Strategic Plan To-Do List: Money! (aka Density & Annexation)
Decatur Metro | February 16, 2011“Density & annexation” might not be the best overall descriptors for Goal #9 of Decatur’s Strategic Plan, but I felt compelled to use the most incendiary words possible in the post title.
FYI, I’m skipping Goal #8, which is located on page 38 of the Plan, because it’s essentially “support the Cultural Arts Master Plan“.
Goal 9: Expand and diversify the city’s revenue base
Task 9A: Find opportunities to redevelop existing commercially zoned properties to their highest and best use.
Task 9B: E xplore annexation options in partnership with the City Schools of Decatur that expand the property tax base and enhance school operations.
Task 9C: Support the redevelopment of the former Devry University property with a mix of uses that will serve the community.
Task 9D: Promote other revenue sources in addition to property taxes, such as increased sales tax revenues.
Latest from Decaturish
Re: 9C former Devry
In the meantime, add a tax abatement, move a gate, and truck some dirt into raised beds: community garden (and weekend fairgrounds).
One of the dirty little secrets as to why the City continues to financially prosper and operate in the black – new construction, new residents and the dreaded, dare I say it, in-fill development and mcmansions.
I didn’t know that fact was a secret. Or a dirty one, for that matter. Of course cities are in a better position when they’re on the receiving end of investment rather than disinvestment. There’s no shortage of places in the Atlanta metro currently grappling with disinvestment for a variety of reasons. I consider not being one of them a good thing. Bring on the swingin’ hammers.
I agree Scott. Not dirty at all. Task 9D above is a worthy goal but the city still must get revenue through the existing financial structure ( property taxes) or face MAJOR budget cuts.
I found myself very frustrated with the members of my strategic planning group. Most members had a laundry list of dreams for Decatur . They wanted more city owned greenspace, more bike paths and walking trails , construction of a city owned performing arts venue to house arts organizations , a city supported incubator for start up businesses, city assistance for small businesses, renovation of the Rec to provide a modern fitness center / conference center for use by residents and non profits for little or no cost, additional tax breaks for seniors, more subsidized housing to enable more economic diversity , smaller classes and top notch programs for CSD, the list seemed to go on and on …..
At the same time these people wanted stricter zoning rules to limit construction of larger (mcmansion) houses, no more high density residential projects and absolutely no annexation.
Just a total disconnect about how Decatur would be able to pay for all the dreams.
Ah, jeez. Reality takes the fun out of everything!
Seriously, I agree with you totally but don’t find it surprising. It’s just human nature to want all the upsides without having to sully ourselves with the downsides.
Still, one of the reasons I love Decatur is because I think at our core we still maintain a fairly pragmatic “Dream Big, but Be Real” ethos. I expect our city staff and leadership to pursue the issues brought to the table by residents, but I also expect them to abandon or postpone anything that doesn’t pencil out in a responsible way. I’m confident that, by and large, that’s how it will play out.
I guess I had too high expectations for the strategic planning groups. I figured those who took the time to participate in the process would be more ready to look at the practical side of the issues.
Maybe it was just my group but they approached the process with lots of the “Dream Big” and very little of the “Be Real” . In some cases , I didn’t feel they even understood the financial realities. The answer to every hard financial question was – “we can get a grant” . City administration has done a remarkable job of finding grant funding but this is not the way to leverage a long term growth plan.
I think it might be “dirty” for many in our community who have attempted, and would still like to see, more restrictions on new construction and demolition of older houses in Decatur.
Even our strategic plan endorses the use of more historic district designations, which would, in effect, restrict demolition and new construction. This would have the effect of limiting new construction in these districts, and make it more expensive to build and/or renovate or expand homes in these districts. This would mean less new revenue for the City.
I am one who thinks that historic districts are appropriate for certain areas and certain properties in our city do deserve to be protected via the use of historic designation. I don’t think it should be used, as it has in the past, as a replacement for good land use planning and zoning, however.
And I do think that people do need to understand the tradeoffs involved with such designations. Less new construction = less revenue for City to do the things we want it to do.
Please come and annex Lake Claire! Nice new juicy tax base for D, and we get to jump off the APS gerbil wheel. That is all.