Live Blogging: City Council Mobility Fee Moratorium & Metropolitan Park

[Bridges]

Pretty sure the oysterjam will fall under the Boat show exemption

[Cheshire Cat]

Just wondering here. Will this event, featuring bands, be exempt also?  http://theoysterjammusicfestival.com/

One would hope it would be covered under the boat show but the link for it does not show the festival as under the umbrella of the boat show. It is billed as a music and craft kind of venue. This would be worth investigating for the Oyster Jam folks as they are not named specifically in this waiver.  Would not want to see them unpleasantly surprised.

[sheclown]

So, Diane, what is step one.

[Cheshire Cat]

Gloria, there is a bunch of steps to be taken to begin with, the foremost being a deep personal assessment by all interested parties as to how involved they want to be in changing local politics and as a result who we end up with in City Hall?  More importantly how honest do folks want to be with themselves?  By this I mean can folks step back enough from personal associations and beliefs about some in office or administrative positions in a way that will let the truth shine in and give them a real perspective about who is in office, who would like to be and why we are not better represented at all levels?  No one person can do it alone but I sure can set out a road map for those who are interested.  If people are serious about Jacksonville, the steps toward change needs to start now.

For me it has never been about trying to find fault with people in office but rather about holding them to some degree of ethical conduct and competent action on behalf of the voters and citizens.  Unfortunately in order to do that effectively, people must be willing to respond in kind to shared facts and then be open to addressing how to change what needs changing, even if that also requires readjusting their views about local political party players and local unelected power players.  I wonder, is that possible yet in Jacksonville?  Thoughts?

[Bridges]

I think it can also start with us.  Like Field said in another post, there are many good contenders who got knocked out before even the primary.  Identify those that haven't been brought up through corrupted political channels.  Identify those who are smart and energetic, with the ability to hear sides and not be swayed by the power of the office. 

Once identified we can help them in a variety of ways, leverage connections, spread information and most importantly get the apathetic vote out. 

Start with who is term limited out.  Who are potential candidates for those seats?  We're 2 years out, more than enough time to help position possible candidates. 

Then I would make a priority list of those on the council who are most needed to go, also a ranking of vulnerability.  Focus resources and energy on the most important races. 

[vicupstate]

Diane, 

Let's be real, there is only ONE time in which a Jax City Council member is 'held accountable'.  That is when they run for their one and only re-election.  Once they are in their second term, their is no voter leverage (thanks to term limit nonsense).  And if we are being honest, that one opportunity is only for the year or so before the elcetion for their second term.  They will think, rightly so for the most part, that an issue on which they are opposite of  their constituents, will be forgotten or overshadowed by a more contemporary issue, by the time of the election.

Your best and safest bet is to elect people who you trust and who 'get it'.  Form a team that will RECRUIT good people, that will CAMPAIGN doggedly for them, and then put it's money and time where it's collective mouth is.  Once  a city councilor's initial election is over, the concrete is largely set.

[Cheshire Cat]

I think it can also start with us.  Like Field said in another post, there are many good contenders who got knocked out before even the primary.  Identify those that haven't been brought up through corrupted political channels.  Identify those who are smart and energetic, with the ability to hear sides and not be swayed by the power of the office. 

Once identified we can help them in a variety of ways, leverage connections, spread information and most importantly get the apathetic vote out. 

Those are great standards to begin with, but actually finding those people will not be that easy.  A person who runs for office must be prepared to have all their laundry aired and folks poking into their lives and personal business in many uncomfortable ways.  They have to be thick skinned, mentally and emotionally healthy and understand politics enough to know how the game is played and how to avoid stepping into the many traps on a campaign trail and then once they are in office. The person running for office should be able to afford paid staff cause without it they often end up trying to run a campaign with a handful of folks who actually show up to do the real work when you need them most.

My observations and involvement in politics and business over the years has exposed many things about politics, politicians and the relationship to corporate power players.  Most people who run for office do so because of ego.  That is the reality.  Either they want to be in a position of power or they feel like they can make a positive change.  The first are the ones to avoid but who are most often elected.  The second group who want to work for positive change need to know that the citizens will have their backs once they are in office. Let me repeat, they need to know that the people have their back and if they are campaigning they need to know their supporters will not fail them.  What happens here in Jacksonville is that we see the same names on the ballot over and over again.  We recycle politicians like old shoes and that is almost never a good thing. In many ways this tendency to stay with the same players is a holdover of past and current Good old Boy politics which is alive, well and strong in majority and minority politics in Duval today. 

The other part of the equation that strangles us in this city is media, media, media.  For instance, TU should report the news and stay away from making recommendations for office.  They rarely get it right.  Other reporting agencies should do the same.  When media plays politics as opposed to reporting on them or doing real investigative/watchdog reporting we get what we have now.  Only recently has TU put real efforts back into an investigative reporting team.  That is a good thing.  New4Jax needs to step up when it comes to what politicians are doing.  They have gotten way to soft in that regard.  Friendly reporting is not always good reporting.

