Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448(a) Each condemnation of privately held property for redevelopment purposes must be approved by vote of the elected governing authority of the city within which the property is located, if any, or otherwise by the governing authority of the county within which the property is located. The power of eminent domain shall not be used for redevelopment purposes by any entity, except for public use, as defined by general law.
(a.1) The General Assembly may authorize any county, municipality, or housing authority to undertake and carry out community redevelopment.
(b) The General Assembly is also authorized to grant to counties or municipalities for redevelopment purposes and in connection with redevelopment programs, as such purposes and programs are defined by general law, the power to issue tax allocation bonds, as defined by such law, and the power to incur other obligations, without either such bonds or obligations constituting debt within the meaning of Section V of this article, and the power to enter into contracts for any period not exceeding 30 years with private persons, firms, corporations, and business entities. Such general law may authorize the use of county, municipal, and school tax funds, or any combination thereof, to fund such redevelopment purposes and programs, including the payment of debt service on tax allocation bonds, notwithstanding Section VI of Article VIII or any other provision of this Constitution and regardless of whether any county, municipality, or local board of education approved the use of such tax funds for such purposes and programs before January 1, 2009. No county, municipal, or school tax funds may be used for such purposes and programs without the approval by resolution of the applicable governing body of the county, municipality, or local board of education. No school tax funds may be used for such purposes and programs except as authorized by general law after January 1, 2009; provided, however, that any school tax funds pledged for the repayment of tax allocation bonds which have been judicially validated pursuant to general law shall continue to be used for such purposes and programs. Notwithstanding the grant of these powers pursuant to general law, no county or municipality may exercise these powers unless so authorized by local law and unless such powers are exercised in conformity with those terms and conditions for such exercise as established by that local law. The provisions of any such local law shall conform to those requirements established by general law regarding such powers. No such local law, or any amendment thereto, shall become effective unless approved in a referendum by a majority of the qualified voters voting thereon in the county or municipality directly affected by that local law.
(c) The General Assembly is authorized to provide by general law for the creation of enterprise zones by counties or municipalities, or both. Such law may provide for exemptions, credits, or reductions of any tax or taxes levied within such zones by the state, a county, a municipality, or any combination thereof. Such exemptions shall be available only to such persons, firms, or corporations which create job opportunities within the enterprise zone for unemployed, low, and moderate income persons in accordance with the standards set forth in such general law. Such general law shall further define enterprise zones so as to limit such tax exemptions, credits, or reductions to persons and geographic areas which are determined to be underdeveloped as evidenced by the unemployment rate and the average personal income in the area when compared to the remainder of the state. The General Assembly may by general law further define areas qualified for creation of enterprise zones and may provide for all matters relative to the creation, approval, and termination of such zones.
(d) The existence in a community of real property which is maintained in a blighted condition increases the burdens of state and local government by increasing the need for governmental services, including but not limited to social services, public safety services, and code enforcement services. Rehabilitation of blighted property decreases the need for such governmental services. In recognition of such service needs and in order to encourage community redevelopment, the counties and municipalities of this state are authorized to establish community redevelopment tax incentive programs as authorized in this subparagraph. A community redevelopment tax incentive program shall be established by ordinance of the county or municipality. Any such program and ordinance shall include the following elements:
(1) The ordinance shall specify ascertainable standards which shall be applied in determining whether property is maintained in a blighted condition. The ordinance shall provide that property shall not be subject to official identification as maintained in a blighted condition and shall not be subject to increased taxation if the property is a dwelling house which is being used as the primary residence of one or more persons; and
(2) The ordinance shall establish a procedure for the official identification of real property in the county or municipality which is maintained in a blighted condition. Such procedure shall include notice to the property owner and the opportunity for a hearing with respect to such determination.
(3) The ordinance shall specify an increased rate of ad valorem taxation to be applied to property which has been officially identified as maintained in a blighted condition. Such increase in the rate of taxation shall be accomplished through application of a factor to the millage rate applied to the property, so that such property shall be taxed at a higher millage rate than the millage rate generally applied in the county or municipality, or otherwise as may be provided by general law.
(4) The ordinance may, but shall not be required to, segregate revenues arising from any increased rate of ad valorem taxation and provide for use of such revenues only for community redevelopment purposes;
(5) The ordinance shall specify ascertainable standards for rehabilitation through remedial actions or redevelopment with which the owner of property may comply in order to have the property removed from identification as maintained in a blighted condition. As used herein, the term "blighted condition" shall include, at a minimum, property that constitutes endangerment to public health or safety;
(6) The ordinance shall specify a decreased rate of ad valorem taxation to be applied for a specified period of time after the county or municipality has accepted a plan submitted by the owner for remedial action or redevelopment of the blighted property and the owner is in compliance with the terms of the plan. Such decrease in the rate of taxation shall be accomplished through application of a factor to the millage rate applied to the property, so that such property shall be taxed at a lower millage rate than the millage rate generally applied in the county or municipality, or otherwise as may be provided by general law.
(7) The ordinance may contain such other matters as are consistent with the intent and provisions of this subparagraph and general law.
