Mobility Plan Moratorium a failure as St. Johns County overtakes Duval

[bill]

The EVIL developer is going to pass the Tax onto the landowner, business(higher lease rate), customer(if rent is higher it raises the cost of doing business) and homeowner. You can call it whatever you want but it is a tax. As usual, you try and put it on one group but it gets passed on to the consumer. This is very basic stuff but if it does not fit your model just go back to your oh so broad thinking.   

[Tacachale]

^It will also help to pay for infrastructure improvements to make us more competitive with our neighbors. It is abundantly clear that just being somewhat cheaper isn't working.

[Bridges]

The EVIL developer is going to pass the Tax onto the landowner, business(higher lease rate), customer(if rent is higher it raises the cost of doing business) and homeowner. You can call it whatever you want but it is a tax. As usual, you try and put it on one group but it gets passed on to the consumer. This is very basic stuff but if it does not fit your model just go back to your oh so broad thinking.   

It already gets passed on to us.  But in a way that is much more straining and unfair (to other developers and citizens) than the mobility plan proposes. 

The mobility plan also has another aspect to it.  Not everything has to be built in new development.  There's inventory and infill development that won't require such a high fee.

[fieldafm]

So raising the tax on developers, land owners, business owners and customers will? 

First off, no taxes were raised.  The Mobility Fee is setup in a way that gives a financial incentive to minimize the impact of a developments surrounding.  The real estate industry got behind it, helped craft it and agreed to it... and City Council passed it unanimously.  What's really interesting is when you hear someone say that the fee is making their project financially unfeasible.  Nevermind the fact that Mobility is INFINATELY cheaper than the old concurrency fee.  If 2-4% of your project cost is holding up your development... you weren't financially capable of doing it in the first place.

The notion that this is a tax being forced on someone is ludricrous. 

I'm by nature, very wary of taxes.  I'm a fiscal conservative in this regard.  What I am very interested is fair taxation.  The people that use the service, are the ones that should be taxed accordingly.  It's a fair and equitable user fee, simple as that. 

Think of this way, you pay a gas tax everytime you fill up at the pump.  This tax pays for the roads YOU use.  Now what if you took away that gas tax and instead your property tax now covered the very same thing the gas tax payed for.  How is it fair that someone that doesn't have a car... or perhaps a family of three with only one car... now carries the burden for building roads for someone that has a family of four and four cars, and all of them commute to work and school 20 miles each? 

It's the same thing as the Mobility Fee.  Someone in Mandarin shouldn't have to pay for transportation improvements caused by a new Wal Mart being built on New Berlin Rd in the Northside, anymore than someone off Kernan paying for a bike lane being installed in San Marco.

And the whole notion that the Mobility Fee moratorium was going to spur growth is also nonsense.  Market demand, cheap land(in many cases previously platted land that was foreclosed on) and more free flowing credit all caused the new commecial and multifamily starts in town... many of which were in the pipeline far before the moratorium was put into place.  Believe me you don't find land that meet certain site characteristics, acquire it, acquire tenants, get your financials in order then build it in a span of two months. 

How do you prove that point?  Look at all the multi-family developments going on line now that were already covered under existing redevelopment agreements that weren't subject to the Mobility Fee in the first place.  How are these projects getting built when their concurrency fees aren't being waived?  Kind of counterintuitive logic, isnt' it?

[thelakelander]

The EVIL developer is going to pass the Tax onto the landowner, business(higher lease rate), customer(if rent is higher it raises the cost of doing business) and homeowner. You can call it whatever you want but it is a tax. As usual, you try and put it on one group but it gets passed on to the consumer. This is very basic stuff but if it does not fit your model just go back to your oh so broad thinking.   

Your mind is already tainted.  Why does a developer or anyone have to be evil?  Nevertheless, I think we both can at least agree that public infrastructure comes with a cost, both to construct and maintain, and money doesn't grow on trees. 

Whatever you want to call it to float your boat is a semantic debate at best but the reality is its a fairer method (over the concurrency system it replaced) to cover the ill impacts of growth on public infrastructure while also enhancing our quality of life.  This city is full of arguments about what we can't do but short on solutions that actually enhance our viability and quality of life.  The award winning mobility plan and fee is an attempt to do just that.

[bill]

The EVIL developer is going to pass the Tax onto the landowner, business(higher lease rate), customer(if rent is higher it raises the cost of doing business) and homeowner. You can call it whatever you want but it is a tax. As usual, you try and put it on one group but it gets passed on to the consumer. This is very basic stuff but if it does not fit your model just go back to your oh so broad thinking.   

even for you, this is a dumb post.

Do not understand it or do not like the facts?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

The EVIL developer is going to pass the Tax onto the landowner, business(higher lease rate), customer(if rent is higher it raises the cost of doing business) and homeowner. You can call it whatever you want but it is a tax. As usual, you try and put it on one group but it gets passed on to the consumer. This is very basic stuff but if it does not fit your model just go back to your oh so broad thinking.   

OK, let's just call it a tax.  At least this TAX is being directly paid by people looking to move into these developments, new commercial spaces, etc..  Without the TAX being imposed everyone is sharing the cost of improving the infrastructure. 

I don't know why this is so hard.  Say you're a single homeowner and you build a single family home, on your property that is setback 1.5 miles from the nearest county road.  Who pays JEA to run power and water to your residence?  You do.  Who pays to pave your 1.5 mile long driveway?  You do.  Who pays to have Comcast pull an extra 1.5 miles of fiber?  You do. 

[dougskiles]

While Bill and his friends are focusing their efforts on reducing all financial participation in the betterment of our city, I just sat through an incredible ULI conference this morning on infrastructure, and the value it creates in our community.

