Downtown Vagrancy

[Tacachale]

We're already as unaffordable as California considering the much lower incomes.

With all due respect, Florida does not even play the same game as California.... much less be in California's league. 

They have done basically everything to create an affordable housing crisis

100% accurate.

Functionally, it's true. Most people here can't afford the median home price (to a similar percentage as in California), as even though the price is less than CA, wages are too. That's a problem that's only getting worse, especially as we're not doing much to avoid it.

California is dead last in both Cost of Living and Housing Affordability.   Florida has a housing affordability problem (that's statistically much less than California, by whatever metric you use), that is largely driven by an undersupply of homes and rapidly increasing demand.   

Florida also has the ability to alter this affordability problem... something California simply does not have the land supply (capacity) and functional ability (land use and taxation policies) to begin to unwind.   

In the Bay Area and the LA Basin, you have large swaths of land that has no legal basis for development rights due to agricultural buffers, hillside easements, and various growth boundaries.  You have a zoning code throughout CA that has massively favored single family homes... so while the major metro areas are dense from a building capacity, the density is severely underpopulated due to the overwhelming underlying preponderance of the built environment.  This land use pattern, which cannot be changed due to the MASSIVE amount of NIMBY'ism which has been prevalent in California since before my father was born, has resulted in massive sprawl that can no longer grow outward any further. 

Additionally, this land use form has been exacerbated by a transportation network which has prioritized the automobile (the interstate highway system forms the basis of CA's transportation network, and those highways can neither expand nor can be torn down).  Based on the highway system, the artificial limit of housing unit density, and the artificial boundary limits of California's sprawl... there is nowhere to go (but up, and the NIMBYs aint having that). So not only can you not build more housing stock, but the amount of housing stock already there has a vastly less unit density than the population requires... in fact the number of housing units per capita is at an imbalance of almost 3 to 1 (statistics, not opinion). This has resulted in a not-so-shocking economic reality: statistically (this is not opinion), CA has some of the least lowest housing production per capita in the country.  Oh, this also results in the nation's highest percentage of super commuters (coupled with strict emission laws specifically targeted at the auto industry-but not other industries like tech and agriculture, the cost of car ownership is higher in CA than 90% of the country)... which further cripples that COL problem faced in CA.

Then you have the totally backwards taxation policy which breeds NIMBY'ism.   These include, but are not limited to a state income tax that mostly goes towards paying off massive ballooning debt of yester-decades, real estate fees (doc stamps, etc) which are not earmarked to affordable housing funding buckets, and Prop 13. Prop 13 alone can be directly attributed to a 40% undersupply of housing units based on simple regression analysis.

The rampant NIMBY'ism in California isn't changing zoning laws and taxation laws in order to return to a sense of free market reality in the state's housing 'market'.   Comparing Florida to California is less a comparison of apples to oranges, and more of a comparison of apples to cartoons.

Florida has problems, but Florida doesn't have the fundamental and unchangeable, self-inflicted problems that California has.  There is hope for Florida, if political will can be found to address the underlying issues.  Florida's immediate affordability problem at the moment is the almost total collapse of the insurance market.  Until the legislative body can address this issue... the other challenges are a distant second fiddle. Its the old proverb that you can't help others until you first get the splinter out of your own eye.



Since this thread is about Downtown vagrancy... this morning I offered to drive a homeless man (who was sleeping on my property) to Sulzbacher to get a meal and an ID.  He refused a trip to Sulzbacher or City Rescue, got aggressive about wanting money, and went a block up the road to urinate on another building.  When I told him it was time to move along (after he refused my offer to get him to the services he needed), he told me to call the cops on him (knowing that he'd move on before the police came, and knowing that JSO wouldn't cite him anyway). 

In this sense, I fully agree with fsu813:

There in lies the rub.

Most homeless people aren't problematic and are relatively invisible.

A smaller potion of homeless people are very visible and problematic.

So, there's a simple fix* for the invisible problem, no simple fix for the visible problem.

*simple in theory.

Definitely agree that Florida's problems aren't unfixable. But we've got some huge looming problems that aren't going away. To the above I'll add that our growth has been tied to the cost of living being affordable for a long time. That's gone now. And so far, there's no political will to fix even a problem as glaring as the homeowners insurance crisis, let alone tackling things like upzoning, re-funding the affordable housing trust, etc. That will have to change before anything gets done.

[Tacachale]

To play devil's advocate:  I have family that lives in the Bay area so I have some experience there.  I can't speak for the LA area.  In the Bay area, I have noted lots of density at least on par with Jacksonville and maybe even greater in some spots. They have high rises and row houses in SF and small lots for homes that go for millions (equal to our homes here in the mid-hundreds of thousands  ) miles out in the suburbs. 

