City Council prepares to Halt Mobility Fee
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1508828089_4FGPZ5J-M.jpg)
The majority of the Jacksonville City Council is on board with implementing a mobility fee moratorium (Ordinance 2011-617) that would result in Jacksonville taxpayers subsidizing the private development's negative impacts on public infrastructure 100%.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-oct-city-council-prepares-to-halt-mobility-fee
When is the vote taking place? How long do we have to contact the council members?
For maximum impact, it might be a good idea to have a small 3-5 sentence email script that everyone could use. One basically stating a position against the moratorium, possibly with a statistic. Essentially, an on point message that people could easily send to each representative. Just a thought.
Great article as always.
The final vote is set for next Tuesday...so start calling today!
Here is the email I just sent to the list so if anyone wants to modify it for their own use.
QuoteMr. Yarborough, Please do not put a moratorium on the Mobility Fee (Ordinance 2011-617). Jacksonville taxpayers subsidizing the private development's negative impacts on public infrastructure 100% is not acceptable or productive. The Mobility Fee helps Jacksonville maximize the benefits of needed development. I am keeping score on this one and will donate to campaigns of the candidates who I see helping developers to invest in Jax not giving away Jacksonville’s smart development future to them.
I also reminded a few of them of prior donations.
This ordinance promotes exactly the kind of development we do NOT need.
Jacksonville is already overbuilt in residential, commercial, and retail. Prices will not stabilize or increase until the excess inventory is absorbed.
We need to promote rehabilitation of existing property, not new suburban development. There are far better ways to stimulate our economy and create jobs.
I contacted city hall.
The text of 2011-617 can be viewed at http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/Council/SEPTEMBER-13-2011-SUMMARY.pdf just scroll down to viewer page 42.
This bill is scheduled to be voted on in the Rules Committee on 10/17, then it will go to Council on 10/25. The legislative aid at 630 1404 suggested a call to them on Tuesday 10/11 at 1:00pm or so to confirm the status of the bill in Rules Committee because it is possible they will discharge it from the committee (meaning agree to approve without a vote) and enable Council to vote on it on 10/11.
This is promoted by developers who want to build in the area of Jennifer Carroll's toll road funded by FDOT on the west side of Jax. Housing stock in that area is low since it is mostly rural at this time. However, everywhere else we are overbuilt and suffering from very high foreclosure rates.
Our council is not looking at helping the areas of town that need the help. They don't care about the need to invigorate Arlington, Northside, and the urban core. They don't want to help people get to work. They aren't thinking about the infrastructure that the city will have to fund or the schools which will have to be built. This is the same good ole boy politics that got us in the mess we are in right now. Council members who support this idiotic scheme need to share some agony from the rest of us.
Quote from: Jumpinjack on October 06, 2011, 11:06:17 AM
This is promoted by developers who want to build in the area of Jennifer Carroll's toll road funded by FDOT on the west side of Jax. Housing stock in that area is low since it is mostly rural at this time. However, everywhere else we are overbuilt and suffering from very high foreclosure rates.
Why would you want new tract housing stock near Cecil Field and Whitehouse? We blew an opportunity to bring the Navy back because of the incompatible land use encroachment that already exists.
I just sent this LTE to the FTU
Mobility Fee Delay
I am appalled at the City Council proposal (ordinance 2011-617) to delay the mobility fee which would assess developers for new road construction related to new development. Until passage of the Mobility Fee, Jacksonville collected a Fair Share fee that has provided $15.9 million for roads for new development.
A decision to not assess the fee on developers is a decision to place the burden on us taxpayers. We just went through a ruinous budget process where many painful cuts were made (remember the libraries?). The rationale for rollback of the fees is to stimulate development in Jacksonville.
Jacksonville developers are already getting a great deal by only having to pay an impact fee for roads. Many local governments , including St. Johns, require impact fees that cover schools, roads, buildings, safety services, fire rescue, parks and waste management. Their impact fees are much higher. It is only fair to require developers to at least pay for traffic concurrency and NOT foist more road costs on to the taxpayer.
We taxpayers already pay gas taxes that go for roads, we are paying ½ cent in sales tax under the Better Jacksonville Plan.
Did you knowâ€"Jacksonville’s residential vacancy rate is 11.38%? Our home values have declined 10% in the last year and 31% since 2006. We have vacant shopping centers and office buildings aplenty. Additional development will cause further property value decreases and more vacancy of existing structures.
A 2010 study by Dr. James T. Nicholas of the University of Florida found that development is UNAFFECTED by reductions in impact fees. Developers base development decisions on other factors.
