Live Blogging: City Council Mobility Fee Moratorium & Metropolitan Park

[thelakelander]

^Yes, that was my recollection. Going into the initial joint committee meeting, it was believed that Clark had the votes lined up to pass the full 3 year moratorium.

[Bridges]

The biggest thing the pro-moratorium crowd has going for it (besides the connections, money, and power) is their cohesiveness and leadership chain.  They know who is running the show for them and lobbying their efforts.  At the first joint committee meeting they asked the developer representative who he was speaking for, and he said the whole group.  They then asked Doug, and he said just himself.  At the time I thought this was a powerful statement on our behalf.  Here is a group of citizens so against the moratorium that they will come speak and fight for a cause without monetary gain as a goal.  But whatever symbolic victory that was, it pales in comparison to the difficulty of overcoming a non-cohesive group.  Give the bike advocates massive credit, they were the closest thing we had towards a lead on the issue.  They kept their party informed and active throughout the process. 

So, I think a lot of people are upset because we were kept in the dark as to what was happening.  We have a large group of concerned citizens that rely on the information of this site and others to inform them of issues and stir up passion.  I'm most upset with our council members who started from the wrong position on the moratorium and moved towards a slightly less-wrong position on the moratorium.  But I also feel a little frustrated that we citizens were kept in the dark until *bam* compromise. 

We were rallied last October and showed up in force to stop what we thought would be an emergency bill.  We were rallied a month and a half ago to stop the Clark bill.  We succeeded both times in making change.  Just a band of concerned citizens with a no specific leadership.  There's power in that. 

[tufsu1]

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?

Thank you for making these points far more cogently than I could!

[Lunican]

It's hard to imagine a scenario where the mobility fee will ever go into effect. Public opposition and data showing the moratorium as ineffective resulted in a unanimous extension of developer subsidies.

Under what conditions could the mobility fee be collected?

[strider]

Calling something a compromise assumes that both sides could potentially lose something.  What did the developer lobby give up?  Something they did not have nor were in reality untitled to? This was not a compromise, it was a gift to a special interest group. 

No one was used.  They didn't need us at all.  Our de facto leaders, like Doug, were intimidated into agreeing to what they knew was a bad deal, the rest of us were simply ignored.

Yes, we got a very small concession at all because were were able to mobilize a large enough group and the potential fall out from ignoring us was too great.  So they did the smart thing.  When the full frontal approach failed, they did the behind the scenes thing and did it well. They waited just long enough that the press died down.  They kept control of the situation and even of our de facto leadership.  They made sure there was no time to mobilize the group and to get the facts back out to the public.  They knew by control the timing, they could control the spin.  Do you think that waiting one council cycle to do this, remember that they actually had two approved substitutes to deal with, would have hurt anyone?  Wouldn't it have made sense to delay and see of they could get one bill?   Except that they knew the metro park thing was going on and would help drown out anything we managed to do for the mobility fee. Now was the time and the developers knew it.

This whole thing was done very well indeed and in my opinion, not very ethically.

[dougskiles]

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?

That was my belief.  Something was going to pass.  In fact, if Council President Bishop hadn't jumped in with the suggestion to bring back the steering committee to review the mobility fee calculation system, we would have seen an amendment for a 1-year 100% off, moratorium the night of the first joint committee meeting.  There were three council members ready to offer an amendment.  If you go back and watch the tape carefully, CM Holt thought that such an amendment had been made and was ready to vote on it.  But what ended up happening was a vote to defer until further study could be made.  Curtis Hart was asked if he supported another 1-year 100% off moratorium as a compromise and he could barely contain his enthusiastic response.  I was sitting in the front row violently shaking my head and wondering why our side wasn't asked what we thought about such an amendment.

The next day, I sent a letter to all of the council members in that meeting explaining that under no circumstances did I feel an acceptable compromise would include any amount of time with no fee required.  I suggested that if we're going to talk compromise it should be in terms of percentage discount.  I sent an email to many of those involved in the advocacy and asked their thoughts.  Most replied back in agreement.  The representatives from the Sierra Club were the only ones who stated that they were against any form of compromise.  I asked for this in a letter form so that I could give it to the council.  I never received that letter, but I did explain it verbally during the "compromise" meeting.

As to why I chose not to put all of this online, I hope the answer is obvious.  When we are in a negotiating situation, it does us no good to publicly broadcast our position, and our discussions.  Throughout the process, I kept those who had been what I thought key representatives informed.  I sincerely apologize if I missed anyone.

Another issue that I feel needs explanation is that when I talk to council members, I do not feel that it helps our relationship if they view me as a reporter who is going to publicly repeat everything I hear.  I am not a member of the media, and do not feel it my duty to share everything I hear.  I value the friendships that have been established through this process with members of city council, the mayor's office and the planning department.  These friendships will serve us well in the future as we continue advocating for urban redevelopment and alternative forms of transportation.

I'll give you a case in point.  This morning, I was having breakfast with my son at Maple Street Biscuit Company and CM Schellenberg approached me.  We had a nice conversation about the arts (his daughter is a senior at DA and my son is a freshman).  Then he asked me some questions about the compromise and my opinions as to how we should move forward.  Matt is one of the more conservative members of this council, and I believe that he truly valued my opinion.  I believe this is so because of how we conducted ourselves.  You can call me a "love to compromise" guy as much as you want, but I would always rather have a seat at the table making decisions than be on the outside looking in trying to throw stones through a concrete wall.  I recognize that this may keep some of you from supporting my efforts in the future because you will see me as "one of the insiders" who can't be trusted.  Everyone needs to follow the style that suits them best.  I am not the type to stir up anger and threaten to tar and feather people because they don't agree with my opinions.  I would much prefer a civilized conversation where I can understand their issues, explain mine and hopefully find a solution that allows us to move forward.  On the flip side, I also recognize that there are times you have to draw a line and fight with everything you have.  I thought long and hard about it, and didn't feel that this was one of those times.

