While the proposed Eagle’s Landing cityhood faced strong criticism for its potential to destabilize Stockbridge’s financial health by siphoning off its tax base and leaving debt, CIDs introduce a similar set of economic criticisms for citizens, with less control by citizens. These include a fundamental shift in democratic control from a “one person, one vote” system to one based on commercial property value, an unequal distribution of the tax burden for shared benefits, a prioritization of commercial interests potentially at the expense of broader community needs, and inherent transparency and ethical concerns due to their quasi-governmental nature.
A criticism of CIDs being a worse result for citizens than the failed Eagle’s Landing cityhood can be argued on several economic and governance fronts:
Reduced Democratic Control and Voice for Residents
The proposed City of Eagle’s Landing, had it passed, would have been subject to a referendum vote by the proposed population, allowing residents to directly decide on its incorporation. This provided a direct, albeit sometimes racially or socioeconomically divisive, mechanism for residents to express their will.
In contrast, CIDs are not created by a general public referendum. Instead, their creation is conditioned on legislative approval and the written consent of a majority of commercial property owners within the district, representing at least 75 percent by value of all real property subject to CID taxes.
Furthermore, CID boards, which administer the districts, are elected by these commercial property owners, with votes often weighted by property value rather than a “one person, one vote” system. Residential property owners generally do not have a direct vote in CID matters, nor can they serve on the board unless appointed by a governmental entity. This structure fundamentally grants economic power based on property value over broad citizen participation in governance.
Unequal Burden and Benefits of Taxation
CIDs levy taxes, fees, and assessments only on real property used non-residentially, explicitly excluding residential, agricultural, or forestry properties, as well as tangible personal property. This means homeowners and residents do not directly pay CID taxes, even though they may benefit from enhancements like improved public safety, beautification, or increased retail/restaurant options.
While commercial property owners pay the additional tax, the argument can be made that these costs are ultimately passed on to consumers through higher prices for goods, services, or rents within the district, indirectly taxing residents and visitors without their direct say or equitable contribution. For a new city, all residents would typically be subject to city property taxes, establishing a more direct and transparent link between the tax burden and the services received by the entire population within the new city limits
Prioritization of Commercial Interests Over Broader Community Needs
CIDs are designed to fund governmental services and facilities “specially required by the degree of density of development” within the district, rather than services provided to the municipality as a whole. Their focus is on projects that enhance commercial property value and benefit business districts, such as traffic management, wider sidewalks, landscaping, security, and economic development.
While these improvements can have positive spillover effects for residents, the primary driver is the enhancement of the commercial environment. This contrasts with a full municipal government, which is mandated to provide a comprehensive range of services for all its citizens, including law enforcement, fire protection, road maintenance, solid waste, water, wastewater, storm-water, utility services, code enforcement, planning, zoning, and recreation. Although Eagle’s Landing cityhood also had commercial aspirations (e.g., attracting a Cheesecake Factory), it would have retained a broader mandate to serve its entire population.
The concern is that CIDs, by concentrating resources and decision-making power on commercial areas, could lead to a two-tiered system where wealthier business districts receive enhanced services and infrastructure, potentially at the expense of general municipal funding or attention to less commercially valuable, but residentially vital, areas.
Ethical and Transparency Concerns
Some sources raise ethical questions about CIDs, particularly concerning their involvement with local governments and the use of funds. One criticism notes that CIDs can involve local governments in potential conflicts of interest by allowing developers to fund public infrastructure
While the Peachtree Corners Community Improvement Districts Act states that no notice, proceeding, publication, or referendum is required for the creation of CIDs or acts authorized by the act, and specifically limits the types of bonds they can issue, the general sentiment persists that CIDs operate with less public scrutiny than traditional municipal functions.
