Eliminating Sprawl: Is it possible?

[EP]

I partially blame the 1985 Florida Growth Management Act.  The idea was to promote vibrant urban cores throughout the state, but the whole plan was predicated on state infrastructure funding for downtown areas.  I think its safe to say that we all know what happened with that.

As for the schools, Jacksonville has great magnet schools.  I went to Douglas Anderson and my sister went to Paxon, both good schools.  I think that the non-magnets suck equally.  For instance, I was zoned to go to Sandalwood, and my parents live in a nice (if you are into sprawl) East Arlington neighborhood.

[Lunican]

We are going broke trying to maintain this fantasy that developers have the right to just build anywhere they like and the city will hook their asses up.

This is why the 'city' and the 'developers' should not be one and the same.

[Joe]

I partially blame the 1985 Florida Growth Management Act.  The idea was to promote vibrant urban cores throughout the state, but the whole plan was predicated on state infrastructure funding for downtown areas.  I think its safe to say that we all know what happened with that.

This is a great point. The Growth Management Act strongly promotes sprawl in several ways.

Most importantly, it requires that infrastructure be built before new development can be approved. High density development in the suburbs near a downtown is virtually impossible, since no one can afford to add the extra auto-oriented infrastructure. However, low density developments out in the middle of nowhere can piggyback off pre-existing rural road capacity. Consequently, the "Growth Management Act" functionally mandates low density growth as the developer's path of least resistance.

Another important point is that growth must be zoned in accordance to a comprehensive plan. So planners (perhaps because they are lazy, perhaps because they fear NIMBYs) simply plan for ever-increasing circles of low-density residential, mixed with retail and commercial along existing road capacity. The result is, of course, nothing but subdivisions and strip malls.

[RiversideGator]

The answer to question one is people want to live in Duval but the schools are awful and we need to move our children to Clay or St. Johns. Fix that and people like me will raise our children in the city.

Having actual neighborhood schools would help to encourage the surrounding community to take ownership of its public schools.  The bottom line is people want their kids to go to school with the people with whom they choose to live.  Eliminate all strange district boundaries and busing and you will see an increase in Duval County enrollment and a reduction in flight from Duval County to surrounding counties (which is now unfortunately a well known phenomenon).  The bottom line is if you keep playing political games with people's kids, they will simply move away.  And not everyone can afford the private school option either.

[RiversideGator]

Also, we need to recognize that large numbers of people want to live in suburbia.  The trick is to make suburbia more efficient, dense, interconnected and tied into mass transit.  Look at new developments as recreating traditional neighborhoods but just farther out and tied into commuter rail, for example, and accomplish this with better zoning.  There is a huge amount of land on the westside for example within a stone's thrown of the railroad.  New but traditional communities could be built there with traditional town centers with retail and train stations and Riverside/Avondale/Springfield housing developments surrounding them (but not fake urban junk like Nocatee).  This would be an amazing development IMO.

BTW, Amelia Park on Amelia Island is the best example of this in Northeast Florida.

[thelakelander]

Also, we need to recognize that large numbers of people want to live in suburbia.  The trick is to make suburbia more efficient, dense, interconnected and tied into mass transit.  Look at new developments as recreating traditional neighborhoods but just farther out and tied into commuter rail, for example, and accomplish this with better zoning.  There is a huge amount of land on the westside for example within a stone's thrown of the railroad.  New but traditional communities could be built there with traditional town centers with retail and train stations and Riverside/Avondale/Springfield housing developments surrounding them (but not fake urban junk like Nocatee).  This would be an amazing development IMO.

BTW, Amelia Park on Amelia Island is the best example of this in Northeast Florida.

This is the basic definition of Smart Growth.  I believe planning in this manner is much more realistic for the First Coast then flat out outlawing suburban development away from the urban core.

[thelakelander]

suburban development doesnt rely on extreme remoteness, Lake.  Its a style that includes low density, cul de sacs and apparently lots of mulch.

Suburban development comes in many styles and forms.  As stated earlier, Riverside and Springfield were two early forms of suburban development in Jacksonville's history, that were slightly less dense than earlier residential communities like Brooklyn, LaVilla and East Jacksonville.  As Jax has continued to spread out, the suburbs have progressed to have lower densities with areas like Arlington to now Mandarin and points farther south.  Neverhtheless, we can have suburban development that pays for itself and that is designed to improve traffic flow, mass transit opportunities and density levels as opposed to cutting it off outright.

Additionally, those that can afford to purchase a house whose cheap land value is balanced by impact fees and concentric taxation will do so.

There's no need to tax those who chose to leave the inner city with their feet because of the problems that have been created by decades of poor local leadership.  Instead of taxing suburbanites to rebuild the inner core, we should look at methods of offering incentives for those who choose to move and re-invest in less pristine areas of the community. 

But there is no rational reason to force everyone else to pay for the infrastructure costs that will never be recovered from their property taxes at the current rate.

Correct.  This is one of the reasons why incorporating Smart Growth planning and zoning policies into suburban development is important.

[thelakelander]

No one should be taxed for downtown, they should be taxed to support their own foolhardy choices in building without infrastructure handy.  In any case, the inner core should stop getting their asses taxed off without being able to reap any of the suburban benefits.

I just don't agree with leveling additional taxes on common everyday residents who are already taxed enough for the past mistakes of local leadership and planning experts.  I do agree, that the inner core should not be taxed without recieving benefits, but punishing another segment of the local population is not the way to implement a good solution.

[thelakelander]

I just see a way to encourage new development without increasing taxes on people for what could now be called infill development (ex. something similar to Avenue's Walk).  This would be to suspend property taxes in certain areas of town for an extended number of years to level the playing field in areas that have been stagnant pockets for economic development.

The past mistake was not taxing these residents enough to sustain their infrastructure.  Its not a punishment, its the actual cost of living there.   I think you might be thinking that ALL residents living in the concentric zones should be taxed under the new system.

The past mistake was getting away from the development of gridded streets and mixed use dense zoning and instead favoring curvy parkways, wide setbacks, increasing parking requirements and making the pedestrian an afterthought.  The common resident isn't the cause for this.  Bad planning is.  We can correct this by requiring new developments to incorporate solid planning principles that are a part of a long range vision plan for the First Coast that enhances our region's quality of life.

But a new tax should only be imposed on new development.  Ex Post Facto is not only unfair, its not how we do things.

New development within what boundaries?  The 295 Beltway?  Do we level additional taxes for new industrial and commercial users at Cecil?  Its tough enough to recruit well paying companies to town now.  Leveling additional taxes on them only drives more to competing cities.

[thelakelander]

New development within what boundaries?  The 295 Beltway?  Do we level additional taxes for new industrial and commercial users at Cecil?  Its tough enough to recruit well paying companies to town now.  Leveling additional taxes on them only drives more to competing cities.

Tax rebates and incentives have been in place for decades.  They are at best, partially successful.

I'm not familiar with any property tax abatement programs being in place in Jacksonville to encourage people to move to certain areas of town.  There is a very successful tax abatement program going on Philadelphia right now that could serve as an example of something that may work here.

Tax Breaks Drive a Philadelphia Boom

By LISA CHAMBERLAIN
Published: January 8, 2006

AFTER years of losing population, the downtown region, known as Center City, is booming, with developments going up and old buildings being transformed into lofts and condominiums.

The construction, fueled by tax breaks, has succeeded in halting the city's 40-year population decline. Center City, which has the nation's third largest downtown residential population, behind New York and Chicago, is experiencing its fifth straight year of increased housing starts, both new and rehabilitated units. Center City's population grew to 88,000 by the end of 2005 from 78,000 in 2000. Even more striking, the number of households rose by 24 percent, according to figures compiled by the Center City District, a business-improvement group.

The changes are drawing people like Sheryl Bar, who had never anticipated the extent to which a change in venue would mean a change in perspective. Since moving into a condo in the city, "we feel like newlyweds again," Mrs. Bar said, referring to herself and her husband, Dr. Allen Bar, with whom she raised three daughters in a house they built in Villanova, a Philadelphia suburb.

As a surgeon at Pennsylvania Hospital, Dr. Bar can walk to work from their condo. Now they go out four or five nights a week, as opposed to four times a month when they lived in the suburbs.

"Instead of commuting to work, he's home within minutes, puts his feet up for a while, and then we go have dinner and see a movie," Mrs. Bar said. "I loved bringing up my children in Villanova, but this is so rejuvenating. It really has been transformational for us."

The same could be said for Philadelphia.

That downtown Philadelphia has been experiencing a residential boom is no big surprise. Cities across the country have benefited from the real estate development frenzy of the last few years. But the changes have been accelerated here by the use of tax breaks for residential developments. Philadelphia is one of the only places to offer a citywide 10-year tax-abatement program.

The program, which started with residential conversions in 1997 but expanded to new construction in 2000, holds the tax assessment at a property's predevelopment level for 10 years. The Bars, for instance, pay just $1,200 a year in property taxes rather than the $12,000 they would pay without the abatement on their $1.1 million 2,600-square-foot, three-bedroom, three-bath condo designed by SHoP Architects of New York City.

"In the beginning, the abatement program was 100 percent responsible for getting things going," said Paul Levy, president of Center City District, which was formed in 1990 to address the decline of downtown Philadelphia. "Now there is a discussion going on about whether or not it's still needed."

Development is continuing on an ever-grander scale. The skyline is being reshaped by Waterfront Square, the largest luxury condo project in the city's history, with two towers under construction along the Delaware River, and three more in the planning phase.

Toll Brothers, a company known for building so-called McMansions in the suburbs, is redeveloping a historic United States Navy site on the Schuylkill River, a property the company has owned since 1988. The 23-acre project, called Naval Square, will have 750 homes, both condos and town houses.

According to a report released late last year by the Center City District, from the time that tax abatements were passed, more than 8,000 converted and new units will have been added to Center City, and half of all new residents benefiting from tax abatements came from outside the city.

Those who lived in the city before the newest influx see a big change in the character of the downtown area.

In May 2005, Anthony Forte and his dog, Philly, moved from his town house in a quiet, residential neighborhood to a loft condo in the heart of Center City. Known as the Jewelers' Building, one of Philadelphia's more recognizable buildings, the 106-year-old six-story structure still has much of its original Colonial Revival detailing intact even though it sat empty for years.

"The city has been a great place for me to live, but it's become much more vibrant," Mr. Forte said. "Philly always had its residential areas that are quaint, which some people love. But now downtown is extremely diverse, with lots of residential mixed with restaurants, galleries and high-end retail. My only regret is that I got a new car, because I don't drive anymore." Like 37 percent of downtown residents, Mr. Forte walks to work, the highest percentage of any major American city, according to census data compiled by the Center City District.

Mr. Levy, the Center City District's president, said, "We didn't reinvent downtown living, but in the last five years, it's been explosive." By decade's end, the city expects to add another 7,000 units.

Now, the tax-abatement programs have become somewhat controversial. While a small percentage of wealthier residents are living in high-end properties and are paying very little in taxes, a majority of the longtime residents who suffered through the bad years are likely to see their taxes go up as property values rise.

Mildred Ruffino has lived on the city's south side for 32 years, with much of her family close by. The tax-abatement program, which has spurred housing almost exclusively downtown, is now spilling over to other neighborhoods. Mrs. Ruffino's street will soon have eight town houses where a bakery once operated.

"I realize the economic situation and what the city is trying to do to bring back residents, but it's exorbitant," said Mrs. Ruffino, who works in the accounting department of an architectural firm. "An empty bakery isn't doing anybody any good. But 10 years is a long time to be tax free."

Yet there is no question that tax abatements have had an impact on the city's real estate and development industry, said Stephen P. Mullin, a senior vice president and principal of the Econsult Corporation, an economic research firm in Philadelphia.

"You couldn't make money here in Philly building something new five years ago," Mr. Mullin said. "Obviously, low interest rates helped as well. But even with that, you needed the extra bump. Now, instead of property values declining, which they were doing for years, they're increasing, and everyone benefits from that."

Even though it is difficult to tease out the precise impact of tax abatements on the city's economic fortunes, they have certainly succeeded as a marketing tool. "Ads in the real estate section prominently feature the tax abatement," said John Kromer, senior consultant with the Fels Institute of Government at the University of Pennsylvania. "Property taxes in the suburbs have been increasing. So this is one area where the city can make an apples-to-apples comparison with the suburbs and win."

David Grasso, president of Grasso Holdings, is convinced that even in the current climate, phasing out the program entirely would have a devastating impact on development, if for no other reason than people have come to expect it. He points to the Packard Building condominiums on South 15th Street. Because it was first intended as rentals the building was initially prevented from taking advantage of the tax-abatement program. "We tried to sell units in early 2005 without the tax abatement, and sales were very difficult," Mr. Grasso said. "So we appealed to the city and won, and sales picked up considerably."

link: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/08/realestate/08nati.html?pagewanted=all

And they still dont address the true cost of building way out on the periphery.

Tax abatement creates a reason for people to repopulate the urban core without having the city invest millions before the first residents move back in.  The creation of a vibrant educated urban core then makes the core a valid alternative for residents that value pedestrian friendly environments over low density sprawl and cul-de-sacs.

Jacksonville is a HUGE land mass.  We wouldnt be driving people away from the city because the tax zones would apply to undeveloped areas based on their distance from the existing infrastructure center.  Huge undeveloped lands close to downtown would be just as cheap tax wise as any of the surrounding hamlets.