What people on this board can do is put together a wish list of items when it comes to what they want in a candidate.  Be specific about what you want to see in your leadership.  Ask each and every candidate how they will vote of the issues most important to the citizens and make darn sure they stick to those commitments once they are in office.  Question their associations with power players and lobbyists.  Look at their experience and education and then verify what you are told.  See who supports them and base your own support upon that information.  Too many GOB's, they may not be the candidate you want, etc.  To extremely liberal or conservative, they may not be the candidate you want.  All these things must be thought through and evaluated.

Believe it or not, in many ways more important than the ones I just mentioned above is developing the ability as a voter and citizen to see beyond "charisma" and "social connections" with a clarity that does not allow your vote to be simply based upon the candidate seeming to be a nice guy or gal.  We want leadership, not dinner dates. This is really difficult in our town because very often the most active individuals rub shoulders with one another on a regular basis and often simply refuse to imagine that so and so could be anything other than a stand up person because their social interactions with them have been fun.  A fatal mistake when it comes to deciding on leadership. 

[Cheshire Cat]

vicupstate  Diane, Lets get real, there is only ONE time in which a Jax City Council member is 'held accountable'.  That is when they run for their one and only re-election.  Once they are in their second term, their is no voter leverage (thanks to term limit nonsense).  And if we are being honest, that one opportunity is only for the year or so before the elcetion for their second term.  They will think, rightly so for the most part, that an issue on which they are opposite of  their constituents, will be forgotten or overshadowed by a more contemporary issue, by the time of the election.

Your best and safest bet is to elect people who you trust and who 'get it'.  Form a team that will RECRUIT good people, that will CAMPAIGN doggedly for them, and then put it's money and time where it's collective mouth is.  Once  a city councilor's initial election is over, the concrete is largely set.

I agree with much of this Vic and believe you me I am very honest about the reality of politics. Too honest and vocal in fact for the taste of many in power.

To the issue of candidates behavior once in office let me say this.  It is time that state laws regarding recall of local officials be changed so that recall is a valid and doable course of action in the case of corrupt, inept or non performing individuals in office. Right now it is costly, convoluted and time consuming.  That has to change.  We need to stay on board with Ethics and Ethics reform locally and at that state level (which by the way has been derailed again). Citizens need to report concerns to the local Ethics officer and when needed to other officials including the SAO. The public needs to also make it clear to media that we want them to do what they are supposed to do which is investigate and report.  We need to know what our officials are up to and this buddy, buddy relationship many in media have with the powers that be is very often the reason that we see the degree of back door corruption that we do.  Rather than lose a connection with a politician or inroad into City Hall, many (not all) in media would rather ignore a story than upset someone powerful.  A lot can be done to change the balance.

[tufsu1]

So should we spend any time asking the Mayor for a veto? (so frustrating.)

no....the compromise isn't that bad...and while the mayor is all for the mobility fee, I think he'll see the compromise as I do...a necessary evil

some people were just born ready to compromise, as long as it means they get nothing in return.

Thats bloody ridiculous, tufsu.

There was no 'compromise'.  the voters and the city got nothing in return except a bill for infrastructure.

I guess that Doug Skiles, Mike Saylor, and Steve Tocknell just got used then

While I doubt any of them are thrilled with the outcome, I do think they would characterize it as a compromise....and one that they agreed to support.

Sorry Stephen, but often times this is what the legislative process requires of our leaders!

[Ocklawaha]

Sorry Stephen, but often times this is what the legislative process requires of our leaders!

Sorry, TUFSU, but in this case, your advice sounds foolish.

Just my 2 cents worth, I'd venture to suggest what was required - indeed DEMANDED was that our leaders lead, show some spine and stand up for the people they represent. A compromise is equal to being in second place in a NASCAR race... second place just translates as 'first loser.' WE CLEARLY LOST. Had we won there would have been no compromise.

I do however understand your line of thinking TUFSU1, its the old politician's motto, 'Part of something is better then nothing at all.' And nothing at all is what we would have gotten had we not circled the wagons and fought back. You are perfectly correct to say it was a compromise, for me, now in my 33Rd year of this fight, it was just another loss, a setback, a shovel of sand tossed in our faces.

Yes Doug was used, so were the rest of us that fought so hard to move this city forward only to have the existential civic nihilist throw us under the bus. From the start the Council displayed a typical sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of what they perceived as an apparently meaningless or absurd concept.  This left those who were carrying the banners for a better city, exposed and isolated to those, and by those, who would destroy us for 30 pieces of silver. Our city has become a urban backwater led by nonsensical, tergiversatorial imbeciles, governing on the theory that ignorance is bliss and 'tis folly to be wise." CHA-CHING!

It's time to get ready for a massive PUSH - BACK!  2014 and the whole lot of them are fired.

[GoldenEst82]

Believe it or not, in many ways more important than the ones I just mentioned above is developing the ability as a voter and citizen to see beyond "charisma" and "social connections" with a clarity that does not allow your vote to be simply based upon the candidate seeming to be a nice guy or gal.  We want leadership, not dinner dates. This is really difficult in our town because very often the most active individuals rub shoulders with one another on a regular basis and often simply refuse to imagine that so and so could be anything other than a stand up person because their social interactions with them have been fun.  A fatal mistake when it comes to deciding on leadership.

