Consolidation v Deconsolidation

[cline]

Moving on, the red herring here is considering either zoning or consolidation as the sole reason for our current problems. Zoning played a role, but that role would have been largely minimized were it not for consolidation effectively removing the ability of each independent area to compete for itself in a rational market.

While I feel both of you are making very good points, I just want to add that we could throw in another sprawl inducer that has contributed to our current problems and that would be the introduction of concurrancy as part of Florida's Growth Management Act of 1985.  While it was originally intended to have help curb sprawl, it instead had the opposite effect.  We are seeing the fruit of concurrancy in NW St. Johns County, for example.  Concurrancy made it far too expensive for developers to redevelp within within areas that close to the core that are ripe for redevelopment.  Instead it made it more cost effective to develop greenfields very far away from the core where concurrency's requirements weren't such a cost burden.  I feel that most of the most recent sprawl can be attributed to this (past 25 years or so).  Obviously this was not the cause of the original sprawling neighborhoods.  

[ChriswUfGator]

Moving on, the red herring here is considering either zoning or consolidation as the sole reason for our current problems. Zoning played a role, but that role would have been largely minimized were it not for consolidation effectively removing the ability of each independent area to compete for itself in a rational market.

While I feel both of you are making very good points, I just want to add that we could throw in another sprawl inducer that has contributed to our current problems and that would be the introduction of concurrancy as part of Florida's Growth Management Act of 1985.  While it was originally intended to have help curb sprawl, it instead had the opposite effect.  We are seeing the fruit of concurrancy in NW St. Johns County, for example.  Concurrancy made it far too expensive for developers to redevelp within within areas that close to the core that are ripe for redevelopment.  Instead it made it more cost effective to develop greenfields very far away from the core where concurrency's requirements weren't such a cost burden.  I feel that most of the most recent sprawl can be attributed to this (past 25 years or so).  Obviously this was not the cause of the original sprawling neighborhoods.  

The real problem with the present concurrency setup (although Rick Scott certainly "fixed" this problem in the same way killing a baby fixes the crying problem) is that you have historically had a pack of foxes guarding the henhouse. It was flawed from the outset, as developer input and participation was accepted in drafting the concurrency guidelines. That said, it was better than nothing, and thanks to Rick Scott we will shortly have nothing.

[ChriswUfGator]

Chris, I have read the materials.  For many years.
I didnt have to google them after a hasty search term scan.

Perhaps you could summarize the reports you cited?

There are only a handful of consolidated cities in the US, so your belief that there is any significant body of work about the effects of consolidation is pretty interesting.

Much less these 'solomonic bargains'.

In the context of our discussion, these solomonic bargains you keep describing would have been made before the warring factions even had the possibility of existing, as the decisions which led to a weak downtown and continuing sprawl had already been made before Consolidation.

As I have repeatedly said, the causes for the present unsustainable situation are many, but Consolidation as a structural issue is not among them.

The city has lacked informed leadership and simply got started later in the process of its own decisions than most of the other cities.

Now if you would like to switch to some other, more proveable point, then by all means.

You are free to do so with my congratulations.

I can just as easily claim you're unfamiliar with what you're discussing, regardless of whether that is true, that hardly makes it fact. And I didn't think this was grade school, or that I am subject to "pop quizzes." Until then, I'd have to point out that this is merely an argument tactic designed to dodge the opposing viewpoint without actually responding to it. Which of course, you're certainly free to do, I just wouldn't operate under the misconception that anyone is going to find it dispositive.

As far as proving my point, I obviously feel I have done so, especially where the data I linked would appear to agree with me. You're certainly free to disagree, obviously. And I won't even pop-quiz you on it.

[cline]

Moving on, the red herring here is considering either zoning or consolidation as the sole reason for our current problems. Zoning played a role, but that role would have been largely minimized were it not for consolidation effectively removing the ability of each independent area to compete for itself in a rational market.