Please tell your Council Person that new growth and development in Jacksonville must pay for itself.
Janet L. Stanko
Chair, Sierra Club Northeast Florida
Even in Jacksonville, with our horrendous record of wrong-think and bad decisions it is hard for me to wrap my brain around the idea that we would even consider a bill that will further our record of blunders.
Here is a story for those who think these things are minor or temporary bumps in the road to our future. When I was a City Councilman in Oklahoma, Oklahoma City had the opportunity to land a major manufacturer that would create thousands of jobs. OKC is already a powerhouse in the automotive industry with a General Motors assembly plant, and several component plants, including one that turns out Ford transmissions. The site location team for that major manufacturer included their CEO. No effort was spared and the prospective new residents got the royal treatment and tours of the city. Unbeknownst to any of us, the CEO and his inner circle escaped from the hotel and drove all over the city...ALONE. The next day, their visit cut short, they announced that they would NEVER locate in a city who's transit system is virtually non existant and it's infrastructure a shambles. They released photos they took on the unofficial tour that included dirt paths in lieu of sidewalks, narrow potholed and patched roadways, and miles of litter.
Why would we promote sprawling suburban development by eliminating the funding for the very public improvements that make our community more livable. There is a hidden indication that this fee will result in a property tax increase in order to pay our "fair share" of road widening, mass transit, streetscapes, street lighting etc.
Giving the developers a blank check to build whatever, whenever and however they so desire by placing the infrastructure burden directly on the backs of the existing citizen is foolish.
Seriously, how many million dollar homes or developments have been stopped dead by a few thousand dollars of impact fees? NONE!
If we were at war, with our city's very survival at stake, it appears that our generals would adhere to a tactical military rule known as: "Advance to the rear!" We finally have something both unique and workable, a award winning prototype being studied by cities around the globe. True to form, we 'pink slip' the genius that created this plan and we now propose to eliminate the highly praised plan itself.
How many more jobs would be created and how many new industrial, office or residential project will take root in a city that uses such fees for continious improvement as opposed to one that sells itself cheap? Even at the peak of the recent realestate boom, Jacksonville managed to fall far behind the competition, which begs the question, why didn't Los Angeles, Dallas, Atlanta or Nashville suffer the same fate even though THEY HAD higher fees? The answer is obvious, the cities that collected various impact fees reinvested those dollars into local improvements and those improvements did far more to attract new development then giving the builders a free ride.
It has been said that Jacksonville is a diamond that wants to remain coal, but there has never been tangible proof until now. There is simply no reason for us to progress when failure is so easy to achieve.
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: acme54321 on October 06, 2011, 10:47:07 AM
Quote from: sunshine on October 06, 2011, 10:37:55 AM
I contacted city hall.
The text of 2011-617 can be viewed at http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/Council/SEPTEMBER-13-2011-SUMMARY.pdf just scroll down to viewer page 42.
This bill is scheduled to be voted on in the Rules Committee on 10/17, then it will go to Council on 10/25. The legislative aid at 630 1404 suggested a call to them on Tuesday 10/11 at 1:00pm or so to confirm the status of the bill in Rules Committee because it is possible they will discharge it from the committee (meaning agree to approve without a vote) and enable Council to vote on it on 10/11.
Tuesday 10/11 was 2 days ago?
No it is 10/6 today. I am only correcting you so no one is confused and knows they still have time to call or email.
Here is my first non auto reply. I respect his difference of opinion just wish he were better informed.
QuoteMr. Sutton:
If you are going to reduce my service on City Council to this one vote then get out your checkbook and get ready to write a check to my eventual opponent(s).
Maybe you haven’t noticed but there’s a depression on in the construction industry. If a TEMPORARY waiver of Mobility Fees will cause some projects to move forward that would have otherwise been delayed then that is a very good thing. At least we can generate a few of the jobs that are so desperately needed.
Here are the defects in your arguments:
1. If the waiver leads to a substantial uptick in construction then I am correct in arguing that Mobility Fees, at least in this very bad economy, are a job killer.
2. If the waiver fails to generate a measurable increase in construction activity then there is no harm. Construction is already so anemic that there will be little revenue generated by Mobility Fees in the near or intermediate future.
3. You assume that infrastructure is or will be overburdened. I don’t know that this is the case. Generally speaking the “fair share†regime that was just done away with had kept pace with our needs, albeit inequitably, and I certainly don’t think that “infill†projects would do much to strain the infrastructure that’s currently in place.