What I do see is lots more land that is withheld from development due to steep terrain, wetlands, reservoirs, soil not conducive to build on if an earthquake happens, hillsides with a native oily vegetation that quickly feeds fires and may need to be preserved to prevent soil erosion and downhill flooding and a great appreciation for preserving large chunks of natural beauty in the landscape (not chopping down the redwoods anymore).  If one ignores the human element, it is hard not to appreciate the overall beauty of most of the area.  At some point, there may be more people wanting to live there than can be affordably sustained.  When does an area become saturated within the bounds of maintaining a decent quality of life?  Not everyone wants to live in high rises.  Some parts of the world may be approaching (or have already exceeded) the limits of human occupation.  Just sayin'....

By the way, I have seen "homeless" people in Silicon Valley that are software engineers who make well into 6 figures but still can't afford housing there so they live in their vehicles.  If they can't find affordable housing, I have to wonder what hope there is for those less fortunate.

I might add that we should include our Beaches area when discussing this issue.  When homes blocks from the ocean now regularly sell in the millions, where will affordable housing go there?  In many ways, the Beaches are a city unto themselves more than ever.  St. Johns County also seems to now be grappling with this issue.  When hordes of people show up in short order, how can a community react fast enough to keep up?  This seems to be an age old problem and solutions seem hard to come by.

Re the Beaches, I had a discussion with my family about my parents' block in Neptune Beach. 40 years ago, there were homes for 22 families on 11 lots due to there being a mix of missing middle housing. Today, some of the duplexes have been converted to single-family and one garage apartment has been demolished, so now there's only room for 15 families even though there's been a new house added. Returning to more missing-middle options could increase capacity pretty easily.

[Jax_Developer]

The beaches are already lost. 35' height restriction says it all.

[JPalmer]

The beaches are already lost. 35' height restriction says it all.

Building condo towers along the coast is a complete blight to nature. Plus, it seems they are willing to make exceptions for revenue generating hotels. I think the height restriction is just fine.

[Jax_Developer]

In no way do I support building Miami condos in Jax beach. 35' is 3-stories. Good luck building up any inventory. Plenty of other beach towns have higher buildings. It will become an elite area very soon, if not already.

[Captain Zissou]

The beaches are already lost. 35' height restriction says it all.

Building condo towers along the coast is a complete blight to nature. Plus, it seems they are willing to make exceptions for revenue generating hotels. I think the height restriction is just fine.

Your post says it all.  Densifying the beaches doesn't have to mean a wall of skyscrapers between 1st street and the ocean, but that's the quick thoughtless jab that people love to throw out any time the height limit gets brought up.  Midrise buildings clustered at Beach and 3rd street or on the west side of 3rd at certain blocks would help add housing without imposing towers blocking views of the ocean.  The blanket 35' height limit is short sited and a knee jerk reaction to the problem, but for some reason people out there can only see things as all or nothing.  There is a thoughtful and more strategic plan that would benefit all, but people are too closed minded to realize it. 

Your quip about hotels is I'm guessing directed at the Springhill Suites or Margaritaville, which were on parcels that had an exemption to the height limit at the time it was imposed, so no exception was made for them. 

[Tacachale]

The beaches are already lost. 35' height restriction says it all.

Building condo towers along the coast is a complete blight to nature. Plus, it seems they are willing to make exceptions for revenue generating hotels. I think the height restriction is just fine.

Your post says it all.  Densifying the beaches doesn't have to mean a wall of skyscrapers between 1st street and the ocean, but that's the quick thoughtless jab that people love to throw out any time the height limit gets brought up.  Midrise buildings clustered at Beach and 3rd street or on the west side of 3rd at certain blocks would help add housing without imposing towers blocking views of the ocean.  The blanket 35' height limit is short sited and a knee jerk reaction to the problem, but for some reason people out there can only see things as all or nothing.  There is a thoughtful and more strategic plan that would benefit all, but people are too closed minded to realize it. 

Your quip about hotels is I'm guessing directed at the Springhill Suites or Margaritaville, which were on parcels that had an exemption to the height limit at the time it was imposed, so no exception was made for them.

Agree with Captain and Jax Developer. There's a lot of distance between "3-story building/2-story building with a pitched roof" and "Miami-style skyscrapers so tall they blot out the sun".

[simms3]

Homeowners in areas always think that limiting supply will jack up the value of their own properties.  They don't come out and say it, instead saying how they are being "altruistic" in some way (preserving nature, reducing blight, etc), but this is often any reasonable homeowners' goal.

Instead they hinder development to the point where certain areas aren't even close to realizing their full potential, and thus they miss out on even further increasing homeowner values.  If King St in Avondale could be developed, it would be even better for Riverside-Avondale property values.  For some reason homeowners don't see it that way.