While I feel both of you are making very good points, I just want to add that we could throw in another sprawl inducer that has contributed to our current problems and that would be the introduction of concurrancy as part of Florida's Growth Management Act of 1985.  While it was originally intended to have help curb sprawl, it instead had the opposite effect.  We are seeing the fruit of concurrancy in NW St. Johns County, for example.  Concurrancy made it far too expensive for developers to redevelp within within areas that close to the core that are ripe for redevelopment.  Instead it made it more cost effective to develop greenfields very far away from the core where concurrency's requirements weren't such a cost burden.  I feel that most of the most recent sprawl can be attributed to this (past 25 years or so).  Obviously this was not the cause of the original sprawling neighborhoods.  

The real problem with the present concurrency setup (although Rick Scott certainly "fixed" this problem in the same way killing a baby fixes the crying problem) is that you have historically had a pack of foxes guarding the henhouse. It was flawed from the outset, as developer input and participation was accepted in drafting the concurrency guidelines. That said, it was better than nothing, and thanks to Rick Scott we will shortly have nothing.

This is true.  Hopefully converting over to a mobility fee process can help to control the issue of developers being "too" involoved as well as eliminate some of the inuntended consequences of concurrency.  I have my doubts though.  While I am very happy with the new Jax Mobility Plan, I feel that the builder's interests had it watered down from what it could have been.

[ChriswUfGator]

And of course, professor Stephen, since you didn't actually respond to my point, much less any of the linked material, aside from dodging it with straw men and demanding pop-quizzes;



perhaps I should quote it for you again?

Hearst would have been proud Stephen, what an excellent collection of shocking photographs, I must admit they tug at my heartstrings, notwithstanding their having nothing whatsoever to do with our current debate over city-county consolidation in another state in another region 140 years later.

Perhaps I can petition for the release of the bin Laden autopsy photos and post them in this thread to gain similar shock-value for my argument? After all, I did hear Abbottabad may have been a consolidated government!

Moving on, the red herring here is considering either zoning or consolidation as the sole reason for our current problems. Zoning played a role, but that role would have been largely minimized were it not for consolidation effectively removing the ability of each independent area to compete for itself in a rational market.

I understand your views are what they are, however there is a significant body of work pointing out that consolidation rarely delivers the promised benefits, and often leads to buerocratic nightmares and the solomonic compromises that have effectively shattered the sustainability of our local economy in Jacksonville. And while I understand you may have been banging the consolidation drum for 25 years, the body of actual outcome-based research showing consolidation often results in negative outcomes has only really come into existence in the past several years. So I would humbly suggest it may be time to take another look at your position;

http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/bish.pdf

http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/1998/september/section_01.html

http://www.mtas.utk.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/a50db8b131a4d94e85256e46000d6fce/7095fcf640f20f2185256fe0005c3547/$FILE/Consolidation of City and County Governments.pdf

http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/pdf/materials/401.pdf

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031012/EDITORIALS/110120005/-1/editorials11

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031012/EDITORIALS/110120002/-1/editorials11

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050814/NEWS01/508140416/1006/NEWS01

I understand our consolidated city government has been sacrosanct and above criticism for decades, however I think most would probably admit many of the promised benefits have not materialized, and I would argue the consolidated government structure has removed the natural ability of each individual piece to vie for its own interests in a rational market, which is key to the fiscal success and long-term sustainability of any urban area.

The fact is that the original areas of Jacksonville which have avoided the decline that befell the remainder of the pre-consolidated city have thrived because community organizations (e.g., RAP) took up where their post-consolidation governmental representation left off. This is also why an organization like SPAR has such power. Consolidation creates micro power-vacuums, where the districts are simply too large to account for the varying needs of the constituent communities, and no clear process exists for handling situations where the interests of one constituent community conflict with one or more others. Or, where the interests of the CBD conflict with the interests of the outlying areas, but both areas are entitled to equal representation.

That can only lead to solomonic compromises which cause more problems than they solve. I think a reasonable person would be hard-pressed to deny that has indeed happened in Jacksonville, though I must compliment you, as you certainly seem to be doing your best.

[ChriswUfGator]

you didnt make a point, yet, nor have you responded to anyone else's, so there isnt any need to respond to your links.

If you can provide a summation of the points that you think those links provides, then by all means do.

But you have failed to make any substantive case that structurally, the consolidated government of Jacksonville caused the sprawl development of the county or the destruction of the downtown.

That is what you were asserting originally.

