Suburban Jacksonville: Durbin Crossing

[I-10east]

Blah blah blah 'Awful suburbia' blah blah blah 'It should be more urban' blah blah blah 'Look at what Atlanta did' blah blah blah.......

[Gravity]

I thought you all were lobbying for higher population density, or does that only work when its called downtown?

This is an effective use of the space, IMHO, and also leaves plenty of nature to be enjoyed. You can bike to the retail areas and there is plenty of berth for other means of transportation should Jax ever get off its arse and install some sensible public transit. Meanwhile, people with jobs are looking for more comfort, less crime and homeless magnets.

[I-10east]

^^^+1

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

No offense to anyone who lives somewhere like that, but you'd find me hanging from a beam in the garage.

Nah.  There's no beams in these homes - or any other architectural features other than drywall and Home Depot trim. 

You sir, would be found handing from a pre-manufactured truss shipped from Palatka.  It would still do the job, just not nearly as romantic.

[thelakelander]

I thought you all were lobbying for higher population density, or does that only work when its called downtown?

This is an effective use of the space, IMHO, and also leaves plenty of nature to be enjoyed.

Adding four times the density would be a more effective use of space while generating higher property tax revenue.  Here are some images from a new suburban neighborhood in North Augusta, SC that I took this past weekend.  More density on less land, leaving more land to enjoy nature.  Suburban development isn't all bad if it pays for itself.

[BridgeTroll]

Blech!  Those houses are revolting.  Cookie-cutter, box-style, houses with no craftsmanship or architectural interest.... um, no thanks!  And HOA fees?  Gimme a break.

The other side is... extremely energy efficient, Modern, easily maintained, spacious, lots of storage.  It can be kind of nice to have a pool or two to go to... or a clubhouse you can use for parties.  I realize it is not for everyone but there are advantages...

[thelakelander]

The best advantage is that it's subsidized by other areas of town.  Bigger house, more yard, and the poor residents across town are forced to help pay to widen and maintain the new roads, schools, police/fire, etc. needed to support unsustainable development.  Then when the city is just about bankrupt, they'll close libraries, fire stations, schools, parks, and defund special events and cultural entities in more sustainable areas before addressing the real bull in the china shop.

[blizz01]

Why bother posting these Suburban write-ups if EVERYONE knows what the trailing/subsequent thread(s) will yield?  We get it already.  People in the core would kill themselves & people in the burbs are content. 

[Gravity]

Adding four times the density would be a more effective use of space while generating higher property tax revenue.  Here are some images from a new suburban neighborhood in North Augusta, SC that I took this past weekend.  More density on less land, leaving more land to enjoy nature.  Suburban development isn't all bad if it pays for itself.

I guarantee you this area in SC has drastically less property taxes then across the river in downtown Augusta, which is more barren than our own downtown. And unless there is some joint development agreement, that tax money is not going back and forth to GA and is only subsidized by the few people still working in the Hotel or the Wachovia tower who bring their income back across state lines. If anything, they are subsidizing either with their state income taxes.

You are not going to convince me that our own downtown generates more property tax revenue either, in² per in², not effectively with all those city buildings, churches and utilities. Unless you count office space, which isnt really going to do much for residential solutions and is an apples to oranges comparison anyways.

The same rent Highrise McGillicutty wants to charge to cover those extra property taxes for a relatively cramped 2 bedroom can get you one of these McMansions with a yard, free parking, cheaper electric bills, playground, small waterpark, better schools, cleaner streets, an actual grocery store and you only have to drive an extra 10 minutes to get to Mossfire. All those activities generate tax revenue for the city. 

All those people paying those other fees and taxes have got to live somewhere, and some people do not like being close enough to hear and smell their neighbors or random people walking by.

The best advantage is that it's subsidized by other areas of town. 

I am really not sure how "the poor residents across town" are paying for anything. The developer pays for the infrastructure PLUS permitting PLUS fees for any additional 'trips' the development is projected to cost. Taxes are assessed at every level of development. Poor people across town have their rent and electricity paid for them( sometimes cell phones too).

I find that statement lacking in real world economics and ignorant of the actual role government has assumed, even on a city level. You might have an argument about Fire and Police, but look at usage. Who is subsidizing the courthouse? Who subsidized the new library? I will compare usage of the downtown library to Pablo creek any day, And even more on the weekends.

[cline]

The developer pays for the infrastructure PLUS permitting PLUS fees for any additional 'trips' the development is projected to cost.

You honestly think those "fees" come anywhere close to covering the actual costs of infrastructure?  That's hilarious.

[thelakelander]

Adding four times the density would be a more effective use of space while generating higher property tax revenue.  Here are some images from a new suburban neighborhood in North Augusta, SC that I took this past weekend.  More density on less land, leaving more land to enjoy nature.  Suburban development isn't all bad if it pays for itself.

I guarantee you this area in SC has drastically less property taxes then across the river in downtown Augusta, which is more barren than our own downtown. And unless there is some joint development agreement, that tax money is not going back and forth to GA and is only subsidized by the few people still working in the Hotel or the Wachovia tower who bring their income back across state lines. If anything, they are subsidizing either with their state income taxes.

You are not going to convince me that our own downtown generates more property tax revenue either, in² per in², not effectively with all those city buildings, churches and utilities. Unless you count office space, which isnt really going to do much for residential solutions and is an apples to oranges comparison anyways.

