Atlanta’s ‘Cop City’ Nears Completion: Impact on Opposition

In Atlanta, a federal appeals court is in the midst of deliberations on a significant movement aiming to allow a public vote on a police and firefighter training center. City attorneys assert that the center is nearing completion, making the push potentially redundant.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had been quiet for over a year since hearing arguments in 2023 regarding whether to reverse a prior decision that permitted collection of signatures by nonresidents for the “Stop Cop City” referendum. The training center, located on property the city leased to the Atlanta Police Foundation, has seen opposition from critics who amassed more than 108,000 signatures. These opponents assert that the public should have the right to annul that lease.

Construction on the project, which covers 85 acres and carries a price tag of $115 million, continued throughout the prior year. According to a representative for Mayor Andre Dickens, who communicated with the press, training at the facility has already commenced, with full usage of classrooms projected by the end of March or early April.

The facility’s development engendered significant discourse within the city and caught national eyes, particularly following the fatal shooting of a protester by state troopers in January 2023. Critics argue that the facility exacerbates police militarization and poses environmental risks to the predominantly Black neighborhood susceptible to flooding. They view the city’s opposition to the referendum as undemocratic, linking it to excessive force during protests and legal action against numerous opponents.

On a recent request from the appeals court, the city’s attorneys moved to have the matter dismissed, arguing that the training center’s completion renders the referendum moot. They emphasized that any vote on the ground lease ordinance would no longer affect the center’s operational status since it has already been built and is in use.

However, legal representatives for four individuals, who are nonresidents leading the signature collection effort, maintain that the critical question remains whether the city’s lease with the Atlanta Police Foundation can be legally revoked by voters. They argue that the lease’s validity is unaffected by the center’s completion and that the First Amendment implications of nonresidents participating in signature gathering need resolution.

Keyanna Jones, one of the listed plaintiffs, previously resided near the site and expressed that collecting petitions was one of the limited methods available for nearby residents outside city limits to oppose the construction.

This debate has caused a delay by the city in examining the signatures gathered due to the unresolved status of nonresidents’ involvement. If the court moves to dismiss, it is probable that the examination might never occur. Even if the physical completion of the center doesn’t lead to case dismissal, the court could still stop the petition by ruling it illegal under Georgia law or invalidating all signatures, as none were tendered by the initial deadline.

A ruling that limits which signatures are valid might jeopardize the chances of obtaining enough valid entries from registered Atlanta voters to trigger a referendum. An analysis from various publications suggested that while the required 58,231 signatures might be present if all entries were considered, excluding those gathered post-deadline or by non-voters would invalidate around 20% of the sample, likely thwarting the campaign.