Tuesday, July 21, 2009
News The Beltline's tipping point
Posted by Thomas Wheatley @thomaswheatley on Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:48 PM
You can understand why Beltline officials have earmarked $10,000 in the project's upcoming fiscal year for "crisis communications."
Since the city embarked on its mission to build a 22-mile loop of parks, trails and transit around Atlanta's urban core — a project that officials say will transform the city from a car-dependent hodgepodge of villages to a smart-growth wonderland served by streetcar — it's faced its share of catastrophes.
In 2008, a state Supreme Court ruling temporarily stripped the Beltline of half its funding. Later that year, a controversial payout to Gwinnett County developer Wayne Mason raised questions over decisions about how the project allocated taxpayer dollars. In January, a bitter battle over rusty railroad tracks waged by the Beltline and a partnership of Amtrak and the Georgia Department of Transportation seemed ready to cripple the project.
But in all these crises, the Beltline emerged victorious. And on July 10, project officials had more good news to report.
After weeks of negotiations, Beltline officials struck a deal for two vital segments of GDOT-owned abandoned railroad tracks in southwest and southeast Atlanta. Atlanta Beltline Inc., the agency charged with implementing the project, now controls nearly 50 percent of the right-of-way it needs to form the spine of the 22-mile transit loop.
Comments (20)
Showing 1-20 of 20
Thomas, you mention that the Old Fourth Ward Park will start development in the Fall. I haven't been able to find any info on the web or otherwise to indicate when they plan to start. Do you have any links? It seems like it's been 6+ months since the 'groundbreaking' without any turned dirt, and my personal opinion is that this park is critical for both the Beltline as well as Mosberger's (sp)? Sears Building project.
like
dislike
Scott, Here's the website for the Historic Fourth Ward Park Conservancy. It doesn't have a specific date when work is set to begin, but Beltline officials told me residents should see some progress in fall or near the end of this year.
Thomas, thanks. I've seen that website, and as you indicate it doesn't say anything about when the work is set to begin. At least you heard the timeframe 'straight from the horses mouth' so to speak. Looking forward to seeing some activity on that site.
More from realists like Michael Dobbins and less from boosters would do us a service. So the Beltline is going to float yet more bonds. Pray tell where the money to service those bonds is going to come from during the real estate bust that you mention. If the TAD receives less cash than needed to service its bonds, will Atlanta taxpayers have to make up the difference directly? (In other words, do Beltline bonds ultimately have recourse to the city? - in which case the scheme should be governed accountably to residents.) Or will the Beltline go bankrupt?
The October 2008 BeltLine Bonds are now in default (July 2009 maturity). The ADA, the City and the School Board are under an existing preliminary injunction order to not spend any existing BeltLine educational tax increment on the BeltLine. The School Board, with that litigation gun to its head, has told the City and the ADA it must give back the previously collected $12 million BeltLine school money, much to the dismay and bewilderment of ADA officials and Shirley Franklin, who lobbied hard for retroactive use of that money but got outmaneuvered in the end. The 2009 BeltLine school tax increment will likewise be legally disgorged from the City/ADA when collected. The ballot language for Constitutional Amendment #2 was misleading and will be challenged and defeated, meaning no school participation. The City has exceeded the 10% cap, so the next round of bonds will be shot down. The list goes on. It's beyond the tipping point. It has tipped over. Stop trying to breathe life into this decaying stench.
Mr. Walker, According to Beltline officials, ABI was granted an extension until December to pay back the bonds.
That "extension" is otherwise referred to as a "forbearance agreement", which is what lenders to with a defaulted loan when they do not want to officially exercise remedies. In this case, the two private placement bond purchasers, Wachovia and SunTrust, are on the one hand playing the good corporate citizen of forbearing until December, but on the other are dealing with the fact they have little recourse under the bond documents except for suing the City for specific performance (i.e. immediately puking up $90 million plus dollars). Since the City is broke, that remedy is not very appealing. Notwithstanding, because there is no chance any new bonds will approved for the BeltLine by year end, the October 2008 Bonds will still be in default in December, so Wachovia and SunTrust will ultimately be forced by FDIC and TARP funding requirements to officially put the City into default. The shit is going to be hitting the fan. Why else do you think Montague is leaving, and Ray Weeks and most of the BeltLine Partnership resigned a few months ago? They know this thing is already dead. Listen to Mike Dobbins, former Atlanta Planning Commissioner. When he says the project is not viable, it is not viable.
Dave, what's your plan to add green space and transportation options to the city? Or do you just like to Monday morning quarterback everybody else?
Wachovia and SunTrust aren't going to call the city's bonds. That's so silly and short sighted. Both of those banks make millions off the city and don't want to lose their business. The beltline will happen, despite naysayers like Mr. Walker. The project is too important to NOT happen.