This is the smartest thing I have heard anyone say in quite a long time.
Unfortunately, those social connections and their connection to candidate funds- seem to come with understood strings. Until we can find a way to make money accessible to those who would be willing to put up with those political accoutrements, (as you listed in your full post above) without having to make promises of future favor; we won't be able to find true stewards of the people's best interests.
It is very likely we will continue to see the candidate who can raise the most funds- win the election. It comes down to name recognition- and media saturation- because, well, most people don't bother to research for themselves or even to ask questions.

Though, I am not in such company here!

Thanks to you live bloggers as well! I can't make the council meetings, but I can always know what happened- as it happened, and I appreciate it!

[xplanner]

I haven't plowed through the entire thread for the past few days but have scanned enough of the recent posts to offer my viewpoint of what is being portrayed as a community wide compromise/bad deal that resulted from Doug and Steve and I being "used" as pawns of some sort. I don't feel used and frankly, Doug and Steve were masterful at advocating diverse community interests against a single purpose adversary.

Recall that at the end of the first Joint Committee meeting we were pleasantly surprised that the Clark bill did not pass, as most people expected it would. Council President Bishop indicated he was going to convene a Task Force of some sort to revisit the whole matter. In the following weeks, the internal Council process of counting noses revealed that Lori Boyer was the lone Member of Council with a solid NO vote on her mind. At best, there were less than a majority who could even be described as on the fence when it came to a showdown on the bill itself. A vote to delay is easy. A vote to overturn a sponsored bill with heavy developer support is virtually unheard of in my 30 years of sitting in that room.

The Task Force did not materialize. A mediation of sorts was called by CM Crescimbeni, acting as a Statesman should act in a situation of political impasse. And this was nowhere near being an impasse, btw. The Clark bill, as written, was headed for a veto-proof approval. Which would have set the tone for another extension when that round of relief/subsidy expired.

I was in the room. Not one of the six participants in the "mediated" substitute bill agreed with it. We simply all agreed not to unravel the attempt by CM Crescimbeni to put an approvable motion on the Council floor. The marginal success that came out of the new bill was, for me, that alternative mobility modes do get something out of the deal, both in the trickle of funds that will be collected, but more importantly, in the recognition at City Hall that this community wants and demands a political focus on walkability, pedestrian and cyclist-friendly streets. In my view that message can be driven home with emphasis at the next local election. Now that we all know where the weak links are, maybe we can pull together as a coalition of neighborhoods and voting Districts to change what needs changing at the polls.

Don't feel too badly about a compromise, versus an absolute win. The absolute win was poised in favor of the developers. A compromise you don't like is worlds better than an ass-whippin' you'd hate.

Remember, the legislative justification for the waiver in the first place was to create jobs. The bill as passed is still subject to the scrutiny of competent post-mortem analysis of the data that Council relied on to demonstrate "job creation".That data, supplied by the supporters of the bill, appears to have potentially fatal flaws. If so, then what?

[vicupstate]

^^  So basically, you took a 'something is better than nothing' approach.  I can't say I disagree, if the defeat was inevitable.  But it seemed a few weeks ago that the council was split down the middle.  Did that change ,or were some of the perceived anti-moratorium folks just paying lip service?

I get the feeling the anti-moratorium crowd brought a knife to a gun fight.  Of course, that is not a criticism of the knife holders.  A knife was all they had.  The 'gun' is a well organized, and FUNDED organization that can apply campaign funds to those it supports.

I have on numerous occasions advocated a political arm of the MJ/pro urban folks.  Every time I do, all I hear is crickets. 

Remember, the legislative justification for the waiver in the first place was to create jobs. The bill as passed is still subject to the scrutiny of competent post-mortem analysis of the data that Council relied on to demonstrate "job creation".That data, supplied by the supporters of the bill, appears to have potentially fatal flaws. If so, then what?

I don't mean this in a personal or mean spirited way, but this is naive.  They don't want to pay for something they can get for free, and they will use whatever excuse they can manufacture to continue doing so.   

[thelakelander]

Council was never split in the form of nothing being approved at all.  Council was undecided on the amount of subsidies they were willing to give away this round.  This was mentioned in the discussions on the website during that time.

It originally appeared that the majority were willing to grant special interest their initial 3-year request.  However, as public opposition mounted, many desired a solution that they could consider as a compromise.  That compromise being in the form of a shorter time period for the requested waiver and having the development community pay something instead of nothing.

If this were not so, Councilman Crescimbeni could have just let Clark's bill die during the initial joint committee meeting, instead of throwing it a last minute life line, in the form of creating a sub committee to develop a short term compromise solution.

They don't want to pay for something they can get for free, and they will use whatever excuse they can manufacture to continue doing so.

I agree.  I knew this would be the case back in 2011.  The precedent has been established. We've already proven we'll lay down, spread our legs and give up the goodies with ease to special interest and his crew. Why wouldn't these guys keep coming back for more?  Until we have better representation, expect to continue to be pimped, abused and used.

[vicupstate]

So basically, the  3 year moratorium was on track to pass,regardless.  It might have been a closer vote, but they had a firm majority on their side?