If you would like to bait and switch your point, you are free to do so, but that doesnt mean that anyone else has to play along.

Well, then I woud suggest you re-read my posts again.

I have stated my point clearly, and your saying I didn't hardly changes that fact.

You seemed to have no trouble disagreeing with my point, at least until I substantiated it. Then your response, as is clearly visible above, was getting your ruler and nun outfit on and trying to spank me with a pop-quiz, while dodging my point.

For posterity, I'll quote myself another time;

Consolidation is most certainly at least partly to blame for the sprawl problems and the dying condition of Jacksonville's urban core today. The whole point of having smaller governments is to allow each area to compete and develop on its own merits without being saddled with every surrounding community's competing interests. Consolidation dismantled that natural advantage, with predictable results.

Well, heavens to mergatroid, that was my point, wasn't it? How did that get there?

[ChriswUfGator]

Chris, I have read the materials.  For many years.
I didnt have to google them after a hasty search term scan.

Perhaps you could summarize the reports you cited?

There are only a handful of consolidated cities in the US, so your belief that there is any significant body of work about the effects of consolidation is pretty interesting.

Much less these 'solomonic bargains'.

In the context of our discussion, these solomonic bargains you keep describing would have been made before the warring factions even had the possibility of existing, as the decisions which led to a weak downtown and continuing sprawl had already been made before Consolidation.

As I have repeatedly said, the causes for the present unsustainable situation are many, but Consolidation as a structural issue is not among them.

The city has lacked informed leadership and simply got started later in the process of its own decisions than most of the other cities.

Now if you would like to switch to some other, more proveable point, then by all means.

You are free to do so with my congratulations.

I can just as easily claim you're unfamiliar with what you're discussing, regardless of whether that is true, or whether I even know it is true. That hardly makes it fact. I would suggest laying down the fallacious argument tactics, as I think you're able to predict I'll simply keep pointing each one out ad nauseum, at which stage each attempt will generally have the opposite effect to that which you intended. Of course, the choice is yours.

Secondly, this isn't grade school. You aren't my teacher or disciplinarian. If you want to give pop-quizzes to whomever disagrees with your view, then by all means I'd suggest your going back to college, and then graduate school to get your teaching degree, and then applying for a position which would afford you the opportunity to behave in this manner without looking ridiculous.

Until then, I'd have to point out that this is merely one more fallacious argument tactic designed to dodge the opposing viewpoint without actually responding to it. Which of course, you're certainly free to do, I just wouldn't operate under the misconception that anyone is going to find it dispositive as to the debate, especially where I'll continue drawing attention to it whenever it happens.

As far as proving my point, I obviously feel I have done so, especially where several independent studies I linked would appear to agree with me. You're certainly free to disagree, obviously. And I won't even pop-quiz you on it.

to your point, chris.

Resorting to an insulting or demeaning tone, with the 'professor dare' or accusing someone else of attempting to be your 'schoolmaster' or some other such nonsense doesnt advance your point, it just demonstrates that you are relying on debate tactics rather than empirical data to prove your point, while simultaneously attempting to foreclose on someone else's ability to prove the point empirically.

Perhaps you find this debate tactic useful in person, but it doesnt work out as well in an actual debate based on facts.

Tongue-in-cheekedly pointing out your over-use of the very tactic about which you ironically now complain, is hardly the same thing as using it myself, wouldn't you agree? What should I call someone who responds in a demeaning tone and demands that anyone who disagrees be given a "pop quiz" on their own viewpoints? Most people would probably feel the word "professor" is putting things nicely.

[ChriswUfGator]

Im sure that you mean well by reasserting my summation of your point.  It sounds here as though you are trying to say that I misunderstood you.  Obviously I did not.

I never thought you misunderstood me. We simply disagree on the issue.

Since we agree that this is your point, you have failed miserably to prove it.  

The examples and studies I've linked, but which you've failed to respond to aside from straw men, point-dodging, and fallacious argument tactics, would certainly appear to indicate otherwise.

