Banking company seeks $1.8M in city, state incentives to bring 123 jobs Downtown

[thelakelander]

If you want more people living in and near DT, you'll need jobs and available housing to increase the chances of that outcome. It's not a wild speculative statement to assume that the market for more downtown housing grows, if the amount of jobs employing people who can afford it, increases as well.

[JaxJersey-licious]

Would it be too much to ask if we can all take time, get some collective deep breaths in, and wait and see how the new appartments in Brooklyn do once completed before we start with the "I told you so" and "would've could've should've" talk? If those new rentals after a year have a healthy waiting list AND occupancy rates at the existing DT appartment don't go significantly down, then that would be a more accurate bellwether on the future of other projects in the core like the Trio.

There has been lots of positive job growth buzz in the are over the last couple of years from the Citizen's relocation to the Baptist expansion and now this potential get. If we must wait another few years to see if all this brings DT Jax to the next level so be it. I'm sure many businesses and supporters would be glad they hung along for the ride.   

[finehoe]

It's not a wild speculative statement to assume that the market for more downtown housing grows, if the amount of jobs employing people who can afford it, increases as well.

Of course not.  Just as it's not a wild speculative statement to assume that a significant number could well choose to live in St. John's county.

[simms3]

This is legal bribery. What is worse is that the bank is attempting to do this anonymously.

It seems to me that this is how companies operate nowadays - avoid paying any taxes and ask for money to open offices in the first place.

Well, they say companies are "fleeing" high taxes and high COL in NYC and CA, however, it's important to note that cities in these states and the states themselves rarely if ever offer incentives to attract or retain companies, while cities in states like FL and TX, and states like FL and TX themselves, offer incentives for just about every deal shopped their way.  I personally would hardly call that "stealing" jobs away from NY and CA, the high cost states.

Jax is not competing with SF.  FL not with CA.  This same deal wouldn't receive incentives in SF, nor would it receive incentives if a relocation to Oakland.  The last time I read about incentives to companies in this manner was the "Twitter tax credit", which brought several companies into millions of square feet into a very dilapidated part of town into very old buildings that needed hundreds of millions of dollars of work.  Today, in a matter of just 2 years, that neighborhood went from vacant buildings and almost no market rate residential to having headquarters for Twitter, Square, Uber, and a host of other firms, upscale markets, gyms, restaurants, and services, thousands of new market rate residential units and hundreds more on the way right now, etc etc.  In 2 years time.  So I'd say the single tax credit I've read about in the 3 years I've been here has been a major success.

So I wouldn't say this is par for the course, everywhere.

[thelakelander]

It's not a wild speculative statement to assume that the market for more downtown housing grows, if the amount of jobs employing people who can afford it, increases as well.

Of course not.  Just as it's not a wild speculative statement to assume that a significant number could well choose to live in St. John's county.

If so, that would be totally fine, IMO. If people aren't presented with competitive housing options in one community, we can't be disappointed when some make a personal decision to located and commute from another.  Either way, the 123 jobs taking up some more empty space in DT Jax should be desired for the amount of incentives it would take to land them.

[Tacachale]

^And the fact that if they don't come here, it's not like the bank will just take its ball and go home. It will go to Orlando or Miami, and everyone who would have gone to St. Johns will be in Windemere or Martin County.

[simms3]

And it sounds like exactly the kind of company that employs the kind of person who would live in a market rate loft/condo/apartment downtown, frequent bars, and walk to work when possible.

This is pure speculation on your part.  If anything it would be the opposite.  Bankers aren't generally known for their cutting-edge lifestyles.

Too bad most of them will be liviing in stjohns county like everyone else thats moving here...

Exactly.

Oh?  Do tell...I don't even want to debate, but I might be one of if not the only person qualified on this forum based on my career/living situation/life path to tell you that you are so presumptuous and quite wrong (at least for every other city I've ever dealt with...maybe Jax is different) and I have no idea if you're just going off of personal political bias against the industry or if you're speaking out of your asshole, which is what it smells like, but fine, have it your way...don't give incentives, let them go elsewhere, and wait for all the starving artists that are apparently everywhere in Jax (which you know, is known for its super large burgeoning arts community) to populate these buildings downtown.

