A message to Alvin Brown:
I sincerely hope you strongly consider the following people in the process of forming a new DDA:
Jim Bailey, Audrey Moran, Tim Miller, John Fischer, Pete Rummell, Brad Thoburn(working with transit needs to be a MAJOR component of this agency), Ron Barton and Ennis Davis.
Replacing JEDC's role in downtown development with a seperate DDA will only be effective in relation to the people you appoint to serve downtown's interest and the following people have the proven experience and leadership to accomplish your goals.
Thank you
And for God's sake, give Bill Killingsworth a raise.
add Bob Mann to that list.
Quote from: fieldafm on May 19, 2011, 02:03:49 PM
A message to Alvin Brown:
I sincerely hope you strongly consider the following people in the process of forming a new DDA:
Jim Bailey, Audrey Moran, Tim Miller, John Fischer, Pete Rummell, Brad Thoburn(working with transit needs to be a MAJOR component of this agency), Ron Barton and Ennis Davis.
Replacing JEDC's role in downtown development with a seperate DDA will only be effective in relation to the people you appoint to serve downtown's interest and the following people have the proven experience and leadership to accomplish your goals.
Thank you
And for God's sake, give Bill Killingsworth a raise.
+1,000,000,000
Speaking personally, I'd nominate Stephen Dare as well. For two decades he was about the only true resident of downtown who wasn't sleeping on a bench. And he's opened and closed several businesses there. He knows the place better than anybody.
He'd do well to talk to Mullaney too, especially in regards to his plan for attracting health care jobs and a med school.
Quote from: Tacachale on May 19, 2011, 04:57:41 PM
He'd do well to talk to Mullaney too, especially in regards to his plan for attracting health care jobs and a med school.
Yes, as upsetting as his late-campaign machinations were, he had some quality ideas.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 19, 2011, 02:08:36 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on May 19, 2011, 02:03:49 PM
A message to Alvin Brown:
I sincerely hope you strongly consider the following people in the process of forming a new DDA:
Jim Bailey, Audrey Moran, Tim Miller, John Fischer, Pete Rummell, Brad Thoburn(working with transit needs to be a MAJOR component of this agency), Ron Barton and Ennis Davis.
Replacing JEDC's role in downtown development with a seperate DDA will only be effective in relation to the people you appoint to serve downtown's interest and the following people have the proven experience and leadership to accomplish your goals.
Thank you
And for God's sake, give Bill Killingsworth a raise.
+1,000,000,000
Speaking personally, I'd nominate Stephen Dare as well. For two decades he was about the only true resident of downtown who wasn't sleeping on a bench. And he's opened and closed several businesses there. He knows the place better than anybody.
Isn't that the crux of all political races? Every candidate usually has valid points and most raise awareness to certain issues, but the real leaders are the ones with the initiative and drive to follow through. I would like to see AB take on the city and use some of the people that he ran against as advisors during his tenure. As said above, let Moran lead the push to help alleviate the homeless/vagrant problems with some added support from Schulzbacher. Let Mullaney find a spot to lead his push for the medical campus. They're both good causes and if both were given the opportunity to succeed, then AB's cause of making DT a better place, bringing jobs to the city, etc.. It's a win, win, win.
A general is only as good as his captains in the field allow him to be.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 19, 2011, 02:08:36 PM
Speaking personally, I'd nominate Stephen Dare as well. For two decades he was about the only true resident of downtown who wasn't sleeping on a bench. And he's opened and closed several businesses there. He knows the place better than anybody.
:D
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 19, 2011, 02:08:36 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on May 19, 2011, 02:03:49 PM
A message to Alvin Brown:
I sincerely hope you strongly consider the following people in the process of forming a new DDA:
Jim Bailey, Audrey Moran, Tim Miller, John Fischer, Pete Rummell, Brad Thoburn(working with transit needs to be a MAJOR component of this agency), Ron Barton and Ennis Davis.
Replacing JEDC's role in downtown development with a seperate DDA will only be effective in relation to the people you appoint to serve downtown's interest and the following people have the proven experience and leadership to accomplish your goals.
Thank you
And for God's sake, give Bill Killingsworth a raise.
+1,000,000,000
Speaking personally, I'd nominate Stephen Dare as well. For two decades he was about the only true resident of downtown who wasn't sleeping on a bench. And he's opened and closed several businesses there. He knows the place better than anybody.
