Although widely recognized in the U.S. for its peaches and southern charm, Georgia has a different reputation internationally: its location and attributes have caused it to quickly become a magnet for foreign direct investment and a hub for European companies. With economic and political tensions currently rising between the U.S. and E.U., subnational diplomacy, which is defined as international engagement on a local or regional level, and economic cooperation between American and European partners, are more important than ever to ensure the long-term success of the transatlantic relationship. It’s this type of European involvement in the state of Georgia that is reshaping the economy, increasing innovation, and elevating the state’s globalization.

Georgia’s strategic location makes it an ideal spot for overseas companies’ investment. Atlanta is home to multiple headquarters of Fortune 500 companies, as well as the Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, one of the world’s busiest airports, providing easy access to almost 80% of America’s largest metro cities within a 2-hour flight. As a result, more than 70 countries have official consular and trade representatives in the state, who are responsible for representing their respective national interests to the entire Southeast. Additionally, Georgia’s coastal location is an attractive prospect for many European countries, as it houses two ports. The Port of Savannah is both the largest container terminal in America and the fastest-growing port in the country, functioning as a vital hub for international trade and logistics. The Port of Brunswick is the country’s number one port for new auto imports. European companies in key industries such as supply chain, logistics, and technology, including Vanderlande Industries, Stellantis/Groupe PSA and Hapag-Lloyd, have all chosen Georgia as their U.S. headquarters for these reasons.

Over the past few decades, these companies, particularly German ones, have significantly contributed to Georgia’s economy. Germany is Georgia’s top European trading partner, and has consistently been in the top five international trading partners of the state. For example, Porsche Cars North America (PCNA), a German car brand, established its U.S. headquarters in Atlanta in 1998. More recently, it opened its renowned Porsche Experience Center Atlanta in 2015, a facility that offers multiple drive, track, and simulator experiences. PCNA invested an initial $150 million and expanded their facilities in 2023, contributing an additional $50 million. In 2018, Mercedes-Benz USA, the North American subsidiary of German automotive company Mercedes-Benz, opened its corporate headquarters in Sandy Springs, a suburb a few miles out of Atlanta. The company invested upwards of $74 million and built a facility that could employ up to 1,000 people. Motor vehicles have consistently ranked in the top five traded products between Georgia and international partners, further facilitated by the Port of Brunswick. Other German companies, such as ThyssenKrupp and Siemens, have opened regional or North American headquarters in Georgia. 

To further strengthen these international partnerships with Germany and Poland, Georgia governor Brian Kemp announced an overseas economic development trip, which took place in January 2025. Governor Kemp and representatives from the Georgia Department of Economic Development met with German companies already operating in Georgia, as well as companies with expansion plans, in order to reinforce relationships while participating in diplomacy and partnerships. In Poland, Georgia officials met with Polish business leaders to explore opportunities in the defense industry. Coupled with the news that a Czech aerospace and defense company established North American headquarters in Roswell in February 2025, and Lockheed Martin’s Marietta site, this initiative reflects an effort to support the defense industry in the state. Strong economic relations with Europe aid job creation and stimulate the local economy, simultaneously allowing the state to attract more foreign companies looking to expand to the U.S. In addition, creating enduring relationships with eastern and central Europe allows Georgia access to new emerging markets and stay at the forefront of innovation in science, technology and defense.

The first months of 2025 have presented a number of particularly difficult challenges for the U.S.-E.U. partnership. Strengthening and reinforcing economic partnerships with foreign countries at the local level not only supports the country’s diplomatic ties, but acts as a stabilizing force for transatlantic relationships in an economically and politically uncertain time. While subnational economic relationships cannot replace formal diplomacy, they serve as an opportunity for states to expand their reach and forge cross-cultural partnerships. International investments, like the German and Polish examples discussed above, create thousands of jobs in Georgia each year and bring in millions of dollars in funding. This positions the state to leverage its strategic advantages in diplomacy, geography, and infrastructure, something that has become more important than ever in the modern global landscape.

On January 18^th, 2018, when Amazon, Inc. announced its list of 20 finalists for hosting the company’s second North American headquarters, business leaders and policymakers around the state cheered at the inclusion of Atlanta in an official Amazon press release. While the tech giant cites its own figures in evaluating the fiscal impact of the second headquarters, or HQ2, including “over $5 billion in construction” and “as many as 50,000 high-paying jobs,” the economic realities faced by whichever city wins Amazon’s glorified extortion exercises will be far different than those outlined in the company’s glossy press releases.

Because of the alleged benefits of hosting Amazon’s second headquarters, the competition among states for this privilege has been fierce. In Georgia, the interactive marketing campaign known as “Prime Up ATL” has emerged as a leading advocate for Amazon to choose Atlanta as its next headquarters, led by Alex Membrillo, the C.E.O. of a local digital marketing firm. “Amazon has helped us in our daily lives, and now it’s our turn to return the favor,” he argues on the organization’s website. They seek to dispel fears of rising rents and increased roadway congestion by claiming that the firm will “increase funding for our education system and potentially revamp MARTA.” Tellingly, these claims are not sourced to any actual proposals, from Amazon or any other third party.

Efforts to lure Amazon to Atlanta have even spread to college campuses around the state, with undergraduate students at Emory’s Goizueta School of Business launching the #WhyAtlanta campaign, which invited students to post a one- to two-minute video of themselves explaining why Atlanta is the right choice for Amazon’s HQ2. According to the group’s Facebook page, winners of the competition will have the opportunity to mingle with “high-level government and corporate officials” who are affiliated with the city’s bid for HQ2. The campaign was co-opted by our own Student Government Association via an ArchNews e-mail blast that was delivered to students on March 7^th.

Notably absent from these sales pitches is a sober and holistic evaluation of the real economic impact Amazon’s HQ2 would have on Atlanta’s current residents. For starters, the city is ill-equipped to provide housing for over 50,000 new residents. Efforts to accommodate these newcomers would be an insurmountable demand strain on a city that’s already seen its supply of low-income housing drop by 5 percent annually since 2012. Increased real estate development in neighborhoods such as Inman Park and Cabbagetown have done little to improve the economic circumstances of those who live there, instead driving many low-income renters into subsidized housing located elsewhere in the city while luxury apartments cater to new, high-income residents. Since 2010, the Atlanta Housing Authority has been providing public housing to over 50,000 residents through the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program in order to meet rising demand for low-income housing. In Old Fourth Ward alone, a neighborhood on the city’s east side home to Ponce City Market and other attractions, rents have risen 59 percent in the past decade alone.

Even if the arrival of Amazon somehow spurs enough real estate investment to meet the rapidly-growing demand for housing in Atlanta, a historic feat in and of itself, the public has no reason to believe that these new locations would accommodate anyone other than high-income renters, who already have a plethora of options in and around the city to choose from. It is the low-income renters of Atlanta who would be most affected by HQ2, a phenomena the city witnessed once already when the development and opening of Mercedes-Benz Stadium hollowed out the city’s Westside and Vine City neighborhoods by accepting millions in tax breaks and driving up rents more than 20 percent.

Aside from the negative economic repercussions of Amazon’s arrival, which go far beyond housing and into the realms of public education and social mobility in general, the business practices of the tech giant are morally repugnant. In a February 2018 article from the Atlantic, workers described the conditions inside a packaging facility in San Bernardino, California as being “like the Hunger Games.” Workers are often pitted against each other to meet unrealistic packaging goals while earning scant wages, and “Power Hours” are held where employees compete tirelessly against each other for prizes such as “a cookie or a gift card.” The employee, who spoke to the Atlantic under the condition of anonymity for fear of being fired, later told the reporter “I don’t want a cookie or a gift card. I’ll take it, but I’d rather a living wage.”

While the benefits of Amazon’s presence are decidedly fuzzy and difficult to allocate, the negative effects it would have on Atlanta’s low-income communities are crystal clear: rising rents, underfunded schools, continued under-investment in public infrastructure.

