Home > Legislative Tracker > Private Cities Legislation

Private Cities Legislation

Our Position: oppose
Bill Number: SB200
Sponsor:
Legislative Session: 2007 Legislative Session

Status

For much of the 2006 Session of the General Assembly, the Sierra Club  and others spent a great deal of time working to oppose legislation that would allow developers to create what amount to Private Cities.  These arrangements, which must be approved by the local governments where they are to be built, need a new law and a Constitutional Amendment before they can proceed in GA.  Several other states allow similar deals for developers.

Florida, Colorado, Arizona and California all have some variations of these things, which are called by several different names, such as Independent Development Districts, or Community Infrastructure Districts or the like.  They allow private firms to sell tax-free bonds as if they were local governments.  They allow these operators to levy a variety of taxes to fund the bonds, and to pay for the operation of the facilities the bonds build, and for the operation of the privately-owned government.  The term “Private Cities” is an accurate one to describe what these things are:  privately owned and operated local governments, designed to use governmental power and privilege to pay for private activities.  

Private Cities have been promoted, in both 2006 and this session, as “tools” to help underdeveloped, poor areas of GA to take part in the residential construction boom that has transformed some regions of the state in the last two decades.  None of the various proposed laws have contained any language that would direct development specifically to such areas—all of them are applicable to almost in any place in GA, including the most rapidly developing areas.  The qualifier, “almost” in the previous sentence had to be added after SB 200 was introduced last week:  the bill deliberately excludes two counties, Muscogee and Houston, from the bill’s effect.  The reason for this exclusion is to keep the controversial Oaky Woods tract out of the discussion of the Private Cities debate.

The language excluding the two counties from the Private Cities bill is itself unconstitutional, inserted as a cheap lawyer’s trick, to “solve” the problem of a direct link from Private Cities to scandal.  An easy lawsuit by the Oaky Woods developers will remove the exception, and a Private City will be as eligible to go into Oaky Woods as anywhere else, should this concept advance.

SB 200’s tricks are not limited to illicit “exclusions,” but include a virtual textbook or how to write deceptive statutes. 

Georgia’s economic development has been exceedingly rapid, and much of it has been very poorly thought through.  A considerable amount of development has been done solely to make money for the developers, with no concern for the surrounding communities, for the state’s natural resources, or for the people who pay the bills, the residents of the new houses.  Private Cities encouraged by SB 200 will only worsen all of these problems. 

Action Needed

Ask your Senator to oppose Private Cities because:

-Georgia developers do not need any additional economic stimulation

 -Private Cities legislation would allow Oaky Woods to be ruined in spite of an illegal trick provision in the bill that claims to protect Houston County

-Private Cites would allow developers to wipe out many sensitive areas in addition to Oaky Woods such as the Georgia coast

-Private Cities would allow developers to build in areas such as Wolf Creek in Carroll County where there are not sufficient water supplies

-Private cities would give developers the right to sell tax free bonds just like real municipalities

-this legislation would create a new level of government in a state with 159 counties and over 500 cities