IT's true and he should be mayor one day i think...
^
But who would write his speeches for him? ;D
Getting back to the topic of a DDA, as I mentioned a few pages back, it won't solve everything, but having a city agency completely dedicated to improving downtown (staff with the right individuals of course) will help foster an urban environment that will be attractive to both local businesses and national chains. However, I'm going to say once again, there are a number of policies and steps that have to be revisited and overcome to move things forward. Speaking of Fort Worth, many of the places Second Pancake mentioned around the Sundance Square area don't have to deal with overcoming some of the policy issues that impact downtown Jacksonville. Also, speaking of mass transit, its pretty cool how DT Fort Worth's intermodal center connects the neighborhood with the rest of metro, via bus and commuter rail. With that said, DT Fort Worth would be a great peer city to take look at as an example of how to do things right.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2011, 10:27:00 PM
Getting back to the topic of a DDA, as I mentioned a few pages back, it won't solve everything, but having a city agency completely dedicated to improving downtown (staff with the right individuals of course) will help foster an urban environment that will be attractive to both local businesses and national chains. However, I'm going to say once again, there are a number of policies and steps that have to be revisited and overcome to move things forward. Speaking of Fort Worth, many of the places Second Pancake mentioned around the Sundance Square area don't have to deal with overcoming some of the policy issues that impact downtown Jacksonville. Also, speaking of mass transit, its pretty cool how DT Fort Worth's intermodal center connects the neighborhood with the rest of metro, via bus and commuter rail. With that said, DT Fort Worth would be a great peer city to take look at as an example of how to do things right.
But we've had the JEDC and Downtown Vision and a lot of involved citizens. And what has happened? A few events, Laura Street improvements, and a court house? What is going to be different this time Lake? And of course this new group is going to want to start from scratch, do their own studies, and we're right back to square one.
By the sound of all this we're a decade (or more) away from any substantive change downtown.
JEDC - Is not a city agency dedicated to DT alone.
Downtown Vision - Serves a different purpose.
Lots of involved citizens - This is what has kept DT afloat so far. We ought to alleviate policies to allow this segment of the population more opportunity.
As you know, my focus is not on a DDA. However, I can see how one could be of benefit. Nevertheless, this will ultimately depend on the people selected to it. It could be great for DT. Or it could be a complete failure.
Timeline wise, you're probably right if substantive change in your eyes means a DT filled with TGI Fridays, Applebees and Targets. Probably longer, if you don't invest in that streetcar line to connect DT with Springfield, Riverside and other neighborhoods. However, change for existing and local businesses can happen pretty quick by simply modifying policies that prohibit their growth.
Quote from: BigGuy219 on May 21, 2011, 11:17:39 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2011, 11:10:36 PM
They exist in suburban Jacksonville in an autocentric design pattern. Pedestrian oriented transportation infrastructure creates development in a walkable design pattern (which is something we lack). A streetcar isn't about national retail. Its about promoting sustainable walkable oriented economic infill opportunities in downtown and the urban core neighborhoods. However, infill TOD can certainly include national chains. For example, there are a number of chains that have popped up along Charlotte's new rail line (ex. Lowes Home Improvement, Office Depot, Carrabba's, Chipolte, etc.).
At this point, the mobility plan already includes funding for streetcar lines into Riverside and Springfield. Its expected to be adopted sometime this Summer. As we progress forward with those plans, don't be surprised to see dead or delayed mixed-use projects like the old Brooklyn Park proposal and 200 Riverside come back online. It happened in Charlotte, Salt Lake City, Houston and Tampa. I find very little reason to believe it won't happen in Jacksonville when the commitment is truly made. FYI, I'm basing my statement on actual real life examples.
Even if that plan is adopted we're still talking a long time before ground is broken on a street car project. Even longer for it to be operational. And frankly, there are a lot of people in this city who are even unaware of the mobility plan that are going to want to chime in and have a say before anything goes forward.
And even if it does go forward you're talking about years and years down the road before anything new springs up.