Even beyond the packaging warehouses that have sprouted up like weeds around the country, labor conditions in the company’s corporate offices are equally grueling. A 2015 article from the New York Times quoted a former employee whose most “enduring image was watching people weep in the office” due to the psychologically-traumatizing conditions set forth by Amazon’s corporate leadership. The same article also highlighted a warehouse in Pennsylvania where, rather than install air conditioning inside the newly-repurposed building, ambulances waited outside to transfer employees to the local hospital in case of heat exhaustion. Only after a local news report exposed this practice did Amazon make the necessary changes.

Still, a proposal for Amazon HQ2 has been delivered that former Mayor Kasim Reed called “the most aggressive economic attraction package that the state of Georgia has ever put forward.” While the details of the proposal have so far been hidden from the public, the taxpayer-funded incentives from the state have reportedly totaled over $1 billion.

What this ultimately means for the city of Atlanta, should Amazon choose it as the location for its second North American headquarters, is the hollowing out of the city’s urban core by an increasingly plutocratic state government. The millions of dollars forfeited in taxes would otherwise surely benefit Atlanta Public Schools, who last year faced a $12 million budget shortfall and were forced to add two additional furlough days, where teachers must come to work but receive no pay. Moreover, the city’s infrastructure faces a severe lack of funding as well. MARTA has been consistently underfunded since its inception in the 1960’s, and a bridge collapse last year on Interstate-85 highlighted the fragile nature of the city’s decades-old highway system. The culmination of these factors highlights the reality that putting an additional $1 billion revenue shortfall on the state’s books would only exacerbate existing fiscal issues faced by the state.

A thorough analysis of the economic impact of Amazon’s arrival in Atlanta exposes the real winners and losers of the race for HQ2. While the politicians and developers who support the movement will reap the benefits of Amazon’s entry into the Atlanta business scene, these gains will undoubtedly come at the expense of the city’s working- and lower-class, a group that’s already shouldered most of the burden as Georgia transitions into what Republican governor Nathan Deal calls “the No. 1 state in the nation in which to do business.”

On a Sunday afternoon, as the Braves play in Philadelphia, Atlanta’s Peoplestown neighborhood seems abandoned. The streets are quiet, and the cracked sidewalks are empty.  A quaint eatery with a sign reading “Stadium Grill” sits silent, its parking lot devoid of customers’ vehicles. A vacant Turner Field dominates the view to the north, its days numbered.

Soon, the Atlanta Braves will leave this neighborhood, along with the others the team has called home for 50 years. For the residents of these neighborhoods that will be left behind, the question is, “What next?”

The End of an Era

In November of 2013, the Braves announced they would be moving to the suburbs of Cobb County. Cementing plans to cease playing games at Turner Field, their home of 20 years, the Braves will be playing in a brand new stadium partially bankrolled by the Cobb local government. This announcement came on the heels of disagreements between the Major League Baseball organization and the City of Atlanta, which owns Turner Field, over the cost of renting the facility.

On the southern end of Atlanta, the reality facing local residents is a complicated one. The three communities that surround Turner Field – Summerhill, Mechanicsville, and Peoplestown – are at a crossroads in the wake of the Braves’ move. The stadium brought important income, but never really led to the explosive development once predicted. In spite of the short-run economic hit these communities will face when the Braves leave, the expansion of a local university to fill this space may provide the community an opportunity to become the lively hub it was never became as a backdrop to Turner Field.

To the east of Turner Field, the neighborhood of Summerhill is no more than a single square mile. Yet, this small community faces several toxic problems. City Data reports that crime rates are buoyed above the national average, while unemployment is nearly 13 percent, more than twice the national and state average of 5 percent. The median household income hovers just above $26,000, far short of the Census Bureau’s reported median income for Georgia of $49,300.

In Mechanicsville and Peoplestown, to the west and south of the stadium respectively, the situation is even more dire. Over a third of residents are reportedly unemployed, while the median income sags below $20,000 in Mechanicsville and $30,000 in Peoplestown. The neighborhoods display many of the classic plights of urban America, with little observable benefits of being next to the home of one of baseball’s most profitable franchises.

A closer look, however, reveals what the Braves and Turner Field offered these Atlanta districts and what will be lost come the end of the season. Incomes in the area have exploded since 2000, only three years after Turner Field opened, climbing by more than 30 percent in Summerhill and over 90 percent in Peoplestown and Mechanicsville. In comparison, the median household income in Georgia has only increased 18 percent in that same amount of time.

Although correlation does not amount to causation, to suggest the relative economic growth of the hamlets surrounding Turner Field can be attributed to the Braves is hardly a stretch. A 2013 study by Georgia State University determined the Braves provide a $100 million benefit to the Atlanta area between the taxes that go to local governments and fans’ dollars that go to local businesses.

While it is unknown exactly how much of that $100 million finds its way to Summerhill, Mechanicsville, or Peoplestown, the communities do see 8.25 percent of the annual parking revenue, a contingency of the original deal to construct what would become Turner Field. That small slice of revenue amounts to $8 million since 1997, a sum designated to the specific neighborhoods that play host to the ball club.

Along with this indirect revenue, jobs for local residents in the stadium itself are already disappearing. In November, the company that operates Turner Field’s concessions, Aramark, announced it was laying off more than 1,000 workers. The company also revealed its contract with the Braves, which stretched back to the 1960s, was over. When the Braves begin taking the field at SunTrust Park in 2017, a new company will oversee food services, and there are no guarantees current concession employees will retain their jobs. Even if they did, many current employees would likely be unable to find transportation to the new stadium.

As the Braves depart the heart of Atlanta, so depart the dollars that have been pumped into the surrounding neighborhoods for decades. Communities once offered a bright future in the mid-90s, when Atlanta was rapidly growing and playing host to the Olympic Games, are now seemingly left in the dust as money follows the team to the suburbs. It can be said that Turner Field represented the Atlanta of the 90s, an optimistic city on the rise. It can also be said that the decision to abandon the stadium and flee to the suburbs is a rejection of that vision and an indictment of the city’s current state.

A New Home

Instead, the team turns its attention to Cobb County, where few of the problems that persist downtown are relevant. In the Vinings area by the new stadium, home values are floating above $400,000 and median household income is an above-average $64,000. But, by most accounts, SunTrust Park will only make things better for the community.

The ballpark itself is projected to generate $6 million annually in local and state taxes, according to Atlanta real estate broker Cushman & Wakefield. Outside the stadium, fans will be able to explore a 2.4 million square foot complex known as Battery Atlanta, which will contain dining, shopping, an entertainment theatre, and an Omni Hotel. This massive commercial district is expected to create 5,200 new jobs for local residents and create untold revenue in the forms of sales tax. In addition, plans are in the works to create a bus system linking MARTA to the south and Kennesaw State University to the north, a possible solution to the parking and traffic issues that plagued Turner Field.

A decreased need for parking, coupled with the more developed infrastructure of Vinings compared to southern Atlanta, also makes the ambitious plans for Battery Atlanta feasible. For the residents of the communities that supported the franchise for decades, this could feel like a slap in a face. Summerhill, Mechanicsville, and Peoplestown will all be on the outside looking in as Cobb County and the Vinings area grow more prosperous from spending sparked by their former neighborhood team.

An Imperfect Relationship

In reality, however, the Braves’ absence will be less of an abandonment of central-southern Atlanta and more of an opportunity for the area to become the vibrant center that Midtown and Buckhead have been for years. As they stand, the neighborhoods surrounding Turner Field are devoid of significant development, serving primarily as the home of several apartment buildings and concrete lots. The restaurants and shops that were promised to flood the area upon the opening of Turner Field never materialized.

