We mentioned this a few months back but the TU has just put out an update on it:
QuoteJacksonville's City Council has been debating -- again -- whether to rebuild Monroe Street as the new Duval County Courthouse approaches completion.
Three committees have answered three different ways this week, as members Lori Boyer and Don Redman pitch a bill (2011-615) that would delay Monroe's reconstruction until at least 2014.
Over the summer, the council rejected a plan by former Mayor John Peyton to build a pedestrian plaza where the road once ran. But Boyer argued that decision should tie the city's hands to rebuild the road.
"When this ... was presented six months ago, it was a choice between building a somewhat grand plaza or building the street," Boyer told members of the Transportation, Energy and Utilities Committee on Monday.
"I thought it should be viewed as a choice between building the street and saving money."
The new legislation would cut $800,000 -- the amount set aside earlier for either a road or a plaza -- from an account tied to the courthouse project. The money would be moved to a pollution cleanup project that's being funded from bond money, which would spare the city borrowing more money.
The nearly finished courthouse stands in the path that Monroe used to travel. Council members and downtown activists have argued about whether building a road that snakes around the courthouse will really help traffic.
Boyer and Redman have said the best choice is to let the courthouse open next year and give drivers a year or two to get used to the area.
"We really need to get the courthouse finished [and]see what the traffic is," Redman told transportation members.
Boyer told the Finance Committee Tuesday the path for Monroe can be seeded, watered and maintained but left free of any permanent, expensive fixtures in case the city decides the road should be rebuilt.
But deciding to wait and watch is like deciding to never build the road, and that would be a mistake, Councilman Bill Bishop answered.
"This is just wrong," Bishop told Finance members. "We need to just get on with it and put the road back where it should be."
Finance Chairman Richard Clark deferred the bill, saying the debate among the five members present Tuesday showed neither side could muster the four votes needed to pass. In votes Monday, the bill was approved by the Transportation Committee and rejected by the Rules Committee.
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/403455/steve-patterson/2011-10-04/jacksonville-city-council-panels-back-debating-monroe
I though Bishop didn't want the original plaza built because he didn't want to spend another dime on the courthouse? If cost savings on this half billion dollar boondoggle is someone's position, how can they argue for spending an additional $800,000 for a road that has been clearly proven that it isn't needed?
I honestly cant believe he continues to push for this road. Someone on the Council needs to call him out on it. How absurd!
Maybe I'm reading this wrong but from following this issue over the last few months, it appears that there is another agenda at hand that has nothing to do with the financial irresponsibility of spending additional taxpayer dollars on a frivolous road project.
This issue seems like its more out of spite than logic. That's really the only way one can flip flop from being a steward of public dollars to totally being against an idea that will save taxpayers an additional $800,000. I hope I'm off-base but it sure reads this way.
This road needs to stay closed. The demand isn't there and won't be when it opens.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 04, 2011, 04:26:21 PM
Maybe I'm reading this wrong but from following this issue over the last few months, it appears that there is another agenda at hand that has nothing to do with the financial irresponsibility of spending additional taxpayer dollars on a frivolous road project.
This issue seems like its more out of spite than logic. That's really the only way one can flip flop from being a steward of public dollars to totally being against an idea that will save taxpayers an additional $800,000. I hope I'm off-base but it sure reads this way.
I read it the same. Stinks of political backroom deals. I'm not sure what disappoints me more - those that are for the road, or those who haven't called them on the carpet about it.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 04, 2011, 04:26:21 PM
Maybe I'm reading this wrong but from following this issue over the last few months, it appears that there is another agenda at hand that has nothing to do with the financial irresponsibility of spending additional taxpayer dollars on a frivolous road project.
This issue seems like its more out of spite than logic. That's really the only way one can flip flop from being a steward of public dollars to totally being against an idea that will save taxpayers an additional $800,000. I hope I'm off-base but it sure reads this way.
No I have been seeing this the same way! Something is amiss on all of this!
I call into question a lot of our council's decisions (not all, but some council members). Like the unrelated Outerbeltway or Greyhound Station? What is really behind this because either these members are stupid or think we are!