We live in the world of when we get fat, we choose liposuction instead of P90X. Only to find out, we're out of thousands of dollars and bloated again a few months later because we never changed our bad Angus Burger eating and exercise habits. Even if a developer proposed a Publix or Walmart in downtown today, you're still at least two years from being able to walk through the front door, assuming the project gets through the permitting, zoning, DDRB and council approval without delay (highly unlikely). Things take time.
It took 50 years to get to where we're at today. Quite frankly, it's not going to turn around and be filled with the national chains you want overnight. So yes, with or without a streetcar, you're probably a good decade away from downtown Jacksonville being dominated with Targets, Home Depots, Best Buys, Whole Foods and Macy's (and that's if you're lucky).
Regarding a streetcar, it can be as fast or as long as the community is willing to take. For Jax, my guess is five to ten years. However, things could change with Brown winning the recent election. That remains to be seen at this point. Nevertheless, development normally starts when the commitment is made to move forward with construction. So by the time the thing becomes operational, some TOD will be in place or under construction before that point.
QuoteThat's a lot of time to just sit around and wait. My cost of living downtown is $1400/mo (that includes rent and bills). That's almost $17,000 a year I'm locking in to live downtown. $50,000 in three years.
Meanwhile I live above vacant retail that I really don't think the company is actively trying to lease.
It's very frustrating.
It is very frustrating. Especially, considering we did nothing during the largest urban development boom in this country the past decade. We simply missed our opportunity because of a lack of making DT a true priority over the burbs. Unfortunately, you're screwed, if you expect the DT retail environment to transform into SJTC overnight. My suggestion would be to relocate to Riverside or San Marco when your lease is up. That's about the best short term solution you'll have for living in a vibrant urban environment that includes a mix of local shops and national chains in this city.
QuoteDon't you have any ideas/plans for something that doesn't take years and a complicated transit system to get going?
Yes, I've been telling you it in just about every post I've made on this thread.
Modifying policies and working with existing businesses to make the urban environment a better place. Here are links to an article we ran on this last week and another from November:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-may-twenty-affordable-fixes-for-downtown
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-nov-creating-downtown-vibrancy-by-exposing-secret-retail
These ideas may not be "sexy" TU front page news worthy and you may not hear your favorite sales clerk talk about them at the cash register but they work and are easy and quick to implement. They won't land you you're Trader Joe's but they will create the vibrant urban environment that would.
thelakelander wrote:
QuoteEven if a developer proposed a Publix or Walmart in downtown today, you're still at least two years from being able to walk through the front door, assuming the project gets through the permitting, zoning, DDRB and council approval without delay (highly unlikely). Things take time.
Why are these "things" necessary? Let's get rid of them so developers and property/business owners can move more quickly and cheaply.
They are all necessary on some level, but we have to find a way to modify them so that the process is streamlined in a manner that benefits the private sector.
Hopefully the folks going on the Chamber of Commerce trip to Houston can learn how it's done. I understand that you can get approval to start a business there in one day and city zoning regs are pretty much non-existent.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on May 22, 2011, 10:29:15 AM
Hopefully the folks going on the Chamber of Commerce trip to Houston can learn how it's done. I understand that you can get approval to start a business there in one day and city zoning regs are pretty much non-existent.
+1
Lack of restrictive zoning is how sucessful cities became cities in the first place. We have managed to forget that.
stephendare wrote:
QuoteThere have been two goals over the history of urban planning, public health has been the foremost, and workable commercial spaces. But there needs to be another goal, and that is vibrant self organizing economic activity.
You are totally correct that government involvement has been a problem, but uncontrolled chaos was also a problem and resulted in even more long term misery.
Vibrant self organizing economic activity is not imposed by government. I think urban planing should produce suggestions not legal restrictions.
stephendare wrote:
QuoteBut I think you agree that there are some restrictions that should continue. For example, metal foundries that produce an inordinate amount of arsenic and mercury shouldnt be located in a residential district with a bunch of children or next to the water resevoir right?
Yes, but I believe Houston does this through neighborhood associations rather than zoning.
The fact that it ISNT a residential area is what its missing. A strong residential base would help solve many of the issues you guys talk about.
But , was downtown residential ( I mean densely ) back in the day? I thought it had lots of Hotels and destinations in the downtown area (the core)
Lots and lots of residential. Asinine conservative social reasons led to the demolition of the original residential neighborhoods downtown with an unnecessary and largely unused (een 50 years later) expressway, projects that never materialized, and walling off what remaining residential they couldn't demolish, got rid of most of it. Now we have acres of vacamt lots that used to be residential. In order to have a thriving downtown, you need residential.
