There might be fewer yards signs and commercials for a technical-sounding constitutional amendment than for the campaigns of Barack Obama, John McCain and congressional candidates, but its impact could still be significant on the state.

Both those for and against Amendment 3 agree that the ballot measure could have a broad effect on the future of Georgia, either by sparking development in forgotten corners of the state or by giving developers unprecedented power to build no-risk subdivisions and retirement communities.

Of the three proposed statewide amendments going to voters this November -- the others deal with forestland preservation and special tax districts often used for urban revitalization -- the last one is perhaps the most controversial.

For proponents, all three measures work together, giving rural and urban areas a way to draw increased business activities while still making sure the state has natural beauty in reserve.

"Voters will have a unique opportunity this November to help jump-start our economy while protecting our environment," said George Israel, president and CEO of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, which is coordinating joint efforts on the three measures. "The combination of these three ballot initiatives means thousands of new jobs and billions of dollars in investment across our state."

Environmentalists, though, are hoping to break the coalition when it comes to Amendment 3 dealing with "infrastructure development districts," which critics call "private cities."

"Except for the people that stand to benefit from it, nobody really wants it," said Neill Herring, a lobbyist for the Sierra Club.

The question might be whether anyone is paying attention.

Private cities?

Supporters say infrastructure development districts, or IDDs, are little more than a new way of financing the installation of water and sewer systems, roads and other amenities.

One of the main selling points: The measure would help lure developers to more remote areas of the state by making sure the projects can be supported without further burdening taxpayers.

Essentially, a developer could use fees charged to homeowners to finance infrastructure bonds, saving cities and counties the cost of piping water to a development or paving roads.

"Instead of the existing taxpayers in the community having to come up with the ability to pay for that new infrastructure or for the improved infrastructure, it basically allows for that debt to be paid off by all the new users of that infrastructure," said Heath Garrett, strategist for the pro-amendment Georgians for Quality Economic Development.

Garrett said the districts, each of which would require local government approval, would allow for careful planning and guarantee environmental safeguards. The measure, and supporting legislation also approved by the General Assembly, requires 20 percent of any development to be green space and bars septic tanks.

"Growth and economic development under infrastructure development districts are going to be much more environmentally friendly," Garrett said.

Nonetheless, environmental groups have lined up against the measure, saying it doesn't require any proof that the new districts will be environmentally friendly and gives developers the right to charge fees with the same effect as taxes, a power opponents say should be reserved for governments.

"The developer gets the power of government to protect him from any risk from these projects," Herring said.

He and other critics have taken to calling the districts "private cities" to highlight those powers.

Garrett rejects that description of the IDDs.

"They're neither private nor are they cities," he said.

Each district must be governed by a board subject to open-records and open-meetings laws. And while landowners get to appoint all but one of the original board members -- the other member is named by the local government -- all the members have to be elected by those moving into the district within six years or by the time 75 percent of the property has been sold.

Herring counters that, by then, bond agreements and other contracts will largely tie the hands of future boards.

Educating voters

Critics view the complicated nature of the ballot measure as helping them defeat Amendment 3.

"I think the tendency is to vote against something you don't understand," Herring said.

But he added that his group and others are still trying to coordinate a campaign, including editorial pieces for newspapers by legislators who fought the proposal in the General Assembly.

"I think if people find out what it is, they're going to vote against it," he said.

Garrett said his side is also trying to get out the word. He believes, for example, that conservation-minded voters might come around to supporting the measure once they find out about the environmental safeguards.

His campaign will include grassroots organizing, direct-mail pieces and possibly radio or television ads. Georgia hasn't seen many comparable efforts in recent years, Garrett said, because most of the high-profile amendment fights have been over hot-button issues like same-sex marriage that won attention on their own.

"Our opposition, really," Garrett said, "is lack of education."