The Atlanta City Council approved a new “blight tax” on owners who fail to maintain their properties.
The legislation was introduced by District 3 Atlanta City Councilman Byron Amos, who said neglected properties in Atlanta were affecting property values, as well as causing safety and health concerns.
“Blight, vacant properties, and abandoned homes can create an unsafe environment for our children and residents,” Amos said in a statement after the vote. “The scars of dilapidated homes have a damaging impact on surrounding communities. This approach and new measure will hold negligent property owners accountable by significantly increasing fines for those who allow their properties to deteriorate.”
Atlanta Municipal Court judges will now have the authority to increase the tax bills of blighted properties by up to 25 times the current city tax rate, according to the legislation.
He said the goal of the legislation is to not only hold negligent property owners accountable but also to work with owners who are doing what they can to clean up their blighted property.
“Property owners rehabilitating their blighted properties can qualify for a reduced tax rate,” Amos said. “Large property owners must commit to a redevelopment plan that aligns with neighborhood goals, including improvements in connectivity, transportation, and public amenities that benefit the community. The tax will not apply to occupied properties to prevent displacement.”
However, there are concerns in the preservation community that the new blight tax might lead to the loss of more historic structures in the city.
Atlanta Preservation Center Executive Director David Y. Mitchell said he reached out to the city but received no response. Mitchell said while he supports the effort, he’s worried that historic properties will fall through the crack.
“There is NO pushback on wanting to assist and improve the lives of citizens and residents and promoting equality for everyone living in Atlanta,” Mitchell said. “I have concerns that contributing and significant properties may be lost in this process and become accidental victims to this effort. I also understand that we may have various opinions of what those properties are – but, a larger narrative to navigate some of that is imperative to this work.”
Mitchell said historic preservation is not an effort to thwart property owners rights or challenge the developmental course of a place.
Mitchell said he hopes that each property will be investigated before any action is taken that might lead to the destruction of a historic place.
“The potential of economic opportunities that these properties could both bring and contribute to a capital need of a development is both effective and established throughout the city,” he said.
