Live blogging DIA

[tufsu1]

Today's one issue meeting was supposed to be relatively short (90 minutes)....after 3 hours of talking about the mobility fee, the DIA Board voted 6-1 to recommend to City Council that they deny the moratorium extension....Ennis gave a short presentation chock full of facts on why the fee needs to stay in place.

[Cheshire Cat]

Tufsu1, this is very good news.  Thank you for keeping us up to date on this meeting and thank you Ennis for giving this presentation!

Who was the one vote in support of a moratorium?

[tufsu1]

^Jim Bailey....although he may not have been in favor of the moratorium...perhaps he just didn't think DIA should weigh in...I left before the meeting was over, so I can't say for sure

[Jumpinjack]

Outstanding work, Ennis. I hope this gets the mayor up off his duff and speaking out against letting taxpayers take more hits for transportation needs.

[thelakelander]

Today, taught me that even their paid attorneys still have no clue to how the mobility plan/fee structure works or the impact of last year's moratorium on mobility fee waiver numbers through 2014.  There was one point in the meeting where they, the planning department, and Jim Bailey were confused on whether the amount of mobility fees waived were $3.1 million, $4.8 million, or $5 million.

No one pointed out that a good chunk of projects moving forward this year are eligible for mobility fee waivers from last year's experiment, which will keep the total loss in fees rising as building permits are pulled this year.  As of 2/13, funds waived were $4.8 million.  As of today, it's above $5 million.  I wanted to explain if every project that submitted a successful  application pulled a permit before their time expires, fees waived by that one year trial period could easily crack $20 million. 

The craziest thing though was a sheet showing all new development approved or underway between 9/19/2011 and 10/01/2012. Instead of putting in the total cost of each project, they put in the lower job cost.  That total came out to $82 million, which they then attempted to claim by waiving $3.1 million in fees (that was the actual waived fee total last October), it created $82 million worth of work. 

However, the spreadsheet clearly includes projects that didn't have a mobility fee (they just listed everything new started that year) and those (like 7-11) that were expanding regardless of the fee situation.  Sitting in the audience, it drove me crazy that no one of the DIA recognized and questioned that and that I could not point it out to them.  My guess is that half the council would not pick up on this either.

[Cheshire Cat]

First, thank you Ennis for going and giving your presentation with valid facts and figures.  I so feel your pain when you have to sit by and watch folks in leadership positions talking about issues of such great impact but clearly not understanding what is to be won and lost with each decision made.  I wonder how many understood or appreciate the fact that you and others in this community do all of this because we want a better city and that the time and expertise is given at personal time and expense?  Once realized, the incompetence of some in authority will drive you up the wall and then make you hit your head repeatedly on the rafters. 

I don't understand why Jim Bailey would vote to push the moratorium.  It makes no sense in view of it's past failure. I sure hope this is about misunderstood facts and not politics as I would be greatly disappointed if it were the latter. 

[fieldafm]

I wonder how many understood or appreciate the fact that you and others in this community do all of this because we want a better city and that the time and expertise is given at personal time and expense? 

You can also add 'losing business simply as retribution for not getting with the government handout program' to your list as well.

[Cheshire Cat]

I wonder how many understood or appreciate the fact that you and others in this community do all of this because we want a better city and that the time and expertise is given at personal time and expense? 

You can also add 'losing business simply as retribution for not getting with the government handout program' to your list as well.

Sadly there is truth to this statement.  I have seen this over and over in local government and politics.  Folks have gotten contracts pulled and all sorts of things for having the nerve to speak views in opposition to what the powers that be want to see happen. Pathetic really.

[dougskiles]

Sadly there is truth to this statement.  I have seen this over and over in local government and politics.  Folks have gotten contracts pulled and all sorts of things for having the nerve to speak views in opposition to what the powers that be want to see happen. Pathetic really.

The reality for me has been that it evens out.  For every client I may have lost because of my publicly stated opinions on this, I have picked up one or more.  Even my clients who I've had discussions with have told me that they respect my principled stand.  I have found that people have short memories when it comes to disagreements over policy and long memories when it comes to integrity.