Along the way you have hypothesized on 'Solomonic Bargains'

I can't abrogate a gentlemens' promise, and accordingly I am forced to once again point out, and ask that you cease, these fallacious argument tactics. By declaring someone else's point a "hypothesis" while ignoring the supporting documentation, you are leading your reader to pre-judge and de-validate the opposing view, to which in reality you haven't actually responded.

Which has been fun, Im sure.

See above.

It just hasnt proven your point.

Once again you are of course free to make whatever kind of absolute statements without factual basis that you want, but that hardly makes it so. People will read what's written and draw the obvious conclusion.

For example.  Which opposing faction of the hypothetical court of solomon built Regency Mall?

Ah, finally, after two pages of faux hurt feelings and senseless cross-accusations, we're onto the point.

Regency Square, and the whole Beach & Atlantic corridors, are not what I consider unsustainable sprawl. Geographically, their locations aren't far enough removed to truly cause problems, and these areas would have developed anyway, simply based on the level of traffic, river access, and their strategic location along the travel corridors between Jacksonville and the beaches. Indeed, Fort Caroline and the surrounding areas, as you know from your very well-done research, were actually developed before the city itself. Accordingly, ongoing development in this area would not, by anybody's reasonable definition, constitute problematic sprawl.

Which one of Solomon's contentious subjects booby trapped the 2 billion dollar investment into renewing the downtown?

Well, first off;

Solomon's contentious subjects booby trapped

Now, I do recall just having just received a ruler-slapping lecture for this, don't I?

Resorting to an insulting or demeaning tone...doesnt advance your point, it just demonstrates that you are relying on debate tactics rather than empirical data to prove your point, while simultaneously attempting to foreclose on someone else's ability to prove the point empirically.

So I must ask, then, what is the MetroJacksonville rule on this? That these tactics are only appropriate when you use them? Or perhaps you hold the patent on it, should I be worried about an infringement suit?

But by way of answer, the $2bn "investment" (if we can call it that) downtown was basically stolen by private interests seeking to settle scores and feather their own nests. For a detailed description, I'd point you back towards your own comments in the convention center debate thread, and the thread regarding COJ's having killed all retail downtown with a series of unnecessary street projects. You explained my point quite well for me both times. Sadly, this process looks set to repeat itself once again, with the new proposed DDA and convention center.

Why didnt the suburban solomonic hordes simple stop all downtown development efforts period for the past 30 years?

Well, once again,

Resorting to an insulting or demeaning tone...doesnt advance your point, it just demonstrates that you are relying on debate tactics rather than empirical data to prove your point, while simultaneously attempting to foreclose on someone else's ability to prove the point empirically.

But by way of answer, interestingly enough, they're doing exactly that. Or haven't you seen that Mike Hogan commercial?

For everyone who hasn't seen it yet;

http://youtu.be/PkfluJDVThk

Where was Solomon and his baby dividing sword when the Better Jacksonville Plan was passed?

Well, once again,

Resorting to an insulting or demeaning tone...doesnt advance your point, it just demonstrates that you are relying on debate tactics rather than empirical data to prove your point, while simultaneously attempting to foreclose on someone else's ability to prove the point empirically.

But by way of answer, the BJP is the direct result of one of these Solomonic compromises, raising taxes on existing areas to spend an enormous amount of money on road improvements, many of which serve spraw-prone areas like the Southside and JTB. The portions of it directed to downtown, e.g. the new main library and the new courthouse, turned into another money-grab benefitting the same interests behind the hare-brained disasters that originally resulted in the wholesale destruction of the core in the first place. Even then, and especially with the courthouse proposal, a suburban mindset in no small part contributed the sprawling disaster it has become.

Your point, which you have dug a couple of ill advised heels into, just doesnt pass muster, my friend.

Funny, I was thinking the same, but time will be the judge I suppose.

[BridgeTroll]

Quite a list of mayoral accomplishments...

reduced government spending every year in office, cut the city's bureaucracy, held the line on taxes, eliminated counterproductive regulations, and identified more than $250 million in savings for his city. Mayor Goldsmith has reinvested the savings by putting more police officers on the street, and implementing a $700 million infrastructure improvement program called “Building Better Neighbourhoods.”

[ChriswUfGator]

Incidentally, on your 'significant body of work' list.