The room was full of developers, contractors, designers and government officials all nodding their heads as the speakers presented the reasons why we should invest in transit infrastructure.  I came away very encouraged by the responses I heard from people after the conference.  Make no mistake, the message is getting out that we need to change our economic model in Jacksonville.  It may not be fast enough for some, but I assure you it is happening.  Some will resist it with all their might and get left behind in the new opportunities that are being created.  Others will see the future on the horizon and be a part of the success.

The other treat of the morning was the chance to speak with simms3's father.  He is very proud of you! (as he should be)

[jcjohnpaint]

While Bill and his friends are focusing their efforts on reducing all financial participation in the betterment of our city, I just sat through an incredible ULI conference this morning on infrastructure, and the value it creates in our community.

The room was full of developers, contractors, designers and government officials all nodding their heads as the speakers presented the reasons why we should invest in transit infrastructure.  I came away very encouraged by the responses I heard from people after the conference.  Make no mistake, the message is getting out that we need to change our economic model in Jacksonville.  It may not be fast enough for some, but I assure you it is happening.  Some will resist it with all their might and get left behind in the new opportunities that are being created.  Others will see the future on the horizon and be a part of the success.

The other treat of the morning was the chance to speak with simms3's father.  He is very proud of you! (as he should be)

Great to hear this!

[cline]

The room was full of developers, contractors, designers and government officials all nodding their heads as the speakers presented the reasons why we should invest in transit infrastructure. 

I have seen this head nodding before.  Hopefully it is followed by more action this time.

[thelakelander]

The EVIL developer is going to pass the Tax onto the landowner, business(higher lease rate), customer(if rent is higher it raises the cost of doing business) and homeowner. You can call it whatever you want but it is a tax. As usual, you try and put it on one group but it gets passed on to the consumer. This is very basic stuff but if it does not fit your model just go back to your oh so broad thinking.   

even for you, this is a dumb post.

Do not understand it or do not like the facts?

Hmm.  Since the original post was literally fact free, this newer post outdoes the dumbness of the previous one.

Actually, this isn't a dumb post.  It's just not completely accurate when you get down to the details.  The customer will pay what the market demands for said product.  By the same token, if you develop something, you're going to sell/lease at the market rate.  You're not going to give anyone a discount on the market because you didn't have to pay a minuscule impact fee.  Instead, you're pocketing that little cash and charging the market rate anyway. 

An impact fee, such as the mobility fee, isn't going to greatly impact a feasible project and what the bank will lend one way or another.  The fee itself is even less significant when the individual paying it decides to design their project in a manner that triggers built in credit adjustments within the system that reward them for reducing their auto trips.  This can be triggered by locating in areas where there is already significant development and infrastructure (infill), introducing a mix of uses, site design that encourages walking and cycling, etc.

As proven by St. Johns County and history itself, a moratorium on an impact fee does not change the condition of the overall market.  However, creating an environment that people want to be in and invest in does and that's one of the basic reasons for tying transportation, land use and concurrency policies together.

[bill]

So either stupid or ignorant, not sure which.

[bill]

So either stupid or ignorant, not sure which.

actually I think 'dumb' is pretty accurate.  You don't seem actually stupid, and ignorance is something all of us have in equal measure.

In fact, Ill stick pat with 'dumb'.

I think stupid. I presupposed some elementary knowledge of economics which is clearly absent. I am tired of trying to teach you. lost cause

[bill]

So either stupid or ignorant, not sure which.

actually I think 'dumb' is pretty accurate.  You don't seem actually stupid, and ignorance is something all of us have in equal measure.

In fact, Ill stick pat with 'dumb'.

I think stupid. I presupposed some elementary knowledge of economics which is clearly absent. I am tired of trying to teach you. lost cause

you presupposed that others would agree with your suppositions based on a chicago school of economics theory, my friend.  And poor old milton has been thoroughly discredited over the past four years don't you think?

Agreement would mean that it was an opinion. It was not. These facts are not based on Keynes, Milton or anyone else. It is from the actual dirt on up. But hey do not let that stop you from espousing stupid opinions. It really is the only thing you do.

[Ocklawaha]

^So when did you guys decide to suspend your impact fees in order to stimulate your economy, Ocklawaha?

Actually, we decided to ADD TO THEM!

Sorry for the late reply Lake, our TV, internet and phones were down all afternoon.

OK so let me get this straight. Lowering the tax on development did not spur any growth. So raising the tax on developers, land owners, business owners and customers will?

Actually Bill, YES IT DOES, our amenities and amenity centers are a Disneyland for grownups and young families alike.

"THE (Name of District) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAY IMPOSE AND LEVY TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS, OR BOTH TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS, ON THIS PROPERTY. THESE TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS PAY THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE COSTS OF CERTAIN PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF THE DISTRICT AND ARE SET ANNUALLY BY THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE DISTRICT. THESE TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS ARE IN ADDITION TO COUNTY AND OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS AND ALL OTHER TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS PROVIDED FOR BY LAW."


Basically this CDD, is a bond issued for development to expand infrastructure, streets, police, fire, rescue, schools, roads, etc. Some of the developers have paid down the bond (Toll Brothers in Nocatee for example) to keep the sales brisk in this economy. The homeowners pay the interest on the bond and its added as a part of our monthly mortgage bill, right along with any other taxes and fees. In our district the CDD runs about $200 extra per month. Over the life of the CDD at $8 dollars per thousand, a home in the CDD will cost you about 25K more. Is it worth it? If your going to have suburban sprawl, paying it forward is quite agreeable to myself and my neighbors.

The moral of the story is that you really do get what you pay for...

OCKLAWAHA
Fat and happy in St. John's