In a recent government meeting, significant concerns were raised regarding the actions of two members of the Clayton County Development Authority, Don Craddock and Mark Christmas. The discussions centered around a proposed project that was deemed to lack economic benefit for the county, leading to calls for their removal from the authority.

The project in question involved a tax abatement agreement that would have resulted in the county losing approximately $483,000 in taxes over ten years, while the authority would have received only about $500,000 in total. This proposal was met with skepticism, as it did not align with the county's strategic economic development plan, which prioritizes single-family residential housing. Instead, the project presented was not targeted towards middle to high-income earners, raising further questions about its appropriateness.

During the meeting, it was noted that the authority members failed to secure a second for the motion to approve the project, indicating a lack of support and raising alarms about the project's viability. The authority's inaction was interpreted as a clear signal of the project's poor terms, prompting discussions about potential misfeasance by Craddock and Christmas.

The meeting also highlighted the broader context of financial strain on the county, with residents expressing concerns over a potential millage rate increase due to decreased revenue and rising expenses. This backdrop intensified scrutiny on the authority's decision-making process and the implications of their proposed project.

As a result of these discussions, motions were introduced to remove both Craddock and Christmas from their positions on the development authority, citing their improper performance in bringing forth a project that did not serve the county's economic interests. The board is expected to deliberate on these motions in the coming sessions, as the community watches closely for accountability in local governance.