[xplanner]

Voting as a member of a policymaking Board isn't always a simple black or white/right or wrong proposition. We see officials voting contrary to public opinion and even contrary to their own personal philosophies on occasion. A "surprise" vote by one member of a Board typically launches a debate about their motivations, as it has here.

We see Council members "pushing the wrong button" from time to time. It can be a simple matter of how the motion was stated and therefore misunderstood. But an intentional vote that goes contrary to the body can be many things, including an unspoken statement that goes something like,"I want to close this question out for now, but I needed more information to be comfortable in going with the majority." Or, "This debate isn't over, but I see how the vote is going and I'm going to vote in the minority to give the losing party someone to continue their dialogue with". OR, "I don't like that this issue has no compromise that is acceptable to the affected parties, and no matter how it shakes out neither side of the question is totally right nor totally wrong, and I want to make that statement." And finally, if your mother raised you right, your moral compass tells you that until you are 100% committed to your action, you vote "no".

There are plenty of variations on those themes, but if you want to really understand Mr. Bailey's vote, I suggest you ask him about it.

[Cheshire Cat]

Sadly there is truth to this statement.  I have seen this over and over in local government and politics.  Folks have gotten contracts pulled and all sorts of things for having the nerve to speak views in opposition to what the powers that be want to see happen. Pathetic really.

The reality for me has been that it evens out.  For every client I may have lost because of my publicly stated opinions on this, I have picked up one or more.  Even my clients who I've had discussions with have told me that they respect my principled stand.  I have found that people have short memories when it comes to disagreements over policy and long memories when it comes to integrity.

I would agree with this on the whole and love the statement about integrity.  I am glad you have gained and lost clients in a way that balances out. 

On the flip side I know of many a small business and contractor who have done work for the city who once run afoul of someone at city hall find contracts yanked or future business difficult to secure.  Some at the city do know how to hold a grudge and have long memories.  I have helped more than a few of these people deal with situations like this.  It shouldn't happen but it does and it happens in cities across the nation.  We can't do much about that but we can try to keep some degree of fairness locally I believe. 

[Cheshire Cat]

Voting as a member of a policymaking Board isn't always a simple black or white/right or wrong proposition. We see officials voting contrary to public opinion and even contrary to their own personal philosophies on occasion. A "surprise" vote by one member of a Board typically launches a debate about their motivations, as it has here.

We see Council members "pushing the wrong button" from time to time. It can be a simple matter of how the motion was stated and therefore misunderstood. But an intentional vote that goes contrary to the body can be many things, including an unspoken statement that goes something like,"I want to close this question out for now, but I needed more information to be comfortable in going with the majority." Or, "This debate isn't over, but I see how the vote is going and I'm going to vote in the minority to give the losing party someone to continue their dialogue with". OR, "I don't like that this issue has no compromise that is acceptable to the affected parties, and no matter how it shakes out neither side of the question is totally right nor totally wrong, and I want to make that statement." And finally, if your mother raised you right, your moral compass tells you that until you are 100% committed to your action, you vote "no".

There are plenty of variations on those themes, but if you want to really understand Mr. Bailey's vote, I suggest you ask him about it.

All good examples xplanner and any of them can come into play.  I know Jim to be a principled person and will ask him about it at some point.  My guess is that he has been made to believe the moratorium will help in some way. 

There is a good deal of politics at play here in backrooms regarding this issue. 

[Noone]

When is the next DIA Board meeting or committee meeting? Anyone.

[Noone]

Next DIA Board meeting 3/20/13. Will there be anyone from the DIA at the Jacksonville Waterways Commission meeting that is less then two hours for this Southbank Riverwalk presentation? Will this presentation be given and put on the agenda for the DIA? How about Downtown Vision? Is there a tour for this?

Meetining is at 9:30 in council chambers. This will have regional impact for our Waterways on our St. Johns River our American Heritage River a FEDERAL Initiative in our newly created DIA zone.

[Noone]

Next DIA Board meeting 3 days out. Anyone going? Will we now be having RICO updates as part of the agenda?
A new Authority.
Embrace It.
Or It will Embrace us?