For example, a 1993 city development plan for Summerhill, proposed in light of Atlanta’s nomination as the host city for the 1996 Olympics and revisited in 2004, pictured multi-unit housing complexes with restaurants and stores on the ground level lining Georgia Avenue where it runs into Hank Aaron Blvd. Today, that space is occupied by an empty asphalt lot and a single abandoned home covered in graffiti.

Peoplestown and Mechanicsville were sold the same pitch when the then-new stadium was built in order to host the Olympics and supplant the old Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium, yet the development never came. Instead, fans drive in for the games and leave immediately afterward, finding no reason to stick around the stadium. A large portion of the $100 million Turner Field brings to the city ends up lining the pockets of the plentiful hotels and restaurants in Midtown and Buckhead.

Georgia State’s Move

While the Braves’ decision to move is an economic homerun for Cobb County, it may also serve as a new beginning for this section of Atlanta’s downtrodden neighborhoods. In August, Georgia State University (GSU) finalized a deal to purchase the stadium and the land surrounding it, some 60 acres in total, from the city for $30 million.

The rapidly expanding university, where enrollment has grown by more than 25 percent since 2000, intends to convert Turner Field into a football stadium for its relatively young program and build a baseball stadium next door on the former site of Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium. On surrounding parking lots, GSU plans to construct dorms, university facilities, and retail developments, making it a potentially rewarding deal for the residents of Summerhill, Mechanicsville, and Peoplestown. If GSU strikes this deal, jobs in the area will become abundant, and a wave of student residents will create a new market of customers. Housing and real estate values are expected to spike as businesses enter the community and as GSU looks to expand its holdings in the area.

At least one local resident sees this vision as a coming reality for the neighborhoods. Suzanne Mitchell, president of the Organized Neighbors of Summerhill, an association recognized by the City of Atlanta, believes the arrival of GSU will transform her community. “The development will come,” she said.

Preserving Communities

Her concern, the same concern of many living in the area, is not if development will come, but what will happen once it does. Summerhill is already experiencing the difficult process of opening up to a college atmosphere while maintaining its identity. At one area home, a GSU student is putting up Greek letters above the door, signifying a soon-to-arrive fraternity house.

In addition to possible alterations to the identities of these neighborhoods as residential areas, GSU’s presence in the three communities brings a greater threat: gentrification. As the university shakes up the whole area, home values will go up, but so will rents and the incentives for landlords to sell to developers. If growth is left unchecked, the residents of Summerhill, Peoplestown, and Mechanicsville may soon find themselves unable to afford to live in their own neighborhoods.

Local voices are already speaking out against such a scenario and looking to guarantee their homes are protected. On Sept. 7, members of the Turner Field Community Benefits Coalition, a group tasked with advocating for the interests of the Atlantans living in Turner Field’s shadow, gathered on Georgia State’s campus. Their mission: urge university president Mark Becker to sit down with the group and hear their concerns regarding displacement of current residents. Although Becker’s office has so far declined, saying such talks are too far removed from any real development, residents have made clear their expectation of inclusiveness in such discussions.

The GSU demonstration is likely only one battle in the war the Turner Field coalition is set to wage against gentrification. In February, the group added to its official platform a call for GSU to include a community benefits agreement as part of the expansion project. Included in the agreement is, among other things, a plan to “prevent community displacement.”

Though the fight against gentrification will go on as Georgia State moves into the area, many, including Mitchell, are confident their neighborhoods can modernize and develop without selling out its residents. To her, growth comes with a caveat.

“This is a community with families and seniors and kids,” she said. “We can add, but we’re not going to change.”

It is too early to say if Summerhill, along with Mechanicsville and Peoplestown, can achieve a balance of expansion while retaining their cultural identity. What is certain is that change, in some form or another, is coming. And one day, while the Braves are taking the field in suburbia, the neighborhoods the team once called home will no longer see the days of empty streets and quiet weekends but will be the robust, lively communities they have deserved to be for so long.

While walking to my first class this semester, I was approached by a promoter for the ride sharing service Lyft. He enthusiastically informed me that Lyft had finally brought their services to the city of Athens and then handed me a card containing a code for $50 of Lyft credit. Like so many other cities, Athens has become a destination for ride sharing companies such as Lyft to set up shop and shake up the existing taxi industry.

To many, this has been a welcome change; Lyft and Uber have proven through their successful platforms that they have much to contribute to transportation systems in cities around the world. However, these ride-sharing services are usually only practical for infrequent social trips and for the relatively wealthy who can afford to hail a ride. Therefore, the question remaining is whether these ride-sharing models have more to offer to members of every socioeconomic class. If ride-sharing models were expanded to the point that they could become affordable methods of day-to-day transportation, they could become a much-needed addition to metropolitan area public transit systems.

Ride-sharing companies, the most popular being Uber and Lyft, began as Silicon Valley start-ups that launched in San Francisco in 2010 and 2012, respectively. Since then, they have had remarkable success, with Uber spreading to 536 cities worldwide and Lyft spreading to around 300 cities. Their rapid geographical expansion is even more impressive considering the backlash they faced from the traditional taxicab industry.

While such ride sharing services have forged their way into people’s everyday lives in recent years, their revolutionary business and technological designs should not be taken for granted quite yet. These services are a component of a relatively new phenomenon called the shared economy. Alex Stephany, author of “The Business of Sharing”, defines it broadly as “the value in taking underutilized assets and making them accessible online to a community, leading to a reduced need for ownership of those assets”.

Essentially, these platforms gather a supply of goods and services from users wishing to utilize the idling capacity of their assets and provide an efficient way for consumers to access those assets. In the context of the ride sharing service, platforms such as Uber and Lyft utilize a driver’s time and vehicle in order to create a supply of taxi rides for consumers who desire a quick and affordable way to get around town.

The societal benefits of these platforms are apparent; they reduce the necessity of owning a car, create value from underutilized resources, and provide a flexible way for Uber and Lyft drivers to supplement their incomes. However, Uber and Lyft are not a reliable way to get around on a daily basis. Currently, the lowest-cost Uber in Atlanta costs $0.12 per minute and $0.75 per mile with a base fare of one dollar, which is too expensive for every day use. For example, if a person were to Uber 20 miles each work day for a total of 40 minutes, this would cost more than $5000 a year just to commute to and from work. Therefore, these ride sourcing services are usually used for social trips between 10pm and 4am, which are times in which traditional public transit runs infrequently or is unavailable.

There is evidence that Atlanta’s public transit networks need to be addressed so that it can become an economical and efficient transportation solution for its rapidly growing metropolitan area. For example, according to a 2012 Politifact article, Metro Atlanta drivers spend on average 260 hours per year commuting to and from work. By comparison, similar sized metropolitan areas Detroit and Phoenix spend on average 210 hours and 205 hours per year, respectively.

This commuter burden can be much worse for those in lower socioeconomic situations. A 2014 article in Politico Magazine titled “Sprawled Out in Atlanta” explains how demographical changes in Atlanta are making the need for effective public transit imperative. Between 2000 and 2011, there has been a 159 percent rise in poverty rates in Atlanta’s suburbs, which is evidence that the urban poor are moving from the city center to the suburbs. The suburban poor are often left deadlocked in their communities due to their lack of access to cars and the inadequacies of Atlanta’s public transit.

This is large problem for the suburban poor. Harvard University researchers have conducted studies demonstrating a strong inverse correlation between commuting time and the odds of escaping poverty, suggesting that Atlanta’s inadequate transit system is a deterrent on economic mobility of the metropolitan poor.

Could the Shared Economy’s ride sharing services offer a possible solution to these problems? Both Uber and Lyft have carpooling services that match riders with drivers going in the same direction. By utilizing the empty space of commuter’s cars, these platforms provide a way for drivers to make some additional money and for the rider to get a necessary service at an inexpensive cost. Perhaps if these services were expanded upon and funded privately or publicly, they could become an efficient way to connect urban and suburban individuals to other forms of public transit.