S. DeKalb, Wachovia is now owned by Wells Fargo, who does not give a rat's ass. SunTrust is desperate for capital, and does not do much business with the City. Also, these banks will do what the Federal regulators of TARP recipients now mandate, which is to collect their delinquent loans. Perfect example: King Papers collection. SunTrust already extended that unpaid loan once, but would not do it again. That's why City is forced to illegally divert Westside TAD funds to pay off the loan. TAD funds have to be used for hard costs (construction costs). Can't used TAD funds to acquire "exhibition rights" to a collection of papers. Point being that SunTrust said "no" to further loan extension for King Papers. Result being that City is forced to violate TAD law in order to pay off SunTrust. SunTrust will not hesitate to say "no" to further extension on the defaulted BeltLine bonds come December.
SunTrust didn't force the City to pay off the king papers loan. The City always intended to use a portion of the CCHR money for the king papers. And it's not illegal to use the money for the collection. Where did you come up with your "hard costs" theory? Not true, completely BS. Why don't you stop spreading so much misinformation? Get a life dude.
BS: SunTrust would not extend. City planned on donation crowd, which has dried up. Stop making shit up also. Further, I came up with my "theory" by reading the law. Where did your "theory" come from, that use of Westside TAD funds to finance "exhibition rights" is an autorized use of TAD money? Did you read the Redevelopment Powers Law? I doubt it. I doubt you can accomplish this task, but read definition of "redevelopment cost" under OCGA Section 36-44-3(8). "Exihibition rights" for a papers collection is not an authorized use of TAD funds. City is breaking the TAD law in order to illegally divert Westside TAD funds to payoff a defaulted SunTrust. This is a fact. Deal with it.
You're wrong about the TAD money, plain and simple. What you're referring to is developers who receive the money must use it for hard costs, presumably public improvements around their developments. To the contrary, most TAD's in this country, and the city, have a "public good" component for things like the CCHR funding. The Westside TAD had the CCHR funding, the Eastside TAD had the affordable housing program, and others have had other programs. None have anything to do with hard costs. Sorry, but like I said before, you need to stop spreading misinformation. I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens with the Beltline bonds in December. It seems like if the city was able to float bonds last fall in the middle of a financial system crisis, then they should be ok this time around too.
The CCHR is the "developer" under the existing development agreement with the City. The current development agreement requires, consistent with the TAD law, that the $40 million Westside TAD allocation be used to construct the center. The proposed amendment to the existing development agreement with CCHR, which is the core of this illegal transaction, allows $11.5 million to be diverted from construction costs of the center itself, which is a permitted use of TAD funds, to the acquisition of "exhibition rights", which is not a permitted use of TAD funds. That $11.5 million goes to Morehouse, and then to SunTrust to pay off the defaulted loan. You know nothing about the specifics of this transaction, or the applicable law. When you do not understand the facts or the law, you do not get too far. Please quote the language from the Redevelopment Powers Law that allows TAD funds to be used to finance "exhibition rights" for a collection of papers. Did you bother to do that research? Do you know how? It is not there.
Actually, I know quite about this transaction and other city matters as an objective observer for over 30 years. The CCHR is not the "developer". That's silly. Nevertheless, I won't get into a pissing match with you. Rather, I'll wait and see how this whole things plays out. If you're right, the City or ADA will be sued and have to re0imburse the TAD funds. If you're wrong, the transaction will stand.
You need to learn how to labor under the facts. Suggesting CCHR being the "developer" is "silly"? Read the exhibits to the attached legislation, and then call the City Law Department and tell them how "silly" they were to make the CCHR the "developer". http://apps.atlantaga.gov/citycou ncil/2009/images/proposed/09R1309.pdf
Ok, you're right about that technicality. Clearly, the CCHR is not a "developer" but has been described as a "developer in the agreement. Your original point was that the City illegally used TAD funds to pay for the agreement. The legislation you attached amended the developers agreement to allow for such. How is that illegal? Another question – Have you ever taken money from a candidate to leave them alone? Would you do the same for the Beltline and CCHR?
CCHR is the developer of the center. Don't know why that is so difficult for you. The proposed amendment to allow $11.5 million of the Westside TAD funds (originally intended for construction of the center) to be used to pay for "exhibition rights" is the part that is illegal under the TAD law. Does not make it legal just because the City has decided to do it. Also, does not make it legal simply because no one files a suit.
Latest in Fresh Loaf
-
Town hall meeting on Ashford, er, Brookhaven… whatever 2
Someone has proposed turning DeKalb County into one big fat city
-
Ringling Bros. Circus kicks off tonight, but there's an elephant in the room 6
Or, tent, I suppose
-
Blogging today: Lines get fuzzier at AJC and elsewhere 10
New AJC blog blurs line between editorial and marketing
- More »
Author Archives
-
Christmas wreaths made from tiny gin bottles are the new holiday must-have 6
Tinsel? Pfft. This is better.
-
State reps want to delay vote on transportation tax 17
Acworth Republican says measure most likely wouldn't survive constitutional challenge
- More »