Or perhaps it's the lawyers that live the cutting edge lifestyle.  Or those employed by certain F500 firms (definitely not Walmart, but Apple, right?).  Or those in government.  Or those insurance...yea, that's it, insurance salesmen.  Maybe it's real estate brokers?  Teachers?  Doctors?  Police officers?  Techies?  Techies who are engineers?  Energy guys?  Accountants?  Beauticians?  Choreographers?  Pianists?  Theater people?

I mean wtf...do you know what "cutting edge lifestyle" is?  I'd say anyone under the age of 35 in most cities, particularly large ones, lives or can live a pretty sweet life with a sweet urban pad, and there are always some who choose not to, and in my experience it's pretty difficult to determine by industry.  I'd go after industries that employ lots of those types as solid downtown industries.  Sure, if the company brings down a lot of mid-level management guys in their upper 30s and 40s with familes, then don't expect a downtown demand.  But if I'm guessing, they're going to need a small army of analysts and associates who will be in their 20s and 30s and won't want to live in SJC.  Oh, but I forgot...most people in Jax are married by the age of 26...not the fault of the industry, blame the weird southern "marry the 3rd person you've fucked" mentality.  Let's hope they bring a bunch of young transplants from other regions who aren't looking to diddle the same person every night.

[simms3]

I've witnessed with my own eyes the benefit that the small businesses enjoy, being exposed to an extra 2,000 workers a day.

No one's disputing that.  It's where these workers will live that's being debated.

It's a debate with no data. There's no strong evidence to suggest that the majority of the 123 will live in SJC or Jax. All that we do know is that they won't be in DT Jax.  Even in the wild chance that the majority wanted too, DT Jax doesn't have the housing stock or diversity available. Nevertheless, regardless of where they live, I'm not sure it should be a significant factor in deciding whether to provide incentives or not.

Well, as 220 Riverside leases up and the project across the street...could be a timely move.  Then again, maybe it's better to watch these projects lease up without the addition of these 123 jobs to prove that there is more than obviously some innate pent-up demand for intown living and th ability for existing people to pay for it.

Your point is well taken - maybe they all live in SJC, even the 25 year olds this company employees.  We can definitely say there was no housing for them downtown, but we can't say they would have chosen it over SJC if there were.  But I'll collect finehoe's word farts for her and release them back into her face if Jax moves forward with this and someone tracks where these people move and how they benefit downtown, at least in the daytime while they're all working there, and then I'll give her back her farts for assuming anyone in finance is a lame dolt who lives in suburbs with kids.  Because, you know, nobody working in finance in Boston's financial district or Lower Manhattan/Midtown or San Francisco's financial district or the Loop in Chicago has a cool downtown loft and throws good parties, or anything like that...no they all live out in the burbs and commute in and then leave again at night.  The market rate lofts in these cities' downtowns are filled with people who work for non-profits or who are "self employed"...yea that's it.  They throw great parties, too, supplying crowds with good alcohol and other supplies that cost $$$...lavish themed parties.

[CityLife]

Regarding SJC and downtown employment. Does anyone want to take up a bet with me that a higher percentage of Fidelity Investments (located at Gate Parkway) employees live in SJC than Fidelity National Financial (located at Riverside Ave).  I know enough people at both companies to know the answer without empirical data.

$1,000 to the winner.  Any takers?

That said, as others have also pointed out, even if some of the employees do ultimately move to SJC, we still see financial benefits from them locally (sales tax, supporting downtown businesses, etc).

[hiddentrack]

It's a debate with no data. There's no strong evidence to suggest that the majority of the 123 will live in SJC or Jax. All that we do know is that they won't be in DT Jax.  Even in the wild chance that the majority wanted too, DT Jax doesn't have the housing stock or diversity available. Nevertheless, regardless of where they live, I'm not sure it should be a significant factor in deciding whether to provide incentives or not.

Setting aside reality for a minute and imagining there were housing options downtown to fill any potential demand, what could be done to entice some of these new workers to live downtown? The company I work for provides commuter benefits that allow employees to reduce the costs of transportation expenses (use of public transportation, parking costs, etc.). Are there other companies or cities out their doing similar things for housing?

I remember reading somewhere (maybe here) about Quicken giving their employees incentives for purchasing property in Detroit and staying there for a certain number of years. Are there examples from other struggling cities that have managed to make it work, without depending on a billionaire CEO?