There are doubts concerning the feasibility of the wide-scale use of ride sharing platforms. Would it ever be possible for ride sharing fares to go down far enough for it to be affordable for those living in poverty? Would the scale of ride sharing platforms ever become large enough to serve as a reliable way to commute to work? Are the pre-existing public transit routes, such as metros, subways, and buses, a better alternative to ridesharing?

Currently, it is unrealistic to think that ride sharing can provide a solution to all of Atlanta’s problems concerning public transportation. However, the inherently flexible, large-scale, and cost efficient nature of online ride sharing platforms should make them attractive prospects to policy makers concerned with improving transportation systems in Atlanta and other metropolitan areas.  Only time will tell if governments and corporations will expand the benefit of ride sharing services to all of its metropolitan inhabitants. However, with information technology advancing at a breakneck speed, the wait will probably not be long.

This article originally appeared in the Spring 2016 edition of GPR Magazine.

Georgia voters have a chance to make an enormous impact when they vote in November 2016, and it has nothing to do with choosing our next president.

There is a state constitutional amendment, Ballot Amendment #2, up for ratification in November that could help protect victims of one of Georgia’s worst crimes – child sex trafficking. Called the Safe Harbor Fund amendment, it would establish a permanent fund to help children rescued from the sex trade to recover from the deep physical and psychological damage of forced prostitution. Currently, little to no public funding exists in Georgia to provide for this recovery.

Sex trafficking is arguably the worst, and most prominent, form of modern slavery. Traffickers lure individuals with low standards of living by promising a better life and working conditions. Extremely susceptible runaways are offered food and shelter by their exploiters, but no teenager is immune – teens with better living conditions are often tricked into a trafficker’s hands online. About half of all victims know the person who pushes them to prostitution.

The victims are disproportionately women and young girls: in Georgia, girls are forced into the industry at an average age of 13, but can be as young as 10. The girls are often physically abused by their traffickers or threatened against fleeing, but many have no sense of life outside the sex trade anyway. Some girls are raped thousands of times before they escape, if they escape at all.

As much as human and sex trafficking are global problems, this is also a local issue. Georgia, particularly Atlanta, is one of the biggest hubs for sex trafficking in the United States: every month in Georgia, nearly 7,200 men pay for sex with girls under the age of 18. That is a striking, but incomplete statistic. The number of underage girls sold for sex in Georgia each month is about 400 – an alarming indicator of how many of these girls are repeat victims. Additionally, only 10 percent of these men know they are purchasing sex with minors, which speaks to the lack of age transparency in the state’s prostitution industry.

Ten to fifteen years ago, awareness of this problem was scant. Efforts of Atlanta’s then-Mayor Shirley Franklin, non-profits, and lawmakers began to spread the word and push for reform. As a result, in 2011 Georgia lawmakers passed a bill that that elevated sex trafficking to a felony charge.

At that point, the biggest issue became the treatment of children exploited by sex traffickers; in court, they were viewed not as victims but as delinquents. Many girls were charged with prostitution or other crimes and sent to jail instead of receiving help. In Atlanta a pair of sisters arrested for prostitution, 10 and 11 years old at the time, were kept in jail by court officials because there was simply nowhere else safe for them to go. Upon release, the lack of care from both child services and their mother, a victim of severe drug addiction, found the girls back in traffickers’ hands.

A diverse group took up the challenge to change this: a number of non-profit organizations; GA Senator Renee Unterman and GA Representatives Chuck Efstration and Andy Welch; and the state Attorney General’s office. In the words of Heather Stockdale, executive director and cofounder of the non-profit Georgia Cares:

“It was quite a fight. While a lot had already been done to further the field, we were taking a hard line against the buyers and traffickers as offenders, while simultaneously addressing the victimization of these children…We were really re-establishing the state’s philosophy on the issue of child sex trafficking.”

A formidable task, but in 2015 their combined efforts succeeded in passing two bills through the state legislature. The first was Rachel’s Law, named for a brave survivor of sex trafficking who testified before Georgia lawmakers. Sponsored by Sen. Unterman, the bill prevents minors who are trafficked from being charged with sexual offenses (a notion known as “Safe Harbor”), increases penalties for sex traffickers, and requires that traffickers be listed on the state sex offender registry.

Victims of sex trafficking need more than safe harbor, though. They need care, and that requires money. That is the purpose of the current measure, Senate Resolution 7 (also sponsored by Sen. Unterman), a state constitutional amendment known as the Safe Harbor Fund. It establishes a permanent public fund that will go directly and solely to helping children rescued from sex trafficking by providing health services, safe housing, and psychological care. Without this help, rescued victims have little hope of long-lasting rehabilitation: in 2011, half of all girls rescued and placed in safe homes ran away, becoming easy targets for traffickers. And non-profit rescue homes only have so many beds.

The state legislature could have passed a simple spending measure to help rehabilitate victims of child sex trafficking, but this funding would expire each year and could be slashed in the future. As a result, lawmakers, led by Unterman, chose to pass the Safe Harbor Fund as a constitutional amendment. In this form, the money is untouchable except for its express purpose. Passing a constitutional amendment in Georgia requires a 2/3 majority in the legislature – Safe Harbor passed the Senate by an overwhelming 46-3 margin.

Ms. Stockdale explains just how monumental last year’s joint passage of Rachel’s Law and the Safe Harbor Fund was:

“The state took a stand to say that it believes that children who are victims of sex trafficking are victims, not criminals. [And the amendment] ensures in perpetuity that there are funds to support these victims and that money each and every year will go towards this purpose…For us at Georgia Cares, the overwhelming support from our legislative branch…gave us incredible hope that one day, we might eradicate this crime in Georgia.”

Lawmakers have acted, but now the fate of Safe Harbor rests in the hands of Georgia voters.

Any state constitutional amendment must be ratified by the people. Safe Harbor will appear on the ballot in November as Ballot Amendment #2. If it is ratified by 51 percent of Georgia voters, the fund will have permanent status, and the government will neither be able to deplete the fund nor use it for other purposes.

At face value, passage seems like an easy task. Even the most fiscally conservative voter would have a hard time deeming this money as unnecessary, and the amendment requires no new spending by the state. The Safe Harbor Fund will be fed by two sources: assets seized from caught perpetrators of sex trafficking, and a one percent assessment on the revenue of Georgia’s adult entertainment industry.

It is with that last aspect where the potential controversy arises. The links between the adult entertainment industry – mainly strip clubs, brothels, and pornography – and sex trafficking are well documented. If the owner of an adult entertainment business knowingly employs victims of human trafficking, this penalty is the minimum they deserve; if an owner does so unawares, the one percent assessment is a reasonable way to help ameliorate the damage done.

Regardless, Ms. Stockdale recounts that the assessment complicated passage of the amendment in the legislature: “Many legislators struggled with the additional fines and assessments on adult entertainment, but in the end, [they] saw enough of a connection with these businesses and [sex trafficking] to move it forward.” The concern now is that the adult entertainment industry will launch an advertising campaign against ratification, and the industry has deep pockets.

But hopes are high. A simple majority of Georgia voters is needed to ratify the amendment, an attainable goal. And university-age voters have an important role to play. Senator Renee Unterman, the amendment’s sponsor and a champion of the anti-sex-trafficking movement, called out to young voters in a statement to GPR:

“College students and Millennials have shown a high propensity to get involved in the fight against minor sex trafficking. The challenge to these young people is to translate that passion into voting “Yes” on the Safe Harbor Amendment in November.”

If you vote this November, keep Amendment #2 in mind. For the many students voting in their first presidential election, voting day will be exciting enough. But it is rare that voters, especially students, will have a chance to make such an impact with their vote at the state level. Should the Safe Harbor amendment pass, it would be a huge step forward in Georgia’s battle against child sex trafficking, and a testament to the army of supporters who battle this terrible crime every day.

