City Council prepares to Halt Mobility Fee

[thelakelander]

^How about it this way.  You use and pay for your car.  However, if I caused a negative impact to your piece of infrastructure (like ramming my truck into it), would you want me to pay the damage?

[dougskiles]

not that I'm in favor of the moratorium...but...aren't taxpayers the folks who use the infrastructure?

I will take the bait..

We are the ones who use it, and the ones making the investment.  We should also be profiting from the investment (in terms of a higher QOL and sustainable ecomony).  As it stands now, a large number of people each make a small investment - so that a small number of people can reap a great reward.

[urbaknight]

I hear that the 2030 Mobility Plan won a national award.

I think we should contact the group that gave it out, and tell them that council was just making a cruel joke to the people of JAX; And furthermore they should be publicly stripped of the award and forced to apologize to everyone affected.

[bill]

Correction-A small number of people take a huge risk and make a huge investment so they hope to make a large reward

[strider]

It seems to me it is like this:

Two roads, A and B.  Both have a development located almost at the end of the street. Both have the same amount of traffic.  Both have rush hours that takes the average resident 20 minutes to get home.

A new developer on road A  puts a huge development at the end of the road.  The traffic doubles.  It now takes residents and average of 40 minutes to get home.

Who should pay for the road widening to eliminate the longer commute? Who should pay for the increased maintenance the higher traffic volume will cost?  Should the original residents of Road A and the residents of road B pay for the increases and needed improvements?  Should their water bills go up to pay for the water and sewer extensions needed?  Should they pay for the extra two lanes of road? 

Or should the developer who is profiting from the development pay at least a fair share? 

This just seems like it should be a no brainer.  And the fact that our leaders actually think that the increasing of expenses for the taxpayers and the continuing lack of progressive development for our urban core is actually offset in anyway by a potential increase of jobs for the typically out of town workers the bigger developers bring from other states to avoid the higher Florida construction worker costs is absurd.  Increased tax base as a reason perhaps?  I might believe that if this city wasn't so fast to turn properties into lower tax producing properties almost daily through demolition and basically reckless policies enforced by MCCD.

I keep wondering who is really profiting by this because it sure isn't us average taxpayers.

[Dashing Dan]

Correction-A small number of people take a huge risk and make a huge investment so they hope to make a large reward

I do not understand this remark -  does it refer to a previous post?  If so, what was it and who posted it?

If not then please expand the wording, so that it better describes what you are trying to say.

Thanks.

[Dashing Dan]

I hear that the 2030 Mobility Plan won a national award.

I think we should contact the group that gave it out, and tell them that council was just making a cruel joke to the people of JAX; And furthermore they should be publicly stripped of the award and forced to apologize to everyone affected.

The mobility plan and fee won an award from the APA FL chapter last month, and I believe that it has been nominated for an award by the national APA, which would be given next April. 

In my opinion -

Even with the moratorium the mobility plan and fee still might win that national award.  If the moratorium is just for one year, then the award would be deserved.  But if the city never enacts the mobility fee, then the national award should probably go someplace else.

[fieldafm]

I hear that the 2030 Mobility Plan won a national award.

I think we should contact the group that gave it out, and tell them that council was just making a cruel joke to the people of JAX; And furthermore they should be publicly stripped of the award and forced to apologize to everyone affected.

The mobility plan and fee won an award from the APA FL chapter last month, and I believe that it has been nominated for an award by the national APA, which would be given next April. 

In my opinion -

Even with the moratorium the mobility plan and fee still might win that national award.  If the moratorium is just for one year, then the award would be deserved.  But if the city never enacts the mobility fee, then the national award should probably go someplace else.

That's an incredibly fair assesment.

The worse thing you can do in life is not make a mistake, but to make the same mistake twice.

City Council failed to enact an enforcement structure to the 2005 Growth Management Plan... in 1975.  It's ashame that history is repeating itself again.  The 2030 Mobility Plan offers a common sense approach to providing a path for fiscally sustainable growth in our community.  In fact, a recent Chamber of Commerce study revealed that the public's satisfaction over the handling of our city's growth management ranks near the bottom of all metrics measured.  To once again, render a growth management plan innefective at the hands of City Council 25 years later is a decision that will cost all of us for the next 30 years. 

I can exagerate sometimes, but on this point I am quite clear.  To repeat mistakes of our past is the worst imaginable sin that will cast your constituents into yet another purgatory.  It's time we stop paying for the sins of our past.

[John P]

http://www.planetizen.com/node/51908



Americans Think Planning Process is Unfair

Posted by: Tim Halbur

17 October 2011 - 10:00am

A new survey found that 64% of Americans think that the relationship between local officials and developers makes the approval process unfair.

