Better link to river could bring more people downtown

[thelakelander]

Good article by Abel Harding in today's TU.

"Do we want to invest in our downtown in such a way that it becomes a great place, and an economic engine for our community," asked Steve Lovett, a partner at the design firm Ervin Lovett Miller. "Or, do we want to subsidize its existence and poor performance?"

Lovett argues that revitalization is imperative for one basic reason - it provides the opportunity for a burgeoning tax base that doesn't require the extensive infrastructure development required elsewhere in the county.

In other words, a vibrant downtown could ease the property tax burden of homes and businesses around the city. It can also improve the quality of life throughout the city.

That's why its somewhat inexplicable that the city - while paying lip service to downtown - has continued to subsidize companies that expand in other areas of town. In recent months, Jacksonville provided incentives for one company, Digital Risk LLC, to locate on Gate Parkway, and another, Xorail, to expand its location in the same area. Additionally, the city awarded subsidies to Adecco Group North America to add jobs. But the incentives included no requirement that the company remain downtown - and it left for a locale on the crowded Southside.

The reasoning behind Southside expansions? Companies say parking is too expensive downtown and the city refuses to bankroll it.

But something doesn't add up here. A recent Times-Union story showed how Jacksonville has spent more than $12 million to cover losses on mostly empty downtown parking garages. And taxpayers are predicted to spend millions more in coming years.

It would seem there would be a way that empty garages already receiving taxpayer dollars could be used to negotiate with employers to lure them downtown.

Full article: http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/400904/abel-harding/2010-10-10/better-link-river-could-bring-more-people-downtown

[CS Foltz]

lake, nice article and it just points out a situation that we allready know! Lack of vision on the part of the current administration. City can give all of the incentives they want, but they are in the wrong direction and substance inorder to revitilize downtown. There are people with some kind of an idea of what should be done and how to do it,(Bill Killingsworth comes to mind) but those in power are not looking at the big picture! Time for a change!

[buckethead]

I don't see it as a lack of vision. More likely, in my view, the promotion of economic (industrial/manufacture/IT/Admin) development in dispersed locations is directly linked to land ownership.

That has been the way in Jax for decades. (Centuries?) It is economic cronyism and good ol' boyism that keeps downtown in a state of malaise.

Lack of vision?... no.

Vision directly opposed to the common best interest?... perhaps closer to the mark.

[CS Foltz]

Vision directly opposed to the common best interest?... perhaps closer to the mark.

Therein lies my issue's! Either way something is not right, whether we can prove it in a court of law or not! I am thinking we need more accountable and transparent government, not more back room deals conducted in smoke filled rooms. The quickest way to achieve that is to replace current people with people who truely represent the people who voted them into office, not the current crop of retreads or political wannabe's!  Least ways thats how I see it!

[buckethead]

I think we need less "connected" leaders. If you're a praying person, this would be a good thing to pray for.

[CS Foltz]

I think we need less "connected" leaders. If you're a praying person, this would be a good thing to pray for.

You do have a point! Operative word there is "connected" and right there is the heart of the problem!

[Singejoufflue]

Let's also see what we can do about a rather apathetic population and not lay blame solely at the feet of "connected" leaders.  Only 20% of the population voted in 2007 to elect the current administration. 

[simms3]

Connections in this city are no longer based on corporate/philanthropic experience.  They are based more on church and politics.  We need to get back to connections to business leaders in San Marco and Ortega who work downtown and who's investments are either downtown or in city-wide affairs (and nobody in these two neighborhoods or those in between goes to FBC).  Connections can be a good thing for our city if they are the right connections.  Unfortunately they have drifted to whackos from spread out parts of the city conniving together and catering to Duval's lowest common denominator and too many people have simply not cared enough to change that, hence the 20% voter turnout.

We need city leaders with stronger connections to Preston Haskell, Tom Petway, Betsy Lovett, Rob Clements, and anyone else who knows from experience how a real city works and who already invests heavily in the city.

[Steve_Lovett]

Out of 100 people moving to Jacksonville and just about any American city nowadays, perhaps only 15-20 are looking to move to an older more urban area.  The rest really highly desire a single family home or townhome in the suburbs, and so that's where much of the money is for developers.

I don't think this is true.  You can have old and new in an established area.  From my experience, the majority of people try to get most bang out of their buck money wise.  Get that same product in the city at a similar price, with good schools and decent amenities and more people will choose that alternative.  Uptown Charlotte, Dallas and Houston, inside the loop, are great examples of this.  So in my humble opinion, this issue rest soley on the leadership of this city.  If they really want the urban core to bloom, they'll have to put their money where their mouth is.

