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: 904-383-7448The development of trade, commerce, industry, and employment opportunities being a public purpose vital to the welfare of the people of this state, the General Assembly may create development authorities to promote and further such purposes or may authorize the creation of such an authority by any county or municipality or combination thereof under such uniform terms and conditions as it may deem necessary. The General Assembly may exempt from taxation development authority obligations, properties, activities, or income and may authorize the issuance of revenue bonds by such authorities which shall not constitute an indebtedness of the state within the meaning of Section V of this article.
- Art. IX, Sec. VIII, Para. II.
- For article discussing industrial development bond financing under Georgia development authority law, see 14 Ga. St. B.J. 10 (1977). For article surveying developments in Georgia local government law from mid-1980 through mid-1981, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 187 (1981). For article discussing tax-exempt financing in Georgia, see 18 Ga. St. B.J. 20 (1981). For survey article on local government law, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 225 (1982).
Health care need not be listed in the Constitution as a public purpose on its own for nursing homes to be a proper project under the development authorities law. Development Auth. v. Beverly Enters., 247 Ga. 64, 274 S.E.2d 324 (1981).
Subparagraph (6)(K) of O.C.G.A. § 36-62-2 is not contrary on its face to this paragraph. Development Auth. v. Beverly Enters., 247 Ga. 64, 274 S.E.2d 324 (1981) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. VI, Para. III).
Downtown Development Authorities Law, O.C.G.A. Ch. 42, T. 36, is solely based upon this paragraph and not Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. III, Para. I concerning intergovernmental contracts. Odom v. Union City Downtown Dev. Auth., 251 Ga. 248, 305 S.E.2d 110 (1983) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. VI, Para. III).
- A municipality's attempt to use the Downtown Development Authorities Law, O.C.G.A. Ch. 42, T. 36, to finance street improvements and construction and refurbishing of governmental buildings is unconstitutional. Odom v. Union City Downtown Dev. Auth., 251 Ga. 248, 305 S.E.2d 110 (1983).
- A golf course proposed to be constructed by a development authority violated both this paragraph and the Development Authority Law, O.C.G.A. Ch. 42, T. 36, because it was neither a sports facility nor for the public purpose of developing trade, commerce, and industry. Haney v. Development Auth., 271 Ga. 403, 519 S.E.2d 665 (1999) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. VI, Para. III).
Cited in Rich v. State, 237 Ga. 291, 227 S.E.2d 761 (1976); Day v. Development Auth., 248 Ga. 488, 284 S.E.2d 275 (1981); Alexander v. Macon-Bibb County Urban Dev. Auth. & Urban Properties #47, 257 Ga. 181, 357 S.E.2d 62 (1987); AMBAC Indem. Corp. v. Akridge, 262 Ga. 773, 425 S.E.2d 637 (1993).
A development authority can issue a promissory note for an authorized purpose if the note is payable solely from revenues pledged therein for such payment. 1974 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U74-112.
- 64 Am. Jur. 2d, Public Securities and Obligations, §§ 86 et seq., 101.
- Right of creditor of public body to full or pro rata payment when fund out of which obligation is payable is insufficient to pay all like obligations of equal dignity, 90 A.L.R. 717; 171 A.L.R. 1033.
Validity of municipal bond issue for purpose of paying employees, 96 A.L.R. 1204.