On Monday night, I had the pleasure of seeing Bernie Sanders speak in Atlanta at a full-capacity Fox Theatre. Well, not just Bernie Sanders. Killer Mike of the rap group Run the Jewels spoke on behalf of the city as he introduced Bernie to the stage.  And he provided quite the introduction:

It was certainly a hard act to follow. Unfortunately, Killer Mike has not (yet) declared his candidacy for President, but he has officially endorsed Bernie, becoming another member of the so-called political revolution. While Bernie’s “older Jewish uncle from New England” speaking style marked a stark contrast from Mike’s introduction, he delivered a powerful speech that left no one in the audience unsatisfied.

At least that was my assumption. If you left that speech wanting more then you have quite the attention span because Bernie waxed for at least an hour. I watched hundreds of supporters (mostly white males with a variety of unkempt hairstyles) stand at least every 5 minutes, cheering for economic populism and fighting valiantly against discrimination. Bernie touched on just about every major national political issue – wealth inequality, Wall Street, health care, incarceration, campaign finance, institutional racism, climate change, education, minimum wage, abortion, gay marriage, and more. It felt as though nothing could stop him, not even a supporter fainting right behind him who only returned to consciousness after a medic administered CPR (the Sanders campaign came prepared). “I didn’t know my oratory was so powerful,” Bernie joked after the man was helped off stage.

First let me make a couple things clear. I go to all sorts of political events – I am truly fascinated by campaign politics. I saw Jeb Bush speak in Athens at a “tailgate” at Herty Field (quotation marks because no food or drink was provided) before the South Carolina game and even coerced him into taking a selfie with me and my friends. That being said, I definitely lean to the left, and although I am really intrigued by Rand Paul and John Kasich, I will almost certainly be voting for a Democratic candidate for President in 2016.

Although I love Bernie, I am not a Berniebro (please read that article, you will find it funny unless you are, in fact, a Berniebro). Actually, Bernie supporters often irritate me with their intelligent elitism – i.e. the notion that everything Bernie does is necessarily altruistic while everything Hillary does is calculative and political. Or even worse, the idea that dissenters, especially those within the Democratic Party that, dare I say it, support Hillary, simply “don’t get” how Hillary has been “corrupted” by campaign finances. However, I would never refuse to listen to Kanye West just because his fans think he is the second coming – annoying supporters are not a sufficient reason to reject Bernie who seems genuinely well-intentioned.

Like most Bernie supporters, I agree with just about everything he says. Wealth inequality is out of control, campaign finance needs to be reformed and Citizens United should be repealed, climate change is the greatest threat to global security, black lives matter (and this should be explicitly stated without dodging the question), health care should continue to be expanded, etc. I could go on for a while. Even in certain places where I disagree with him like the minimum wage – it makes no sense to me why rural Georgia should have the same $15 minimum as New York City – he clearly is the candidate most in line with my broader political views, which is something I have in common with many younger liberals, especially college students.

But here is where I differ. How are any of these ideas feasible? In other words, if elected, Bernie Sanders can give as many awesome speeches as he wants, but how will he accomplish his objectives? All of his policy initiatives simply mirror legislation that he has introduced and supported as a Senator, and there is no clear vision for how any of his initiatives will be accomplished without the support of Congress. His banking plan, the “Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act,” exemplifies many of my criticisms – it resembles Carly Fiorina’s tax code in that it is only four pages long and “doesn’t actually have a plan.” Similarly, he stated at the Atlanta event that he would not support a Supreme Court nominee unless they are “loud and clear” about their opposition to Citizens United, entirely neglecting that such a clear denunciation would mean he or she would never get approved by the Senate. These are ideas that many can get behind, but do they have any real efficacy?

Perhaps the most pressing issue that both Democratic candidates need to address – and yes, I am purposefully excluding Martin O’Malley – is how they will deal with a divided government. Whether you ask Larry Sabato or Charlie Cook (Nate Silver has not released Congressional predictions yet), we will most likely be facing a GOP-controlled House of Representatives after the next election while the Senate is still up for grabs. This will severely hamstring Hillary, who the GOP absolutely loathes, but in my opinion will be even more limiting to Bernie Sanders’ agenda that leaves no room for compromise with conservatives.

2016 House Election Predictions by Lary Sabato’s Crystal Ball (218 Needed for Control)

But aren’t I forgetting about the coming “political revolution?” Honestly, I am not holding my breath. Even though Bernie is certainly galvanizing support among the liberal base, this is not the majority of the electorate. Presidents win elections with diverse coalitions of different groups and interests, and it is naïve to think that winning a single election will fundamentally change political polarization and usher in a utopian democratic socialist society where obstructionism is no longer relevant.

Jamelle Bouie at Slate encapsulates my worst fears about a Sanders presidency far better than I could:

What happens to a Sanders agenda if he doesn’t have a Democratic Congress? What happens if he has one but has to compromise to the bone to win? What happens if it fails?

Sanders is a remarkable candidate who has inspired a lot of people to get involved and change the country. He’s the first socialist to gain traction in national politics since the first half of the 20th century, and he disrupts the narrow scope for ideological debate in the United States. But he’s also a politician, subject to the same forces as his peers, and neither he nor his allies can ignore the structural realities of American politics. If Sanders wants to be president, he needs a serious theory of change. Otherwise he’ll flail—and he’ll fail—and his supporters will wonder what happened.

President Obama also campaigned as the more liberal alternative to Hillary Clinton – he criticized her Wall Street connections as well as her vote in favor of the invasion of Iraq. But even after a massive voter turnout in the 2008 election (that I honestly believe was and will be stronger than Bernie’s political revolution), Obama was forced to cope with political realities and had an incredibly frustrating time advancing his ideals even under a unified Democratic government. One of my main criticisms of the Obama administration is that I do not think he was a great politician – rather than have meaningful and consistent dialogue with his opposition (his relationship with John Boehner was unusually terrible, they went almost two years without meeting face-to-face), he attempted to use the bully pulpit to shame Republicans for their inaction. Rather than inspire a revolutionary progressive movement, this drove a bigger wedge between the two parties and made passing any substantive legislation over the past couple years impossible.

Bernie will face an even tougher task – he is far more liberal than Obama (as evidenced by his socialist moniker) and will likely have to deal with a divided government. His ideas seem far too bold to be accomplished through executive action, and Hillary’s more incremental reforms and knowledge of bureaucratic infighting might actually allow her to accomplish more, even if her ideas are far less radical.

None of this is to suggest Hillary is the better candidate, just that she might be better positioned to accomplish her goals. Hillary is certainly imperfect – she’s a hawk (honestly my biggest criticism), she’s heavily influenced by Wall Street, and it is tough to gage what she actually stands for and believes (if anything). It also amazes me how I have yet to talk to a single person that is truly excited about Hillary – she supposedly has one of the largest primary voting blocs in history, but where are her advocates outside of actual Democratic politicians? However, the fact that she has a Super PAC does not make her “evil” or “corrupt” in my book, it just means she is a realistic politician who wants to win the election.

Ultimately, both candidates need to develop a theory of change, specifically discussing how they will accomplish their objectives in the midst of partisan gridlock. Bernie can rant on every major national issue, but his Atlanta speech and campaign writ large are still missing concrete proposals on how to accomplish his lofty goals. This Democratic primary is forcing me to choose between my youthful college optimism and what I have learned about the importance of the broader political process in my political science major. I am hoping a middle ground will emerge between Hillary’s pragmatism and Bernie’s idealism, but as it stands neither candidate has won me over. Progress is all about making steps in the right direction, and I plan on choosing the candidate that can accomplish the most good, not just the one with the best-sounding ideas.

