The Industrial Development Authority Responds to Property Owners

By LYDIA BERGLAR
News Editor

In response to Shan Anderson and other concerned property owners, the Industrial Development Authority sent a letter addressing several questions and concerns. Anderson asked a series of questions at the October 16th IDA meeting, many of which are not addressed in the letter. However, the letter does address several relevant questions about the IDA’s work.

Check next week’s Sentinel for further information from Anderson, Tracy Blevins, Evan Stone (IDA executive director), Robin Rogers (IDA attorney), and James Cantrell (IDA chairman).

Published here with permission from the IDA, the letter reads:

Shan,

Thank you for attending the meeting of the Dade County Industrial Development Authority (IDA). As you know, the IDA was created by a constitutional amendment to the Georgia Constitution in 1967 to encourage and promote the expansion and development of industrial and commercial facilities in Dade County, Georgia. At the meeting on October 16, 2023, you voiced several concerns regarding the functioning of the IDA in general and the IDA’s purchase of property located at 14327 Highway 11 in particular. I would like to respond to some of those questions you raised.

First, you asked why the IDA needed to purchase property outside of the current industrial park for industrial expansion when there is unused land there. You are correct in that there is some acreage in the industrial park that remains vacant, but unfortunately most of this property is in the flood plain and is not suitable for industrial expansion. There simply are no remaining available tracts outside of the flood plain that are large enough for industrial expansion. We are out of space there, and this has necessitated the need for the IDA to look elsewhere in the County for available industrial acreage. The IDA is considering other uses of the property in the industrial park within the flood plain, but industrial expansion in these tracts is not feasible.

Second, you questioned whether there is a need for additional industrial and commercial expansion in the County at all given that the County currently has an unemployment rate of 2.7%. There are several reasons for this. If our recent history has taught us anything it is that the County cannot rely on our existing industries to always be there. It has taken more than a decade for the City, County, and utilities to recover from the closing of Trenton Spinning Mill, and when one considers that it often takes several months, if not years, for the IDA to attract new industry and to get the new industry up and running, we simply cannot stand still. We must continue to plan for the future. At present, though, we are indeed fortunate that we have a relatively low unemployment rate. This means that we can use this time to be selective in our efforts to seek new industry, and try to attract only those industries offering higher rates of pay than those currently received by our residents. These higher wages should lead to wage increases for all employees in the County, as competition for those workers increases, but it will also increase the attractiveness of local jobs for those residents currently having to commute to Chattanooga or other areas. This will allow more County residents to work closer to home than are able to do so now. Finally, it should not be overlooked that the additional capital investment by new industry in our County will mean increased tax revenue paid to the County by those industries. The attraction of new industry, even in times of relatively low unemployment, translates into higher wages for our citizens and increased tax revenue for the County.

Finally, you expressed concerns that industrial expansion into areas outside of the current industrial park could have a negative impact on your property and the property of other adjoining landowners. The IDA is concerned about that too. That is why we advised you at an earlier meeting that the IDA will be happy to receive your comments regarding possible restrictive covenants on the use of the new property so that any negative impact of the project can be addressed and hopefully mitigated as much as feasible. We continue to stand ready to do so.

I am confident that you and the IDA want what is best for Dade County as a whole. As the IDA moves forward on this project, we look forward to working with you to see that this is accomplished. Please feel free to continue to attend our meetings or to submit your comments in writing if you are unable to attend in person.

Sincerely,

Dr. James Cantrell

Chairman, Dade County IDA