What the Mobility Fee can do for Downtown Jacksonville

[thelakelander]

The mobility fee is based off the amount of new auto trips you place on the existing infrastructure network.  So if you tear down a single family house to put up a large restaurant, you'll have a mobility fee to pay regardless of if you're in the urban core or Mandarin.  On the other hand, if you put your restaurant on an old restaurant site or a site that had a use that previously contributed to more auto trips on the road, then you would not pay a thing.  In the case of Goozle & Guttyworks, I imagine some of their waived fee could be contributed to the big surface parking lot they are building around the corner.  That's all new auto trips over the long demolished single family residence it will replace.

Also, looking at that list above, nearly all of these places could have had their listed mobility fee reduced by creating a site layout that would be more multimodal friendly (ex. reduced building setbacks that place the front door next to the sidewalk, adding bus stops, bike racks, etc.).  However, since there was a moratorium, there was really no financial incentive for the private sector to change the poor development/site planning practices that we've been employing for decades.

[BridgeTroll]

Thanks Lake... that helps my understanding a bit.  Gozzle actually tore down a structure and the addition will add to street traffic so that example makes sense... what about the Waffle House projects?  They seem to be simple remodels on the existing site.

[thelakelander]

The list posted only shows projects with mobility fees. I have another spreadsheet (much larger than those posted) that list every project that applied for a mobility fee waiver during the moratorium period.  Several don't show on the shorter list because they didn't have to pay a fee.

For example, Waffle House #71 in mobility zone 4 (MZ4)would have had a mobility fee of zero because they replaced an existing structure that either already contributed the amount of auto trips that project is projected to or more than Waffle House will bring.  Mobility fees ranged for several other Waffle Houses (wow, these guys are in expansion mode, btw.); Waffle House/103rd Street ($40,985/MZ 6), Waffle House #54 ($1,610/MZ 7), Waffle House/Atlantic Blvd. ($41,685/MZ 2), etc., ranged depending on specific site locations and buildout.  Without looking into the details, I suspect the Waffle Houses with the higher mobility fees are completely new construction on a previously undeveloped site. Some other projects that would have had mobility fees of zero on the larger spreadsheet include Krispy Kreme on Cassat (replacing a similar use), and Mellow Mushroom on St. Johns Avenue (replacing a gas station).

The mobility plan and fee structure is truly innovative in its approach.  If you take the time to understand and work with the fee's credit adjustment system, you'll be developing a project that truly benefits COJ's taxpayers and you won't need a moratorium to increase your personal profit margins.  However, this means you may have to move away from the "one size fits all" strategy of development.  For example, if you're a gas station developer, your fee will greatly range depending on where you attempt to build your 20 pump station.  You just can't slap up your Racetrac anywhere and not expect to pay for the additional strain you put on the roads serving it.  In the past you could and if the 3-year moratorium is approved, you still will and the taxpayers will ultimately carry the financial burden of what arises in the future.

[Steve Ducharme]

There is a lot of wishful thinking in this article and frankly it seems to be trying to make a case for shifting direct subsidies for businesses to relocate (which I oppose by the way) to indirect subsidies (and shell games with fees) for things like transportation to and from the core city in the hope that it will shift behavior.   This is an idea that frankly only an impassioned and vocal minority seems to believe will make any significant difference. 

And before you jump me on this I grew up in Montreal which is a fantastic and densely populated city (literally an island) where it all worked well. But be honest about where you live.  We don't have the densities and we are far too spread out.  I men for crying out loud, gas is approaching $4 a gallon and people STILL stick to their cars.  I don't believe it's because they are indifferent or foolish but because there is not a realistic choice that allows for people to ride a bus on a regular basis viable.

[fsujax]

why not try and give people realistic choices? there are many examples of other sprawling southern cities making transit work. We dont have to be left out.

[Bridges]

There is a lot of wishful thinking in this article and frankly it seems to be trying to make a case for shifting direct subsidies for businesses to relocate (which I oppose by the way) to indirect subsidies (and shell games with fees) for things like transportation to and from the core city in the hope that it will shift behavior.   This is an idea that frankly only an impassioned and vocal minority seems to believe will make any significant difference. 

