You are here:  Home » The Plan

12 Responses so far.

  1. John says:

    As a resident of Cobb for 35 of my 36 years, I have no desire to see this deal go through. I don’t approve of tax payer dollars being used for construction of billionaire’s playgrounds, ESPECIALLY when the current structure is perfectly acceptable. I didn’t approve of the Falcons’ deal when that didn’t involve any of my tax concerns. If you can reallocate property taxes and the like, they need to be reallocated to more pressing issues like education and infrastructure and emergency services. I also don’t approve of the way this has been handles by all parties. In an era of supposed political transparency, this is about as transparent as a windshield covered in mud.

  2. CC parent says:

    When will we invest in our children? Are the schools on plan to be taken care of? There is overcrowding…buildings that need to be fixed…teachers that need to be compensated…etc.

  3. Marisa Lopez says:

    This deal is moving too fast and leads me to believe that not enough research has been done on traffic impact and environmental impact. This also means Cobb tax payers will never get out of their tax increase that is due to expire soon…that money was used to improve our parks. So a tax increase will come sooner or later if we want to keep our parks in good condition.
    I wonder who is really benefiting from this?

  4. Beth Warren says:

    Keep your eye on the ball, Cobb taxpayers. I notice the term of the lease is 30 years, with an option on the Braves’ part to renew for five additional years. Sounds great – except I’d love to see the fine print, because with the expectation that the county and the Braves will “share jointly in capital maintenance expenses”, I suspect there is language in the MOU that allows the Braves out of the lease if the park is not kept in “state of the art” (or something along those lines) condition. In other words, pony up a few hundred million bucks (again), or we’re leaving. Just one example of why these deals always favor the teams and not the taxpayers. Read the fine print. Do we seriously think the Braves will enter into a deal that requires them to be satisfied for any length of time with an aging stadium, when the current life span (as far as team owners seem to be concerned) is less than 20 years? Build your own stadium, Atlanta Braves, and in return perhaps the county can fund the additional transportation improvements that will make it attractive to fans – and that will benefit county residents and businesses all year round.

  5. Jim H says:

    I, too, agree this rush to take a vote without input from Cobb County citizens is improper.

    I don’t wish to see Cobb County be the Braves’ home unless and until some study about the ramifications of costs is clear. Continuation of a tax increase about to expire seems very underhanded and certainly should be given voter scrutiny.

    It all sounds so good with all the assumptions that always require everything to go smoothly but never does.

    I, for one, disagree with this speedball being sent our way.

  6. Danny Orlando says:

    This process is too fast and reminds me of the wildly not successful ACA. I guess we will know what is in the contract once they pass the agreement and we will probably not be pleased. I’ll bet this is unstoppable because of the pockets being lined, but it does need to be stopped. I have no desire for a stadium of this magnitude in Cobb County.

  7. tom says:

    This whole thing is as wrong as wrong can be. With an $86 million education deficit why are we even thinking about a stadium. We furlough teachers and make big plans we can’t afford. The commission has intentionally avoided saying anything about future renovations which are always in the millions of dollars and fall on the tax payers. If all the commissioner’s assets are put up for collateral for the first shortfall of revenues than that will help avoid any tax increase for at least the first 6 weeks. This whole idea is insane. We can’t pay our bills but can afford a stadium. Wake up people, this commission has got to be stopped. Every economist who has weighed in on this has said it will cost us. The fact that the commission doesn’t want to put it up for a vote by tax payers and the closed door meetings is enough to consider ethical conduct. In such an uncertain economic climate and no guarantee of revenues no wise person on earth would fall for this. The Braves have billions to spend and many Cobb County citizens can barely pay their mortgage. Cobb County government can’t pay it’s bills. Do your research people, it’s on the net. The board’s personal agenda should not be inflicted upon the taxpayers of Cobb County.

  8. Al Salt says:

    I’m concerned if the money shouldn’t be used toward more pressing issues (many of which were mentioned above). Can we invest in something else? Seriously…It takes 30 minutes for me just to get around the corner from my home to the interstate a few blocks away in the mornings. What will it be at night? That’s the least of my worries, there are other questions many of my fellow cobb residents have…many of us are extremely worried and uneasy about this. Is this even a safe thing to do in the short and long term?

  9. Go to our website for a whole list of things you CAN do to protest this thing. There are still a lot of things you can do.

    The thing that makes me most mad is that they scheduled the meeting two days before Thanksgiving when most people are out of town and cannot respond!!!

