MM: School Land Search, Pipeline Retirement, and Music Midtown Lineup Revealed
Decatur Metro | June 24, 2015 | 9:06 am
- School system’s search for land took three years [AJC]
- Atlanta Gas Light Eastside Pipeline Retirement [Decatur Minute]
- Lion Tamer Bread is a haven for traditional bread lovers [Atlanta Magazine]
- Most metro Atlanta governments hold millage rates steady [Decatur Tax Blog]
- Elton John, Drake, Van Halen, Sam Smith at Music Midtown this year [Website]
Map courtesy of The Decatur Minute
In the AJC article, CSD’s attorney says, “Plus, to build a school, we have to stay within city limits.” Looking at a couple sources, it seems about a third of the contracted land is not in the city. Does that have any impact?
The parcels under contract are all inside the city limits. There are a lot of trees and some houses there, which will be presumably be bulldozed. Ironic that the solution to developers bulldozing old homes to build huge ones, which get filled with kids, which then fill the schools . . . is to bulldoze some old homes.
Lion Tamer is a truly local business, the dream of people who are passionate about quality ingredients kneaded by hand into delectable loaves.
Assuming not all of it is in Decatur (I can’t keep track of the changing boundary around there)
Given it is a single landowner, I presume that they will petition to be annexed and that would be part of the contract? Or can the city buy property outside the city and then petition itself to be annexed?
You can presume whatever you want about the contract, but the People’s Republic of Decatur will neither confirm nor deny it, even if the Attorney General tells it to!
http://www.decaturish.com/2015/06/city-schools-of-decatur-wont-release-sales-agreement-for-possible-property-purchase/
Not taking sides on the non-disclosure, but the AG’s office only directed CSD to respond to the Open Records Act complaint, which they did via the Bob Wilson letter that Decaturish also published.
Or they could have, oh I don’t know, simply disclosed the damn contract! Just makes me even more curious about what’s in there. What are they trying to hide?
Actually, I filed the complaint after I got the CSD response. CSD will need to respond to the AG’s office to explain in detail the rationale for not releasing the document I’ve requested.
You mean other than the rationale stated in the statute?
I would agree if they weren’t already discussing the contract with people. The only things that could logically screw up the deal are already public knowledge. The seller doesn’t seem to care of it’s public. Why keep it out of the public domain? CSD doesn’t have a good argument for keeping it a secret.
“CSD doesn’t have a good argument for keeping it a secret.”
That is entirely your opinion. And your opinion, even if correct, doesn’t negate the statutory exception from the open records act.
And BTW, I completely disagree with your opinion. First, as somebody already stated, the city doesn’t need 20k armchair “experts” nitpicking the contract. Second, and most importantly, if there are certain terms or contingencies that could be exploited by another potential buyer who may try to throw a wrench into the works, it is best to keep the contract secret. Most (and by most, I mean 99.99999999999%) of real estate contracts aren’t public record, and for good reason. Other than “journalists” who think they are entitled to a key to the city and self-proclaimed “curmudgeons”, I think most people recognize there are many legitimate reasons to not make a pending contract public.
That’s fine. I admire your commitment to unnecessary government secrecy. And you can personally attack me if you like. Just know that I don’t put a whole lot of stock in the opinions of fearless anonymous internet commenters. You’re calling me “armchair” spectator, but as best I can tell, I’m the only one who is actually putting my name out there and trying to hold our leaders accountable.
I want transparent government as much as you, where appropriate. But, in this case, I think the secrecy may be necessary. And the “armchair” reference wasn’t directed at you. FWIW, you aren’t the only one trying to hold our leaders accountable. And besides, it isn’t like your motivation is some altruistic sense of community service. You are trying to make a living as a journalist.
I think you can make a living at something and still have an altruistic purpose behind it. Would you say the same thing about teachers? Or nurses? If I really wanted to make some money, I’d be doing something else entirely. You don’t do this for money. You do it because it’s actually something you believe in. But it’s amusing that you think this is really profitable for me. If only …
So am I the one “armchairing” it then? FWIW, there’s not a single armed chair in my house. But that house IS in COD and would be subject to an 8% or so tax increase if the school bond passes. And this is on top of a doubling of our total tax bill thanks to the vagaries of reassessment. So forgive me for wanting as much information as possible on how they are going to spend that money. If you’re cool with writing the city a blank check, good for you. It would seem to go against your typical political proclivities, but you’re free to turn into a tax and spend liberal if you like.
Now, excuse me while I go drink some cheap beer and ponder the weirdness of this whole thread…
“I admire your commitment to unnecessary government secrecy.”
