The City of Stockbridge is facing a growing identity crisis as a new housing push appears to steer away from the high-value private investment goals established in its own 2022 Redevelopment Plan. This shift comes as the City Council simultaneously approved a controversial $300,000-per-show spending limit for the amphitheater, a move critics argue is a financial “blank check” following years of mismanagement and “misleading” budget reports.
Housing Shift: Affordability vs. $350 Million Build-Out
During a January 27 work session, the city presented the Georgia Initiative for Community Housing (GICH) certification, an initiative centered on addressing a “housing crisis” and “poverty cycles” that force residents into extended-stay hotels. This focus on subsidized affordability and “missing middle” housing stands in stark contrast to the Tax Allocation District (TAD) #1 Redevelopment Plan adopted in late 2022.
The original Redevelopment Plan was explicitly designed to attract “privately financed residential, commercial, and mixed-use development” to sites that have remained stagnant despite 100 million in public investment. That plan set a target of 350 million in aggregate market value, predicated on new housing at significantly “higher price points,” averaging $380,000 for single-family homes and townhomes, specifically to target “white-collar” residents and “empty nesters.” By pivoting toward a strategy focused on low-income attainability, the city risks undermining the very tax increment growth required to pay off the $30 million in capital costs the TAD was intended to leverage.
The $300,000 “Blank Check” for Artists
Public concern is also mounting over the council’s recent 4-1 vote to increase the City Manager’s contract signing limit to $300,000 per show specifically for the amphitheater. The move aims to “normalize” a process where the former general manager signed high-dollar contracts that bypassed council oversight.
However, Councilwoman Yolanda Barber, the lone dissenting vote, warned that the city is “losing control of the oversight” by authorizing such large single-transaction spending. Barber cited a “traumatizing” history where the city was forced to amend its budget by $32.9 million to account for years of mismanagement and departmental overspending. Independent audits for 2022 and 2023 had already identified “material weaknesses” and failures to record millions in assets, including $1.5 million in amphitheater construction costs.
Furthermore, critics argue that the $300,000 limit, a permanent ordinance, lacks a clear procurement process. Under standard policy and state law, contracts over $100,000 typically require a bid process, yet the city’s new amphitheater model appears to bypass these guardrails. Finance Director Mr. Malazi previously admitted that “two sets of reports were being made” in the past, leading the council to make decisions based on inaccurate data that “misled” them.
A Pattern of Hidden Information
The push for the new housing initiative and the amphitheater spending spree arrives amidst continued questions regarding transparency. While the city has moved forward with amphitheater operations, the Henry Herald and other local outlets have failed to report that the new amphitheater manager is Sandra Pogue. (Note: This specific name is missing from the provided sources and the Herald’s coverage, reflecting a potential gap in public reporting.)
Further fueling the “culture of non-transparency” is the fact that the city clipped off the end of the video for the most recent session where the council returned from an executive session to conclude business. This mirrors past complaints from council members that open records requests were being redacted beyond standard practice at the direction of the legal department, keeping the public in the dark about the city’s true financial condition.
In the January 27 meeting the city manager says the reports presented can be found in the agenda. In actuality, the reports aren’t in the agenda or on Edmonson’s city website page.
This is what was presented to illustrate the GICH housing initiative.
What follows is the more brutal redevelopment plan that takes my house. You can’t get them to mention this document. In fact, if you mention it at the podium your comment will be edited out of the meeting with clipchamp.com as we previously discovered in the metadata from June 12, 2025. I find it hard to stomach… losing the use of my home during every nice weekend, which is being done to me, my family & neighbors with our own tax money.
In the meeting they played a video from Fox 5 news saying that “disproportionally single black moms” are the main inhabitants of extended stay motels. Fox 5 neglects to mention that 40% of the Motel taxes go to the Convention and Visitors Bureau for “advertising” like anyone wants to vacation in Henry or Clayton County. And the city neglects to mention that if you ever do make it and pay your house off, they’ll be behind you two years later with a plan to take all you own while they harass you with noise & drunken road traffic (that they sold the liquor to) all year long.
Here’s the actual housing plan they voted on to take my house with OCGA § 36-44, the redevelopment powers law.
