LIVE BLOG: MOBILITY FEE MORATORIUM: Rules&Finance Committee

[Cheshire Cat]

Has Joost said a word yet?  Is he there?

[thelakelander]

According to Calvin Burney, 13,277 residential lots exist today that already don't have to pay a mobility fee.

[Cheshire Cat]

Hmmm, Where is Joost?  I am beginning to wonder if he was "advised" not to be at this meeting.  Perhaps someone should inquire about this later and ask why he did not come given the fact that he has gone on record saying the last moratorium was a failure.

[Cheshire Cat]

What media outlets are covering this.  Anyone know?

[thelakelander]

Matt Schellenberg doesn't believe the economy is getting better. He mentions most of the US jobs are going to Texas. He suspects in Jax, that the economy is slugging along.

[TheCat]

Crescimbeni:

We haven't heard anyone drum roll jobs. He can't support a blanket moratorium for three years. We don't know where we will be in three years. We already have over 13k plots that are ready to go that are not being developed. does not feel comfortable supporting developers storing land and developing whenever they want.

Schellenberg:
* jobs are going to Texas.
* Somehow, blames Obama for the state of our economy.

Lumb:

Ask Burney how much money we expected the Mobility Fee to generate. Burney says " I don't know" The lobbyists says "$400 million." Bishop says " no one knew. this plan was made in the depths of the recession. Nothing was going on. We could not guess on the fee. This was a forward looking plan."

[Cheshire Cat]

Someone is playing footsie with Matt.  Here is a man commenting on a failing economy when all factors indicate an uptick.  Has Schellenberg presented any facts or just talk about Texas?

[Cheshire Cat]

What was a forward looking plan?

[TheCat]

Lumb:

We are falling far short of where we need to be to meet our city's needs.

Asks Burney: Do you think the moratorium will encourage more development? Burney says " well,..." Lumb cuts him off    "it's a conundrum."

Is it possible that we do have access capacity on our roadways that can absorb developments. Burney says "there are some roads that can absorb that but we are short on capacity overall..."  I may have missed Burney's point.

[JeffreyS]

Mr. Burney seems to be in favor of the mobility fee.

[thelakelander]

Mr. Burney is stating the factual data.  In this case, the facts speak for themselves.  I just hope the ultimate decision is based on facts that protect the taxpayers.

[Cheshire Cat]

Amen Ennis!

[thelakelander]

Councilman Holt is in favor of a one year renewal as opposed to a full three year moratorium.

[TheCat]

Lumb asks if there is anyone in the department that specializes in bike/pedestrian? Burney, " no...we are thinking of funding a position for that purpose."

Doug Skyles:

Clarifies that the 82 million dollar figure that the developers are saying is a result of the waiver is not correct. I don't have the number but Doug identified projects that were definitely not developed because of the waiver.

Holt:

Has an issue with the three year length. Wants to consider a one year renewal. Lobbyist says "we're okay with that."

[TheCat]

Jim Love asks Bishop "the mobility plan won an award from the American Planners Association, why?"

Bishop says, " I don't really know but the plans intent was to flatten the fee so all new development has to pay a fee and so everyone has to pay less. "