But isn’t the point that, so long as they remain within the boundaries of the statute, necessity is subjective and falls to the judgement of the school system? I understand that it’s unnecessary from your perspective but you’re not the one I elected to make and be accountable for such assessments. At the end of the day, it seems to come down to a scenario in which withholding (potentially) benefits CSD, releasing (potentially) benefits bloggers, and everyone in between is basically unaffected either way, right?
This would benefit everyone in between. I want this to be public. I’m not going to get a copy of it and keep it to myself. Hopefully they’ll post it on their website, maybe even afford people an opportunity for public comment. I think if they want voters to raise their taxes to pay for something, voters have a right to know what they’re paying for. If someone else wants to go after it, great. To the best of my knowledge, no one has.
Dan, they are buying land. It won’t be cheap. Most voters understand that. What exactly are you expecting to find?
Well said Scott
That’s the whole point! You wouldn’t expect to find anything. If it’s a simple purchase contract like the seller says, then what’s there to hide? It’s only because they gave out some information and then redacted the rest that anyone is wondering what they’re hiding. If it turns out that there’s nothing funny or concerning, then why hide it?
In response to DawgFan’s comment as to “What am I expecting to find?” I’m not expecting to find anything, which is why it’s so puzzling they won’t release the sales agreement. Perhaps it will be a standard sales agreement. If that’s what it is, fine, and why would they withhold it in the first place? Your guess is as good as mine as to why they would withhold it. When I asked for an example of what could make the deal go south, the answer was basically, “Because we said so.” I’m sorry, but I’m a big believer in what Ronald Reagan said: Trust but verify. I ask for public records because that’s what reporters are supposed to do. I’m not going to make these piles of Scrooge McDuck money by smiling and nodding politely.
Dan, this land will be prime real estate. The seller may or may not be selling at a slight discount for the school. Or the school might be paying market rate. Regardless, there are many unethical people out there who wouldn’t think twice about trying to sabotage this deal so that the property goes back on the market. IMHO, the potential risks associated with making the contract public far outweigh any potential risks that CSD is doing something underhanded, illegal, etc.
I think if someone wanted to mess with the deal, they could do it with the information CSD has already provided. I don’t think that argument holds water, given the amount of information that’s already been released. They are under contract and someone would have to break the contract in order for the deal to fall apart. We’re going to have to agree to disagree, I think.
Scott and DawgFan:
What are the advantages (to those of us who will eventually pay for the purchase) of NOT disclosing the terms of the agreement? According to the Decaturish article, the seller says “he’s unaware of anything in the sales agreement that could hinder his ability to sell the property or that would thwart the deal if it the agreement became public.” I may have put my trust in some of the school board members by voting for them, but that doesn’t mean I think their decisions might not benefit from public input. School board members may be accountable in that we may choose not to re-elect them, but won’t Decatur’s property owners be the ones who will be accountable for the debt they take on as our representatives?
Thanks.
As I see it, if there are particular details that can be legally withheld for certain reasons and those who know the substance of those details feel the public would be best served by doing so, then that’s the kind of judgment I elected them for. It’s not like they’re operating outside of what they’re allowed to do (at least not until the AG says otherwise). I see no breach of ethics happening or anything like that.
It’s worth noting that my opinion on the matter is conditional, rooted in the fact that I personally trust the people running the school system. If I lived somewhere where I felt leadership was deceptive or more concerned with their own agendas than overall community benefit then perhaps I’d feel differently. Some folks here clearly already do.
For now, there’s trust. So I’ll continue to trust them to do what they were elected to do until they prove themselves unworthy. And that includes deferring to their judgment as to what’s in the system’s best interest.
This isn’t about whether I trust the School Board or not. It’s about providing as much information as I can about how the board members intend to spend taxpayer money. I’d be doing this if the school board were comprised of Jesus and his Apostles.
If the Board was Jesus and his Apostles, we wouldn’t need this contract. Water would have been made into wine, county buildings into schools, and the achievement gap would have been bridged.
I vote that CSD allows Scott to peek at the contract. If there is something fishy, he gets to blow the lid off the whole thing on Decaturish with an editorial article. Otherwise, we all have to wait for full disclosure to protect blowing the deal.
Problem solved. You are welcome.
Ha! Sadly, like Sherman before me, I must reject this nomination. But someone please wake me once the scandal comes to light. I’ll have some humble pie to scarf down.
Gee, it sorta makes me nuts when I agree with you so completely about anything. 😉
DawgFan, what’s with the personal insults? You know the rules around here.
DM, they aren’t directed at anyone in particular. Kinda like armchair quarterbacks. There are many intelligent, educated people in this town who don’t know a thing about real estate transactions, and I don’t see a lot of good from them all chiming in on something they don’t understand.
