For and Against: The Mobility Fee Moratorium (2013-094)

[Jumpinjack]

2013-94 won't be discussed at the Rules committee today. Supposedly there will be a special joint committee meeting to discuss 2013-94 later in the week. Waiting for it to be official.

The reason given by the chair of Rules Committee was the large numbers of people wanting to speak and the time needed for discussion which interferes with Committee business. Keep it up folks. No more behind the scenes deals - let's put the fight out in the open.

[thelakelander]

wish someone would explain whats happening in laywoman's "It's the first time I have heard of this" terms-

This link will provide you with a brief review:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-feb-councilman-clark-wants-mobility-fee-moratorium-

Let me know if you have any additional questions.

[Cheshire Cat]

Ennis, you can bet some will be trying to rebut what you have shared but they understand they are dealing with someone who has real experience and expertise in this area.  Legislators must listen and take "all" facts into consideration.  Not to do so would scream incompetence and of special interest influence.  The moratorium is just a bad idea and you have explained over and over with appropriate "real" data why that is so.  We cannot afford it for many reasons.

[thelakelander]

Btw, this was an email sent to me this morning:

btw, stats on NPR this am were that ped deaths in Jax are up 39% in 2012…and bike deaths are up 80%

Sadly, the JSO answer to this is to ticket people for not crossing at a crosswalk…never mind that the nearest one might be over a half-mile away!

[fsujax]

From the Daily Record today.

http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=538890

[Jumpinjack]

^ Headline is confusing. Doesn't seem to match the story.

[fsujax]

I kind of thought the same thing.

[thelakelander]

Ennis, you can bet some will be trying to rebut what you have shared but they understand they are dealing with someone who has real experience and expertise in this area.  Legislators must listen and take "all" facts into consideration.  Not to do so would scream incompetence and of special interest influence.  The moratorium is just a bad idea and you have explained over and over with appropriate "real" data why that is so.  We cannot afford it for many reasons.

To be honest, I've evolved to the point that I rarely argue the merits of the actual plan anymore, unless discussion goes in that direction.  You can have a field day exposing all the glaring holes in the bad information being presented on why a full fledged moratorium is needed.  One thing that will never change, no matter how you tell the story, is that a full fledged moratorium without individual project checks and balances, directly results in taxpayers subsidizing development and growth that has continued to happen, even during the darkest days of the recession.  For any fiscal conservative who doesn't want to waste taxpayer dollars, this should be a problem.

[thelakelander]

I kind of thought the same thing.

Yes, the headline is confusing and it's a great editorial by Jim.  However, I don't agree with the idea that the mobility plan has no impact on downtown.  Jim mentioned this:

A person's decision to live Downtown is more about lifestyle and convenience than anything else. You live Downtown because you prefer the environment of Downtown compared to living in one of our many outlying communities.

The atmosphere that leads to the urban lifestyle and convenience Jim describes can't effectively happen without additional investment and improvement, such as transit, bike, ped improvements and public policy that promotes pedestrian scale private development.  The mobility plan is a form of policy that does just this and the mobility fees for the urban core are designed to fund the needed multi-modal infrastructure that Jacksonville has largely ignored to date. Yes, we can slowly have a little success by seeing projects like 220 Riverside get underway after a decade of struggling to get off the drawing board.  However, if we want to see the type of change that leads to true vibrancy, investment in public transportation, bike/ped infrastructure, and policies that slow down the proliferation of sprawl will be paramount.

[Cheshire Cat]

Jim Bailey, The Daily Record: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=538890

The collective commitment to Downtown is as strong right now as I can remember, starting with Mayor Alvin Brown and including political, business and civic leaders.

Heavy lifting is being done for Downtown, as evidenced by Mayor Brown's recent pledge of $9 million for Downtown projects.

Downtown will not live or die on the status of the mobility fee.
Maybe the opponents of the moratorium should offer a compromise, something to the effect of a gradual reduced fee over the three-year period.

When we create a Downtown that attracts people who want the urban lifestyle, the market will demand the construction of more Downtown housing, thus creating more residents.

In the article by Mr. Bailey he states that he has been a supporter of downtown for three decades and then proceeds to make the argument that downtown will not succeed of fail because of the moratorium.  While this may be true at one level what the statement disregards is that the moratorium does more that just impact downtown.  Secondly the inference is that as someone who has cared about downtown for years he perhaps has the street cred to speak up about this issue. This implies that opponents of the issue are not invested in downtown when most clearly are and more importantly actually have real expertise in mobility issues, which Mr. Bailey does not. 