The reality is that it isn't going to have lots of residential infill anytime soon. Thus it makes sense to do things that better connect and pull the adjacent dense neighborhood's residents in with downtown. This is another reason I've become a fan of systems like streetcars and LRT. They instantly connect urban destinations with existing pockets of dense residential and also spur infill development in the blocks between.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 23, 2011, 06:21:28 AM
The reality is that it isn't going to have lots of residential infill anytime soon. Thus it makes sense to do things that better connect and pull the adjacent dense neighborhood's residents in with downtown. This is another reason I've become a fan of systems like streetcars and LRT. They instantly connect urban destinations with existing pockets of dense residential and also spur infill development in the blocks between.
There's no reason it can't have affordable residential immediately. Let go of pies in the sky and release the mile after square mile of vacant city-owned land in Brooklyn, LaVilla, and the western half of the core for private development with incentives for affordable housing. As long as the city owns 1/2 of the land area and is content to let it sit vacant, still waiting on Jack Diamond's golf resort 20 years later, or only considering suburban-style low-density office park buildings as appropriate uses, then no, nothing will ever happen. The market there doesn't want that, that's why there haven't been any takers other than one law firm, a credit union, and a restaurant that never opened and became a de facto homeless shelter.
So a place to start is getting it turned back into what it actually worked as. Our attempt to turn it into a giant suburban office park has had two decades to work, and faiked miserably. A streetcar connecting riverside is fine and dandy, and we should definitely have one. But a far more pressing problem, though, is removing the need to commute from the downtown equation, and reintegrating the lost residential is key to that. And with residential density will come the stores and restaurants everyone wants.
Immediately equates to tomorrow in my book. Even if some developer came to town and proposed a single project today, you're probably still looking at another 18 months, 2 or 3 years before the first residents move into that building. Probably more if its some place that's been abandoned for 20 years, grants are needed or a rezoning is required. For example, just look at the Ambassador Lofts or the Lerner Shops projects. They've been on the books for at least five years with no completion date in the near future. Also, let's not forget that during downtown's heyday, the majority of its dense residential units were in subdistricts like LaVilla, Brooklyn, the Cathedral District, Sugar Hill, etc., not the heart of the Northbank. Anyway, I'm not saying getting residential back in the heart should not be a priority. I'm just saying in the short term, we'll have a better chance on the residential side of things strengthening the connection between the northbank core and surrounding residential districts and marketing the area as one large urban district. Just from market conditions alone, its going to take a few years (probably more like a good decade) to attract enough infill residential within a compact section of the Northbank to support a decent amount of retail on its own.
Quote from: Timkin on May 23, 2011, 01:36:08 AM
But , was downtown residential ( I mean densely ) back in the day? I thought it had lots of Hotels and destinations in the downtown area (the core)
You must have been listening to my brunch conversation on Sunday ; ) A friend of mine was telling me how she went to the Roosevelt and Robert Meyer Hotels for a nice evening out. She talked of getting dressed up and hearing a few good bands. Being a history buff, I still love to hear the storied of downtown back in the day. Sometimes, I wonder if consolidation was a case of destroying the village [read: downtown] in order to save it...
No. The events that started downtown's downward spiral (removing the docks and railroads) took place a decade before consolidation.
...And the bright idea of putting government buildings and parking lots on riverfront land, right?
I'm in Daytona and typing on my phone, but there are some things you've mentioned that are statewide building code requirements that can't be addressed by a local zoning overlay. I'm all for residential infill in the core as quick as possible. However, I'm coming from a perspective, based off my educational and professional work experience that recognizes many of the things associated with what has been suggested are time consuming to address themselves. Building code issues aside, we still have to deal with banks lending money, a bad real estate market, permitting, the construction process, etc. To sum it up, even with the most aggressive approach to encouraging residential infill (Philly style property tax abatement, imo), we're still years away from seeing the grand results of such a move. Thus, it makes sense in my mind to develop short and long term strategies to address the residential component and work at the same time to move both forward.
