Was the Bus Shelter Story Misreported?

[stephendare]

According to JTA representatives, the recent report that the Transportation Authority would be backing down from its plan to build new bus shelter using an advertising based funding model is basically incorrect.

Spokesmen say that the words of Chairman Ava Parker were taken out of context and that the Authority is moving forward with the plan.

"At the Council Meeting when the motion was approved to allow JTA to go ahead, Michael Blaylock assured the Council that if there were alternative models that funded the construction and maintenance of the Bus Shelters, then JTA would certainly consider them.   Chairman Parker was just basically confirming that assurance".

Executive Director Michael Blaylock was responding to long standing claims by groups against the effort to build bus shelters that there were other funding mechanisms in place to build and maintain adequate shelters.

However, according to sources at the JTA, these groups were challenged in 2005 to identify these alleged funding sources, and five years later ---according to JTA representatives---have still failed to do so.

"Look" this reporter was told "Its going to take basically 90 days to bid out any contract to implement this program---everyone knows that.  Basically the opposition has been given that time, in good faith, to identify funding sources that are equal to the costs and provide the same funding as the shelter advertising."

If they are able to find such funding, then of course we will be glad to take a look at it.

JTA told MetroJacksonville that it was aware that the reporting of Ms. Parker's statements had left an incorrect impression of what was actually happening---to the embarrassment of the agency and the many people who have supported the Authority's efforts to build shelters for one of the country's most sprawling bus systems.

And they nixed the idea that the plans to move ahead have been cancelled:

"It says right there in Chairman Parkers statement that the JTA is moving ahead with the Plan.

[thelakelander]

Good!

[JeffreyS]

Kudos JTA and Stephen for going to the source.

[stjr]

I take back all those "good" things I said giving JTA credit for backing off due to misrepresenting the data, ignoring the legal experts advice, and listening to an attorney with a conflict of interest.

JTA appears to still be the same "old dog" that doesn't learn new tricks.

As to being shown where to find the money, that is what they are paid to do.  Just to help them out, I gave several scenarios on the original MJ shelter board.  According to the article in the T-U yesterday, so have others.  The easiest and most obvious, is to take it out the $ky-high-way budget.  They could exceed even the ad supported shelter plan by several times with that money.

One step forward, two steps backward, once again.

[north miami]

With General Counsel and city attorney/Consolodation learnings so fresh (thanks Stephen and Rick!...) I see in today's FTU reference to possible legal showdown-city General Counsel by law at arms length from JTA.So within the county wide tent of public policy we have many Camel noses present it seems.

[Ocklawaha]

GO FOR IT JTA! Nice to see some follow through thinking, that would be backed by action. Kudos to Mike Blaylock and company.

OCKLAWAHA

[tufsu1]

at this point I wouldn't take everything said by "JTA spokesmen" as gospel.

[stjr]

at this point I wouldn't take everything said by "JTA spokesmen" as gospel.

Stephen, can you name the spokesmen?  If this is official policy, JTA should go on the record.  Are you sure JTA isn't speaking out both sides of the mouth?  Being disingenuous again?  This, after supplying misleading data?

The Times Union (see red quotes below) was specific that Cleve Warren was re-meeting with certain opposing councilmen and quoted them.  It also was specific naming the Vice Chair investigating the JTA attorney, David Cohen, for conflict of interest.  And, it quoted Arpen as citing alternate sources for funds with no denial by JTA.

Something seems amiss here.

JTA says it will put the brakes on bus shelters with ads

    * By Larry Hannan
    * Story updated at 6:51 PM on Thursday, Oct. 29, 2009

Bus shelters with advertisements may not be coming to Jacksonville after all.

Two weeks after the City Council amended its sign law to allow the Jacksonville Transportation Authority to build bus shelters with advertisements, JTA’s board said Thursday it would delay moving forward until at least January.

JTA had wanted to hire a sign company to build and maintain shelters. Instead, board Chairwoman Ava Parker  said Thursday that JTA will meet with the proposal’s vocal opponents and ask them to suggest ways that shelters can be built and maintained without a company’s help.

Parker said JTA was still committed to building more bus shelters â€" only about 350 of the city’s 6,000 bus stops are covered â€" but the negative reaction made the board decide to step back.
“We’ve studied this issue and believe we came up with the best solution,” she said. “But it’s possible there are better ideas out there, and we want to hear what they are.”

JTA builds about 20 bus shelters a year but doesn’t have money to build and maintain more. It said shelters cost $4,000 to $12,000 to build and about $1,200 a year to maintain.
JTA has said it could built about 80 shelters a year with help from a sign company.

Board member Cleve Warren  was told to meet with opponents, specifically City Council members Bill Bishop,  John Crescimbeni  and Clay Yarborough,  who were outspoken in their opposition when the council approved the amendment by an 11-6 vote.

