ad

5 Comments

  1. 1

    alltadsaintbad

    Bottom line–at least for public consumption…he doesn’t think school systems have any buisiness in TAD arrangements in general. Compound that with the fact that he doesn’t see this particular MONSTER as being the project in which DeKalb should show it can do something right–maybe try something smaller.

  2. 2

    Redevelopment Powers 101

    All TAD’s are, indeed, bad.

  3. 3

    RAJ

    Not sure that ALL TAD’s are bad, most are just misused to the point of absurdity. I think State Law provides for TAD financing when a project has a viable anchor tenant or other prospect accompanied by a specific site plan. This project has neither….just endless public financing with NO private investment. Small projects with limited public -private risk abound but we are far past the peak of the commercial development cycle to start a large project on 165 acres….just too much risk for DeKalb County Taxpayers and a threat to the financial viability of DCSS. I have been to recent DCSS meetings but have not yet met Dr Green; so far I like the judgement and rational he is using to implement long needed improvements in our school system. That said, this is the first real test of School Board support for his resolve in that Stan Jester has been lobbying School Board members on behalf his wife Nancy Jester a DeKalb County Commissioner. Is this a conflict of interest that requires Stan’s recusal on this issue. Sorry about the long boring post…but more later!

  4. 4

    RAJ

    Would it be true that about half of the $600M in principal and debt service represents lost revenue to the school system? Is this the money that would contribute to the education of the 5,000 students this development would house?

  5. 5

    Bobby

    Stay strong Superintendent Green, the pressure is on right now but you are so right about the GM Plant deal.
    Many, many DeKalb parents support you. D-day is upon us and you are on the right side. Say NO to the TAD.

Comments are closed.