And before you jump me on this I grew up in Montreal which is a fantastic and densely populated city (literally an island) where it all worked well. But be honest about where you live.  We don't have the densities and we are far too spread out.  I men for crying out loud, gas is approaching $4 a gallon and people STILL stick to their cars.  I don't believe it's because they are indifferent or foolish but because there is not a realistic choice that allows for people to ride a bus on a regular basis viable.

I think a lot of people get hung up on the transportation aspect of the mobility plan.  And they are fantastic things to talk about, but they're benefits of the mobility plan.  At its core its a development vision that addresses the very concern you just expressed.  It is a guide for how we wish to see the city develop.  With infill instead of the sprawl you recognize as problematic. 

[thelakelander]

There is a lot of wishful thinking in this article and frankly it seems to be trying to make a case for shifting direct subsidies for businesses to relocate (which I oppose by the way) to indirect subsidies (and shell games with fees) for things like transportation to and from the core city in the hope that it will shift behavior.   This is an idea that frankly only an impassioned and vocal minority seems to believe will make any significant difference.

What exactly is wishful thinking? I certainly am not trying to make a case for subsidizing any type of growth, urban or suburban.  What I'm attempting to point out is how the mobility plan and fee begins to remove the decades of subsidies we provided (and still do) for fringe development that never provides us with more ROI than the initial amount we've put in to support it.  At it's very base, the mobility plan and fee's integrated land use and transportation policies work to guide development in a manner that will significantly increase our tax base without requiring us to sink billions into expanding public infrastructure to support it.  An area where high density can easily be accommodated without significant public infrastructure investment, such as downtown, does benefit from such a structure.  However, I'd argue that this is leveling the playing field by removing the indirect subsidy supported developmental model we currently operate.

And before you jump me on this I grew up in Montreal which is a fantastic and densely populated city (literally an island) where it all worked well. But be honest about where you live.  We don't have the densities and we are far too spread out.  I men for crying out loud, gas is approaching $4 a gallon and people STILL stick to their cars.  I don't believe it's because they are indifferent or foolish but because there is not a realistic choice that allows for people to ride a bus on a regular basis viable.

What you mention here is what the mobility plan and fee is structured to accomplish.  The mobility plan is organized to actually increase densities, revitalize neighborhoods, and create environments where using mass transit, walking, or riding a bike are realistic options.  The fee is a funding mechanism that guides change in the development pattern.  Without the fee, the plan is essentially worthless and all the environmental problems we face today only continue to grow.

[JeffreyS]

Impact fees=Taxes

But its OK around here we like to tax the successful and give to the unsuccessful(DT) it is the democratic way.

Impact fees are paying the costs your development generates. The developer should reap the profits and bear the costs of their projects.

Now if your building sprawlville style the mobility fee will nowhere near cover the impact in terms of costs the community must bear so developer can make his or her profits.

This plan is designed for the developer to avoid the fee just build where the infrastructure is in place and the community is mitigated against the cost of your development and you enjoy the profits with no fee.

My guess is you know this and just prefer the taxes necessary to support the development be shifted to the community and away from the developer.  Extra road capacity cost $, new storm drains cost $, added school rooms cost$ ect. ect. ect.

[JeffreyS]

There is a lot of wishful thinking in this article and frankly it seems to be trying to make a case for shifting direct subsidies for businesses to relocate (which I oppose by the way) to indirect subsidies (and shell games with fees) for things like transportation to and from the core city in the hope that it will shift behavior.   This is an idea that frankly only an impassioned and vocal minority seems to believe will make any significant difference. 

And before you jump me on this I grew up in Montreal which is a fantastic and densely populated city (literally an island) where it all worked well. But be honest about where you live.  We don't have the densities and we are far too spread out.  I men for crying out loud, gas is approaching $4 a gallon and people STILL stick to their cars.  I don't believe it's because they are indifferent or foolish but because there is not a realistic choice that allows for people to ride a bus on a regular basis viable.

Never zone, plan or tax based on oh this is just what we should settle for because others did.  Always plan and try to implement the type of development you want the area to experience.

Before you get stuck on the we are too spread out line read the "I'm smaller than Jax and I have rail" series here or the many success stories of American city sprawlers who have successfully added good connectivity and urban renewal. This site has more examples of small, large and spread out cities who have done exactly what Jax refuses to believe is possible than you will have time to read.

