Arguments heard in Vine City residents' legal challenge to block public financing for Falcons stadium

• Atlanta Falcons

A major legal challenge to block the use of public funding for the proposed Atlanta Falcons stadium, a move that could delay the project's timeline through 2015, was battled out in court yesterday.

During a more than six-hour hearing, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Ural Glanville heard arguments from lawyers on behalf of residents living in the proposed $1.2 billion stadium's shadow. Their motion contests an attempt by Invest Atlanta, the city's economic development arm, to issue at least $200 million in bonds that would partially pay for the stadium.

The Falcons have already started work on the multi-use athletic facility and hope to finish the project in 2017. According to the AJC, the bonds are expected to raise about $246 million to help fund construction costs. Recent estimates from city officials indicate the final tab with interest will cost taxpayers approximately $451 million.

John Woodham, a Buckhead attorney who contested the Atlanta Beltline's main funding source all the way to the Georgia Supreme Court, and former Fulton Superior Court Judge Thelma Wyatt Cummings Moore represented Rev. William L. Cottrell, Sr.; Mamie Lee "Mother" Moore; Tracy Bates; John Lewis III; and Joe Beasley in the legal challenge.

Woodham voiced more than two-dozen objections to the issuance of the bonds, which would be paid off with the city's lucrative hotel-and-motel tax. He raised questions about the validity of a 2010 state law that extended the levy's lifespan. He also questioned why the stadium project's bonds would be paid with what he called a public tax - and not a dedicated revenue source.

"This is tax collection," Woodham told the judge. "We're calling them revenue bonds, but they're not."

But Glanville kept the hearing focused on whether the stadium bond proposal was "sound, feasible, and reasonable." That restriction effectively limited the scope of the residents' challenge that includes objections related to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive's realignment, the city's abandonment of properties, and environmental concerns.

The judge also quashed Woodham and Moore's attempts to subpoena Atlanta City Council President Ceasar Mitchell, Councilman Andre Dickens, and Falcons CEO and President Rich McKay. Glanville also declined to allow Georgia Tech Professor Mike Dobbins, who's helped residents voice their concerns about the project, or Central United Methodist Church Senior Pastor Yvette Massey the opportunity to testify.

Throughout the hearing, Woodham's meticulous explanations of his arguments appeared to visibly frustrate defendants in the courtroom. Tension boiled between both sides that led to veiled threats about taking action on several matters concerning allegations of broached professional misconduct. At one point, the city's legal team even presented an email from Woodham, in which they said he was harassing possible witnesses from the Atlanta Regional Commission, going so far, they claimed, as to call them "patsies." Glanville, acknowledging Woodham to be a "zealous advocate on behalf of his client's position," warned the attorney that he was straddling the line of abusing his legal position.

Lawyers for Invest Atlanta, City Hall, and the Georgia World Congress Center Authority convinced Glanville to toss out several of Woodham's objections. Doug Selby, a lawyer representing the city, tells CL that they appropriately responded to the filed objections and hoped the court would side with their case.

"Many of the objections that were raised deal with matters that are not germane to the issuance of bonds," he says. "Therefore, we hope that we would not be considered on that basis. Others are related to matters that are subject to settled law. Our hope is that the court will view it in that light."

Glanville expected that the hearing's transcript would be finished before April 25. A final decision could follow in the subsequent weeks, well before the stadium deal's bond deadline on July 31. If the judge rejects the residents' motion, Woodham says that his clients will likely appeal the decision - a move that could put the stadium's timeline in jeopardy.

"We're looking forward to the final order," Woodham tells CL. "When we're able to review it, if it's adverse, we believe the 'Intervenors' current intention would certainly consider an appeal."