Live Blogging: City Council Mobility Fee Moratorium & Metropolitan Park

[Cheshire Cat]

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."

I want to return to what is being said here because it is very important.  When you want to effectively challenge what is happening at the legislative and administrative level you need to have "leverage"!  Big money folks have leverage via their access to funds which buys lobbying power and ultimately face and social time with folks at the top. 

So what is the leverage held by average folks?  It is the ability to use factual documentation, city ordinances, ethics standards, social and mainstream media and publicly stated claims made by those holding office to challenge policies and decisions that we know to be not only unfair, but perhaps even illegal or skirting the law.  Too often folks believe that you can't fight City Hall.  I beg to differ as I have done so quite successfully in the past.  Is it easy?  No, it is a time consuming royal pain in the rear but with determined effort can be done with little money and a bunch of willingness.  You have to research, dig and dig some more to gather immutable facts.  This can entail going so far as to listening to recorded committee meetings,checking the calendars of elected officials and researching old news articles. After having done all of this and you have the proof to back your own position, you need to be willing to report questionable activities to our local Ethics office and for more serious cases to the SAO or other investigative agency as appropriate.

Bottom line is this.  Politicians and folks in leadership have the feeling of insulation when it comes to their official and personal actions.  City Hall has it's own very distinct "social hierarchy" and outsiders need to remember that when addressing concerns as average citizens.  The American people know when they are being "flimflammed", the same goes for folks in Jacksonville.  The problem is that the American public and citizens of Jacksonville as a whole don't know what to do about it.  Educating yourself to the legal courses of action and how officials are expected to transparently behave is key.  When they don't follow the rules, draft competent legislation or follow procedure it is feet to the public fire, i.e. exposing the truth of the actions of those in power.  The reason that this works and works well is that a good percentage of those in office either elected or appointed are not who they pretend to be and lacking quite often in ethics and outside what is honest and lawful.  That potential exposure and willingness to see an issue completely through is the best "leverage" a citizen has.

The second best "leverage" a citizen and voter has is at election time.  While money rules when it comes to selling a politician or platform, candidates need votes to win.  When promises are made by candidates and elected officials they darn well need to be held to those promises and too often they are not.  That does not happen as it should and that is just weakness of the part of the voters. 

Finally the public and groups that are fed up with the lack of true and competent representation need to be willing to work to change the law to make recall of bad politicians a more streamlined process.

[Cheshire Cat]

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!

Welcome Golden and "thank you"!  I hope you will remain engaged in the conversations going forward.  You seem to get it.  lol  I too really like the Blogging the site does during City council and committee meetings.  Not only does it keep folks in the loop, it often does so in an entertaining and engaging way.  Serious when it needs to be and irreverent when it counts. 

[urbanlibertarian]

stephendare wrote: "Public perception is that these idiots are greedy and corrupt.  And thats an almost universal viewpoint in Jacksonville."

Is there polling data that shows that or just your experience talking to people?

[fieldafm]

It is the ability to use factual documentation, city ordinances, ethics standards, social and mainstream media and publicly stated claims made by those holding office

I think you are discounting the fact that we did that.  Two tv stations covered the issue.  Both the Florida Times Union and Folio editorial boards weighed in on the issue.  The Biz Journal, while not giving us a favorable editorial position, did provide coverage of the issue.  The Biz Journal also had an online poll which overwhelmingly opposed the moratorium.  Two social media campaigns were launched.  We had written letters from over 20 respected community orginazations including neighborhood groups, environmental groups, planning organizations, BPAC, merchant groups, CPACs, DVI and DIA that all opposed the moratorium. 

We even had 40 people show up to an otherwise empty City Council chambers to oppose a moratorirum before a moratorium was even introduced. 

Besides Metrojacksonville.com (who has been beating this drum for years)... the only other person that really paid the issue any attention at first was Steve DiMattia of the Resident.  Steve really did a phenomenal job covering this story dating back to last summer.  Steve got comments on record from a very wide variety of players (including many, many public officials) on this debate.  He even offered space to have competing editorials from both Doug Skiles and Toney Sleiman.