[thelakelander]

Also, as an example of a public subsidy being made right now to stimulate new development, consider the outer beltway.  Whenever fully built, the public will have sunk $2 billion into initial capital costs alone for the hope of seeing new property tax paying generating development sprout up on previously inaccessible land around it.  Whenever that new growth comes, we'll then need to spending additional millions on new schools, parks, utilities, libraries, police/fire, public employees, and the pensions that come along with them.  So that number needs to be added to the initial $2 billion.  On top of that, you'll have 30 years at best, before you'll have to completely rebuild or refurbish your initial $2 billion investment.  That's a lot of money for private sector development to equal out indirectly. To change this fiscal model, which doesn't work (we're now cutting off street lights for crying out loud), you have to create some sort of structure that alters your overall development pattern.  The mobility plan and fee is our attempt to channel growth in a way that won't require us to invest the billions in infrastructure upfront in an effort to enjoy the revenue generating fruits of fiscally sustainable growth.

[Steve Ducharme]

I'm swamped at the moment but a few quick thoughts.  First off, don't get me wrong,  I AM sympathetic to your cause.  I love vibrant city centers and what they can bring a community.  Heck when  I moved here in 1978 straight from Montreal I immediately headed to the two places that I "thought" would offer the most potential for general excitement/culture/fun. I went downtown and to the beaches.   Till that point my idea of a coastal Florida city came from the south and southwest so needless to say I was dumbstruck at how two resources with such HUGE potential could be so monumentally neglected and exist essentially as blighted districts.

Then over the next decade I watched no end of centralized plans and halfhearted schemes come and go to no "real" avail.  Those were the heady days when the Jacksonville landing was going to "save" downtown.  When the People Mover was going to "revolutionize" public transportation.   When half hearted planning was followed by massive overspending and flat out lies as to what the projected usage of these miracle renovations would turn out to be.   Then I watched the beaches just languish for over a decade while every crackpot funding idea imaginable was floated for a massive city run reorganization of the CBD.

That was a lost decade where no one bothered to invest their own money fearing eminent domain would wipe it all away.  Then Jax beach FINALLY just let the big schemes go.  And BOOM!  in just a few years private initiative took over. To their credit, the city chipped in with some intelligent nudges like a new city hall, police building, public works buildings ans some smart building codes.

So... I guess my point in all of this is... what...  I'm not sure exactly.  I guess that after 30 years I've developed a feel for the mindset of this town and the direction has generally moved has been outward.  Everyone seems to want to get away to the new territory.  From Arlington to Mandarin and the Beaches.  From Duval to St Johns.  From Regency to The Avenues.  On and on always outward.  I think that turning them around and back towards the city center is "metaphorically speaking" against the grain I think.  Bu I do wish you well.

[thelakelander]

^The mobility plan and fee doesn't even attempt to do that.  It attempts to change development patterns in a manner where we have a more connected land form.  Suburban areas will still grow and people will still have a choice to live where ever they choose in town.  They just won't be subsidized at the expense of other areas of town.

The mobility plan's land use policy allows for multi-modal redevelopment of every major suburban corridor throughout this city.  If allowed to do what it is intended to do, you won't have to move back to downtown, you could just as easily walk from your single family neighborhood to the mixed use node perched along your neighborhood's main arterial intersection.  If you desire to go some where else in town, because of the decent density along suburban highways like Beach, Blanding, Main Street, Philips, etc., using mass transit will actually start to make sense. 

[thelakelander]

^The bad thing for Jax is, if we can't find a way to revamp growth and development in this city by enhancing its quality-of-life, then we're fighting a losing economic battle anyway.  As we grow and run out of raw virgin land, we're not going to be able to compete with the Clay and St. Johns Counties for cheap tract houses (assuming Millennials will even want this in the future, which is another debate itself).

[ricker]

Darely, Taxes are always passed on to the consumer. I was simply pointing out that it is OK to tax successful development(BAD) and subsidize DT(Good). As usual the facts are not your strong suit. Try do be civil, Hon

Ricker, You have fair share completely backwards. Be quiet.

BTW-the mobility tax is a vast improvement over the fair share tax. A good job by Doug et al.

You DO get my point the the previous "fair share" never was that!
*applause for bill*

[JeffreyS]

Perhaps instead of the mobility fee we should've called the development pattern incentive.  It may have been easier to sell it as what it is you save this community some money and we save you  the developer some money.