4. Those who focus on transportation infrastructure and argue that its direct costs place an undue burden on local governments ignore the substantial wealth effect that results from having an economy that prominently features private automobile ownership. The reality is that approximately 15% of all economic activity in this country is either directly or indirectly dependent on the private ownership of automobiles. This may create a need to spend on roads and highways but it also generates a very large amount of income and sales tax revenue that otherwise would not be available. It also creates a large portion of the wealth that sustains other sectors of the economy.
For the record very few of the citizens I hear from, even those who might suspect that my views run contrary to their own, threaten me by telling me they will oppose my re-election. Most of them understand that if the goal is persuasion then the best thing for them to do is to stick to the facts and to build a compelling case for their position.
If I caved in to you because you threatened to oppose my re-election then what kind of City Council member would I be?
My advice to you when you communicate with City Council members is to stick to the facts and to save the saber rattling for another day.
The challenges we face as a city over the next few years are substantial and it would be a mistake for any of us to declare that our city’s future hinged one particular issue or one particular vote, especially in light of the tremendous economic difficulties we face as a society.
I’m sorry to disappoint you but I will be voting for the TEMPORARY waiver of the Mobility Fees and I believe that the overwhelming majority of City Council members will be joining me.
Robin Lumb, City Council
Group 5 At Large
________________________________________
My response included that this type of TEMPORARY waffling is how great ideas never get done.
Quote4. Those who focus on transportation infrastructure and argue that its direct costs place an undue burden on local governments ignore the substantial wealth effect that results from having an economy that prominently features private automobile ownership. The reality is that approximately 15% of all economic activity in this country is either directly or indirectly dependent on the private ownership of automobiles. This may create a need to spend on roads and highways but it also generates a very large amount of income and sales tax revenue that otherwise would not be available. It also creates a large portion of the wealth that sustains other sectors of the economy.
As I expected, it appears that many still believe that sprawl and oil based growth is economically viable. In reality, its a big ponzi scheme and Jim Jones kool aid drinkers like Jacksonville will end up with no place to sit when the music stops (one could argue that it already has).
Dashing Dan asked me in another thread if support for the mobility plan had been abandoned. I replied no and that the problem isn't the mobility plan itself, its our belief that we can grow our way out of this economic downturn. When I moved to Jacksonville in 2003, the region felt 10 years behind most cities of similar size. To close the economic gap, we have to develop a 21st century economy that is based on quality-of-life and not sprawled centered building for the sake of building. That's what has gotten us into the hole were in now.
With all of this said, if this moratorium is approved, I'd like to see the city keep a before and after record of building permits, as well as a record of mobility money lost. Right now, it appears the council is making decisions based on hopes (no public data has been presented to show that other impact fee moratoriums have worked) instead of facts (several sources out there indicate they don't). Collecting data over the next year will at least provide local proof that kissing a toad of an idea won't end up in it becoming a prince.
For Jacksonville to overcome its economic problems, we're going to have to come to the conclusion that we can't beat a dead dog (an unsustainable growth-based economy) back to life. A re-education process needs to take place in this city and it needs to center around economic trends. As long as we wallow in the past, we'll continue to be a pass through and not a destination.
The urban core needs to unite and form a significant political voice.
Lake, keep on educating all of us. We need it.
Your response is better than mine Lake. I give Mr. Lumb credit he seems to want to do right by the city. I doubt it has occurred to him that the market may actually be correcting a problem with sprawl based construction. I think he and most people still believe in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s type of development that went bust. Believing that our current situation is just a set back and the same old course should be plotted.
My email has been sent to ALL- It is time to stop the insanity! The stone age was then, but his is now! We have a lot of catching up to do
Quote from: JeffreyS on October 06, 2011, 05:35:11 PM
Here is my first non auto reply. I respect his difference of opinion just wish he were better informed.
QuoteMr. Sutton:
If you are going to reduce my service on City Council to this one vote then get out your checkbook and get ready to write a check to my eventual opponent(s).
Maybe you haven’t noticed but there’s a depression on in the construction industry. If a TEMPORARY waiver of Mobility Fees will cause some projects to move forward that would have otherwise been delayed then that is a very good thing. At least we can generate a few of the jobs that are so desperately needed.
Here are the defects in your arguments:
1. If the waiver leads to a substantial uptick in construction then I am correct in arguing that Mobility Fees, at least in this very bad economy, are a job killer.
2. If the waiver fails to generate a measurable increase in construction activity then there is no harm. Construction is already so anemic that there will be little revenue generated by Mobility Fees in the near or intermediate future.