The same rent Highrise McGillicutty wants to charge to cover those extra property taxes for a relatively cramped 2 bedroom can get you one of these McMansions with a yard, free parking, cheaper electric bills, playground, small waterpark, better schools, cleaner streets, an actual grocery store and you only have to drive an extra 10 minutes to get to Mossfire. All those activities generate tax revenue for the city. 

All those people paying those other fees and taxes have got to live somewhere, and some people do not like being close enough to hear and smell their neighbors or random people walking by.

I'm actually not trying to convince you of anything regarding property taxes in GA or SC.  I'm saying a higher density development would leave more natural open space while generating equal or higher property taxes in a site like Durbin Creek or downtown Jacksonville.

The best advantage is that it's subsidized by other areas of town. 

I am really not sure how "the poor residents across town" are paying for anything. The developer pays for the infrastructure PLUS permitting PLUS fees for any additional 'trips' the development is projected to cost. Taxes are assessed at every level of development. Poor people across town have their rent and electricity paid for them( sometimes cell phones too).

I find that statement lacking in real world economics and ignorant of the actual role government has assumed, even on a city level. You might have an argument about Fire and Police, but look at usage. Who is subsidizing the courthouse? Who subsidized the new library? I will compare usage of the downtown library to Pablo creek any day, And even more on the weekends.

[/quote]

You could build lots of courthouses with the money spent on streets like SR 9B, SR9A, and the Outer Beltway.  It's also not lacking in real world economics to under stand that a denser compact mixed-use neighborhood with a few industries like a Swisher or Anchor Glass sprinkled in generates a decent amount of revenue compared to the amount of subsidies on infrastructure needed to support it.  Throw in the compact commercial districts like downtown and significant manufacturing areas like Northwest Jax and the Westside and the divide grows.  I'm not making an argument claiming that all suburban development is bad or picking an urban core vs burbs fight.  I'm saying there's room for improvement to make these places more sustainable than the way they are currently being developed.

[finehoe]

Wait...aren't these the same pictures MJ used here:  http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2012-feb-suburban-jacksonville-julington-creek-plantation ?

[Gravity]

You honestly think those "fees" come anywhere close to covering the actual costs of infrastructure?  That's hilarious.

The fees and taxes are ON TOP of construction costs... yes, the developer is usually required to build the roads, infrastructure and in some cases schools. So it gets built AND the city gets revenue. Maintenance in some areas may be an issue, but that is usually after people have moved in and paid for in other ways too.

I'm actually not trying to convince you of anything regarding property taxes in GA or SC.  I'm saying a higher density development would leave more natural open space while generating equal or higher property taxes in a site like Durbin Creek or downtown Jacksonville.

Show me anywhere near downtown that there is an accessible area like the Durbin preserve where you can actually enjoy any kind of natural open spaces. Augusta might have some state parks in the region, but nothing closer than what Jacksonville offers. And you are talking about an order of magnitude or two of difference with regards to population.

You could build lots of courthouses with the money spent on streets like SR 9B, SR9A, and the Outer Beltway.  It's also not lacking in real world economics to under stand that a denser compact mixed-use neighborhood with a few industries like a Swisher or Anchor Glass sprinkled in generates a decent amount of revenue compared to the amount of subsidies on infrastructure needed to support it.  Throw in the compact commercial districts like downtown and significant manufacturing areas like Northwest Jax and the Westside and the divide grows.  I'm not making an argument claiming that all suburban development is bad or picking an urban core vs burbs fight.  I'm saying there's room for improvement to make these places more sustainable than the way they are currently being developed.

In regards to the highways SR 9B, SR9A, now 295 were, respectively, state funded and now federal funds. Which comes from income and sales taxes, not property taxes for the most part. This was subsidized by tax generated activities everywhere.

You throw in the revenue from the industry property taxes ( and sales taxes, consumers subsidize that) and the argument is weighted. Factories in the middle of residential areas open up many more problems you arent even beginning to take into account.

I agree there are vast rooms for improvement, but the subsidy argument is a fallacy at best. The ends do not justify the means.

[cline]

Show me anywhere near downtown that there is an accessible area like the Durbin preserve where you can actually enjoy any kind of natural open spaces.

So because Durbin clear cut thousands of acres of land for houses and fragmented numerous habitats by building roads that it is somehow now the beacon of natural areas?  That's rich.

The fees and taxes are ON TOP of construction costs... yes, the developer is usually required to build the roads, infrastructure and in some cases schools. So it gets built AND the city gets revenue. Maintenance in some areas may be an issue, but that is usually after people have moved in and paid for in other ways too.

Correct.  Most do pay for the roads in their developments and they connect them to state and county roads.  And who do you think incurs the costs of widening those state and county roads when they become over capacity?  Will these developers pay to build an interchange at CR210 and I-95?    No, we all will.

[thelakelander]

They also won't pay for the teachers, fire fighter, police salaries, pensions, equipment (cars, trucks, etc.) needed to operate these facilities.  It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this development model doesn't work.  After doing this for +50 years, public agencies should be swimming in cash if it were truly cost effective.  Instead, we've created one huge ponzi scheme where the taxpayer ends up with the short end of the stick.