Two links---the ones to the goldwater institute and the ones from mtas---do not link to anything, so whatever points you thought they might illustrate are lost.

Two others, the two opinion page editorials from the Gainesville Sun discussed their own local move to Consolidate.  Neither of them mentioned a single point that you yourself have discussed on this thread.

Its interesting that you also listed an interview with *Stephen Goldsmith, one of Indianapolis' most effective mayors.  Ive spoken with him on this subject a couple of times over the years, along with his director of downtown redevelopment on the issue of cheap parking in the downtown core during their redevelopment efforts.  In this article, as in real life, he shares none of your opinions.

Im not sure where you were going with this 'significant body'.  So perhaps you can summarize what points you thought each of the links might have been making, since I clearly could not find them.

I did give you the same courtesy, incidentally, of pointing out which part of my link I was talking about rather than expecting you to read the entire thing, put whatever you read into your pipe and expecting you to smoke it.

*Stephen Goldsmith graduated in Law from the University of Michigan with honours in 1971. Elected mayor of Indianapolis in November 1991, he has earned a reputation as one of the United States' most innovative mayors. As a mayor of America's twelfth largest city, he has reduced government spending every year in office, cut the city's bureaucracy, held the line on taxes, eliminated counterproductive regulations, and identified more than $250 million in savings for his city. Mayor Goldsmith has reinvested the savings by putting more police officers on the street, and implementing a $700 million infrastructure improvement program called “Building Better Neighbourhoods.” In addition, Indianapolis has enjoyed four consecutive years of record-breaking job creation and set a record pace for new construction. Stephen Goldsmith has just finished writing a new book called The Twenty-first Century City: Resurrecting Urban America.

Well, thank you for acknowledging that you hadn't actually read any of the links I posted before you responded earlier. Now that this is out of the way, my apologies for the nonfunctional links, looking back it appears I somehow deleted several and that some of the ones I posted do not work, or direct to the wrong pages of the publication. Accordingly, I am re-posting each link I originally intended to post below;

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2004/0118metropolitanpolicy_katz.aspx

http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume15/Vol15no8.pdf

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/publications/pprs/95.pdf

http://www.mrsc.org/publications/mrnews/Jun03.pdf

Of course, my apologies if you don't find the Brookings Institution, the University of Georgia, or any of the other sources credible, perhaps there is some mechanism by which Brookings et. al. can gain the Stephen Dare Stamp of Approval in the future?

If there is any other link that doesn't work or that I forgot, please alert me and I'll be happy to fix it.

[ChriswUfGator]

No hurt feelings here, Chris, despite the clear intent to demean and make it somewhat personal.

Your entire hypothesis rests on your claim that Solomonic compromises, driven entirely from the structural imperatives of our Consolidation created the sprawl conditions and the processes that destroyed downtown.

I have asked you to name or identify these hypothesized hell spawns of Solomon's court of compromise.  This would certainly go a long way to proving your point.

Instead, you seem to be pretending that asking the question---no matter how lightly asked---is demeaning to you personally.

Please, let us dispense with the meta conversation.  If you can provide some empirical examples which demonstrate your point, then do so.  Something that happened after Consolidation, but before today, if you don't mind.

If one looks to the first post that took this debate personal, they'd probably notice this one;

you didnt make a point, yet, nor have you responded to anyone else's, so there isnt any need to respond to your links.

If you can provide a summation of the points that you think those links provides, then by all means do.

But you have failed to make any substantive case that structurally, the consolidated government of Jacksonville caused the sprawl development of the county or the destruction of the downtown.

That is what you were asserting originally.

If you would like to bait and switch your point, you are free to do so, but that doesnt mean that anyone else has to play along.

and this one;

Chris, I have read the materials.  For many years.
I didnt have to google them after a hasty search term scan.

Perhaps you could summarize the reports you cited?

There are only a handful of consolidated cities in the US, so your belief that there is any significant body of work about the effects of consolidation is pretty interesting.

Much less these 'solomonic bargains'.

In the context of our discussion, these solomonic bargains you keep describing would have been made before the warring factions even had the possibility of existing, as the decisions which led to a weak downtown and continuing sprawl had already been made before Consolidation.

