Georgia Code|§ 36-42-2. Legislative Purpose

                                                
 The revitalization and redevelopment of the central business districts of the municipal corporations of this state develop and promote for the public good and general welfare trade, commerce, industry, and employment opportunities and promote the general welfare of this state by creating a climate favorable to the location of new industry, trade, and commerce and the development of existing industry, trade, and commerce within the municipal corporations of this state. Revitalization and redevelopment of central business districts by financing projects under this chapter will develop and promote for the public good and general welfare trade, commerce, industry, and employment opportunities and will promote the general welfare of this state. It is, therefore, in the public interest and is vital to the public welfare of the people of this state, and it is declared to be the public purpose of this chapter, so to revitalize and redevelop the central business districts of the municipal corporations of this state. No bonds, notes, or other obligations, except refunding bonds, shall be issued by an authority under this chapter unless its board of directors adopts a resolution finding that the project for which such bonds, notes, or other obligations are to be issued will promote the foregoing objectives. 
 
 (Ga. L. 1981, p. 1744, § 9.) 
  Cross references.  
 - Clearance and rehabilitation of blighted areas, T. 8, C. 4. 
 
 JUDICIAL DECISIONS 
 
 Scope of application. 
 
 - Although the "Downtown Development Authorities Law" expands the scope of permissible authority projects beyond that of the "Development Authorities Law" to include all types of commercial projects, the "Downtown Development Authorities Law" otherwise resembles the "Development Authorities Law" in design and purpose. Odom v. Union City Downtown Dev. Auth., 251 Ga. 248, 305 S.E.2d 110 (1983). 
 
 Neither the increased breadth of the "Downtown Development Authorities Law" in comparison with the uniform industrial development authority statutes which preceded it, nor the apparently broad language of the enacting and definitions clauses therein, are sufficiently definite indications that the General Assembly intended to undertake a radical departure from its previous cautious approach and grant local governments unbridled power to finance all their public works through downtown development authorities. Odom v. Union City Downtown Dev. Auth., 251 Ga. 248, 305 S.E.2d 110 (1983). 
  Street and government-building construction.  
 - Municipality's attempt to use the "Downtown Development Authorities Law" to finance street improvements and construction and refurbishing of governmental buildings is unconstitutional. Odom v. Union City Downtown Dev. Auth., 251 Ga. 248, 305 S.E.2d 110 (1983).