Photo Credit: Atlanta Journal Constitution

To describe Migos’ rise to hip-hop glory as meteoric would not only be an understatement but a cliché way to start an article about Migos. It’s just a mandatory detail in any analysis of the rap trio that has been described as the Saviors of Hip-Hop. Also necessary is some degree of praise:

No one has ridden Atlanta’s post-Gucci Mane trap explosion with as much creativity and energy as Quavo, Offset, and Takeoff. Their lyrics have the speed and precision of a machine gun with a duct taped scope. Their timing and ad libs suggest a brilliant, shared brain. If such a thing is possible, the Migos have it. They consider each other brothers (though Quavo is Takeoff’s uncle and Offset is Quavo’s cousin.) All three grew up under one roof in Gwinnett County, all calling the same woman Mama.

Their shared coming-of-age experiences snappin’ and trappin’ enrich the tales they spin. While each Migo has a distinct voice and style, at their peaks they blend together in a melody that can result in a contact high. You can smell the dope cooking.

They can be entertaining:

The way she shake that ass she make me wanna make a million babies

They’re absurd:

I got a bag on my back like I’m Santa Clause / Finesse a nigga, Papa John’s up in Panama

And poignant every once in a while:

Grandma’ told me and Quavo to be patient / Grandma was a cancer patient / Before she died, she sat us down, said stay together and we’re gonna make it.

Of the many titles given to the Lawrenceville trio, “Written About” is probably the most objectively true. Quavo, Offset, and Takeoff’s journey from Mama’s house to three sold-out nights in Paris has been meticulously chronicled. As a musical act of the 21st century, media coverage is inevitable. But in Migos’ case specifically, it’s resulted in a lot of ascriptions. They’re better than The Beatles. Quavo is the most influential rapper of 2014. They’re the first important group of the 21st century.^[1]

Though there’s some higher truth in these hyperboles, they’re largely perpetuated by an appropriative, ironic white Twitter audience. It would be irresponsible and incorrect to trace this audience’s birth directly back to Noisey. Consider it more of a prime case study than an origin.

In early 2015, Vice News’s musical talon reached into the bachelors’ Lawrenceville pad in episode two of their Noisey special on the Atlanta trap scene. For ten pretty entertaining minutes, Thomas Morton (picture the face of an appropriative, ironic audience^[2]), parades around the Atlanta nightclub scene with the Bachelors. He ogles at the AR-15’s slung across their chests and the bulky bag of weed on a marble kitchen counter.

The scene is bizarre, authentic, and intoxicating. In one scene, an overdub of Morton’s nasally voice remarks that Migos’ influence has “reached the whitest corners of mainstream music.” That’s where they are now, but it hasn’t always been that way.

In the early years, Migos would hit three or four clubs a night, buying the DJ a drink, and requesting one of their own songs. Their first hit “Bando” was a regional success that started getting radio time after becoming an Atlanta strip club staple. At one point, Migos’ original fan base was black clubgoers. At another point in between those nights at Mansion Elon and today, the internet got a hold of them.^[3] With the internet came Lyor Cohen.

Migos’ Youtube views and Twitter chatter attracted the attention of 300 Entertainment. Despite two mixtapes entitled No Label (I and II) Migos signed to the Warner Bros. affiliated label, run by “culture vulture” Lyor Cohen. In the historical narrative of “White Record Label Owner Meets Promising Young Black Artist” this would be the point where the talent is exploited. Yet, there’s no evidence of that in the Migos’ instance (besides a mediocre major label debut.)

We don’t know much about what happened under the tutelage of Cohen. From a few public statements the relationship seemed to be largely positive. “He’s a mentor,” Quavo told Rolling Stone. “He’s the plug. He might call me and cuss at me; I might call him and cuss at him. That’s a good-ass relationship.” That quote was from June of this year.

On September 17th, Migos simultaneously announced their new mixtape “Back to the Bando” and a break from 300 Entertainment.^[4] Their motivations for doing so are unclear. We can only speculate on why the break occurred.

Traditional Migo Motivation Theory would suggest that the break was profit motivated. The squad’s priorities have been clear from the first words of the first track of their first mixtape: “Rich then famous / Rich then famous / Nigga I’d rather be rich then famous.” Migos never intended on shying from fame all together (they did pick “then” instead of “than.”) The decision to link up with Cohen was surely profit motivated. Signing with 300 made them millionares.

Perhaps they were displeased with the poor sales of Young Rich Nation (their first and possibly only release under 300.) Despite debuting at #3 on the charts, it only sold 15,000 copies in the first week. But that doesn’t warrant a complete break from a label, particularly on a major label debut.

Recent events in the Migo Universe suggest the split as an act of self preservation. One move in a highly calculated series of actions^[5] taken to distance themselves from the white establishment media following the arrest and imprisonment of Offset. Following a concert at Georgia Southern and a “potent” kush smell coming from the tour bus, all three Migos were arrested. Quavo and Takeoff were let out on bail but Offset, with a previous felony on his record, is still locked up in a Statesboro prison. Migos’ have maintained that the arrest was racially motivated.

The Migos’ public defensive started on ESPN’s Highly Debatable^[6], when Quavo and Takeoff announced that the now infamous Noisey special was “a movie.” With mischievous grins and giggles they claimed that it was all scripted and “acted out.” The incredulous reactions of the hosts were less believable than the Noisey episode. In a few rare instances of comment section clarity, other viewers confirmed the obvious. According to TheBlackSheep19, “[This] show always try to get ppl caught up, cops cant get [them] so they try getting [them] to snitch on theirselves #ESPNBeUndercovers.”

Step two is Back to the Bando. The only thing less subtle than the motifs of the latest mixtape is its title. It simultaneously represents a return to their roots:

Back to the bando we go / Back to the basics, they lovin’ the flow

 And a condemnation of their new enemies within the media:

Fuck the mansion we gone back to the bando / We don’t want no company nigga / No more interviews, no more discussions / We closin’ the door on these niggas

The mixtape is full of allusions to the group’s insecurity. It’s no coincidence that the same tweet announcing the mixtape also announced their break from 300 Entertainment.

In the spirit of hyper-analysis, this break could be considered a quiet, positive footnote in a musical decade defined by institutional racism’s infiltration of rap music. Tiresome Twitter conflicts between Nicki Minaj, Taylor Swift and whoever else always seem to end in the defeat of the black artist despite the liberal internet’s reaction (think Bernie Sanders winning the first Democratic debate.) It’s the story of a group defying the norms and the story laid out for them.

It’s also important that these actions aren’t considered an attack on the white media: they’re defensive moves aimed at marginally improving their image in an attempt to “Free my nigga Offset, ASAP, so a young nigga can get back to the money.” The relationship between 300 and Migos was a conscious coupling followed by an unconscious uncoupling – a profit motivated experiment cut short by factors outside of Migos’ control. Back to the Bando is an acknowledgement and rejection of their (in the words of a friend) “pinheaded, iconoclastic” white Twitter audience. It’s a strategic, unorthodox move wrapped in the textbook triple time snare beats and cinematic string samples that put trap on the map.

They’ve taken control of their fate and their riches. Though Migos may face challenges on ESPN, in Statesboro, and in the New York penthouse office of Lyor Cohen, they “ain’t never gonna have trap problems.”

Many thanks to Andrew Judd (the quoted friend) for his conversation and blog. Check it out.

^[1] Any reference to these claims from Migos themselves comes with a “sure alright.” A largely indifferent acknowledgement occasionally tinged with pride. In keeping with their atypical persona and style, Migos don’t have the Kanye-hubris we’ve come to associate with hip-hop. They call attention to their clothes, the quality of their dope, their Lambos, and hoes, but never the flow.

^[2] It all honesty, he’s pretty hilarious.

^[3] According to writer, Drew Millard, the joke probably originated from Quavo’s verse in Hannah Montana: “I’m in London with the plug, gettin’ the same car as The Beatles.” That mixtape was released on June 13, 2013. On June 22, @Pipe_Tyson tweeted, “Migos best music group since the Beatles.”

