Georgia Infrastructure Development Districts, Amendment 3 (2008)

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 21:59, 10 March 2014 by Colin O'Keefe (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Georgia's SR 309, also known as Constitutional Amendment 3, is a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. It would have authorized the General Assembly to provide by general law for the creation and comprehensive regulation of infrastructure development districts for the provision of infrastructure as authorized by local governments.[1]

Election results

Amendment 3 (2008)
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No1,777,26951.62%
Yes 1,665,462 48.38%

Election Results via: The Georgia Secretary of State

Specific Provisions

If it had passed, the measure would have:

  • Created Infrastructure Development Districts (IDDs), which are economic tools similar to tax allocation districts.
  • Allowed local government to pay for the construction and maintenance of new roads, sewers, schools or other infrastructure through bonds and private companies.

Supporters

Supporters/Sponsors included:

  • State Senator Steve Thompson, D-Marietta
  • State Senator Johnny Grant, R-Milledgeville[2]
  • The Georgia Chamber of Commerce
  • Georgians for Quality Economic Development[3]

Editorial Support:

  • The Augusta Chronicle
  • The Charlton County Herald

Supporting Arguments

Notable arguments in support of the measure included:

  • The measure would jumpstart development in forgotten corners of the state.
  • It would give rural and urban areas a way to draw increased business activities while still making sure the state has natural beauty in reserve.
  • The infrastructure development districts, or IDDs, envisioned under the amendment, are a new way of financing the installation of water and sewer systems, roads and other amenities.
  • The measure would help draw developers to more remote areas of the state by making sure the projects can be supported without further burdening taxpayers.

Opponents

Opponents included:

  • The Sierra Club[4]

Editorial Opponents:

  • The Atlanta Journal-Constitution[5]

Arguments in Opposition

Notable arguments in opposition to the measure included:

  • Taxation is a power that should be confined exclusively to elected officials who can be held accountable to voters. There is no compelling reason for state or local government to surrender that power to developers.[5]
  • Taxpayers outside the district still would have to pay for access roads and improvements to sewers to accommodate the new construction.[5]
  • Homeowners inside the district would pay two sets of taxes — one levied by the developer and the other by elected county officials.[5]

See also

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

External links

References