It's hard to imagine a scenario where the mobility fee will ever go into effect. Public opposition and data showing the moratorium as ineffective resulted in a unanimous extension of developer subsidies.

Under what conditions could the mobility fee be collected?

25% of the fee will be collected as soon as the mayor signs the bill.  I personally have three applications in that will generate $20,000+ (after the discount).

My feeling on this is that because we live in a democratic republic, the will of the majority always wins.  If we don't find a way to set the value of this fee to something that the majority supports, we will always be fighting it.  Hopefully, as awareness increases about these issues the majority will begin to accept a greater investment and a higher fee.  Otherwise we will spend tremendous energy fighting this everytime and eventually give up the fight having accomplished nothing.

[xplanner]

Referring to the last sentence of my last post, I was treading lightly on the subject of the new bill's potential legal weaknesses, because I'm not an attorney. But from the vantage point of someone who has spent a career crafting regulatory bills, I question if it may require a Judge to determine if Council passed a "waiver", or a moratorium. If it is technically viewed as a moratorium, then it has to meet very specific State Statutes as to how it is constructed and how it may or may not be extended over time. Apply those standards, and I think the bill is vulnerable. Big if.

And, taking the "if" as a given, the job creation angle is very important from the standpoint that a court could require significant truthful evidence that the first moratorium demonstrated mandatory economic development results in the form of job creation. We don't have any such evidence at this time. The court would likely ask for a tighter definition of what those terms mean too.

My point, in big, block letters, is: we could not have won this fight at Council, neither with a knife nor a gun. Too much political equity had already been expended to expect them to kill the Clark bill, or a variation of it, outright. The good news is, the sponsor didn't get what he wanted. And he's the only one on the "other side" who wasn't prepared to compromise.

The better news, at least for those who love a good fight, is that this Relief Bill will expire almost to the day that Jacksonville votes for the next City Council and Mayor. (How did they walk into that trap???). The forum chat and debates leading up to that election might actually be worth the wait.

Quoting the greatest philosopher of all time, "It ain't over 'til it's over."

[tufsu1]

It's hard to imagine a scenario where the mobility fee will ever go into effect. Public opposition and data showing the moratorium as ineffective resulted in a unanimous extension of developer subsidies.

Under what conditions could the mobility fee be collected?

the mobility fee is in effect (be it with a discount) now....there is not a full waiver, so some money is being collected

[Bridges]

The better news, at least for those who love a good fight, is that this Relief Bill will expire almost to the day that Jacksonville votes for the next City Council and Mayor. (How did they walk into that trap???). The forum chat and debates leading up to that election might actually be worth the wait.

Quoting the greatest philosopher of all time, "It ain't over 'til it's over."

+1 million

Absolutely!

But I bet we see a few more fights before then.  We'll see a step up in permits for 7-11s and the like for the next 9 months. And you can bet they will use that as evidence of the waiver working. 

The question now is how do we prepare for these battles?

[Lunican]

It's hard to imagine a scenario where the mobility fee will ever go into effect. Public opposition and data showing the moratorium as ineffective resulted in a unanimous extension of developer subsidies.

Under what conditions could the mobility fee be collected?

the mobility fee is in effect (be it with a discount) now....there is not a full waiver, so some money is being collected

Well that's good news. I guess we can pay for the proposed projects in 100 years or so.

[thelakelander]

^Clark actually suggested refunding the money collected so far.  Luckily, the majority of the council didn't agree.

[urbanlibertarian]

The better news, at least for those who love a good fight, is that this Relief Bill will expire almost to the day that Jacksonville votes for the next City Council and Mayor. (How did they walk into that trap???). The forum chat and debates leading up to that election might actually be worth the wait.

Quoting the greatest philosopher of all time, "It ain't over 'til it's over."

+1 million

Absolutely!

But I bet we see a few more fights before then.  We'll see a step up in permits for 7-11s and the like for the next 9 months. And you can bet they will use that as evidence of the waiver working. 

The question now is how do we prepare for these battles?

Hmmm.  Be careful what you wish for.  Is the mobility fee popular with the voters?  Do the voters view developers as job creators or robber barons?  How do you change public perception?

[If_I_Loved_you]

The better news, at least for those who love a good fight, is that this Relief Bill will expire almost to the day that Jacksonville votes for the next City Council and Mayor. (How did they walk into that trap???). The forum chat and debates leading up to that election might actually be worth the wait.

Quoting the greatest philosopher of all time, "It ain't over 'til it's over."

+1 million

Absolutely!

But I bet we see a few more fights before then.  We'll see a step up in permits for 7-11s and the like for the next 9 months. And you can bet they will use that as evidence of the waiver working. 

The question now is how do we prepare for these battles?

Hmmm.  Be careful what you wish for.  Is the mobility fee popular with the voters?  Do the voters view developers as job creators or robber barons?  How do you change public perception?

Robber Barons + 2 million

[triclops i]

I think its funny how important the mobility fee is, but instead we have to deal with 300 G-damn juggalos vs. senior citizens complain about heavy metal at Met Park

[thelakelander]

I think its funny how important the mobility fee is, but instead we have to deal with 300 G-damn juggalos vs. senior citizens complain about heavy metal at Met Park

So true, so true.