Even the cities that are considered the best in this country have a proportionately small number of downtown residents when compared with the rest of a city.  This coming week, me and another hundred or so are going to Indianapolis for the Chamber Leadership Trip (we went to KC last year).  Indianapolis's downtown is, by all accounts, a vibrant business, residential, and convention city.  Of the 1.7 million people in greater Indy, there are approximately 9,000 downtown units with a downtown population of around 28,000 -- and that's considered a great success.

But -- a downtown's residential population is only one aspect...

What a vibrant downtown does is far reaching.  According to recent studies, a few decades ago, downtown Jacksonville contributed 13.5% of the city's ad valorem tax revenue.  Today, it barely contributes 3%.  Based upon today's $980-million budget, that's a tax revenue deficit of around $105-million that falls fully on the shoulders of suburban residential taxpayers.  If things continue as they are, it will get worse.  Downtown's throughout the country produce disproportionately higher revenues than suburban areas, and there are many examples of downtown renewal & revitalization in cities far more disadvantaged than Jacksonville -- and the benefits in those cities are manifest in great, desirable downtowns, improved urban & suburban neighborhoods, and more sustainable public-sector revenue streams.   

One could argue that to continue as Jacksonville has becomes a lose-lose proposition for our central city and suburbs -- and that Jacksonville will be less-and-less desirable & competitive in aspects of economy, education, and quality of life. 

[simms3]

What a vibrant downtown does is far reaching.  According to recent studies, a few decades ago, downtown Jacksonville contributed 13.5% of the city's ad valorem tax revenue.  Today, it barely contributes 3%.  Based upon today's $980-million budget, that's a tax revenue deficit of around $105-million that falls fully on the shoulders of suburban residential taxpayers.  If things continue as they are, it will get worse.  Downtown's throughout the country produce disproportionately higher revenues than suburban areas, and there are many examples of downtown renewal & revitalization in cities far more disadvantaged than Jacksonville -- and the benefits in those cities are manifest in great, desirable downtowns, improved urban & suburban neighborhoods, and more sustainable public-sector revenue streams.   

One could argue that to continue as Jacksonville has becomes a lose-lose proposition for our central city and suburbs -- and that Jacksonville will be less-and-less desirable & competitive in aspects of economy, education, and quality of life. 

Great point, we had front page article detailing this recently.  I always try to comment on FTU articles such as this river one by pointing out similar numbers.  There might be 20 comments in these words, more or less, "Yea more money down the drain.  I the taxpayer refuse to pour more money into downtown."  Myself or someone else will then come along and try to explain why this view is too simple and inadvertently wrong (this view actually harms the suburban taxpayer).  Nobody listens and continues to spew the same view.  I now have begun to say, "please read all posts before chiming in; if you are going to spit out the same viewpoint, then save it.  Please add something new or rebut what has been said."  That's also futile.

I worry that our biggest enemy in getting anything done is the average voter who not due necessarily to his own fault does not know anything about planning or city budgets.  These people are on full display at the FTU.

I think Indy does a better job providing access to its canal and promoting it as a destination than we do with our full size riverfront (downtown).

[thelakelander]

Out of 100 people moving to Jacksonville and just about any American city nowadays, perhaps only 15-20 are looking to move to an older more urban area.  The rest really highly desire a single family home or townhome in the suburbs, and so that's where much of the money is for developers.

I don't think this is true.  You can have old and new in an established area.  From my experience, the majority of people try to get most bang out of their buck money wise.  Get that same product in the city at a similar price, with good schools and decent amenities and more people will choose that alternative.  Uptown Charlotte, Dallas and Houston, inside the loop, are great examples of this.  So in my humble opinion, this issue rest soley on the leadership of this city.  If they really want the urban core to bloom, they'll have to put their money where their mouth is.

Even the cities that are considered the best in this country have a proportionately small number of downtown residents when compared with the rest of a city.  This coming week, me and another hundred or so are going to Indianapolis for the Chamber Leadership Trip (we went to KC last year).  Indianapolis's downtown is, by all accounts, a vibrant business, residential, and convention city.  Of the 1.7 million people in greater Indy, there are approximately 9,000 downtown units with a downtown population of around 28,000 -- and that's considered a great success.

There's too much focus on downtown.  When I speak about this topic, places like Brooklyn, Springfield and LaVilla are just as important and central as the Northbank in the grand scheme of things.  In addition, the urban examples I mentioned above (Charlotte, Houston, Dallas,etc.) exceed the small artificial boundaries of "downtown."  For example, while in Indy this week, try and check out Old Northside or Broad Ripple.  Here you'll find that urban living in these communities can be just as exciting and walkable as urban living in the Wholesale District itself.

