Come this 29^th day of November 2000 to the Federal Court of the Northern District of Georgia, Plaintiffs Pro se seek injunctive relief from the State of Georgia, in the person of Governor Roy Barnes, the State Legislature, in the person of Senate President Mark Taylor and Speaker House of Representatives Thomas B. Murphy, Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) Board Chairman Joel Cowan, Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) Board Chairman William Mosley and the United States Government, in the person of Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater to halt and prevent any further implementation of any plans or actions, as well as, expenditures pursuant to SB57, the law which created GRTA. Plaintiffs contend this statue- SB57- is unconstitutionally vague on its face and overly broad in application. As implemented, Plaintiffs submit it violates the Fifth Amendment "due process," and Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" clauses. Plaintiffs contend further that under SB57 the State of Georgia has exercised enormous powers, which are not clearly specified in the act, and as such, the State of Georgia has a fill-in-the-blank approach to implementing SB57. This statue in GRTA's heavy hands reduced the constitutional rights of citizens in DeKalb and Fulton Counties to a matter of convenience for the State of Georgia by making their rights subservient to clean air needs, economic development, road rage and other drive time woes. Unchallenged under SB57, GRTA claims the power to mandate policies and procedures that gut home rule and local option authority by denying tax revenue to counties that do not follow GRTA dictates. Plaintiffs further submit giving the State such arbitrary and capricious power results in abuse, pain and suffering. Plaintiffs implore the Court to grant a temporary injunction to forestall further irreparable harm to affected citizens residing in the Counties of DeKalb and Fulton.

By local referendum, said Plaintiffs became owners of the public utility, MARTA in 1971. As such, citizens in DeKalb and Fulton became obligated to pay a one-cent sales tax for MARTA’s operation. The State of Georgia has always contended it is constitutionally prohibited from funding MARTA's operating budget. Ipso facto, the legislature has never appropriated one dime for MARTA's operation. Local public utilities are not subject to the control of the State, except by some agreement with the owners. However, Gov. Roy Barnes and the Georgia legislature passed SB57 in 1999. Plaintiffs feel this law has allowed what is tantamount to a state takeover of MARTA. The state did not give the affected class any direct say or vote on the matter. Moreover, the State of Georgia refuses to compensate the citizens of DeKalb and Fulton Counties in any way for their investment via the one-cent sales tax imposed on them to fund MARTA in 1971. GRTA steadfastly refuses to impose the same tax on citizens in other counties to which it is giving free bus service. These citizens have voted repeatedly not to pay the one-cent MARTA sales tax to fund public transportation. Gov. Barnes justifies the State's action based on, "the need for a regional transportation system." He has tried to disguise the State's strong-armed robbery of DeKalb and Fulton Counties by leaving the MARTA governing board in place, to hide the State expropriating their public utility. While claiming citizens had a voice in matters, Gov. Barnes, without giving those same citizens any say, increased the size of MARTA's board and appointed new members. These new board members give GRTA majority decision-making power. U S Transportation Sec. Rodney Slater issued requirements that all counties share equally the matching funds tax burden before GRTA received federal revenue, but GRTA has refused to enforce such requirements. Taxation without representation is the tyranny that spawned the American Revolution.

Plaintiffs believe, if the state is not prohibited from spending any more MARTA revenues implementing SB57 and any current or future transportation plans, citizens in the affected class will continue to suffer disparately and will be unable to recoup the millions of dollars currently being lost on this unconstitutional boondoggle. First, MARTA is the only mass transit system in the South. Therefore, without the takeover of MARTA, Gov. Barnes could not control federal mass transit funds coming to Georgia. Creating a super agency through SB57 has resulted in MARTA incurring bond indebtedness providing free bus serve to Clayton, Cobb and Gwinnett Counties, which do not pay MARTA's one-cent sales tax. DeKalb and Fulton citizens are incurring future long-term financial burdens from huge capital investments in non-transportation related mixed-use developments to aid development in North Georgia. Next, acceding to Gov. Barnes' demands, MARTA took a planned East rail line from DeKalb and ran it West to the Cobb and Douglas County lines to enhance their economic development, which caused DeKalb County irreparable economic damage. Finally, it is claimed SB57 authorized GRTA to convert MARTA into a regional transportation system. The State claims further, this law does not allow the State to compensate DeKalb and Fulton after taking over its public utility. As the regional transportation system, MARTA is concentrating future expansion of service in North Georgia counties that do not pay the MARTA sales tax. Irreparably, this law- SB57- continues the drain of tax dollars out of the southern half of DeKalb and Fulton Counties by providing transportation services for areas that have voted repeatedly not to pay the one-cent MARTA sales tax to become part of the MARTA system. If the Court allows the State of Georgia through GRTA to take over MARTA, a public utility, without compensating its owners, "due process" and "equal protection" will be made shams. If the Court allows GRTA under SB57, an unconstitutional statue, to proceed with its regional transportation plans, citizens in DeKalb and Fulton Counties will be forced to continue paying the transportation cost for eleven other counties, while being denied similar services for themselves

Plaintiffs contend, the Governor and other parties named herein, following the dictates of SB57 are violating the "due process" Fifth Amendment rights by depriving the affected class of its property- a local public utility, namely MARTA - without its consent and/or just compensation. Further, plaintiffs contend these parties violated the Fourteenth Amendment's "equal protection" clause by increasing an unfair tax burden on their utility by requiring the citizens of DeKalb and Fulton Counties through legislative action rather than through referendum to pay the bill. Moreover, through GRTA, the State of Georgia, which is constitutionally prohibited from funding MARTA's operations, has become a catch basin for all federal mass transit funds coming to MARTA. Under SB57, GRTA is using MARTA's funds to provide transportation services to counties that have voted repeatedly not to tax themselves to pay for such public transportation, while refusing to provide rail service to South DeKalb County, which MARTA is committed by law to serve. Plaintiffs have no protection from the legislature which has arbitrarily and capriciously extended the MARTA one-cent sales tax on DeKalb and Fulton citizens through 2047. This extension reinforces the need for relief from the suffocating burden on DeKalb and Fulton to pay for current and future transportation improvements in areas that do not pay the MARTA tax. Under current circumstances, the MARTA tax is an onerous yoke around the necks of a few citizens binding them legally to pull the weight of eleven other counties. Plaintiffs feel under the standard of Amendment VIII this qualifies as "cruel and unusual" for only two counties to bear the economic development tax burden of eleven counties. Plaintiffs submit for the Court to allow the State of Georgia to continue imposing this unconstitutional scheme on DeKalb and Fulton Counties will be sanctioning strong-armed robbery. Plaintiffs implore the Court to issue the requested injunction until such time as a hearing can provide a full airing of these matters on their merits and bring much-needed relief.