The only other potential insult I see is “curmudgeon”, and I copied that straight from J_T’s post.
[…“journalists” who think they are entitled to a key to the city…] wasn’t directed to anyone in particular, and wasn’t used in a just a wee bit of a derogatory fashion?
Not to add to the argument, but just want to voice support for Dan’s efforts in general, win or lose on this particular issue.
Thank you. On the whole, most people want to know what’s going on with their government. I can’t understand the rationale of people who don’t, particularly when they are among to first to complain about high taxes and other government excesses.
Yeah, I don’t know if he’s right on the law here but I don’t think Dan deserves the quotation marks around journalist. His site is one of the few sources to cover the news in this area, and from what I’ve seen he does the most thorough and professional job of anyone in the local news media.
Thank you for saying that.
My mistake. The letter from the Wilson firm is dated three days after the AG letter so I assumed one caused the other.
Regarding Lion Tamer bread, it’s really good.
I agree. I had some for the first time this Saturday. Wonderful stuff. I highly recommend it.
How does it benefit CSD to share the contract at this point? Some transparency is good and they’ve shared some important details, but no need to have 20 K “lawyers/mediators/contract experts” who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night telling them what they are doing wrong.
I would wait too — particularly given the large contingency on the $75 M bond.
The contention is that they might be legally obligated to share the contract regardless if it’s to their benefit or not.
Even if there is some discretion prior to closing of the sale, it seems a bad way to garner support for the $75M bond that we get to vote on. They are essentially saying, “Give us YOUR money and trust us, you’ll like what WE are going to do with it!” Add in the fact that CSD and its attorney have already leaked certain details and it makes me wonder what remains that they’re scared to share. They may have a right to maintain a level of secrecy, but I also reserve the right to vote HELL NO on their bond referendum and also to encourage everyone else I know to do the same until we see some more transparency here. And, you know, I may not have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, but I AM a lawyer…and a curmudgeon…
Why do you hate children, education, trees, apple pie, and the American way of life in general?
You ignorant fool. I LOVE apple pie. Especially when it’s fried.
That other stuff, meh.
i see you’ve never had fried children.
Seems like CoD is really against the idea of another potential buyer voicing interest in a property under contract with contingencies . . . . unless of course, that property happens to be owned by the Boys and Girls club, and maybe they wanted to buy it instead.
Of course, CSD has this property under contract, which is an entirely different entity than CoD.
I’m all for sharing of public records, but to me the more interesting info I would like to know is what land was considered and why was it ruled out? How much looking and analysis went on prior to the start of the serious negotiations with the Talley St. owners?
The other commenters here changed my mind and you are wrong for even bringing up these questions. My city, right or wrong!
Working that angle, too. Perhaps the contract will shed light on their line of reasoning.
But what entitles us or any news outlet, mainstream or online, to this information?
The public is entitled to it, or at least they are entitled to ask for it. The law says that CSD MAY withhold certain information until the sale is closed, not that they MUST. So they can release it if they want to. Similarly, we voters MAY decide to fund this purchase by approving the $75M bond referendum without knowing all the details but we cannot be forced to. The more I look at it, the more I think CSD has a legal right to withhold additional details of the purchase agreement. Whether that is politically wise is a whole ‘nother story. I know how I’m voting either way.
Understand, but we have to be gracious in our understanding that we won’t always get what we request. That is hard for some to process. And you make an excellent point – if for some reason people think there is some scandal or something fishy going on, no one is forcing us to fund it.
I’m also interested in what Dan and DM think about public officials’ obligation to provide comments to an online news outlet/blog that doesn’t necessarily have the same editorial oversight as a mainstream news outlet. As I say this, please recognize that I also think that Decaturish and DM are far superior in terms of timely news about our city than the AJC will ever be. I’m just curious.
I’m not sure what the size of the newsroom has to do with it. It should be freely available to any member of the public that asks for it. Again, not to beat a dead horse, but the point of this exercise isn’t to uncover some scandal. It is defending the right to inspect what should be a public record. The AJC could ask for it too if it devoted any resources to in-depth coverage to Decatur. Why should local news websites be singled out just because we are the only ones bothering to ask?
Dan – It has nothing to do with the size of a newsroom, but I do find it interesting that online community news sites/news blogs seem put themselves (right or wrong) on the same level of importance as a traditional news outlet that has a publisher, editor, copy editors, an office full of reporters, etc. Younger generations are learning to accept that online news is just as important as traditional news, but it seems that you won’t necessarily get that same acceptance or respect from the older generation, who is used to seeing the only news that matters in print. It’s really interesting to watch, and I’ll bet it’s even more interesting to experience.