Btw, I agree with getting rid of the industrial zoning overlay in the urban core. It's insane that this city limits potential uses for obsolete industrial buildings in and around downtown. It's almost like we want to keep these areas empty and blighted.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 23, 2011, 09:22:59 AM
I'm in Daytona and typing on my phone, but there are some things you've mentioned that are statewide building code requirements that can't be addressed by a local zoning overlay. I'm all for residential infill in the core as quick as possible. However, I'm coming from a perspective, based off my educational and professional work experience that recognizes many of the things associated with what has been suggested are time consuming to address themselves. Building code issues aside, we still have to deal with banks lending money, a bad real estate market, permitting, the construction process, etc. To sum it up, even with the most aggressive approach to encouraging residential infill (Philly style property tax abatement, imo), we're still years away from seeing the grand results of such a move. Thus, it makes sense in my mind to develop short and long term strategies to address the residential component and work at the same time to move both forward.
I just left there, funny coincidence.
Building safety codes are one thing, but zoning is completely within the county's control. And regarding codes for reaidential, just add a sprinkler system and new electric service, and that's really about it provided the building is structurally sound. It's not that hard. I think you built your own multifamily residential building from scratch, which can leave a bad taste in your mouth. There are a lot more hoops to jump through than with retrofitting an exiting structure.
but in the end Brown won. He made Jax history and his reason for winning partially had something to do with his position on DT and the urban core. Moving forward, I'd like to see the council districts realigned so that the urban core is actually represented by the council. Right now, it's piecemealed into a variety of districts with neighborhoods who's needs are completely different. This may be the largest difference between us and a place like Nashville or Louisville.
Quote from: stephendare on May 23, 2011, 09:33:42 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 23, 2011, 09:22:59 AM
I'm in Daytona and typing on my phone, but there are some things you've mentioned that are statewide building code requirements that can't be addressed by a local zoning overlay. I'm all for residential infill in the core as quick as possible. However, I'm coming from a perspective, based off my educational and professional work experience that recognizes many of the things associated with what has been suggested are time consuming to address themselves. Building code issues aside, we still have to deal with banks lending money, a bad real estate market, permitting, the construction process, etc. To sum it up, even with the most aggressive approach to encouraging residential infill (Philly style property tax abatement, imo), we're still years away from seeing the grand results of such a move. Thus, it makes sense in my mind to develop short and long term strategies to address the residential component and work at the same time to move both forward.
Well the specific residential possibilities that I mentioned are all within the local authority. They have just lacked the willpower to make them happen.
I believe that our local guy is the one who concocted this historic industrial plan in his head, and that is just a decision from his boss to reverse that. A council exception to the district on Myrtle would take 90 days.
The development dna of our larger zoning codes would take a couple of years to implement. But the markets are a funny thing. Once the effort got underway, developers would see the handwriting on the wall and begin jockeying for position under the new ethos before a new zoning prerogative could even be completed.
Keeping this in mind, I think that we could see movement back towards infill within 3-5years----meaning new buildings constructed----if we immediately commenced on a two fold plan of restoring downtown artificially depressed viability by:
allowing residential to pop up wherever it might like in the downtown,
and removing the toxic downtown policies:
onerous parking penalties and enforcement,
onerous commercial code enforcement
relocating the homeless service complex to either the east side of downtown or the extreme westside.
returning the streets to a two way grid system
utilizing the cities inventory of buildings for density building projects and 'cycling' development.
Downtown literally has everything that it needs to explode. However it is being held hostage by the city.
+1
Also, COJ has a massive inventory of vacant urban land, that historically they've been unwilling to work with anybody on unless they were meeting the city's vision of suburban cookie-cutter low density office space. That should change, immediately. These were the original higher density urban residential areas that fed downtown. If downtown is ever going to come back, these need to be restored to their original purposes. Put them out for private develolment and offer economic incentives for developers to build high density housing.