[simms3]

It's a debate with no data. There's no strong evidence to suggest that the majority of the 123 will live in SJC or Jax. All that we do know is that they won't be in DT Jax.  Even in the wild chance that the majority wanted too, DT Jax doesn't have the housing stock or diversity available. Nevertheless, regardless of where they live, I'm not sure it should be a significant factor in deciding whether to provide incentives or not.

Setting aside reality for a minute and imagining there were housing options downtown to fill any potential demand, what could be done to entice some of these new workers to live downtown? The company I work for provides commuter benefits that allow employees to reduce the costs of transportation expenses (use of public transportation, parking costs, etc.). Are there other companies or cities out their doing similar things for housing?

I remember reading somewhere (maybe here) about Quicken giving their employees incentives for purchasing property in Detroit and staying there for a certain number of years. Are there examples from other struggling cities that have managed to make it work, without depending on a billionaire CEO?

San Francisco does the opposite.  Close to 75K daily commuters use coach buses and limousine services from the city to their employer elsewhere in the Bay Area.  Some buses now go to Oakland as well.  Keeps workers where they prefer to live - in the city, but allows the campus to be elsewhere (likely on the Peninsula or in Santa Clara County or even East Bay).  Several reasons for need:

1) Highways are completely clogged (you guys haven't probably ever seen traffic like that found on 101 during the 3 hour commute windows...just awful...I'd say, considerably slower/worse than in Atlanta)

2) Caltrain, the commuter rail, is so at capacity (and they are expanding, but it takes billions of $$ and years) that a) it's barely standing room only and b) they are actually pondering reducing bike space to fit more people, this in a region with a politically powerful bike contingency

3) Many workers can't really afford or choose not to squeeze in the car payments, especially in a time when an avg 1 BR in San Francisco is now $4K/mo...you might say what's another $1K/mo to have a car?  $12K/year someone doesn't have to vacation or go out at all.

I can't think of too many regions that do this, and in Jacksonville, #s 1, 2, and 3 are not issues.

In Atlanta, I lived in Midtown and reverse commuted to Buckhead and Vinings.  I lived in the little urban environment Atlanta offers, but worked in a more suburban environment.  MARTA went to Buckhead, as well.  There's no reason young SS workers can't also live downtown/Riverside but work on the SS.  I'm sure it's done.  There is no traffic in Jax...and not really enough of a need for employers to bus people around.

[dp8541]

"There's no reason young SS workers can't also live downtown/Riverside but work on the SS.  I'm sure it's done.  There is no traffic in Jax...and not really enough of a need for employers to bus people around."

This is very common right now, especially with the always growing popularity of Avondale, Riverside, San Marco, etc.  I commute from Avondale to SS everyday, as do numerous co-workers and friends in the riverside area. 

[thelakelander]

It's a debate with no data. There's no strong evidence to suggest that the majority of the 123 will live in SJC or Jax. All that we do know is that they won't be in DT Jax.  Even in the wild chance that the majority wanted too, DT Jax doesn't have the housing stock or diversity available. Nevertheless, regardless of where they live, I'm not sure it should be a significant factor in deciding whether to provide incentives or not.

Setting aside reality for a minute and imagining there were housing options downtown to fill any potential demand, what could be done to entice some of these new workers to live downtown? The company I work for provides commuter benefits that allow employees to reduce the costs of transportation expenses (use of public transportation, parking costs, etc.). Are there other companies or cities out their doing similar things for housing?

I remember reading somewhere (maybe here) about Quicken giving their employees incentives for purchasing property in Detroit and staying there for a certain number of years. Are there examples from other struggling cities that have managed to make it work, without depending on a billionaire CEO?

Yes. Depends on how bad you want people downtown. Many cities, like Detroit and Philly, have programs that subsidize or pay people to live in certain areas to jump start them.....in addition to throwing mad incentives at developers taking on risky projects like the Laura Trio:

We will pay you to live here

They're everywhere you look in Washington, D.C.'s Metro stations: signboards featuring bearded and fedoraed young adults hanging out, everything filtered through a warmly burnished glow. The text varies from location to location, from "Where Standing Out Never Means Standing Alone" to "Where Cost of Living Is More Living Than Cost," but they're all clearly aimed at millennials living in one of the nation's most expensive cities.