The Saint Index asked people a lot of questions about city planning, and concluded that NIMBYism is more prevalent than ever, and skepticism over the planning process is the rule of the day. Nearly 1 in 5 people surveyed had actively fought a development from being built:

"Opposition activities include forming neighborhood groups, calling and writing elected officials, signing or gathering petitions, attending and speaking out at local hearings, fundraising, and hiring lawyers and experts such as traffic engineers and environmental consultants."

Asked why they were opposing development, "protecting the environment" ranked highest, followed by the more direct impacts like property value and increased traffic.

Lots of interesting results over at The Saint Index.

[John P]

http://saintindex.info/





The 2011 Saint Index delivers wide-ranging insights into what is happening in the politics of land use. Why do some kinds of development projects attract fierce opposition? Are Americans telling the truth about wind energy?  The sixth annual Saint Index identifies important trends in American attitudes about real estate development projects.  For the first time, we’ve also examined the Tea Party movement and its implications for real estate development projects. The 2011 Saint Index results contains news and useful information for developers, planners, elected officials, decision makers and citizens who support or oppose real estate development projects.

Click the links in the headlines below to go directly to that section of the Saint Index Executive Summary, or click here to start at the first section.

HEADLINES:
Despite the economy, NIMBY attitudes increased.
The most unwanted local projects
Nearly one in five Americans or a family member actively opposed a  project.
Energy development will be contentious, even for wind projects.
Natural gas drilling faces emerging opposition and activism.
Americans have a harsh but helpful message for Aggregate Quarries.
The hardest land use to get approved could be a “Linear Land Use.”
Attitudes about Walmart and other Big Boxes are changing.
Local government does “fair to poor” on growth decisions.
Tea Party members will be active on land uses.

[Ralph W]

I don't get it.

Developers are NOT altruistic individuals. They are bottom line corporations and stockholders who will never put profit on the table to carve into portions for the end consumer.

Mobility fees, as well as all the other costs associated with bringing out a product, will be calculated into the selling price of each and every parcel up for sale after development and if the numbers don't crunch in favor of the developer, the project will not go forward. Raw speculation is gone and everyone from the angel to the conventional bank owns a sharp pencil. It will make no difference whether there is or is not a mobility fee. If there are no end users there is no development.

However, the current head in the sand thinking is that development will happen if the up front bill is perceived to be low enough by the developer so that, without putting a dent in the developers profit, he can unload on the end user a property that will overload the current tax base and also come as a nasty surprise to the consumer who thought he was getting such a great deal.  Sorry folks, we had to hoodwink you by placing a false moratorium on a fee to get you into this development but now that you are here and captive, bend over.

[tufsu1]

not that I'm in favor of the moratorium...but...aren't taxpayers the folks who use the infrastructure?

I will take the bait..

We are the ones who use it, and the ones making the investment.  We should also be profiting from the investment (in terms of a higher QOL and sustainable ecomony).  As it stands now, a large number of people each make a small investment - so that a small number of people can reap a great reward.

ok I will buy that....+100

now, that said, anyone who believes developers ever pay for the costs out of their own pockets are deluding themselves...even when they are required to stroke the check or build infrastructure, they do things like

1. Increase the sale price for land
2. Increase price of homes or commercial space
3. Set up Community Development Districts (CDD) that tax the area owners

In the end, the collective "we" pay for it anyway....in the form of higher rents, higher food prices, etc.

The big issue for me has always been the amount of cost for development in the suburbs/exurbs vs. in urban core areas that already have much of the needed infrastructure.

[tufsu1]

btw...if anyone would like to know more about how concurrency has been and may be implemented in Florida, here's a short draft report from FDOT

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/propshare/

[dougskiles]

now, that said, anyone who believes developers ever pay for the costs out of their own pockets are deluding themselves...even when they are required to stroke the check or build infrastructure, they do things like

1. Increase the sale price for land
2. Increase price of homes or commercial space
3. Set up Community Development Districts (CDD) that tax the area owners

4. Borrow the money required and then turn it back over to the bank when the deal fails.

Guess who is paying those bills now?

So, while I agree with 'bill' that typically those who take the greatest risk get the greatest reward, our system is set up to bail people out far too easily for that to be true across the board.

I have spoken with many developers over the past year, and when asking them how did things turn out with "_____" project, the response is often, "Oh I turned that back over to the bank".

The great irony is that now those same people are complaining that the banks won't lend them any money for new projects.

[thelakelander]

In the end, the collective "we" pay for it anyway....in the form of higher rents, higher food prices, etc.

There is a huge caveat you're downplaying in the development world and that's the market.  For the most part, the product you put out is only going to sell for what the market will bear.  Setting aside a certain percentage in soft costs for impact fees, concurrency, mobility fees or whatever anyone wants to call them are typically already in the proforma when determining the feasibility of a project.  You, as the consumer are going to get charged based on the price the market sets.  So in reality, something as minute as a mobility fee amounts to nothing more than additional take home revenue in the investor's pockets.  So in this case, you the taxpayer, will pay the price the market sets, regardless of if there is a mobility fee or not.