. It either has halted or has been delayed tremendously. Why don’t we work on this area first before we spread ourselves too thin and annex more territory. There was talk of moving the Public works building. That would leave much space. The bellsouth parking lot is huge and takes up space not being utilized by them. We could negotiate with them. I swear, that parking lot is always empty.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Mon, 24 May 2010 17:23:59 +0000

I’ve heard this over and over. no degradation of services. i really doubt it. there are great
things larger cities can do. museums, parks, large scale capital projects. but show me examples where making a city larger improves schools, safety and sense of community. these are the reasons why i moved to decatur. will making decatur larger make access to our city officials and police easier?

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 24 May 2010 15:14:41 +0000

Our last time through this made pretty clear: Large tracts of single family homes have a chance of being annexed into Decatur generally approximate to a snowball’s chance in hell. SIngle use, single family land use is a tax loser. No way it could be financially positive. City leadership is not blind to this fact and is certainly not deaf to the ruckus that emerged when last brought up.

Decatur needs to grow its commercial tax base. At the same time, the city offers exactly the type of environment, services and quality of life being sought by the two largest demographic forces in human history — retiring boomers and their kids, the millennials. Both of these demos’ preferences skew towards multi-family housing — so long as the context is right (no apartment pods) — and generate very few children while occupying them.

The only real way the city can annex and be financially positive in the short term is by annexing underdeveloped, dated or undervalued commercial tracts and then rezoning them under the city’s higher density, mixed use designation to regulate future development. Capture more commercial taxes in the short run, foster tax-positive new residents for the future.

By: james

james — Mon, 24 May 2010 14:57:26 +0000

When I read “financially positive” with no degradation of current services, it seems like a great idea. Why wouldn’t we do it?

My gut says, the ripple effect in the school system would be a real concern — what effect would this change have on the school systems ability to handle the uptick in new students?
We are already seeing an increase in our enrollment numbers. Data on just how many homes/children involved would be helpful….to make my initial gut reaction seem not so – “uh oh….here we go again.”