Suburban Jacksonville: Durbin Crossing

[Gravity]

Correct.  Most do pay for the roads in their developments and they connect them to state and county roads.  And you 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.

Who paid for the wider roads in riverside and the interchange on 95 there?

What about those $1000/ea lamp posts ?

CR210 funds will not come from Jacksonville property taxes, and probably not from anyone's property taxes. It is in St. Johns county and road construction is usually funded by gasoline taxes and vehicle fees and registrations.

Who built all those new schools and water run offs all along that road? NOT the city.

[cline]

What "wider roads in Riverside" would you be referring to? 

[Gravity]

What "wider roads in Riverside" would you be referring to?

Have you heard of Riverside Ave?

[cline]

You referring to Brooklyn?

[Tacachale]

What "wider roads in Riverside" would you be referring to?

Have you heard of Riverside Ave?

Yes, point taken, but that's in an area that has already been populated since the 1880s. It has much more infrastructure already in place than brand new developments. Part of the problem is we're not reworking existing infrastructure, we just keep building new and abandoning it when the coat dulls.

[Gravity]

Yes, point taken, but that's in an area that has already been populated since the 1880s. It has much more infrastructure already in place than brand new developments. Part of the problem is we're not reworking existing infrastructure, we just keep building new and abandoning it when the coat dulls.

I agree with this 100%. But the problems are far more significant than just faded paint.

[fieldafm]

I find that statement lacking in real world economics and ignorant of the actual role government has assumed, even on a city level.

You really need to study the actual numbers then.

In general, costs for government services range from about a buck and a half to a buck 90 for every one dollar in tax revenue generated in low density residential developments.  If your business sold something for $1 that cost you $1.80, you'd go broke pretty quick. 

Various land uses do in fact have wide ranging cost effects on goverment services.  It has been factually proven that these costs do indeed increase in low density dispersed development patterns, and subsequently decrease with more compact, mixed, multi-modal development.  Costs are lowest for infill redevelopment in areas that already have adequate infrastructure capacity b/c more compact development tends to reduce per capita infrastructure and transportation costs.

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

With all due respect, that simply is not true.

Current development fees, utility rates and taxes fail to accurately reflect the location-related cost differences of living in a dense area versus a non-dense area.  This in turn encourages consumers to choose more sprawling locations than is optimal for the city's fiscal health.

Urban scale developments and higher density in a given area actually strengthens markets by bringing together buyers and sellers in an information-rich setting.  Remember when buyers have more information, they have the advantage over sellers.  Sellers want to give you as little information as possible as this greatly effects the price in which they can sell you something.  Would you buy a can of soda if it was marketed as having 21 packs of sugar in each can, and subsequently having 42 packs of sugar per day increases your chance of fatal heart disease tenfold?

Developers have done a great job marketing over the past few years.  They have managed to hide the true costs of development while bemoaning the 'huge cost of government' as being a hinderence to more growth.

Don't agree?  Then you should do a public records request and find out the actual cost difference of the waived Mobility fees for a few specific developments that are breaking ground now in town, compare that to what would have been paid under the old concurrency model... then divide both those numbers by the cost of the project to get an idea of the percentages these costs play into the financial viability of a particular project.  You'll find that the Mobility fee DRASTICALLY reduced the cost of the project while encouraging specific smart growth patterns. 

Then you should start looking at the property tax revenue around one of these given developments, compare that to the cost of government services per household... then complete the picture by looking at the current capital improvement budget for capital improvement projects that are being funded or will need future funding over the next three years within that given area (some of these projects have estimates that go out as far as 5-10 years).  It's an eye opening exercise, I can assure you.

Households in less dense areas generally do not pay sufficient incremental taxes to cover the total incremental costs consumed for public services.

My income depends on growth.  So, I am hellbent on having more growth.  I am also a finance and economics person.  Once you study the numbers (and I have annoyed many a lady friend by ignoring them opting instead to pour through these figures into the early morning on many, many nights)... you'll quickly realize that for our city to sustain a level of fudiciary responsibility to it's taxpayers, the pattern of this growth needs to change.  I want to retire someday and leave a better world for my future children and grandchildren. 

I for one am 100% for a place like the Southside to grow with a population that is double what it has now.  Double the number of people within easy distance of a central business district, and the economic benefits of the central business district are increased nearly threefold.  That is why the Southside needs to grow however in a more sustainaible way.  That means implementing strategies (particularly zoning changes and allowing the Mobility fee moratorium to sunset) that encourage smart growth patterns.  The Southside needs more Tapestry Parks.

Smart growth reduces the costs of providing public infrastructure and services.  Once accesibility is improved, you subsequently reduce per capita vehical travel.. which reduces both the direct costs(road building, garbage services, increasing utility useage and capital expenditures) and indirect costs(stormwater management costs, increased ambient temperatures due to heat island effects, etc). 