^[4] Lyor Cohen has publicly stated that this break is unofficial. But we’ll see.

^[5] Actions most likely proposed and implemented by Coach K.: Migos’ mentor, producer, and manager. Migos’ chuckled-at Lawrenceville McMansion was K.’s idea. His job description tends to extend beyond production and into babysitting.

^[6] In the words of a friend that gave me a lot of advice on this piece: “…what’s more interesting is the Bomani Jones fans who don’t give a shit about hip-hop who are completely baffled as to why Migos was on the program in the first place.”

Photo: ImmersiveAtlanta

If someone over the summer predicted the Atlanta Hawks would be a legitimate contender for the NBA title in 2015, most Atlanta fans probably wouldn’t have gotten their hopes up for fear of disappointment. But after watching the Hawks outclass many of the NBA’s top teams over the past two months, it is getting increasingly difficult to deny the Hawks’ chances at winning it all.

As of today, the Hawks have defeated most of the best teams in the league, sweeping games against the Eastern Conference with wins over the Toronto Raptors, Chicago Bulls, and Detroit Pistons over MLK weekend. The Hawks never trailed against the Chicago Bulls (many analysts’ pick to win the East) and maintained a double-digit lead for most of the game, suppressing a late fourth-quarter surge by Derrick Rose. The Hawks managed to dismantle all three teams directly behind them in the Eastern Conference standings, starting with a huge win over division rival Washington Wizards by 31 (in what Kyle Korver called the team’s best game of the year) followed by the team’s first win this season over the Toronto Raptors, beating them by a handy 21 points.

Atlanta’s win streak is now at a league-leading 13 games, coming one short of the longest streak in franchise history. While the Hawks’ overall record is still second in the NBA to the Golden State Warriors, Atlanta currently has the most wins in the league (34, five more than any team in their conference) and has won 27 of their last 29 games. Against opponents with winning records, the Hawks are even more impressive, holding a league-best 18-3 record, with an impressive 10-2 record against the seemingly superior Western Conference. Many NBA analysts put together weekly “power rankings” evaluating the strength of every team in the NBA. This week, the Atlanta Hawks were ranked as the top team in basketball by ESPN, NBA.com, CBS Sports, Yahoo Sports, ProBasketballTalk.com, and SB Nation.

In today’s player-dominant NBA, where superstar alliances and free agent trades can drastically alter a team’s playoff chances within the course of a season, Atlanta’s success with a team devoid of superstars seems especially surprising. In fact, this notion has led some to draw comparisons between this year’s Hawks and last year’s champions, the San Antonio Spurs, as many commentators have playfully referred to Atlanta as the “Spurs of the East.” The parallels are easy to draw, as both teams emphasize team-play and generate most of their points from assists. These similarities might have a rather obvious explanation: Hawks head coach Mike Budenholzer was an assistant coach under Gregg Popovich’s Spurs from 1996 – 2013, and general manager Danny Ferry is a former vice president of basketball operations for the Spurs.

Atlanta has defied this player-focused environment by distributing its scoring and minutes evenly across its entire rotation. In fact, the Hawks don’t have a single player ranking in the top 30 in scoring or minutes per game. Budenholzer appears to be taking a page out of Popovich’s playbook that helped win the Spurs the 2014 NBA championship – preserving starters in the regular season to make a deep run in the playoffs.

Although the Hawks do not have a superstar, the team is loaded with individual talent. Al Horford recently won Eastern Conference player of the week, gaining the accolade for the second time this season. Jeff Teague has also won the award, and Paul Millsap is currently poised to make the All-Star team for the second straight year. Kyle Korver leads the league in three-point shooting by a resounding margin, and could become the first player in NBA history to shoot 50 percent from the field and beyond the arch and 90 percent from the free throw line.

But perhaps the most significant key to the Hawks’ success is their ability to play truly unselfish, team basketball on both ends of the floor. The Hawks are second in the league in assists per game, and an incredible 74.4 percent of their starting lineup’s field goals are assisted. During their 5-0 run this past week, the Hawks topped 30 assists four times. Per game, Atlanta is first in the league in points allowed (96.3), second in assists (26), and seventh in points scored (103.1).

This defensive-minded ideology is central to Budenholzer’s coaching philosophy and something that was missing last year. The coaching staff does a terrific job putting together team-specific defensive game plans that stymie opponents’ major sources of offense. Coach Bud is expected to coach the Eastern Conference at the All-Star game, and is well-poised to win Coach of the Year if Atlanta continues its performance. After leading his team to a 14-2 record in December, being named the December Eastern Conference Coach of the Month, and maintaining an undefeated record in January, Atlanta players and fans are ecstatic to have found such a great talent.

Perhaps what is most impressive is that Budenholzer has managed to create a NBA power-house already four wins away from last year’s season total while having to deal with extreme controversy and distraction within the organization. The Atlanta Hawks three-part ownership has constantly vied for influence over the team’s decisions, creating a variety of problems (and even lawsuits) between one another for rejecting trades.

To add to this continuous state of flux, two major controversies occurred this past summer when Atlanta was attempting to chase free agents. The tumultuous summer began when an audio recording captured Hawks General Manager Danny Ferry describing free agent Luol Deng as having “a little African in him.” Ferry has since been indefinitely suspended. A subsequent investigation led to Bruce Levenson, majority-owner of the Atlanta Hawks, reporting his own email to the NBA in July that contained “inappropriate and racist remarks” about Atlanta’s fan base.

Shortly after the email went public, Levenson announced he would sell his portion of the team. Four months later, the AJC reported that all three ownership groups would sell their shares, putting 100 percent of the Atlanta Hawks organization up for sale. Although it is still difficult to see a silver lining in this state of affairs, a cohesive new group of owners will at least improve their existing situation. The fact that the coaching staff and the team have drastically improved and maintained a consistent goal of winning a championship in the midst of this media storm makes the Hawks season all the more impressive.

For the most part, denizens of Atlanta have become acclimated to relatively lackluster performances when it comes to professional sports. Atlanta fans are not only accustomed to disappointment, they are used to sufficient regular season success to set expectations that have never been fulfilled. Across the city’s three (and once four) professional sports teams, Atlanta has only won one championship with the Atlanta Braves in 1995. The Atlanta Falcons, with one unsuccessful Super Bowl appearance in 1999, developed consistency with consecutive winning seasons for the first time in franchise history from 2008 to 2012 but were unable to secure another Super Bowl appearance. The former Atlanta Thrashers are hardly worth mentioning, only qualifying once for the Stanley Cup playoffs but swept in the first round and later relocated to Winnipeg, Canada.

The Hawks have not had much historical success either, as even the famous team Hawks team featuring Domonique Wilkins, Doc Rivers, and Spud Webb never made it to the Eastern Conference Finals. Although the Hawks have made the playoffs for the past seven seasons, they have struggled to make it past the second round. It is still too early to make any assumptions about the remainder of the Hawks’ season and their title chances, but results thus far look very promising and give Atlanta sports fans something to be excited about. The Hawks have thrilled many with their superb play so far, but there is no doubt that they would surprise countless more sports fans from Atlanta and others across the world by bringing home Atlanta’s first NBA title. While the Braves and Falcons are investing big money in new stadiums and appear to be far from accomplishing the feat of a national championship, Atlanta fans can focus all of their cathartic energy on the Hawks.

The Atlanta Braves shocked their native city last week when the team announced their intentions to leave Turner Field, their downtown home since 1997. When their 20-year lease expires after the 2016 season, they intend to move into a new stadium in the northern suburb of Cobb County, which team President John Schuerholz claims will be “the most magnificent in all of baseball.” Despite the excitement from the team and their fans on the north side of Atlanta, the announcement was met with much criticism over a number of issues. However, anyone who looks at the bigger picture can see that the move will positively impact both the team and their loyal fans.