Variations in rate of taxation as authorized under this subparagraph shall be a permissible variation in the uniformity of taxation otherwise required. The increase or decrease in rate of taxation accomplished through a change in the otherwise applicable millage rate shall affect only the general millage rate for county or municipal maintenance and operations. A county and one or more municipalities in the county may, but shall not be required to, establish a joint community redevelopment tax incentive program through the adoption of concurrent ordinances. No Act of the General Assembly shall be required for counties and municipalities to establish community redevelopment tax incentive programs. However, the General Assembly may by general law regulate, restrict, or limit the powers granted to counties and municipalities under this subparagraph.
(Ga. Const. 1983, Art. 9, Sec. 2, Para. 7; Ga. L. 1984, p. 1709, § 1/HR 444; Ga. L. 1996, p. 1666, § 1/SR 64; Ga. L. 2002, p. 1497, § 1/HR 391; Ga. L. 2006, p. 1111, § 1/HR 1306; Ga. L. 2008, p. 1211, § 1/SR 996.)
- Art. IX, Sec. IV, Paras. II, IV.
- Urban redevelopment powers of municipalities, § 36-61-8.
- The constitutional amendment (Ga. L. 1984, p. 1709, § 1) which substituted "voters voting thereon in" for "voter of" in the last sentence of subparagraph (b) was approved by a majority of the qualified voters voting at the general election held on November 6, 1984.
The constitutional amendment (Ga. L. 1996, p. 1666, § 1), which added subparagraph (c), was approved by a majority of the qualified voters voting at the general election held on November 5, 1996.
The constitutional amendment (Ga. L. 2002, p. 1497, § 1), which revised this Paragraph to provide that counties and municipalities may establish community redevelopment tax incentive programs under which increased taxation shall apply to properties maintained in a blighted condition and decreased taxation shall apply for a time to formerly blighted property which has been rehabilitated, was approved by a majority of the voters voting in the general election held November 5, 2002.
The constitutional amendment (Ga. L. 2006, p. 1111, § 1) which substituted the present provisions of subparagraph (a) for the former provisions which read: "The General Assembly may authorize any county, municipality, or housing authority to undertake and carry out community redevelopment, which may include the sale or other disposition of property acquired by eminent domain to private enterprise for private uses." and which substituted "The" for "In addition to the authority granted by subparagraph (a) of this Paragraph, the" at the beginning of the first sentence in subparagraph (b), was approved by a majority of the qualified voters voting at the general election held on November 7, 2006.
The constitutional amendment (Ga. L. 2008, p. 1211, § 1), which added subparagraph (a.1); and, in subparagraph (b), inserted "also" near the beginning of the first sentence, and added the present second, third, and fourth sentences, was ratified at the general election held on November 4, 2008.
- For article surveying developments in Georgia real property law from mid-1980 through mid-1981, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 219 (1981).
Authorization and constitutionality of Ch. 61, T. 36. - Chapter 61, T. 36, is expressly authorized by the Constitution as amended, and the acts proposed to be taken thereunder, and in conformity therewith, are not unconstitutional for any reason assigned. Bailey v. Housing Auth., 214 Ga. 790, 107 S.E.2d 812 (1959).
- By this paragraph and Ch. 61, T. 36, the people of this state have declared that the taking of private property may be permitted for a "public purpose," and that powers of taxation and eminent domain may be exercised and public funds expended in furtherance thereof, and by that the courts are bound. Bailey v. Housing Auth., 214 Ga. 790, 107 S.E.2d 812 (1959) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Para. VII).
- The terms "slum" and "housing project" cannot be construed to include property of the condemnee sought to be taken, since such property is forest land, and to construe the terms "slum area" and "housing project," to include this property would be contrary to this paragraph. Howard v. Housing Auth., 220 Ga. 640, 140 S.E.2d 880 (1965) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Para. VII).
Terms "blighted areas" and "redevelopment project" as defined in O.C.G.A. § 8-4-3 cannot be construed to include forest land, and to construe such terms as applying to the property is contrary to this paragraph. Howard v. Housing Auth., 220 Ga. 640, 140 S.E.2d 880 (1965) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Para. VII).
- Private property may be acquired for the purpose of selling it to private persons without being put to a public use prior to the sale. Nations v. Downtown Dev. Auth., 255 Ga. 324, 338 S.E.2d 240 (1985).
- School system, development authority, and others were properly granted summary judgment in a suit challenging the allocation of school taxes because 2008 amendments to Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Para. VII(b) and O.C.G.A. § 36-44-9(g), governing tax allocation districts, changed the law and retroactively allowed use of local school taxes for general redevelopment purposes. Sherman v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 293 Ga. 268, 744 S.E.2d 26 (2013).
Cited in Miller v. Head, 186 Ga. 694, 198 S.E. 680 (1938); Allen v. City Council, 215 Ga. 778, 113 S.E.2d 621 (1960); Freedman v. Housing Auth., 108 Ga. App. 418, 136 S.E.2d 544 (1963); Martin v. City of Atlanta, 155 Ga. App. 628, 271 S.E.2d 882 (1980).
- A county may, in certain circumstances, apply to the federal government for funds to be used for urban redevelopment and for public housing within the county. 1975 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U75-35.
- Constitutionality, construction, and application of statutes or governmental projects for improvement of housing conditions (slum clearance), 130 A.L.R. 1069; 172 A.L.R. 966.
Liability, for torts of public housing authority, 61 A.L.R.2d 1246.