Jacksonville has what I would certainly call a CA level of NIMBYism that you just don't find in most other markets.  It is widely accepted mentality and practice.  From the historic district overlays and the non-profits that promote them to the insane 35' height limit at all of the area beaches from Nassau County down to St. Johns, to Mandarin residents fighting virtually every new home built to Neptune Beach residents fighting to keep a vacant KMart instead of receiving a 3-story mixed use project that would have extended the Beaches Town Center.  St Johns County social media groups that are riling up the residents there (plus the new commissioners that ran and won on anti-growth policy).  Clay County the same.  Nassau County the same...on the island they are the worst.  Baker County will literally have your family assassinated if you are trying to come in with development of anything smaller than 1 acre lots.

It's now a national issue, but for a long time has been a big issue in NE FL and it's only so much worse now.

At the same time, having a drug-addicted visible homeless population will only add fuel to the NIMBY fire (and all the people in the medians).  People see that kind of activity and they associate it with higher density and "urbanity" and "sprawl" and they run for the woods.

[JPalmer]

It was a rush of condo towers going up on 1st Street in the 00's that led to the ordinance in the first place.  The ordinance could certainly be re-worked to accommodate some of y'all's valid points, but I still wouldn't trust that unimpeded developers wouldn't line 1st Street with a bunch of High-Rises.

[jaxlongtimer]

Timely article on St. John's County dealing with the homeless issue.  Short term, sheriff wants to build a camp for them until a more permanent solution is built.

Possible homeless solution in St. Augustine: Establish a homeless camp

....years of enforcement have shown local leaders that arrests and citations are temporary fixes for a persistent problem: lack of proper shelter for the area's most challenged residents, a situation that has led to multiple incidents with homeless people that have caused serious concerns among other residents, business owners and community leaders.

In an effort to find a more comprehensive solution, St. Johns County Sheriff Rob Hardwick has suggested setting up a homeless camp to give those without shelter a place to go other than the public streets....

.....While hundreds of those without a permanent address go through the county jail each year, Hardwick said sporadic arrests don't solve the problem.

For one thing, he said it costs $131 per day to house a healthy inmate. Those with illnesses require more resources.

Also, a cycle of going in and out of jail isn't helping a person get off the streets for good.

"We cannot afford as a community to continue this," Hardwick said. "We can't arrest our way out of this."

Hardwick has already devoted resources to solving the homeless problem's root causes, including establishing a re-entry team to help county jail inmates get basic essentials and skills to get back into the workforce.

"The majority of the people in my jail just made a mistake in life and need someone to give them a chance to get back on their feet and not shutting the door," Hardwick said.

One of the simplest and most effective tools the Sheriff's Office supplies is assistance in helping inmates obtain a driver's license or state identification card, one of which is required to obtain employment.

That's important because the jail houses just minor offenders and those awaiting trial. Serious offenses that carry more than a year of incarceration are transferred to a state prison.....

....But none of those things will be a permanent fix without some kind of shelter.

Regan said the city came up with a price tag of about $5 million to build a facility and $2 million to run it. And it would take two years to build.

That's why he supports Hardwick's plan of a camp-like facility, where the investment would be minimal. And he said it could be shut down after six months or so if the setup doesn't work....

....He added that any kind of homeless compound would have a law enforcement presence 24 hours per day and that residents there would not be subject to any more or less legal scrutiny.....

https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2023/03/08/possible-homeless-solution-in-st-augustine.html?utm_source=st&utm_medium=en&utm_campaign=me&utm_content=JA&ana=e_JA_me&j=30768573&senddate=2023-03-08

[iMarvin]

In no way do I support building Miami condos in Jax beach. 35' is 3-stories. Good luck building up any inventory. Plenty of other beach towns have higher buildings. It will become an elite area very soon, if not already.

Have you ever actually been to Miami Beach? There aren't that many towers and the ones that are there don't block the coast at all. Also, do you actually think there's any demand for giant condo towers in Jax Beach? There's empty lots all over...

Jax Beach (and Jacksonville in general) could actually learn a lot from Miami Beach. The Boardwalk, Lincoln Road, and Lummus Park are all incredible, just to name a few things.

[Jax_Developer]

In no way do I support building Miami condos in Jax beach. 35' is 3-stories. Good luck building up any inventory. Plenty of other beach towns have higher buildings. It will become an elite area very soon, if not already.

Have you ever actually been to Miami Beach? There aren't that many towers and the ones that are there don't block the coast at all. Also, do you actually think there's any demand for giant condo towers in Jax Beach? There's empty lots all over...

Jax Beach (and Jacksonville in general) could actually learn a lot from Miami Beach. The Boardwalk, Lincoln Road, and Lummus Park are all incredible, just to name a few things.