The primary concern of many groups has been over the funding of the $672 million stadium when Cobb County already faces a $60 million deficit in their education budget. Several groups have spoken out over the ability, and the necessity, of the county to provide public funding for such a venue when Turner Field is not even 20 years old. For the sake of comparison, the Braves’ former home, Atlanta Fulton County Stadium, remained in use for over 30 years.

On the day of the announcement, it was reported that Cobb County had agreed to contribute $450 million towards the stadium, a whopping 67 percent of the total cost. The team has disputed that figure from the beginning, though; it is now known that the figure agreed upon for the county’s contribution is $300 million, a much less daunting yet still significant 45 percent of the total cost. However, this taxpayer contribution should not be viewed as an expenditure but rather as an investment. The area stands to eventually profit from the roughly 50,000 fans who will venture into the shops, hotels, and restaurants surrounding the stadium a minimum of 82 times every year. Furthermore, the team recently announced plans to provide a $400-million entertainment district, consisting of “a street lined with retail, restaurants, and bars leading up to the stadium” that will be constructed alongside the new stadium, all of which will be completely funded by the Braves themselves. When taking the profits from these new developments into consideration, $300 million seems like a bargain.

As for the necessity of the new stadium, both the team and independent analysts agree that the time was now to make a change. The stadium has “insurmountable transit and development issues,” including a lack of consistent mass transportation (the closest Marta station is roughly a mile away), insufficient parking, and inadequate access to interstates. There is no question that all of these factors negatively affect fan attendance.

In addition, an “estimated $150 million in infrastructure repairs would be needed to improve the facilities.” Not included in that lofty figure are additional parking needs or the construction of mixed-use development surrounding the stadium, both of which the team is unable to do because it does not own the land. If the team had chosen the renovation route, there is no guarantee that this would have been the last time the stadium would have needed repairs. This would have added future costs on top of the original $150 million. Money was going to be spent regardless, and with the team’s lease on Turner field expiring anyway, the decision to leave and therefore the necessity of the new stadium are no-brainers. The team made this point in a statement, noting “Our new location will give us the opportunity to develop the surrounding area of the new ballpark, transforming it into a mixed use, 365-day destination and creating an enhanced atmosphere for our fans during Braves games.”

Naturally, people are hesitant to change. For this reason, many have spoken out against the Braves leaving downtown Atlanta, which has been their home since the team moved to Georgia from Milwaukee in 1966. With the Thrashers recently leaving the city for Winnipeg, Canada, many native Atlantans are outraged that the city itself would be down to only the Hawks and Falcons, who themselves are also in the process of constructing their own new stadium, albeit within the city limits.

It is because of the new Falcons stadium, however that Atlanta found itself unable to match Cobb County’s funding proposal. The city had already pledged $200 million toward a new $1.2 billion stadium for the Falcons, and with a $900 million backlog in infrastructure projects, there simply was not enough money to go around. The deal with the Falcons also included the use of the “hotel/motel tax for improvements to state-owned property,” but this mechanism was unavailable in any potential Braves deal, so any contributions from the city would have meant taking on considerable debt. As mayor Kasim Reed said, “The bottom line is that the city was presented with a choice, and that choice was encumbering between $150 million to $250 million in debt and not having money to do anything else.”

Unlike the Falcons, however, whose plans for their new venue were highly publicized from the beginning, the Braves have encountered much backlash for seemingly keeping their intentions to move a secret. However, the Braves have been quite open with their dissatisfaction with Turner Field, publicly stating as much as recently as last year. In fact, last November, Executive Vice President of Business Operations Mike Plant had this to say about the team’s current location: “As we sit here in 2012, this isn’t where we would have this stadium today. I’m not saying it’s a bad place, but it doesn’t match up with where the majority of our fans come from.”

Plant’s words echo what is arguably the biggest reason for the move: to bring the team closer to its true fan base, as the map to the right clearly demonstrates. It is a little-known secret that the vast majority of Braves fans do not reside in the city, but in its northern suburbs. Those same fans are forced to savagely battle infamous Atlanta traffic to get to Turner Field, located on the southern border of the city, by the typical 7:05 p.m. first pitch. Then, because of the infrastructure problems surrounding the stadium as discussed above, those fans must also navigate their way through traffic when the game ends, typically around 10 p.m. Ask any Braves fan from northern metropolitan Atlanta, and they will attest to what a nightmare getting to and from a Braves game really is.  The stadium’s new location, at the intersection of interstates I-285 and I-75, puts the team much closer to the geographical center of its fan base while also allowing for much easier access.

The Braves’ decision to move from their current home might have come as a shock, but as you can see, it makes sense from all angles. It makes sense for Atlanta. It makes sense for Cobb County. It makes sense for the Braves. Most importantly, though, it makes sense for the loyal fans, and at the end of the day, is that not what matters most?

By: Nick Eberhart

We all know the statistics about obesity: One-third of American adults are obese and medical costs for obese patients hover around $190 billion annually. Awareness of obesity has increased in recent years but it remains a persistent problem, with some experts estimating obesity rates as high as 60% in some states in 2040. With such diverse sources as evening news reports, Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move campaign, and the Biggest Loser constantly exposing the American public, we may be becoming desensitized to the obesity epidemic. The implication of this disconnect for policymakers is that policy must be designed to continue public awareness while understanding that awareness alone will not reduce obesity.

Economic analysis of the obesity epidemic suggests that to change behavior we need to change the costs and benefits of lifestyle choices. Incentivizing healthy choices by reducing costs of fresh vegetables or building new public transportation could potentially change the behavior of individuals without requiring obesity education. One such structural change being pursued by several cities, Atlanta included, is the expansion of bicycle commuting.

Obesity rates in Georgia increased from 27.7 percent in 2009 to 30.4 percent in 2010 and Georgia has one of the fastest growing childhood obesity rates in the country. One number that has far outstripped obesity growth rate in Georgia, however, has been the increase in bicycle commuters in Atlanta. As a city known for urban sprawl and inefficient public transportation, Atlanta is also the city with the highest growth in bicycle commuting in the nation from 2001 to 2009. A 2011 survey conducted by the Atlantic found that the percentage of workers who commuted by bicycle had increased 266% during the eight-year period. The Southeast was the region with the least bicycle commuting but Atlanta was a strong regional outlier. With recent Atlanta City Council approval of $2.5 million for cycling infrastructure construction in 2013, Atlanta is poised to continue increasing the role of cycling in urban design and public health.

Bicycle commuting is more environmentally sustainable, cost-effective, and healthier than automobile commuting. During the first year of bicycle commuting, the average commuter will lose 13 pounds without making any other lifestyle changes. In another longitudinal study, women who biked 30 minutes a day gained 3.5 pounds less over a 16-year period than those who did not. Due to the health benefits of bike commuting, one Danish study found that 6 miles traveled on a bike instead of a car reduced healthcare costs by 9 cents. Atlanta, a city with infamous traffic congestion, an overweight population, and relatively undeveloped public transit could benefit from incentivizing bike commuting.

Although alternative means of commuting allow normally sedentary individuals to exercise and entail a host of other benefits, cycling to work remains a rare phenomenon. Even in Portland, Oregon, the city with the highest rate of commuting by bike, only 6% of commutes are made on bikes. In Atlanta that number is 2.5% and currently only around 30 miles of bike paths exist in the city. Recent fatal accidents involving cyclists in Atlanta, such as a March 2013 hit and run crash, cast doubts about the safety and benefits of cycling in the city. Despite these dangers and the scarcity of bike paths in Atlanta, the city’s residents

have demonstrated a huge growth in enthusiasm for cycling and the city is beginning to respond to this enthusiasm. In a state with abnormally high obesity rates, biking to work could become an important component of building a healthier city and state.