Council and developers want to change the mobility plan again?

[tufsu1]

I admit to not being as skeptical as Lakelander when first seeing this earlier today....my feeling was there may be instances where a new project or idea has been conceived since the Plan was originally developed....for example, maybe bike lanes on Pearl Street downtown would be better than on the Broad/Jefferson pair slated for BRT. 

That said, upon further review, this could open up Pandora's box and could in fact defeat the greater good that the Plan intended.

[thelakelander]

^There were safeguards built into the plan, such as it being revaluated every five years to account for minor issues like the one described above. Unfortunately, it's never been allowed to do what it was intended to do. This kills the predictability component of the entire plan and any rational nexus between the plan's priority projects and associated land use changes that were already modified in the comp plan.  Unfortunately, it appears that every council modification made since 2011 seems to further reduce the benefits of the plan that were intended for the community and long term sustainability of the city. I fear the biggest negative impact will be the urban core and the Northside where transit investment was a part of spurring market rate transit oriented development opportunities, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and creating a multimodal friendly setting that currently doesn't exist in Jacksonville.

[Bridges]

I think I'm missing something. I don't understand what the purpose of changing it like this is? Is it a move to set up the kill move down the line? What is the urgency of this change?

[thelakelander]

Who knows for sure.  I'm sure those advocating for the change have their reasons.  I just wonder how the change benefits the community and aligns with the community supported visioning process that the mobility plan grew out of. Right now, I just don't know how you can rationally tie any guy's alternative proposal, for what his share of mobility fees should be spent on, with the core purpose of developing the plan in the first place.

[JeffreyS]

Lake, I will explain how it is beneficial.  If the council creates a loophole that they can exploit on a case by case basis then they can trade those exploitations for favors and donations.  See it is simple .........corruption.... voilà.

[strider]

This is in essence, the same issue we see with all the federal funds being spent in Jacksonville.  Rather than let the plan or program do what it is supposed to do, let's turn what is done with the funds over to the Developers because, you know, the Developers will always do what is best for us tax payers, right?

Unfortunately, here's the issue with trying to stop anything they want to do with the Mobility fee.  The people out here that could make the best arguments and do the most to stop it with the facts are vulnerable and so it will most likely end just like last time.  Now, however, the Developers have smelled the blood and so are not even worried about anyone stopping what they want to do.  The only hope is to find the thread that leads to bad press for the various council members in on it and fill the room with lots of angry people. Has that public records request been filed yet MJ? 

The other possibility is where are the developers vulnerable? Is there some ordinance not being enforced that could be?  Is there an ordinance a friendly council person (assuming there is one...) could introduce that would cost them more than the mobility fee?  Maybe stop a project being planned somehow?  Is there something you can do that could hurt the developers more than the Mobility fee will? With Sielman, would the landing proposals somehow make him vulnerable?  What about the land use lawyers? They play dirty, you need to as well.  Find that house and drop it on them.

[sheclown]

I agree with Strider.

Where are the developers vulnerable?

Let's Dance.

[L.P. Hovercraft]

It really smells like some kind of corruption racket between developers and city government--aren't there state or federal RICO laws against this kind of thing? 
Or is this just the new normal of public-private partnerships--the public pays and private developers take?

On the bright side though, maybe Jacksonville will finally reach that coveted #1 spot in the country for pedestrian and bicyclist deaths!

[JeffreyS]

The fact that there are now only 24 votes and 24 comments feels like a community giving up.

[thelakelander]

The fact that there are now only 24 votes and 24 comments feels like a community giving up.

For me, I'm just trying to figure out what's going on while trying to balance the impending weight of this on my already overcommitted schedule.

[Bridges]

The fact that there are now only 24 votes and 24 comments feels like a community giving up.

I'll be at next council, but I doubt we have anything near the support of the past few times.  Last time we had the support of virtually every neighborhood CPAC, the Chamber, Historic Preservation communities, and the bike community.  And we were still ignored. 

One of the biggest problems we've had is that there isn't a head voice for the supporting crowd.  Doug Skiles became the De Facto head, and he fought hard for it, and took some flack for the final outcome.  I don't know if he has been in discussion with them again on this point or not, but it's hard to rally people again without a solid voice to the council. 

Also, at every step the developers have said they like the plan.  In the beginning it was a better plan than the old unfair impact fees, then it was best that we waive the fee entirely, then it was great to just get a small 9 month ramp up to the full fee, now it would be best if they could just control how the fee was used.  And every time, we've been told "this is it, no more".  And then when that plan is up, here they are again. 

[Bridges]

Speaking of the bike community.  They were out in great force last time.  I wonder what they think about letting developers decide the project to fund.  Something tells me, bike lanes and amenities won't be high on that list.

[tufsu1]

I'll be at next council, but I doubt we have anything near the support of the past few times.  Last time we had the support of virtually every neighborhood CPAC, the Chamber, Historic Preservation communities, and the bike community.  And we were still ignored. 

I hardly think the groups were ignored....if it wasn't for them, there would be a full fledged moratorium at this point

[Bridges]

I'll be at next council, but I doubt we have anything near the support of the past few times.  Last time we had the support of virtually every neighborhood CPAC, the Chamber, Historic Preservation communities, and the bike community.  And we were still ignored. 

I hardly think the groups were ignored....if it wasn't for them, there would be a full fledged moratorium at this point

You're right!  How silly of me.  Because of them we got a whopping 25% of the fee, followed by what looks to be like a re-write of the plan by developers.  Can't believe I said they were ignored.

[mbwright]

They will continue to peck at this until it is gone, or worthless, or both.