He deserves some kind of journalistic medal for his balanced stories that provided deep depth when no one outside of MJ was paying attention. 




Still with all that, this is the result.  It wasn't for lack of effort and lack of voices.  We got to this point b/c of a majority(not all, but most) of Council was unwilling to listen to their constituents and make a decision on something that was good for the entire community instead of what benefitted a very narrow special interest. 

That's the bottom line. 

[Cheshire Cat]

It is the ability to use factual documentation, city ordinances, ethics standards, social and mainstream media and publicly stated claims made by those holding office

I think you are discounting the fact that we did that.  Two tv stations covered the issue.  Both the Florida Times Union and Folio editorial boards weighed in on the issue.  The Biz Journal, while not giving us a favorable editorial position, did provide coverage of the issue.  The Biz Journal also had an online poll which overwhelmingly opposed the moratorium.  Two social media campaigns were launched.  We had written letters from over 20 respected community orginazations including neighborhood groups, environmental groups, planning organizations, BPAC, merchant groups, CPACs, DVI and DIA that all opposed the moratorium. 

We even had 40 people show up to an otherwise empty City Council chambers to oppose a moratorirum before a moratorium was even introduced. 

Besides Metrojacksonville.com (who has been beating this drum for years)... the only other person that really paid the issue any attention at first was Steve DiMattia of the Resident.  Steve really did a phenomenal job covering this story dating back to last summer.  Steve got comments on record from a very wide variety of players (including many, many public officials) on this debate.  He even offered space to have competing editorials from both Doug Skiles and Toney Sleiman.

He deserves some kind of journalistic medal for his balanced stories that provided deep depth when no one outside of MJ was paying attention. 




Still with all that, this is the result.  It wasn't for lack of effort and lack of voices.  We got to this point b/c of a majority(not all, but most) of Council was unwilling to listen to their constituents and make a decision on something that was good for the entire community instead of what benefitted a very narrow special interest. 

That's the bottom line. 

Hold up Mike, my comments were not aimed at this particular issue and were made as a overview of what works and doesn't when mounting legislative and political battles. There is that defensive thing again. Please do not apply an interpretation to my statements that was not meant by the words when shared and especially out of context of the full conversation they were included in. Come on now! I never said those involved in this issue had not done things well.  Everyone did their due diligence, worked hard and deserve plenty of respect for that.  But as Ms. Boyer and xplanner pointed out there are still questions and it may be worth someone investigating further into which power players met with whom, where and if all conversations were in accordance with public disclosure and Sunshine Laws.  Chances are good they were not.  Also time to make sure the agreed on waiver and subsequent legislation (it will come up again) has all the "T's" crossed.  This thing was fast tracked and many meetings and discussions may not have been properly noted.  I know checking this stuff is tedious but it is where you find the cracks that can open up to light.  Pay particular attention to the activities of Richard Clark.  Nuf said.

[fieldafm]

Respectfully, I am not being defensive.  That is the way things are supposed to work, however it didn't work in this case.  There has to be an audience willing to listen.  In this case, we encountered an audience who by and large did not want to listen. 


What would not revealing all ex parte communications do for the bill that was passed and will now be in affect for the next 18 months?  Or are you making that point when considering future elections?  Just trying to follow you.

There is only one challenge that matters at this point as it relates to the moratorium, and it's a challenge that will be waged from here on out by land use attorneys.  Not exactly weak competition (considering that land use attorneys led the charge for the moratorium) but the law does have very specific language about how mobility impacts must be mitigated. 

[Cheshire Cat]

I understand your angst but want to make it very clear the context of my words.  I know first hand the sacrifices a person undergoes in cases like this and would not look down my nose at anyone who engages in a righteous battle.   I know it is a royal pain and disappointment when things do not work out the way we hope they will with so much hard work, time and effort extended.  The key is to never give up and take a break when needed from these types of situations.

