47 replies to this topic

[Pillsbury]

^ mmmmm, mustard-based barbecue.......

I would support metro Atlanta creating a special tax district if it would not disrupt the amount of money flowing to the rural areas of this state.

Edited by Pillsbury, 01 July 2008 - 11:52 AM.

[teshadoh]

It wouldn't at all - tax monies collected would be additional funds to use at the taxing jurisdiction's discretion.  No one likes paying more money for gas or a toaster oven, but I think a 1 cent sales tax district to cover the ARC planning area is needed.

[Martinman]

There was an article in the paper recently on how the Denver metro can do a regional sales tax without having to get approval from the state legislature.  

[teshadoh]

That is correct - actually there are numerous states where that is practiced.  Local voters still have to approve it, but most effectively it allows jurisdictions to draw their own lines.  In the case of Gwinnett County, it's idiotic for the entire county to vote for it when only the I-85 corridor really can support MARTA service, or alternately MARTA can only effectively support the I-85 corridor.  As is the case in Colorado, you don't have to follow county or city boundaries to determine the taxing jurisdiction.

[xivinrah]

Spartan, on Nov 11 2007, 12:22 AM, said:

I said what I did because I know the rest of the state does not care for Atlanta. They already feel that Atlanta gets too much money and attention, etc. I also state this with little knowledge of Georgia politics.

Atlanta is in a tough spot because it is a primate city, and it dominates the Georgia economy, but there is still that other half of Georgia to think about. These people shouldn't be ignored just because Atlanta is so much larger. I think that as the leader in the state, its up to Atlanta and its surrounds to work with the other representatives in the other parts of the state to achieve solutions to the problems. Secession is not the answer. Thats just cutting of your nose to spite your face.

Now... having lived in Columbus for about 10 years, I can say that the city itself is sorry as hell when it comes to doing a better job of redevelopment and urbanization. Their idea of favorable development is a new walmart or a new mcdonalds on 15 acres of land... complimented with deserted expanses of cement and asphalt. While the southern end of the city remains in decay and poorly marketed for mixed use possibilities. So it's not that Atlanta is the COMPLETE focus for the state's wealth, its just that the wealthy families that own and manage most of the land in the second tier cities (especially Columbus) LIKE the Arkansas-like quality of life. They LIKE the racial divisions, the "country-ness" of their cities, the disgusting brownfields that litter the landscape, the poor uses of land, the little house on the prairie mentality, etc.

Personally I can't stand it here. The slogan... "What progress has preserved." should be laughed at. AND then... when you SPEAK of mixed use, skyscrapers, urbanization the people complain about no longer having trees. Atlanta has more trees than Columbus, Augusta, and Macon combined. I think the beauty of Atlanta is that if I want to live like I am in one of the second tier cities, I can with an intown address (the woodlands of buckhead, druid hills, brookhaven).

But anyway. My point is that Columbus DOESN'T want the development. Sad to say, that it could be so much more than it is now if it would strive for it. As it is with Columbus, it is the same for A LOT of other cities in Southern Georgia. So that's why all of the focus and attention is geared toward Atlanta. In Atlanta, there aren't as many limitations to development and that's why even now, it grows faster than any of the other major cities in Georgia. So there isn't a NEED to bring any more money to just SIT idle when there are hundreds of new businesses and jobs moving into the Atlanta area every year that need the transportation and aesthetic improvements. And until the second tier cities come to the realization that they can't continue to remain stuck in 1946 (in terms of limitations to development)... they will always get Atlanta Metro's leftovers.

If Atlanta never existed... Augusta and Savannah would have probably been the areas of focus. Especially Savannah.

[Pillsbury]

^  I have to stick up for Augusta on the tree department though.  We have so many trees intown that during thunderstorms people are more afraid of what the trees will do than anything else.

[Savboy08]

Pillsbury, on Jul 23 2008, 08:24 AM, said:

^  I have to stick up for Augusta on the tree department though.  We have so many trees intown that during thunderstorms people are more afraid of what the trees will do than anything else.

Same goes for Savannah.  Some of our major roads are either treelined with those old Oaks(that appear as if they are about to fall in a minute) on both sides of the road and in the median if there is one.  It's quite common to hear of trees randomly falling onto cars even without passage of a storm.

Edited by Savboy08, 24 July 2008 - 04:16 PM.

[andremurra]

I dont mind Atlanta metro having its own tax allocation district as long as its "additional" taxes like a sales tax or something. I have nothing against that. Most of the major projects in Statesboro are funded through our sales tax which generates about $20-million a year.

Edited by andremurra, 29 July 2008 - 01:21 PM.