As I have repeatedly said, the causes for the present unsustainable situation are many, but Consolidation as a structural issue is not among them.

The city has lacked informed leadership and simply got started later in the process of its own decisions than most of the other cities.

Now if you would like to switch to some other, more proveable point, then by all means.

You are free to do so with my congratulations.

Wherein, of course, you are doing the very thing you now complain of. Which is the basis of my objection.

And FWIW, it's still not personal, I certainly wasn't out to offend you. My only gripe in all this is that, if we're going to have any kind of meaningful debate, then we both need to play by the same rules. I asked two pages ago if we could stop the fallacy arguments and just focus on the issues, and that didn't happen. So I was left with little choice but to point out my displeasure with it. I'm not sure that's a personal attack.

[ChriswUfGator]

Actually I had already read them, you clearly hadnt.

Well, then riddle me this...

How could you not know that the links didn't work until after posting two pages worth of what you claimed were responses to the material contained in the links? I mean, I suppose it's mildly possible that you enjoy memorizing the dozens of digits and characters that comprise every single hyperlink on the internet, so that you are able to determine just from sight exactly which article or content any given web address links to, before you actually click it. I suppose that is mildly possible, and so I apologize for not giving you the benefit of the doubt. 

I did want to point out your own statement on the single example of legislation which you believe to have been a solomonic compromise:

But by way of answer, the BJP is the direct result of one of these Solomonic compromises, raising taxes on existing areas to spend an enormous amount of money on road improvements, many of which serve spraw-prone areas like the Southside and JTB. The portions of it directed to downtown, e.g. the new main library and the new courthouse, turned into another money-grab benefitting the same interests behind the hare-brained disasters that originally resulted in the wholesale destruction of the core in the first place. Even then, and especially with the courthouse proposal, a suburban mindset in no small part contributed the sprawling disaster it has become.

Clearly, then, you agree that the real problem has been one of leadership in the downtown area.  Not an after effect of structural consolidation.

As someone who was actively engaged in the Better Jacksonville Plan:

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/062600/met_3397530.html

Delaney wants a half-cent sales tax increase to help fund his Better Jacksonville Plan, which would pay for road improvements, construction of a new courthouse, downtown library, arena, baseball park, branch libraries, environmental cleanup and some economic development programs.

Voters will decide whether to approve the tax increase, which would cost consumers $55 million a year, this fall.

One of the few light moments in the three-hour debate Thursday was offered by a citizen supporter of Delaney's plan. Before making his statement, downtown loft owner Stephen Dare said it had been "a pleasure" to watch Delaney aide Sam Mousa "keep it together" while he was pelted with questions from council members the past few hours.

"I think someone should buy him a drink after this," Dare said, prompting laughs from Mousa, the council and the audience.

I can tell you that there was no 'compromise', solomonic or otherwise, that included the road repairs or building.  Those had been on the books for years, and were merely included in one big funding mechanism.  

Well, I don't think anyone in their right mind would deny for a second, including me (even though the right mind thing is probably arguable in my case), that leadership has been a serious problem in Jacksonville, and that this played a role in the never-ending series of disasters to which we are frustratingly forced to bear witness as residents of this city. I certainly wouldn't deny that for a minute.

My point is simply that I would prefer a government structure that doesn't appear to guarantee a dearth of effective leadership. Part of downtown's problem, to me, appears to be that nobody is watching the henhouse, and hasn't for ages. The two councilmembers whose district includes downtown have enormous districts where the vast majority of their constituents have nothing to do with downtown. The mayor for the past 8 years had serious conflicts of interest, related to downtown remaining a CBD. Even the development agencies and business groups supposedly representing downtown are stacked with members of sprawl-dependent industries, and also appear to have serious conflicts.

I really question how, under this setup, downtown is ever going to have any effective leadership? This isn't a question of a few bad apples, Stephen, the whole system appears designed to ensure downtown will never have effective leadership, so long as its only representatives have their bread buttered elsewhere. I think we can both agree this was not the case before consolidation, and accordingly, I (logically) tend to chalk this up as a shortcoming of our consolidated government. I feel the consolidated areas are too disparate and too opposed to each others' interests to be governable as a whole, without important pieces suffering. That appears to me to be a systemic problem.