Reviewing how the moratorium deal (and others for that matter) go down, including understanding the players, their connections and how they operate can be invaluable in mounting "future" challenges to legislation.  It is always wise to focus some attention on the person who is pushing a bill.  They have a reason to be offering legislation but the question is who will their efforts help and who will they hurt? If the legislation serves the powerful, start digging and prepping to take on the issue if you wish to oppose it.

With regard to the waiver just passed, considering the time and effort expended, a more critical look at the days leading up to the waiver, unexpected meetings etc. might expose some actions that were not in keeping with transparency as required by the Sunshine Law.  We know in this case the who's and why's, but what has yet to be determined is whether or not "agreements" were made outside of the Sunshine as required by law.  It's worth looking into.  Just try inquiring and see if you get resistance to reviewing council schedules and logs.  If you do, that's a bell ringing. 

Challenging any piece of legislation offered on behalf of the powerful will often put you up against professionals but they are not always more clever or educated than those opposing them.  They just have more practice and a better understanding of the system than the average citizen.  So citizens need to take extra steps to educate themselves about city processes. There are enough smart, savvy folks connected to this board to mount some very serious challenges to legislation and political behavior that hurts us and our city. Certainly smarter than some currently on council.  It will take even more folks stepping up to help with things like legality of legislation, research etc.

One of the best things Metrojacksonville has done to open doors to understanding is the blogging of meetings taking place at City Hall and elsewhere.   That first hand experience for readers is a very important piece to understanding how thing work in committee and during council meetings.

[sheclown]

yes, the live blogging is very powerful. 

Diane, it fantastic to have your experience helping us understand -- thanks!

[vicupstate]

It is the ability to use factual documentation, city ordinances, ethics standards, social and mainstream media and publicly stated claims made by those holding office

I think you are discounting the fact that we did that.  Two tv stations covered the issue.  Both the Florida Times Union and Folio editorial boards weighed in on the issue.  The Biz Journal, while not giving us a favorable editorial position, did provide coverage of the issue.  The Biz Journal also had an online poll which overwhelmingly opposed the moratorium.  Two social media campaigns were launched.  We had written letters from over 20 respected community orginazations including neighborhood groups, environmental groups, planning organizations, BPAC, merchant groups, CPACs, DVI and DIA that all opposed the moratorium. 

We even had 40 people show up to an otherwise empty City Council chambers to oppose a moratorirum before a moratorium was even introduced. 

Besides Metrojacksonville.com (who has been beating this drum for years)... the only other person that really paid the issue any attention at first was Steve DiMattia of the Resident.  Steve really did a phenomenal job covering this story dating back to last summer.  Steve got comments on record from a very wide variety of players (including many, many public officials) on this debate.  He even offered space to have competing editorials from both Doug Skiles and Toney Sleiman.

He deserves some kind of journalistic medal for his balanced stories that provided deep depth when no one outside of MJ was paying attention. 




Still with all that, this is the result.  It wasn't for lack of effort and lack of voices.  We got to this point b/c of a majority(not all, but most) of Council was unwilling to listen to their constituents and make a decision on something that was good for the entire community instead of what benefitted a very narrow special interest. 

That's the bottom line. 

Well said.  I get the impression that the council thinks that the pro urban crowd is a vocal, decently organized, MINORITY, that will make a lot of 'noise', but it's bark is worse than it's bite.

You need to prove them wrong.  Start with the organizations that were in your corner.  Encourage all the CPAC's and the other organizations to each vote resolutions in PROTEST of council's action.  Work diligently to see that they EACH go on RECORD in opposition to this action.  That fact that they may have done so before the vote, is NOT sufficient. 

Likewise, everyone needs to write an email to the member expressing your disappointment in this decision.  I suggest a WRITTEN snail mail one actually.  It makes a bigger impact.  Someone has to open it, it has a physical presence, it represents a bigger investment of time too.  Believe me, that says something.   

Next do everything you can to continue to educate the public on this 'in the weeds' issue.  Pass out flyers at community and club meetings, whatever you can.  Start a website devoted to just this issue.   

Doug's role as the diplomatic negotiator is crucial and he needs to remain 'above the fray' to some degree.  But you need 'agitators' to do the work he can't.   For instance, be sure that anytime a candidate forum is held ANYWHERE in the city during the election cycle, that someone brings up this issue.  That goes DOUBLE for the incumbents.  Ask pointed, fact based questions that reminds the audience how they voted.

Never forget that they are counting on this to 'blow over'.  Don't let it.

[ricker]

It is the ability to use factual documentation, city ordinances, ethics standards, social and mainstream media and publicly stated claims made by those holding office

I think you are discounting the fact that we did that.  Two tv stations covered the issue.  Both the Florida Times Union and Folio editorial boards weighed in on the issue.  The Biz Journal, while not giving us a favorable editorial position, did provide coverage of the issue.  The Biz Journal also had an online poll which overwhelmingly opposed the moratorium.  Two social media campaigns were launched.  We had written letters from over 20 respected community orginazations including neighborhood groups, environmental groups, planning organizations, BPAC, merchant groups, CPACs, DVI and DIA that all opposed the moratorium. 

We even had 40 people show up to an otherwise empty City Council chambers to oppose a moratorirum before a moratorium was even introduced. 

Besides Metrojacksonville.com (who has been beating this drum for years)... the only other person that really paid the issue any attention at first was Steve DiMattia of the Resident.  Steve really did a phenomenal job covering this story dating back to last summer.  Steve got comments on record from a very wide variety of players (including many, many public officials) on this debate.  He even offered space to have competing editorials from both Doug Skiles and Toney Sleiman.

He deserves some kind of journalistic medal for his balanced stories that provided deep depth when no one outside of MJ was paying attention. 




Still with all that, this is the result.  It wasn't for lack of effort and lack of voices.  We got to this point b/c of a majority(not all, but most) of Council was unwilling to listen to their constituents and make a decision on something that was good for the entire community instead of what benefitted a very narrow special interest. 

That's the bottom line. 

Well said.  I get the impression that the council thinks that the pro urban crowd is a vocal, decently organized, MINORITY, that will make a lot of 'noise', but it's bark is worse than it's bite.

You need to prove them wrong.  Start with the organizations that were in your corner.  Encourage all the CPAC's and the other organizations to each vote resolutions in PROTEST of council's action.  Work diligently to see that they EACH go on RECORD in opposition to this action.  That fact that they may have done so before the vote, is NOT sufficient. 

Likewise, everyone needs to write an email to the member expressing your disappointment in this decision.  I suggest a WRITTEN snail mail one actually.  It makes a bigger impact.  Someone has to open it, it has a physical presence, it represents a bigger investment of time too.  Believe me, that says something.   

Next do everything you can to continue to educate the public on this 'in the weeds' issue.  Pass out flyers at community and club meetings, whatever you can.  Start a website devoted to just this issue.   

Doug's role as the diplomatic negotiator is crucial and he needs to remain 'above the fray' to some degree.  But you need 'agitators' to do the work he can't.   For instance, be sure that anytime a candidate forum is held ANYWHERE in the city during the election cycle, that someone brings up this issue.  That goes DOUBLE for the incumbents.  Ask pointed, fact based questions that reminds the audience how they voted.

Never forget that they are counting on this to 'blow over'.  Don't let it.

GOOD POINTS


Council members seem to quickly forget how they are elected, and who they serve.

[tufsu1]

I get the impression that the council thinks that the pro urban crowd is a vocal, decently organized, MINORITY, that will make a lot of 'noise', but it's bark is worse than it's bite.

that's probably still a fair assumption in a city of 800,000 people spread over 800 square miles

[strider]

It is the ability to use factual documentation, city ordinances, ethics standards, social and mainstream media and publicly stated claims made by those holding office

I think you are discounting the fact that we did that.  Two tv stations covered the issue.  Both the Florida Times Union and Folio editorial boards weighed in on the issue.  The Biz Journal, while not giving us a favorable editorial position, did provide coverage of the issue.  The Biz Journal also had an online poll which overwhelmingly opposed the moratorium.  Two social media campaigns were launched.  We had written letters from over 20 respected community orginazations including neighborhood groups, environmental groups, planning organizations, BPAC, merchant groups, CPACs, DVI and DIA that all opposed the moratorium. 

We even had 40 people show up to an otherwise empty City Council chambers to oppose a moratorirum before a moratorium was even introduced. 

Besides Metrojacksonville.com (who has been beating this drum for years)... the only other person that really paid the issue any attention at first was Steve DiMattia of the Resident.  Steve really did a phenomenal job covering this story dating back to last summer.  Steve got comments on record from a very wide variety of players (including many, many public officials) on this debate.  He even offered space to have competing editorials from both Doug Skiles and Toney Sleiman.

He deserves some kind of journalistic medal for his balanced stories that provided deep depth when no one outside of MJ was paying attention. 




Still with all that, this is the result.  It wasn't for lack of effort and lack of voices.  We got to this point b/c of a majority(not all, but most) of Council was unwilling to listen to their constituents and make a decision on something that was good for the entire community instead of what benefitted a very narrow special interest. 

That's the bottom line. 

Well said.  I get the impression that the council thinks that the pro urban crowd is a vocal, decently organized, MINORITY, that will make a lot of 'noise', but it's bark is worse than it's bite.

You need to prove them wrong.  Start with the organizations that were in your corner.  Encourage all the CPAC's and the other organizations to each vote resolutions in PROTEST of council's action.  Work diligently to see that they EACH go on RECORD in opposition to this action.  That fact that they may have done so before the vote, is NOT sufficient. 

Likewise, everyone needs to write an email to the member expressing your disappointment in this decision.  I suggest a WRITTEN snail mail one actually.  It makes a bigger impact.  Someone has to open it, it has a physical presence, it represents a bigger investment of time too.  Believe me, that says something.   

Next do everything you can to continue to educate the public on this 'in the weeds' issue.  Pass out flyers at community and club meetings, whatever you can.  Start a website devoted to just this issue.   

Doug's role as the diplomatic negotiator is crucial and he needs to remain 'above the fray' to some degree.  But you need 'agitators' to do the work he can't.   For instance, be sure that anytime a candidate forum is held ANYWHERE in the city during the election cycle, that someone brings up this issue.  That goes DOUBLE for the incumbents.  Ask pointed, fact based questions that reminds the audience how they voted.

Never forget that they are counting on this to 'blow over'.  Don't let it.

First, we were not very well organized over this and the end result proves it very well.  We made a good first impression and then lost all with the follow through.  Or lack of it.  Reference Lori Boyer's e-mail.

Doug is a great guy but he proved himself vulnerable and so needs to work on proving that he can be a leader all over again.  The only way he can do that is with our help.  That help must be making us a "special interest group" unto ourselves that is just as influential as any other. To do less means we have lost before we have begun the fight.

It is important to note that while it says "Doug", any name can be substituted here. Don't make this personally about Doug, it isn't.  It is about the practical facts of the matter.  Unless we can provide cover for the leaders we want to support, their vulnerabilities will haunt them and prevent them from fighting the hard fights.  We owe it to them as much as ourselves to find a way to protect them.  And political might is the only way to do that.

[thelakelander]

^Yes, there was no organization.  Doug wasn't an officially anointed leader or on anyone's payroll to fight this issue full time. Doug was just one of many citizens in opposition.  The fact that some of us made Doug a defacto leader (without him even knowing) is a problem within itself.  We need thousands of more Dougs, IMO.

We can also see the positive results of what a better organized group can do as well.  Although, they still got screwed unintentionally (because no one really understood how the actual bike/ped numbers were budgeted within the mobility plan), they were thrown a bone by the council for showing up in large numbers and advocating for their particular issue.

[sheclown]

"We did the best we could" is the theme song of all losers.  There is no place this works, except perhaps, in kindergarten.

"Next time is ours" is the theme song of winners. 

[thelakelander]

We have three losing themes going...

1. That's the best we could get...

2. Our leaders failed us...

3. We ultimately got screwed, learn from this and move on to become more influential....