Crescimbeni said JTA made the right call and hoped money could be found to keep advertising off shelters.

“I have several ideas for how we could do this,” Crescimbeni said. “But I prefer to discuss it with Mr. Warren before he reads about it in the paper.”

Tracey Arpen,  a former attorney with the city General Counsel Office, also said there were ways to build more shelters without ads.

“There are federal grants that could pay for the construction of shelters,” Arpen said. “And the city could designate all the fine money it collects from code enforcement violations go towards shelter maintenance.”

Opponents like Arpen and Crescimbeni worry that sign companies that don’t get the JTA contract will sue the city and argue that the amendment makes the entire 1987 sign law unconstitutional.

Attorneys for JTA and the city General Counsel’s Office have said they believe the amendment will stand up in court.

The original law limited the number of signs that could be built in the city. A voter-approved charter amendment later that year also banned billboard construction in Jacksonville and mandated the incremental removal of existing billboards.

Critics of the bus-shelter amendment have also accused JTA of collaborating with Clear Channel, the largest sign company in Jacksonville. The law firm Edwards Cohen has both JTA and Clear Channel as clients, and Parker said Thursday that the agency would review its relationship with the firm.

Vice Chairman Michael Cavendish,  an attorney with Gunster firm, will lead the review.

As a state agency, JTA is not obligated to use the city General Counsel’s Office. David Cohen,  JTA’s attorney, said he welcomed the scruntiny. He said there is no conflict because he doesn’t deal with Clear Channel and doesn’t talk about JTA business with his partner who does.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-10-29/story/jta_says_it_will_put_the_brakes_on_bus_shelters_with_ads

[stjr]

For another take, here is how Leo King reported this portion of the JTA meeting in the Examiner:

Chair Ava Parker said the JTA is rethinking its position on advertising on bus shelters.

“We would be remiss if we didn’t recognize that there were some concerns, opposition, to the legislation” which allowed advertising to be placed at bus shelters.

“JTA respect those concerns…” she said, and added they would work with Jacksonville City Council members “In their efforts to develop committed, adequate revenue sources for the transit shelter maintenance, which can serve in lieu of economic support from shelter advertising.”

http://www.examiner.com/x-10977-Jacksonville-Transportation-Examiner~y2009m10d30-JTA-okays-bus-terminal-plan

[CS Foltz]

Well if the shelters cost from $4k to $12k as has been stated, JTA has supposedly found $73 Million in an unused account that is a no-brainer to me! I don't see where having "Advertising" emblazoned will make up the total cost of installing and maintaining! Four K for a simple shelter makes perfect sense when you take into account three sides and a roof............that is something cost effective to produce and maintain! I have not received pricing from the three outlets that I contacted, but 4K for a simple shelter seems to be a reasonable amount! Don't buy one new bus and there is 600K to work with............that translates into 150 simple shelters more than we have now and 125 with money left for maintaining them.......so why can't JTA come to this conclusion too?

[thelakelander]

Perhaps because $73 million is better used for more impactful capital projects.  Building streetcar, commuter rail or BRT would be a better use of the money if you have private companies willing to fund and maintain shelters with their own money.

If people don't want JTA to best utilize their financial resources, they should be willing to step up and come up with alternative solutions that don't alter other JTA-based services or donate some funds.  It seems like JTA is at least open to giving the opposition a chance.  Let's see what they come up with.

[Charles Hunter]

Doesn't JTA record their meetings?  Someone could request a copy, under Sunshine Laws.  Then post a word for word quote here, maybe Lake could even put up the appropriate piece of the recording, so we could all hear.  And end all this "that reporter wrote this, another reporter wrote that, JTA said they really meant this" stuff.

[tufsu1]

I spoke with several people today STJR.

They did confirm that Cleve Warren had been appointed in a good faith effort to review the alternatives.

which says to me that there was no false reporting in the T-U article....just misinterpretation by some.

[stjr]

Perhaps because $73 million is better used for more impactful capital projects....

If people don't want JTA to best utilize their financial resources, they should be willing to step up and come up with alternative solutions that don't alter other JTA-based services or donate some funds...

Lake, following your advice, JTA, best utilizing its financial resources and using them for more "impactful" capital projects, should immediately shut down the barely used, never-to-be-more-useful, $ky-high-way and reallocate its $14 million annual losses to better projects.  Like improving our bus system operations and infrastructure with more headways, routes, and bus shelters to encourage more riders.  That would leave the entire $73 million for advancing rail oriented options.

It only hurts a second to give your full endorsement! 

[Ocklawaha]

The difference in Route Miles/and all of their stops, and Highway Miles/and all of their stops, is not a lie or misleading, its just a different way of calculating the services.

OCKLAWAHA