  10. John Quarles says:

    I agree with ALL the remarks posted against the Braves stadium in Cobb County. We should be investing much more in education for our children and compensating their teachers and NOT spending Cobb taxpayer’s money on a PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. In addition to that, putting a stadium in that location will create a traffic nightmare for the area which already is bad during rush hour. I have shared my negative feelings several times with my Cobb Commissioner, Lisa Cupid, and hope she votes against it.

  11. stephen m george jr mpa says:

    OCGA 15-17-80 is the Georgia Open Records Act …a formal request should be able to determine whether the Cobb Board of Commissioners and/or BOC Executive Committee may have had in violated of the Georgia Open Meetings Act OCGA 50-14-1.

    Among the questions one might want to consider asking during her, or his, fact finding pursuit(s) of the proposed Brave’s move to Cobb County are:

    (1) Who, if anyone, on the Board of Commissioners has a fiduciary interest in the project …this would include, but not be limited to due to nepotism and/or silent partnerships with any individual, partnership, small business, or corporation bidding or participating on any portion of the project. Elected officials within the political subdivisions lying within Cobb County should also go on record visa vi this critical ethical question.

    (2) Also, would a request through the Georgia Open Records Act OCGA 50-18-70 show any discussion on the record visa vi this proposed project …if not, it could be argued this project was deliberately planned in secret in violation of OCGA 50-14-1 The Georgia Open Meetings Act. A small section of the code is included at the bottom of this post.

    It just seems to me the BOC are running on gut instinct and knee jerk reactions looking for a simple solution to a complicated question; and, there are no simple solutions to complicated questions and/or problems.

    For these reasons, as well as the apparent polarization of the public at large, it could be reasonably argued this issue really is one that should be put on the ballet for the voters of Cobb County to decide as it really is a huge issue of long lasting consequence …and there will be unintended and unforeseen consequences. There always is even with the best of intentions with regard to public policy, funding, and service delivery.

    I believe what I’ve pointed out and proposed would be fair, balanced, and legal options …that means by definition they would be ethical. Please note that it’s not enough to just act legally; the Board of Commissioner’s should also act ethically.

    Yours in Service,

    Stephen M. George Jr., MPA

    (i) The gathering of a quorum of the members of the governing body of an agency at
    which any official business, policy, or public matter of the agency is formulated,
    presented, discussed, or voted upon; or

    (ii) The gathering of a quorum of any committee of the members of the governing
    body of an agency or a quorum of any committee created by the governing body at
    which any official business, policy, or public matter of the committee is formulated,
    presented, discussed, or voted upon.

    (2) Any resolution, rule, regulation, ordinance, or other official action of an agency adopted,
    taken, or made at a meeting which is not open to the public as required by this chapter shall
    not be binding. Any action contesting a resolution, rule, regulation, ordinance, or other
    formal action of an agency based on an alleged violation of this provision shall be
    commenced within 90 days o f the date such contested action was taken or, if the meeting was
    held in a manner not permitted by law, within 90 days from the date the party alleging the
    violation knew or should have known about the alleged violation so long as such date is
    not more than six months after the date the contested action was taken.

    50-14-4.
    (a) When any meeting of an agency is closed to the public pursuant to any provision of this
    chapter, the specific reasons for such closure shall be entered upon the official minutes, the
    meeting shall not be closed to the public except by a majority vote of a quorum present for the
    meeting, the minutes shall reflect the names of the members present and the names of those
    voting for closure, and that part of the minutes shall be made available to the public as any other
    minutes. Where a meeting of an agency is devoted in part to matters within the exceptions
    provided by law, any portion of the meeting not subject to any such exception, privilege, or

    50-14-5.
    (a) The superior courts of this state shall have jurisdiction to enforce compliance with the
    provisions o f this chapter, including the power to grant injunctions or other equitable relief. In
    addition to any action that may be brought by any person, firm, corporation, or other entity, the
    Attorney General shall have authority to bring enforcement actions, either civil or criminal, in his
    or her discretion as may be appropriate to enforce compliance with this chapter.

    50-14-6.
    Any person knowingly and willfully conducting or participating in a meeting in violation of this
    chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine not to
    exceed $1,000.00. Alternatively, a civil penalty may be imposed by the court in any civil action
    brought pursuant to this chapter against any person who negligently violates the terms of this
    chapter in an amount not to exceed $1,000.00 for the first violation. A civil penalty or
    criminal fine not to exceed $2,500.00 per violation may be imposed for each additional violation
    that the violator commits within a 12 month period from the date that the first penalty or fine
    was imposed. It shall be a defense to any criminal action under this Code section that a person
    has acted in good faith in his or her actions,

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply