Anyone know what is going on here?

[L.P. Hovercraft]

This is the development that has CM Bishop pushing to change how mobility fee money is used. I believe they want their mobility fees to be spent on an arterial road through their property instead of having it go to a priority project in their zone.

Trying to wrap my head around this here potential, dare I say it, boondoggle...if a private developer is willing to risk their own money to develop virgin land and thus fully reap any financial benefits in the future, shouldn't that developer--regardless of any mobility plan fee incurred--also foot the bill for any infrastructure that needs to be built for the project to be feasible rather than going to the public mobility plan fund that was created to offset this type of suburban sprawl in the first place?

In theory...yes. However, there could be situations where a new arterial in the right place could alleviate congestion issues on another. The devil is in the details.

Is this the type of new road project originally envisioned as being funded by the mobility plan?

No.

And would this new arterial road get priority funding before some other approved project already in the pipeline,

Yes. The developer would have the possibility of spending their mobility fee money on funding transportation improvements within their own developments.

i.e. if this happens, will Jacksonville ever really get a streetcar, separated bike paths, even middle of the street pedestrian crossing signs at dangerous intersections, etc. or would any future mobility plan fees just end up getting "conveniently" funnelled into these kinds of business-as-usual projects?

Maybe, maybe not. We could get a few bike paths out of the deal but we'd probably need additional funding from other sources for major mobility plan projects.

Interesting...thanks Lakelander.
Sounds like this could end up being another glorious feather clusterf*ck in Jacksonville's cap.

[jcjohnpaint]

My question, is what would a city council member get out of this?  I mean this is not going to do anything for the city, so why his new stance on this?  Even if you were extremely conservative, I can't see being excited about this.  I remember from the meeting how he talked about the mobility plan killing creativity.  Could this be the creativity he is talking about?  

[thelakelander]

This is probably the creativity that was being mentioned. Also, since all of the land is in Jacksonville's city limits, I'm sure the average council member views any type of new construction inside of the city as economic development that adds to the tax base. So if you have a developer saying they can't build their massive project because of mobility fees associated with it and you believe that line, then you'd be of the opinion that the mobility plan "kills creativity".

[L.P. Hovercraft]

On a totally unrelated note, I could use my driveway widened and repaved. 
Anyone think Councilman Bishop would be willing to sponsor a bill paying for it using mobility plan fees?  I'll even write the bill for him so all he has to do is sign it and bring it up before the city council for approval.

This would certainly help my mobility and would definitely** help create much needed jobs to move all of Jacksonville forward--or at least the traffic on my street when I'm backing the car out. 

If this were to happen I would certainly sing the Councilman's praises come election time should he choose to run for higher office, but of course would never be able to contribute a large donation of money to his campaign due to an appearance of a conflict of interest or quid pro quo--ethics violations and all that.  And I certainly would not be able to offer him a job if he decided to stay in the private sector when his public service has concluded...I'm just a working stiff after all.

I wonder if he'd still consider it though?



**not really

[JeffreyS]

This development in fact all developments on new land should pay for their infrastructure.  That does not constitute anything extra. This development should also mitigate from it's impact and contribute to solving current mobility issues via mobility fees.   Paying for their own development 100% is less than the least they should do.