Have you? Ever heard of Sunny Isles Beach? Miami Beach, to be uber uber specific, has several 30+ story buildings. There are several historic districts if that's what you are referencing? Not sure we are going to the same Miami beach.

Would there be demand? Heard of the Azure on JAX Beach? I think there would be considering they are UC for $1,000psf+... What do I know though. They also literally enacted legislation against this or you'd see several condo projects east of A1A.

For all you environmentalist, building up reduces the impact on wetlands, storm drainage congestion, and cutting down more trees. Please also consider that a 5-story building is not even close to a hi-rise. There is a large jump from 3-story homes & light commercial to "Miami condo towers."

[thelakelander]

Have you? Ever heard of Sunny Isles Beach? Miami Beach, to be uber uber specific, has several 30+ story buildings. There are several historic districts if that's what you are referencing? Not sure we are going to the same Miami beach.

There are 34 cities in Miami-Dade County, so it depends on how accurate each poster is being. Sunny Isles Beach is a separate city altogether than Miami Beach. There are actually two cities, Bay Harbor Islands and Surfside, between them.

[iMarvin]

In no way do I support building Miami condos in Jax beach. 35' is 3-stories. Good luck building up any inventory. Plenty of other beach towns have higher buildings. It will become an elite area very soon, if not already.

Have you ever actually been to Miami Beach? There aren't that many towers and the ones that are there don't block the coast at all. Also, do you actually think there's any demand for giant condo towers in Jax Beach? There's empty lots all over...

Jax Beach (and Jacksonville in general) could actually learn a lot from Miami Beach. The Boardwalk, Lincoln Road, and Lummus Park are all incredible, just to name a few things.

Have you? Ever heard of Sunny Isles Beach? Miami Beach, to be uber uber specific, has several 30+ story buildings. There are several historic districts if that's what you are referencing? Not sure we are going to the same Miami beach.

Would there be demand? Heard of the Azure on JAX Beach? I think there would be considering they are UC for $1,000psf+... What do I know though. They also literally enacted legislation against this or you'd see several condo projects east of A1A.

For all you environmentalist, building up reduces the impact on wetlands, storm drainage congestion, and cutting down more trees. Please also consider that a 5-story building is not even close to a hi-rise. There is a large jump from 3-story homes & light commercial to "Miami condo towers."

Okay, Sunny Isles is a different story and I'd agree we should avoid building like that.

Miami Beach on the other hand imo has done a great job of allowing taller buildings while keeping the coast open. That should be possible in Jax Beach too. Something like the South of Fifth neighborhood developing around Beach & 3rd would be a major improvement to what's there now imo.

Point taken with Azure but there would be need to be a lot more developments like that before someone wants to build a true "Miami condo tower" in Jax Beach... which should absolutely be allowed, just not right on the coast.

[Jax_Developer]

Have you? Ever heard of Sunny Isles Beach? Miami Beach, to be uber uber specific, has several 30+ story buildings. There are several historic districts if that's what you are referencing? Not sure we are going to the same Miami beach.

There are 34 cities in Miami-Dade County, so it depends on how accurate each poster is being. Sunny Isles Beach is a separate city altogether than Miami Beach. There are actually two cities, Bay Harbor Islands and Surfside, between them.

Yes of course. My point in bringing that area up is due to the several 40+ story towers there. In fact it is number 1 for beach cities for tallest buildings, rivaling some of the tallest buildings in MIA proper. Miami Beach has prevented that outcome due to half the island being federally registered as historic. Essentially no other beach city has that in FL. Miami Beach also has a significant NIMBY movement.

The thread was about the lack of attention given to several factors around homelessness.

My point is focused on responding to the criticism against building more dense at the beach, because as another OP has mentioned everyone thinks their sliver of NEFL is the 'best' and shouldn't be touched. I completely agree with OP on that. Someone has to give and that attitude is very CA. Currently JAX has three markets that really make sense to build up. Brooklyn, San Marco (Southbank), and the beaches.

I absolutely guarantee you that a $1000 psf sale price would warrant buildings 20+ stories as far as economics is concerned. I'm not a fan of that idea though myself.

Another reminder, almost ALL (nearing 95%) of the zoning at the beaches is for 1-4 unit properties. Almost 0 for-rent multi product exists. There is very little vacant land that is not wet or prone to flooding. You will never see rents go down at the beaches if this trend continues. Then that will trickle to San Pablo, and there you have overflowed the issue to JAX proper.

Ditto this story for Saint Johns county. The entire south and east border of JAX east of the river is completely NIMBY. That should help drive prices down. (/s)

But seriously, how do you address the issues DT when there are so many anti development movements scattered across town.. I couldn't image the response if COJ actually tried to build a place to remediate folks anywhere outside of DT or another higher crime area. That doesn't really help much.