Critics say a bill under consideration in the Georgia legislature could have drastic effects locally by making it cost-prohibitive to enforce zoning restrictions such as setbacks, buffers and tree preservation ordinances.

But one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Mitch Seabaugh of Sharpsburg, said early Tuesday afternoon that legislators are crafting an exclusion in the language of Senate Bill 30 so it won’t affect cities’ and counties’ zoning ordinances.

Seabaugh said the bill, which expands the definition of inverse condemnation, is necessary because government agencies are taking people’s property rights away from them without justly compensating them. His example was from a location in north Georgia where the Georgia Environmental Protection Division has increased stream buffers from 50 feet to 150 feet on either side of the stream.

Citing the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Seabaugh said it is right for the government to compensate citizens when their property is constructively taken. After all, in the case of the stream buffers the landowner still has to pay taxes on the part of the parcel that is being “taken” in addition to the owner receiving no monetary compensation, Seabaugh added.

Inverse condemnation is currently defined as the “inadvertent” physical taking of a person’s real property by a government agency. In cases of stream buffers, for example, the state government is not assuming full control and ownership over the property although it requires that nothing be built within that buffer zone.

SB 30 would allow persons affected by inverse condemnation to recoup the fair market value of the property that was “actually taken” and any damage to the remainder of the property that was not taken but was affected by the inverse condemnation.

Seabaugh said the legislature has been studying this issue for a year.

If SB 30 passes as currently written, it would require cities and counties to pay a property owner for the value of their property taken up by landscaping, buffers and the like for beautification and stormwater protection purposes, said Fayetteville Mayor Ken Steele.

“I think we’d have to stop enforcing zoning ordinances,” Steele said Tuesday morning.

Take a 10-acre commercial tract in Fayetteville, for example, the mayor said. City ordinances allow only eight of those acres to be developed, so the city would have to pay for the “taking” of the remaining two acres. And with $600,000 an acre being the rough going rate for commercial property in Fayetteville, that would add up to a $1.2 million bill for the city.

Needless to say, the city can’t afford to pay that, particularly since its annual property tax revenue is about $2.1 million, Steele said. So the developer would be allowed to pave right up to the property line, Steele noted, which could also create quality of life issues for citizens who demand buffers to protect their property from the impact of adjacent developments.

“We couldn’t raise property taxes enough,” to pay such a price, Steele said. “You can’t afford it and I can’t afford it.”

The state’s current inverse condemnation law, which basically addresses the unintentional taking of someone’s property is legitimate, Steele said. It could come into play, for example, if the state Department of Transportation erred off path when building a road and veered onto someone’s property, he said.

Steele said the Georgia Municipal Association and the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia oppose SB 30, along with the Atlanta Regional Commission and the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District.

The bill threatens the protection of buffer protection for streams, which are mandated by the federal government, Steele said.

Without those protections, streams would be at risk for greater amounts of pollution, Steele added.

GMA would prefer to work with the legislature, and does so on many issues, Steele said. In this case, however, lines have been drawn in the sand.

Steele said he is asking local voters to reach their state legislators to voice their concern about the bill.

Staff is preparing a resolution for the Peachtree City Council to consider that would oppose the bill, said City Public Information Officer Betsy Tyler. Council would have the final say on approving or denying the resolution, she added.

login to post comments