We're actually all talking semantics. We're saying the same thing about a short term solution being to modify policy, which includes zoning. However, the only thing I'm adding to the discussion is that even by doing so, there won't be a significant influx of new infill residential (say +5,000 new units) in 3-5years, due to a number of issues that have little to do with Jacksonville in general. My stab in the dark is more like 5-10 years. Nevertheless, while we should make it a priority to address infill residential in the Northbank heart, in the short term (1-3 years) better integrating the adjacent neighborhoods with DT and marketing them together should be pushed forward as well.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 23, 2011, 09:49:35 AM
We're actually all talking semantics. We're saying the same thing about a short term solution being to modify policy, which includes zoning. However, the only thing I'm adding to the discussion is that even by doing so, there won't be a significant influx of new infill residential (say +5,000 new units) in 3-5years, due to a number of issues that have little to do with Jacksonville in general. My stab in the dark is more like 5-10 years. Nevertheless, while we should make it a priority to address infill residential in the Northbank heart, in the short term (1-3 years) better integrating the adjacent neighborhoods with DT and marketing them together should be pushed forward as well.
I think that could be done immediately. No reason to wait 5-10 years, it's all within our control.
On the Radio today Mayor Elect Brown Mentioned that it is a big problem in Jax that in 86 17% of our tax base was generated by downtown and only 3% today. Downtown is where our potential ROI is and that message will resonate with the locals we need to help Alvin spread that message.
Quote from: stephendare on May 23, 2011, 09:47:27 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 23, 2011, 09:34:49 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 23, 2011, 09:22:59 AM
I'm in Daytona and typing on my phone, but there are some things you've mentioned that are statewide building code requirements that can't be addressed by a local zoning overlay. I'm all for residential infill in the core as quick as possible. However, I'm coming from a perspective, based off my educational and professional work experience that recognizes many of the things associated with what has been suggested are time consuming to address themselves. Building code issues aside, we still have to deal with banks lending money, a bad real estate market, permitting, the construction process, etc. To sum it up, even with the most aggressive approach to encouraging residential infill (Philly style property tax abatement, imo), we're still years away from seeing the grand results of such a move. Thus, it makes sense in my mind to develop short and long term strategies to address the residential component and work at the same time to move both forward.
I just left there, funny coincidence.
Building safety codes are one thing, but zoning is completely within the county's control. And regarding codes for reaidential, just add a sprinkler system and new electric service, and that's really about it provided the building is structurally sound. It's not that hard. I think you built your own multifamily residential building from scratch, which can leave a bad taste in your mouth. There are a lot more hoops to jump through than with retrofitting an exiting structure.
In downtown Jacksonville, its actually the opposite. There are way more hoops to jump through.
Well they've made downtown its own animal haven't they. And I guess if they won't give you the zoning, it's more like a brick wall to jump through, instead of a hoop anyway. Splat!
Quote from: JeffreyS on May 23, 2011, 09:51:27 AM
On the Radio today Mayor Elect Brown Mentioned that it is a big problem in Jax that in 86 17% of our tax base was generated by downtown and only 3% today. Downtown is where our potential ROI is and that message will resonate with the locals we need to help Alvin spread that message.
The more disturbing thing is how much infrastructure us taxpayers had to build in order to fund relocating that 15% of the taxbase to unsustainable and incongruous areas, so private developers could make a profit reinventing the wheel. With a square.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 23, 2011, 09:51:10 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 23, 2011, 09:49:35 AM
We're actually all talking semantics. We're saying the same thing about a short term solution being to modify policy, which includes zoning. However, the only thing I'm adding to the discussion is that even by doing so, there won't be a significant influx of new infill residential (say +5,000 new units) in 3-5years, due to a number of issues that have little to do with Jacksonville in general. My stab in the dark is more like 5-10 years. Nevertheless, while we should make it a priority to address infill residential in the Northbank heart, in the short term (1-3 years) better integrating the adjacent neighborhoods with DT and marketing them together should be pushed forward as well.
I think that could be done immediately. No reason to wait 5-10 years, it's all within our control.
Immediately = changing policy
The 5-10 years after changing policy = enough time for private sector investment to really make a considerable impact (ex. +5,000 completed residential units).
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 23, 2011, 09:54:35 AM
Quote from: JeffreyS on May 23, 2011, 09:51:27 AM
On the Radio today Mayor Elect Brown Mentioned that it is a big problem in Jax that in 86 17% of our tax base was generated by downtown and only 3% today. Downtown is where our potential ROI is and that message will resonate with the locals we need to help Alvin spread that message.
The more disturbing thing is how much infrastructure us taxpayers had to build in order to fund relocating that 15% of the taxbase to unsustainable and incongruous areas, so private developers could make a profit reinventing the wheel. With a square.
+1