[CS Foltz]

I would guess that someone at that end did have a plan and managed to come up with funding right?

[Steve_Lovett]

Out of 100 people moving to Jacksonville and just about any American city nowadays, perhaps only 15-20 are looking to move to an older more urban area.  The rest really highly desire a single family home or townhome in the suburbs, and so that's where much of the money is for developers.

I don't think this is true.  You can have old and new in an established area.  From my experience, the majority of people try to get most bang out of their buck money wise.  Get that same product in the city at a similar price, with good schools and decent amenities and more people will choose that alternative.  Uptown Charlotte, Dallas and Houston, inside the loop, are great examples of this.  So in my humble opinion, this issue rest soley on the leadership of this city.  If they really want the urban core to bloom, they'll have to put their money where their mouth is.

Even the cities that are considered the best in this country have a proportionately small number of downtown residents when compared with the rest of a city.  This coming week, me and another hundred or so are going to Indianapolis for the Chamber Leadership Trip (we went to KC last year).  Indianapolis's downtown is, by all accounts, a vibrant business, residential, and convention city.  Of the 1.7 million people in greater Indy, there are approximately 9,000 downtown units with a downtown population of around 28,000 -- and that's considered a great success.

There's too much focus on downtown.  When I speak about this topic, places like Brooklyn, Springfield and LaVilla are just as important and central as the Northbank in the grand scheme of things.  In addition, the urban examples I mentioned above (Charlotte, Houston, Dallas,etc.) exceed the small artificial boundaries of "downtown."  For example, while in Indy this week, try and check out Old Northside or Broad Ripple.  Here you'll find that urban living in these communities can be just as exciting and walkable as urban living in the Wholesale District itself.

I agree with you, Ennis.  It's not an either/or.  Downtown shouldn't be a focus at the expense of other neighborhoods.  There are synergistic benefits to stronger neighborhoods AND downtown.  The fact that once-desirable neighborhoods like Arlington, Springfield, LaVilla, Durkeeville, and (many) others have fallen into disrepair while growth (and accompanying infrastructure) has gone to the far reaches of the county and region has/will prove expensive to capitalize and maintain, and the sustainability of this pattern of growth is questionable. 

I intend to see BroadRipple and hopefully old Northside in Indy this week.

[CS Foltz]

Gentlemen...........what focus on downtown? BRT.......whopee! While I understand the lack  of revenue from a decaying downtown, what is taking place?.............Anything at all? I do not say suburbia is the answer, but when the suburb's are paying their fair share (Then some!) Why don't we have an integrated plan that takes all of COJ into account?

[Steve_Lovett]

What a vibrant downtown does is far reaching.  According to recent studies, a few decades ago, downtown Jacksonville contributed 13.5% of the city's ad valorem tax revenue.  Today, it barely contributes 3%.  Based upon today's $980-million budget, that's a tax revenue deficit of around $105-million that falls fully on the shoulders of suburban residential taxpayers.  If things continue as they are, it will get worse.  Downtown's throughout the country produce disproportionately higher revenues than suburban areas, and there are many examples of downtown renewal & revitalization in cities far more disadvantaged than Jacksonville -- and the benefits in those cities are manifest in great, desirable downtowns, improved urban & suburban neighborhoods, and more sustainable public-sector revenue streams.   

One could argue that to continue as Jacksonville has becomes a lose-lose proposition for our central city and suburbs -- and that Jacksonville will be less-and-less desirable & competitive in aspects of economy, education, and quality of life. 

Great point, we had front page article detailing this recently.  I always try to comment on FTU articles such as this river one by pointing out similar numbers.  There might be 20 comments in these words, more or less, "Yea more money down the drain.  I the taxpayer refuse to pour more money into downtown."  Myself or someone else will then come along and try to explain why this view is too simple and inadvertently wrong (this view actually harms the suburban taxpayer).  Nobody listens and continues to spew the same view.  I now have begun to say, "please read all posts before chiming in; if you are going to spit out the same viewpoint, then save it.  Please add something new or rebut what has been said."  That's also futile.

I worry that our biggest enemy in getting anything done is the average voter who not due necessarily to his own fault does not know anything about planning or city budgets.  These people are on full display at the FTU.

I think Indy does a better job providing access to its canal and promoting it as a destination than we do with our full size riverfront (downtown).

Perhaps Jacksonville's leaders haven't yet been effective at articulating why a well-conceived investment in downtown is beneficial to the regional economy and taxpayers/residents throughout the city....