would issue tax-free bonds to finance infrastructure for large, private residential communities. The developers would be given the power to levy taxes to pay any costs incurred in development, taxes that the counties will be required to collect for them. Georgians should
VOTE NO on Amendment #3 and protect citizens and water resources for the following reasons:

1) County Commissions Can Bestow Taxing Power on Private Businesses
This Amendment will allow county commissions, acting by a single majority vote, after only two public hearings, to authorize private developers to levy taxes (“assessments”) to finance Infrastructure Development District projects.

2) No Referendum is Required
No vote by the taxpayers of the host county is required to grant this power to private parties.

3) No Conflict of Interest Rules Apply
There is no legal prohibition on any county commissioner having a financial interest in these Infrastructure Development Districts.

4) Developers Allowed to Issue Tax-Free Bonds
When these tax levies (“assessments”) are permitted, the developer is also authorized to issue tax-free municipal bonds; in this event, the Infrastructure Development District effectively will act like a municipal government – without being elected.

5) Host Counties May be Left Holding the Bag
Because the taxes (“assessments”) levied by the developers are to be collected by county tax commissioners, by operation of law, any default in payment of taxes by the developer, or by purchasers of properties in the District may create a tax lien, which can lead directly to the host county becoming the owner of the defaulting property.

6) Costs of Development are not Controlled by Market Forces
Developers operating as Infrastructure Development Districts are required by law to pass all costs of development on to the purchasers of property in the development in the form of assessments (taxes), removing any restraints on costs that would ordinarily limit a developer’s budget.

7) All Key Financial Decisions are Left Exclusively to Developers
All critical financial decisions of Infrastructure Development Districts will be made by the private developers prior to the time when control of the Districts passes to governing boards controlled by property owning residents. Thus, major financial decisions are outside their control.

8) No Evidence of Sustainability is Required
There is no requirement that developers of Infrastructure Development Districts show the suitability of their site for their project, or assure that adequate water supply or other necessary infrastructure such as transportation exist outside the boundaries of their development. Lack of fresh water supply in IDDs concerns many citizens, because developers are not required to plan for adequate supply before beginning a project. Near Port St. Lucie, Fla., a development district literally ran out of water in early 2005, leaving residents with dry faucets and $180,000 past due to their city supplier.

9) Other Creditors Will Try to Recover Debts from Host Counties
In the event of a tax payment default by developer or property owners, other creditors can, and most likely will, defer their own actions in default until the host county takes titles – along with whatever liability attaches to the properties in default.

10) Claims of Statutory Limits on Taxes are False
While the statute creating Infrastructure Development Districts requires that purchasers receive disclosure documents stating that all taxes (“assessments”) of the District are “capped by law,” in fact the only legal limit on such charges is left to the discretion of each District Board. Actual legal caps were amended out of the bill prior to final passage in 2007. The board can set the charges at any level it desires; that decision is merely a business arrangement, nothing resembling a law.

If you have questions about Amendment 3 or Infrastructure Development Districts contact Neill Herring at neillherring@earthlink.net.