[fieldafm]

Btw, did you know that the fire department has said it needs $600 million over the next 10 years just to build new stations to service growth in areas that generally have low density?

Just think about that number for a moment. 

[fieldafm]

road construction is usually funded by gasoline taxes and vehicle fees and registrations

... you forgot to add: and in most cases, significant bonds.  That's debt the government takes out to pay for something.  I learned the harsh reality when I was younger that credit cards are not the same as cash. 

[Gravity]

Btw, did you know that the fire department has said it needs $600 million over the next 10 years just to build new stations to service growth in areas that generally have low density?

Just think about that number for a moment. 

If the numbers include taxes on commercial and industrial buildings I am sure its swayed in that direction. But that isnt a direct correlation and hardly a direct subsidy. If property taxes in Duval county are paying for Fire Houses in St. Johns, clearly things need to be adjusted.

A lot of the developments along this path are townhomes and apartments, similar density to what a tapestry park would offer. I agree sprawl needs to be contained. And perhaps fees have been waived in the last 3 or 4 years since I was involved in the industry. But there was time, not that long ago, when development was lifting more than their fair share. Where did all that money go?

I am aware this pattern is unsustainable, and agree with you about the Southside area. My long standing point is that the urban core, as is lauded today,  is not large enough to sustain a population curve that is being projected.
That mentality is not sustainable either. However expanding the needed zoning into the surrounding neighborhoods is going to be met with a similar fight as elsewhere, there has been a lot of investment here recently as well.

[tufsu1]

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.

and if Durbin Crossing hadn't been built (or built more densely), there'd be even more natural open space for us all to enjoy!

[fieldafm]

If property taxes in Duval county are paying for Fire Houses in St. Johns, clearly things need to be adjusted.

That $600 million is for fire stations in Duval County.  Nowhere did I mention St Johns  County tax expenditures and capital improvements in the discussion. 

But there was time, not that long ago, when development was lifting more than their fair share.

I disagree... not on principal, but based on the numbers.  That simply was not true then, just as much as it's not true now. 

Where did all that money go?

It was always strained... the myth has finally been exposed and it's too blatant to ignore it any longer.

I don't deal in conjecture and theory... I came to this conclusion by using a calculator.

You sound like a real smart fellow, so I challenge you to study the numbers as well and see what conclusions you come to.    It was an eye opening experience for me.

[tufsu1]

If property taxes in Duval county are paying for Fire Houses in St. Johns, clearly things need to be adjusted.

That $600 million is for fire stations in Duval County.  Nowhere did I mention St Johns  County tax expenditures and capital improvements in the discussion. 

that said, the Racetrack area is in need of a fire station....and St. Johns can't find the money for it!

[Gravity]

I have looked at expenditures. I have looked at property tax revenue maps as well. As I said, I used to be in the industry. The city budget in every area exploded in the previous 10 - 20 years, the same time this site documents the decline of the area supposedly subsidizing this.

I know how much money was spent on non-development costs just on 4 medium sized neighborhoods along Greenbriar road alone. I saw the projections for what it was going to cost to develop the Baptist south area this side of the county line of this same area. I know who was getting the kickbacks and breaks on fees and infrastructure requirements, it wasnt the low density developers. Same goes for the gate parkway areas.

I am not challenging your numbers, I am saying take a look at where you are drawing your lines. First of all, Property taxes are only, supposedly, less than 40% of the city income. But let us take a look at that, since it is so fixating.

All that downtown property generating those revenues are not residential. Any of them that are, are negligible in respect to property taxes payed. These monies are paid by the corporations that employ people. The corporations are then subsidizing the areas where their employees are living. The expenses in infrastructure are similar anywhere there will be population concentrations. These costs are not paid by the city alone.

Why did people move away from those mixed use areas? It wasn't just because there was something new and shiny out in the burbs. You want to discuss how subsidies have skewed the markets?

Do we need to grow smarter? yes. It it always on overpriced, over-regulated urbane solution? Ask homeowners in riverside trying to upgrade.

[thelakelander]

Wow, I've missed a lot since I walked away from the computer.  Nevertheless, to pick up on your last statement, we're in agreement that we do need to grow smarter.  That's been my entire point.  It was never a fight about urban verses suburban.  There's room for all but it should be growth that pays for itself, which does not leave the general public holding the bag for eternity.  You can increase density of suburban development without it becoming overpriced or over-regulated or "urbane."  You can design suburban development in a manner that reduces auto trips and the burden of those developments on public infrastructure.  To date, we've not done that on a large scale which is why our governmental agencies are struggling financially after decades of boom times.