His opinion piece speaks of Richard Clark's statements as to the reason developers are hesitant to proceed with projects, claiming the mobility fee may be part of that problem.  I call "B.S." on this.  First, we are talking about a statement coming from Richard Clark, the same Richard Clark who has spend most of his career in bed with special interests.  Right now his best buddy ever is Tony Sleiman, who backs him in friendship and with his money.  This is the same Richard Clark of the now infamous steakhouse dinner at "Ruth Chris"  hosted by well known lobbyist Paul Hardin.  Richard and others on council left a regular Tuesday night council meeting, dissing the representation of the people who elected them in order to spend time with the lobbyists who wine and dine them.  Nothing Richard Clark says can be measured by anything more than his desire to please special interests with great influence over him and not the citizens nor small business.

Jim also points to the great support for downtown, more than in the past and points to Alvin Brown, political, business and civic leaders.  That statement is also inaccurate and previous efforts to revitalize downtown is evidenced by the millions of dollars poured into it over the past decades as well as the creation of organizations like Downtown Vision and other efforts. 

The reality here is that we now have a DIA on which Jim sits.  That DIA reflects the influences Mr. Bailey spoke of in his piece "some" of which still resonate the influence of the GOB way of doing business.   Let's review some facts about who is behind Alvin Brown's interest in downtown and that begins with Peter Rummell and the "Nifty Fifty" now called the "Civic Council".  Alvin wanted to be mayor and some, including Rummell wanted a person in office whom in his own words "he could work with".  Some of the wealthy movers and shakes of Jacksonville have personal interests in downtown and prior to the mayors election were busy "feeling out" the other candidates and the degree to which they may "expect" support from this candidate for "their own list of priorities".  The candidate most willing to work with their agenda was Alvin Brown.  It was then, later in the campaign that we saw Peter Rummell pour over $400,000.00 into Alvin's campaign as well as some others Republicans.  Some lauded this as a bi-partisan effort, when in fact it had nothing to do with bi-partisanship and everything to do with promises of support from Alvin and Alvin has delivered.  First with 9 million in funding (delivered without a plan) and now attempts to back up that effort with a moratorium on mobility fees to make that money in downtown stretch further for investors who will be looking at how that 9 million will be spent in incentives and how to grow that amount of money to use in their projects downtown.  That is what this is all about. 

I still think Jim is a stand up guy and respect his view but wonder if that view is not one partially expressed in support of some of his peers on the DIA as opposed to support of the entirety of Jacksonville.

As to compromise from opponents of the moratorium, Mr. Bailey mentions a phase out sort of deal.  Perhaps a deal where investors get a waiver after completing projects that meet a specific criterion for job creation (in Jacksonville) and positive financial impact is met. 

[thelakelander]

^I don't believe that a moratorium on mobility fees will stretch dollars for downtown projects? Downtown is exempt from the mobility fee structure through 2017 because of preexisting development agreements.  In one view, this further levels the playing field in downtown over other areas of town that have been subsidized over the last 60 years at downtown's expense.  On the other hand, a full moratorium, takes this potential financial advantage away from downtown.

[JeffreyS]

^Great point Stephen I have not heard it put that way before.  I hope that one day Downtown is a tax surplus area again but that is not why I want a vibrant downtown.

[Cheshire Cat]

From downtown I would agree, but folks like Tony Sleiman and others don't just develop downtown.  What I am saying is that this is at it's heart about funds that back builder/investors personal efforts.  They stretch their own money using "incentives" and "waived fees".  In this case Jim made the argument all about downtown and it's not. I should have stated my view with a bit more clarity. 

[Cheshire Cat]

Stephen's statement is a bit more in line with the reality I was pointing to.  It is not just about downtown which is the bulk of the emotional pull in Jim's piece.  I just want folks to look at all the angles and understand why we end up on these merry-go-rounds as opposed to moving forward.

[thelakelander]

^I'd have to dig a little deeper but I suspect that once you drill things down, one of the core reasons for a push for a mobility fee moratorium is about salvaging speculative land investments on the fringes during the previous real estate boom.  If this is the case, then there will be those who don't care about the mobility plan's credit adjustment system or fee elimination by redeveloping existing underutilized commercial sites.  Yes, 7-11 can select various locations that eliminate their mobility fee but that doesn't help me if it's my pre-owned lot (I want to sell them) getting tagged for higher automobile trip generation, due to it's far out location. Given the last five years, we've all seen our real estate go down the tubes, so that's understandable, but a public subsidy for all new development across the board, to make good on a personal business decision gone bad isn't right for the taxpayer either.