City Council prepares to Halt Mobility Fee

[JeffreyS]

Surely Lake you can't argue that if we just clear some land on the outskirts of the county, drain it, build some roads, sewage, schools, ect. ect.  Then the developers can build some more master planed communities full of houses on dead end roads no one will buy everything will be rainbows and unicorns.  I mean don't you get it?

[JeffreyS]

Don't forget the strip malls with the empty units and the ones that are filled will be from retailers fleeing Regency. Sure fire.

[tufsu1]

disingenuous, tufsu.  You know as well as I do that they are part of the Mobility Plan.

no they aren't...they are an add-on to the concept...and I believe they will require Council resolutions to implement

[jcjohnpaint]

I'm with Ock... where are the Tea Party on this one??  Really do you only bitch when it is call taxation?
What about fee, toll, etc?   Who is going to responsible for paying for this infrastructure?  Developers?  No us!

[tayana42]

This bill is based on the false belief that it will increase development and thereby jobs.  Let's hope our councilmembers are wise enough to realize the two things will happen:  first, very few if any new development projects will occur due to this small reduction in a projects cost; and second,  YOU WILL BE INCREASING OUR TAXES since the taxpayers will have to pay for the infrastructure on ALL the new projects, most of which would have happened without the waiver.  STUPID BILL.  Kill it quick.

[tufsu1]

disingenuous, tufsu.  You know as well as I do that they are part of the Mobility Plan.

no they aren't...they are an add-on to the concept...and I believe they will require Council resolutions to implement

well by all means, keep on believing if it makes you happy.

not to get in a  back and forth argument....but I have 10+ years experience working with concurrency in Florida....and I'm quite comfortable knowing what the laws do and do not say

[Kay]

seems like here is the problem.

too many people with connections in the real estate and development industries being appointed to positions where it would be impossible for them not to have a conflict of interest.

Pretty much.  The mobility plan taskforce was purposely littered with them.  They got the original mobility fee slashed in half and now they want to pass all of the costs for their negative impacts to you and me.  When you have people with a conflict of interest constantly in the council's ear its easy to understand how one who may not be generally educated on a particular issue can be easily persuaded.

That's why all of us need to be in ear also, so they are not just hearing from one side.

[tufsu1]

disingenuous, tufsu.  You know as well as I do that they are part of the Mobility Plan.

no they aren't...they are an add-on to the concept...and I believe they will require Council resolutions to implement

well by all means, keep on believing if it makes you happy.

not to get in a  back and forth argument....but I have 10+ years experience working with concurrency in Florida....and I'm quite comfortable knowing what the laws do and do not say

No doubt. and even more comfortable misrepresenting and parsing, which is what you are doing now.

well then...please explain what you believe to be factual about the adopted mobility plan and credits for building in dense neighborhoods

[tufsu1]

so you agree that the credits for dense/transit-oriented/context-sensitive development are not in place yet....and that the mobility fee that is enacted only adjusts things between $9 and $13 per trip per mile based on area of town?

and if so, that my statement in post #81 is also correct?

[tufsu1]

I love how you deflect questions....but I won't...no, I do not agree.

The Mobility Plan, as adopted, does not include these credits...what it does is provide credit for internal capture, pass-by, and diverted trips...which yields what are called net new external trips...but traditional concurrency systems (including the City's old one and traffic operations/impact studies provide for these reductions too

http://www.coj.net/Departments/Planning-and-Development/Community-Planning-Division/Mobility-Plan.aspx

[dougskiles]

The last time I read through the Mobility Plan, it had an adjustment factor (or credits?) for developments incorporating transit elements into the function of the facility.  In other words, if a project is built across the street from a Skyway station and was relying on the Skyway for mobility, then that project would be credited those trips (and subsequent vehicle miles) that the Skyway was providing.

Was that part of the plan that was passed by City Council?

[JeffreyS]

Does it matter whats in there if the council "Temporarily" waves the fee today it is not likely to ever come back.  They showed a little spine passing it in the first place but it looks like they won't be bold enough to stand behind it. 

I hope I am on this site this afternoon eating my words.

[tufsu1]

The last time I read through the Mobility Plan, it had an adjustment factor (or credits?) for developments incorporating transit elements into the function of the facility.  In other words, if a project is built across the street from a Skyway station and was relying on the Skyway for mobility, then that project would be credited those trips (and subsequent vehicle miles) that the Skyway was providing.

Was that part of the plan that was passed by City Council?

Doug...the Planning Department has been working on a robust credit system, based on California's URBEMIS model.

http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/urbemis.html

http://greatcommunities.org/intranet/library/sites-tools/great-communities-toolkit/Appx_URBEMIS_apr08.pdf

The idea is that mixed-use developments near transit, employment, affordable housing, etc. generate far fewer trips....and as such would have their mobility fee decreased.

the Mobility Plan as adopted mentions the concepts, but the details and potential credits had not been finalized yet.

[dougskiles]

2011-617 is not currently on the agenda for tonight's meeting.  I understand that it did not make it out of Rules Committee.  However, that doesn't mean it can't be added to the agenda at the last minute at the pleasure of the City Council President (Joost) or the Rules Committee Chairman (Bill Bishop).

Should the bill not go for final vote tonight, there is still an opportunity to speak about it during the general public comment period.  I also recommend that people contact Council President Joost and Councilman Bishop and request that the matter be defered with more opportunity for public input.  That is what I am going to do.

If you do contact them, PLEASE interact with them respectfully.  It does no good to threaten them or insult their intelligence.  This is a matter of education - and letting them know that there are other voices out there, not just those who have been pushing the bill forward.

It took at least 2 years of public meetings and discussion to get the Mobility Plan passed and now we are faced with less than 2 months of very little public input to sweep it away.  At the least, we should have a properly noticed public workshop to discuss the merits and dangers of this proposed moratorium.

[JeffreyS]

This threat that I so offended the council with was that I would keep score and put my money where my mouth is.   But you are correct they hated and were truly offended (to the point it may be counter productive) that someone might want to hold them accountable.