[ChriswUfGator]

I was being polite by giving you the chance to discover the problem for yourself, if you must know, Chris.  I thought that if you checked back to summarize them that you would realize the basic mistake.  You didnt however, and then repeatedly demanded that I address your links.

I did.

Oh really? Well, like I said before;

Well, then riddle me this...

How could you not know that the links didn't work until after posting two pages worth of what you claimed were responses to the material contained in the links? I mean, I suppose it's mildly possible that you enjoy memorizing the dozens of digits and characters that comprise every single hyperlink on the internet, so that you are able to determine just from sight exactly which article or content any given web address links to, before you actually click it. I suppose that is mildly possible, and so I apologize for not giving you the benefit of the doubt.  

I must admit I am seriously impressed by your claim that, just by looking at some nondescript letters and numbers in a non-functional hyperlink that lacks any title or other identifying information, that you were immediately able to tell what content it linked to without clicking on it. That is quite a talent indeed, Stephen.

I mean, I for one, would never guess that, for example, "lexi.net/publications/forum/1998/september/section_01.html" contains a Stephen Goldsmith article on the ills of larger municipal governments. Or that "goldwaterinstitute.org/pdf/materials/401.pdf" links to a Harvard/Chris Pineda article on how consolidated city/governments create diseconomies of scale.

After posting two pages worth of what you claimed were your responses to the material in the links, you then had to come back and post that the links didn't work and asked me to fix them for you. Now, a reasonable person would conclude that you hadn't actually read it. After all, how could you? The links didn't work.

However, I suppose it is mildly possible that you have memorized the long strings of numbers and characters comprising every single hyperlink on the internet, and are thus able to tell just from sight, and before you ever click it, exactly what material any given web address links to. Since this is, after all, mildly possible, I must again apologize for not giving you the benefit of the doubt on your claims that you had already read and responded to material that, as it turned out, hadn't been identified or given to you yet. Again, quite a talent.  

No hurt feelings here, Chris, despite the clear intent to demean and make it somewhat personal.

Your entire hypothesis rests on your claim that Solomonic compromises, driven entirely from the structural imperatives of our Consolidation created the sprawl conditions and the processes that destroyed downtown.

I have asked you to name or identify these hypothesized hell spawns of Solomon's court of compromise.  This would certainly go a long way to proving your point.

Instead, you seem to be pretending that asking the question---no matter how lightly asked---is demeaning to you personally.

Please, let us dispense with the meta conversation.  If you can provide some empirical examples which demonstrate your point, then do so.  Something that happened after Consolidation, but before today, if you don't mind.

If one looks to the first post that took this debate personal, they'd probably notice this one;

Chris, I have read the materials.  For many years.
I didnt have to google them after a hasty search term scan.

Perhaps you could summarize the reports you cited?

There are only a handful of consolidated cities in the US, so your belief that there is any significant body of work about the effects of consolidation is pretty interesting.

Much less these 'solomonic bargains'.

In the context of our discussion, these solomonic bargains you keep describing would have been made before the warring factions even had the possibility of existing, as the decisions which led to a weak downtown and continuing sprawl had already been made before Consolidation.

As I have repeatedly said, the causes for the present unsustainable situation are many, but Consolidation as a structural issue is not among them.

The city has lacked informed leadership and simply got started later in the process of its own decisions than most of the other cities.

Now if you would like to switch to some other, more proveable point, then by all means.

You are free to do so with my congratulations.

And FWIW, it's still not personal, I certainly wasn't out to offend you. My only gripe in all this is that, if we're going to have any kind of meaningful debate, then we both need to play by the same rules. I asked two pages ago if we could stop the fallacy arguments and just focus on the issues, and that didn't happen. So I was left with little choice but to responded in kind and point out my displeasure with it. I'm not sure that's a personal attack.

havent you already admitted that you didnt check the effectiveness of your own links?  Im sorry, my friend, but this is after all a debate on a clearcut point, which you have already pointed out.  Most of your links did not work, and the ones that did certainly did not illustrate your arguments.

I think its a little insulting to simply google a search term, post links to the top five returns and then demand that your debate partner read them without you having the courtesy of having done the same.

