O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 36-44-1 (2019)

Short title

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the ‘‘Redevelopment Powers Law.’’

History

Code 1981, § 36-44-1, enacted by Ga. L. 2009, p. 158, § 2/HB 63.

Annotations

Cross references. - PILOT restriction, § 36-80-16.1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2011–2021 · leading case: Frazen v. Downtown Dev. Auth. of Atlanta, 309 Ga. 411 (Ga. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Frazen v. Downtown Dev. Auth. of Atlanta, 309 Ga. 411 (Ga. 2020). · cites it 4× “In addition, the Redevelopment Powers Law, OCGA § 36-44-1 et seq., authorizes the City and the Development Authority, as its agent, in partnership with private enterprise, to cause designated redevelopment areas to be redeveloped.”

Clark v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 715 S.E.2d 668 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “City of Atlanta, 2 In Woodham, the state sought to validate the issuance of tax allocation bonds to finance the City’s BeltLine Tax Allocation District (“TAD”) pursuant to the Redevelopment Powers Law, OCGA § 36-44-1 et seq., in effect at that time.”

Timothy Franzen, Intervenor v. City of Atlanta (Ga. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “” OCGA §§ 36-44-1; 36-44-2. “To encourage such redevelopment, it is essential that the counties and municipalities of this state have additional powers to form a more effective partnership with private enterprise to overcome economic limitations that have previously impeded or…”

Julian M. Bene v. State of Georgia (Ga. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “3 concluded that (1) the projects are “sufficiently definite and concrete;” (2) the Authority may operate within the City of Atlanta, and the City’s municipal charter is not a bar to the Authority’s operation there; (3) the bonds are not subject to the Redevelopment Powers Law…”

Durango Georgia Paper Co. (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2021). · cites it 2× “Ragucci explained, “you can’t trigger the bonding process and actually fund the TAD until such time as there’s revenue stream to backstop the bond because they’re going to be carrying interest, and there’s also closing expenses.” 11 A tax allocation district is a redevelopment…”

Julian M. Bene v. State of Georgia (Ga. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “3 not a bar to the Authority’s operation there; (3) the bonds are not subject to the Redevelopment Powers Law (OCGA § 36-44-1 et seq.); (4) the methodology the Authority used to value the leasehold estates is proper; (5) the MOAs do not restrict the Fulton County Board of…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.