Look closely, and at the bottom, you'll see "Columbus" and "LifeinCbus.com"—as in Columbus, Ohio, the 15th largest city in the U.S., where city officials are hoping that young professionals will be tempted to move. Or, at least, think about moving there.

Columbus isn't the first city or state to try this tactic. Across the country, cities such as Philadelphia, Niagara Falls and Detroit are putting out the welcome mat for coveted professionals aged 25-34 in targeted social media and advertising campaigns, and with offers of internships, housing subsidies and student loan reimbursements. Some cities are paying people to move there.

here's a reason for this: 1 million young adults move each year, according to a 2014 City Observatory study. Their presence in a city is a direct reflection of its health and well-being, the study found, as young migrant professionals are key to fueling economic growth and urban revitalization. (According to the study, only 6 percent of Columbus residents are between 25 and 34 years old with college degrees.)

The come-move-here campaigns arrive at a time when many cities on the East and West Coasts are becoming more expensive. The cost of buying a home in those cities is out of reach for many young professionals, according to Joel Kotkin, a presidential fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University.

Full article: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/04/stateline-millennial-small-cities/25290139/

[fieldafm]

Highways are completely clogged (you guys haven't probably ever seen traffic like that found on 101 during the 3 hour commute windows...just awful...I'd say, considerably slower/worse than in Atlanta)

Coming from someone that has done the Suwanee to Buckhead commute while also doing Redwood City to Financial District in DTSF... IDk, Atlanta was a pretty catastrophically miserable commute. The BART makes life a lot easier.

*For the record, my current commute is Fairfax (basically Avondale) to SS. Although I seriously hate my current commute... I can't even imagine doing that Atlanta experience ever again in my life.

[simms3]

^^^BART doesn't serve Redwood City or the Peninsula, though.  When did you live out here and for how long?  BART is primarily for East Bay commuters to get around East Bay or to get into SF.  It's pretty useless for San Mateo County.  It will reach Santa Clara County/San Jose from the E Bay (UC now).

Caltrain is the rail line for the Peninsula.  It's a single commuter rail line, still not electrified (which they are working on).  It's at capacity (~60K commuters/day).  It hits Redwood City and all the major points, but doesn't even go all the way into DT SF (stops at Fourth and King).  They are working on that too, but billions of dollars and years out.

Anyway, just looked at traffic counts - you could be right.  101 has a range of 234-267K, with probably an average of either 4 through lanes + 2 HOV or 5 through lanes + 1 HOV.  85 is horrendous with 278-285K range outside of the perimeter through Gwinnett, but drops down to 205-211K inside the Perimeter to Buckhead.  285 inside the Perimeter is about the size of highway that 101 is (6 lanes, with 1-2 HOV included in there).  285 outside of the Perimeter is just a monstrously wide thing, but the bottleneck is definitely still with the offramps and the interchange with 285, which can slow all 100 lanes down.

I remember getting stuck for 3 hours because of a wreck on 85 outside of the Perimeter, heading N around 6 PM.  Was terrible.  I had almost no traffic when I commuted from Midtown to Vinings on 75, but would visit someone up in Sandy Springs and see the Perimeter up there just stopped in either direction.

Both cities are bad, but for its size, Atlanta's highway system is about the most well maintained I've experienced, and it'll serve it well in the future.  Bay Area is a much more odd geography...much denser area with more people and fewer highways.  With growth, it will only get worse (like NYC and Chicago and LA - honestly, what can they do to improve traffic?  Really not much), whereas Atlanta can centralize more and grow its urban core more, and that will provide relief on the rate at which congestion worsens.  SF can only fit so many more people in its bounds at the tip of the peninsula, and BART and Caltrain can only fit so many more people and no more highways can be built or widened.  Atlanta can increase its density 5-8x and put millions of additional residents closer to work, if it so chooses.  It can go out in all 4 directions.

I digress...not optimistic about Bay Area congestion.  More optimistic about Atlanta congestion long term.  So long as that city doesn't continue to sprawl out 50-100 miles in each direction and reigns it all in.  Each will undoubtedly get worse, but from a vehicular perspective, and from a living options perspective, Atlanta will be the better choice, I think.