It implies that you think the other person is just as uninformed as would be implied by debating through google roulette.

Well, as is usual (and I'm not being sarcastic) you are far more eloquent, so I'll let your words speak as a response to this post;

Resorting to an insulting or demeaning tone...doesnt advance your point, it just demonstrates that you are relying on debate tactics rather than empirical data to prove your point, while simultaneously attempting to foreclose on someone else's ability to prove the point empirically.

Once again, I mean no offense, you know I'm quite fond of you, I just dislike dual sets of rules in debates.

[ChriswUfGator]

I was being polite by giving you the chance to discover the problem for yourself, if you must know, Chris.  I thought that if you checked back to summarize them that you would realize the basic mistake.  You didnt however, and then repeatedly demanded that I address your links.

I did.

Well you certainly addressed my links insofar as pointing out that several didn't work, but that hardly addresses the actual content contained therein. Which, as people are certainly free to read for themselves, tends to argue that consolidation creates buerocratic quagmires as I've been describing, and offers questionable cost-savings.

From the Howe report;

Aside from the intellectual dubiousness of amalgamation projects, says Bish, an
extensive review of scholarly research since the 1960s demonstrates that the background
assumption that smaller and more numerous jurisdictions provide services at high cost is
typically wrong. Small municipalities contract for services with their neighbors, private
suppliers, or other providers when it is cost effective to do so, and provide services
themselves when that is less costly.

and,

In each case, the decision is based on what is technically efficient in specific lines of activity and depends on close familiarity with local conditions.

This, you'll of course recognize as a somewhat more vague restatement of my point from the beginning. Or;

there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that smaller and more flexible governments may actually operate more efficiently and cost less than larger governments

The Brookings material, which generally favors consolidation, notes that it is appropriate in situations like Pittsburgh, which it describes as;

Currently, an incredible 418 counties, cities, boroughs and townshipsâ€"130 within Allegheny County aloneâ€"make decisions in the region, not to mention scores of school districts, single-purpose authorities, utility districts and other units. Divvy the 418 main governments up, and the region maintains an astonishing 17.7 general-purpose governments per 100,000 residents.

I think you'd agree, this was not the case in Jacksonville. We lacked similar density, and had nowhere near this level of fragmentation, which would have yielded the promised benefits of consolidation. Moreover, the very study I linked clearly supports my view about consolidation hindering local decision-making, where there is a need to have those decisions be tailored to, and closely familiar with, local conditions.

Remember, my whole point from the beginning is that Jacksonville is/was a poor candidate for consolidation, and that is has effectively hampered individual pieces of the consolidated city from operating in their own interests. I feel this has contributed to downtown's decline. I linked several sources that actually favor consolidation, only because when you get to their descriptions of why the discussed consolidation would work properly in that area, you quickly realize the requisite conditions bear no resemblance whatsoever to Jacksonville.

I agree with you that the Consolidated form of government does have the dangers that you cited inherent within the structure.  And I will go one better, I agree with you that we are entering into an era where that is the very dynamic that will be dominant.  You are 100 percent correct that Hogan's monstrous campaign messaging is the precursor.

My point has been merely that Consolidation has not been the cause of our ills to date, and that they arise from the above described problems and a lack of leadership.

Until we change out zoning codes however, none of this will change one iota except to become much worse under the conditions which you have accurately predicted.

Oh I agree this isn't the sole cause of anything, I believe it's just a contributing factor. I also agree that asinine zoning played a huge role, as you've stated. And I'm hardly in a position to deny the obvious, that we have been handed a uniquely disastrous and never-ending series of local "visionaries" from whose vision this city will be trying to recover for the remainder of our lifetimes.

[ChriswUfGator]

No. The events that started downtown's downward spiral (removing the docks and railroads) took place a decade before consolidation.

That may have been the first domino, but consolidation IMO guarantees ineffective leadership, compromises, and a suburban mindset, and these in turn started their own problems and also prevented anything from being stopped before every domino on the board had fallen. Look at Alvin Brown, great guy with a good focus on downtown. It sucks he has to watch his back with what he does downtown, lest the suburbs think it's a waste of money. They should have been left to fend for themselves, and vice-versa.