The problem I see happens to be area where infrastructure has already been extended.  Take Cecil Field and Argyle for instance.  Both are places far from Jacksonville's infrastructure center, yet there's still large amounts of undevelopment land in between existing leap frog development.  Are you proposing that new residents in infill developments in this area be charged additional taxes?

Instead we would be driving them closer to town, that is if they are picking Jacksonville based on taxes, which is not how corporations actually choose locations.  By that logic, Jacksonville should have been over run by the fortune 500 decades ago.

By now we should be having trouble elbowing 200 million dollar golden parachuting bastards out of the way at starbucks

There is just no basis for this argument.

Today many corporations choose locations based on the amount of incentives and tax breaks they can get.  Adding taxes will not result in more companies choosing to locate in Jacksonville. 

Aside from that, we have to pay for the infrastructure somehow.  What we are presently doing taxes people who have already paid their way, and areas that are already established in order to subsidize these slapped together developments.

This is why it would be better to make sure new developments implement Smart Growth policies.  If designed in this fashion, the cost of infrastructure expansion and upkeep will be reduced.

It would be one thing if there was enough money to go around, but Jacksonville is a conservative town which values frugal spending and low municipal debt.

This is one of the main reasons why a plan that penalizes the majority of Jacksonville's residents will fail.  Residents would never vote for a plan that is set up to make them pay extra to stay in their own neighborhoods.

We have built the infrastructure to the subsidized homes of the suburbs at the expense of maintaining and replacing the already existing city.   The hidden cost of developing Julington Creek is the decay and ruin of Hogan's Creek.   Building new lines to Mandarin for water and sewage meant keeping the lead pipes that supplied water to Downtown, Durkeeville and Springfield.

Smooth Roads along Gate Parkway meant no drainage for the Northwest Quadrant, flooding in san Marco and Riverside and potholes all the way along park street.

We dont tax adequately to build AND maintain all of that new infrastructure on top of what we already have.

We tax enough, we just need progressive leaders in place to do a better job running the community with what we already take in.

Instead we steal from the established to make the profits wonderful for the real estate developers.   They make their money at the lower prices that they offer in Jacksonville because the entire shell game is underwritten that someone else will build the roads, schools, and public safety for them, no matter how nonsensical that might be to the city itself.

It sounds like the local real estate development industry needs to be reformed.  However, there are other options then additional taxes for suburban residents. 

Plus, Im sick of being told that we dont have enough money to fund a transit system while we spend billions on new roads to developments that shouldnt have every gotten permits to proceed in the first place.

I'm sick of this as well.  However, this situation is not unique to Jacksonville.  Its a nationwide problem.  Nevertheless, we already have a decent amount of money to jump start a decent mass transit system.  But if something isn't done to alter the decision making steps of those in charge, it will be wasted on something far worse than the riderless peoplemover floating around on rubber wheels over downtown.

[thelakelander]

Philly's program is a residential tax abatement program.  Its a completely different animal from Federal Empowerment and Enterprise Zones.

[RiversideGator]

I agree with Lake.  A Philadelphia style tax abatement program for Jacksonville's core would bring in those residents who are thinking about making the move but have not yet made the decision.  If downtown can offer a financial edge in the form of no or reduced property taxes (which is justifiable since downtown residents do not use as many resources as suburbanites), then I am convinced that things would really take off in terms of downtown population growth.  This deserves to be tried here.

[fightingosprey07]

So, you boys think that people downtown should have lower tax rates than people who arent in the inner core?  

But instead of admitting it, you just want to reverse engineer it so that it looks like you are giving a tax 'break' to the core, whereas the suburbs would be paying 'regular' taxes.

Um.  OK.  In other words, the exact same thing but dressed up to look like your doing someone a favor.

I say lets all be grown ups.  Stop mincing around and let people pay for the enablement of their own poor choices.

But most residents wont approve of higher taxes for suburban areas, but they just might go for lower taxes for urban area residents.

[thelakelander]

Correct, the majority of residents in a suburban dominated city will not vote to increase their own taxes to stimulate economic development in the inner city.  However, suspending tax breaks in economically depressed areas for a certain amount time, is a much better and more attractive option to encourage inner city economic development because it does not involve adding another level of taxes on residents.  Its obviously having a huge effect in Philadelphia, a city that had seen 40 straight years of population decline before their tax abatement program was put into effect.

[thelakelander]

Its the same thing.

One group pays a higher rate than the other.

Its not the same thing and you know it.  Your whole argument has been about INCREASING taxes to for the majority of the community to stimulate and redirect development to the urban core. 

Tax Abatement SUSPENDS taxes in the urban core and gives every resident in town the option of moving in.  SUSPENDING and INCREASING are two different things.