3. You assume that infrastructure is or will be overburdened. I don’t know that this is the case. Generally speaking the “fair share†regime that was just done away with had kept pace with our needs, albeit inequitably, and I certainly don’t think that “infill†projects would do much to strain the infrastructure that’s currently in place.
4. Those who focus on transportation infrastructure and argue that its direct costs place an undue burden on local governments ignore the substantial wealth effect that results from having an economy that prominently features private automobile ownership. The reality is that approximately 15% of all economic activity in this country is either directly or indirectly dependent on the private ownership of automobiles. This may create a need to spend on roads and highways but it also generates a very large amount of income and sales tax revenue that otherwise would not be available. It also creates a large portion of the wealth that sustains other sectors of the economy.
For the record very few of the citizens I hear from, even those who might suspect that my views run contrary to their own, threaten me by telling me they will oppose my re-election. Most of them understand that if the goal is persuasion then the best thing for them to do is to stick to the facts and to build a compelling case for their position.
If I caved in to you because you threatened to oppose my re-election then what kind of City Council member would I be?
My advice to you when you communicate with City Council members is to stick to the facts and to save the saber rattling for another day.
The challenges we face as a city over the next few years are substantial and it would be a mistake for any of us to declare that our city’s future hinged one particular issue or one particular vote, especially in light of the tremendous economic difficulties we face as a society.
I’m sorry to disappoint you but I will be voting for the TEMPORARY waiver of the Mobility Fees and I believe that the overwhelming majority of City Council members will be joining me.
Robin Lumb, City Council
Group 5 At Large
________________________________________
Holy sense of entitlement Batman. Someone's forgotten who butters their bread...
"A suspension or elimination of impact fees raises a general question of fairness and equal treatment between those who recently paid the full fee amounts and those who will now not pay the fees. Case law requires that impact fee payers receive a “benefit.†An important consideration is how the previous payers of the full fee amount receive their “benefit†if a community is not able to fully fund the growth-related capital improvements upon which the fees are based. Communities could face the choice of having to subsidize new development with General Fund dollars or refunding millions of dollars to previous fee payers in order to avoid equal protection challenges."
This is a real problem. Developers who paid into Jacksonville's "Fair Share" program in the past will have good reason to complain.
Mr. Lumb's response reinforces my firmly held belief that Michelle Tappouni was by far the best choice for the council seat he is temporarily (kinda like the waiver of mobility fees) filling.
First Response to my email concern:
Mr. John,
I appreciate your message. I know it's counterintuitive, but we are doing this in order to spur growth and create more tax revenue. Our main problem now is not a matter of needing capital improvement dollars, it's general revenue we need, which will come through increased property values.
Best,
Ray Holt
The problem is no one can issue documentation that sprawl based property tax revenue covers the public subsidies needed to generate it. The growth-based economic structure is a big ponzi scheme. We've drunken so much kool aid in this place that we assume truth with several things that have been proven false, even when reality smacks us in our faces. This is how we got into the economic mess we're in now. It's the reason we're laying off cops, reducing library hours and poorly maintaining our parks. As I mentioned earlier, I do believe council members mean well but they are way off base. That off-base view stems from a lack of understanding on sustainable urban economics and current national trends. Jax will fall further behind with this pending decision but it will be a good learning lesson for a community that continues to take two steps back after every forward step.
What are the chances of getting the civic council to study the sprawl issue? And also the problems of a growth-based economy? Could we trust the results?
We need to keep it up on all fronts but the Mayors office may be our best hope for sanity.
Quote from: JeffreyS on October 06, 2011, 02:09:24 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on October 06, 2011, 10:47:07 AM
Quote from: sunshine on October 06, 2011, 10:37:55 AM
I contacted city hall.
The text of 2011-617 can be viewed at http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/Council/SEPTEMBER-13-2011-SUMMARY.pdf just scroll down to viewer page 42.
This bill is scheduled to be voted on in the Rules Committee on 10/17, then it will go to Council on 10/25. The legislative aid at 630 1404 suggested a call to them on Tuesday 10/11 at 1:00pm or so to confirm the status of the bill in Rules Committee because it is possible they will discharge it from the committee (meaning agree to approve without a vote) and enable Council to vote on it on 10/11.
Tuesday 10/11 was 2 days ago?
No it is 10/6 today. I am only correcting you so no one is confused and knows they still have time to call or email.
WOW I need to learn how to read a calendar better!!
So if this is to spur development, which will create more properties to tax, but in so doing, continue to flood the market with houses, won't we just have more property devaluation, and then eventually lower tax revenue all over again?
Why can these people not think past stage one?
Pretty much. This is what happens when you invest your dollars in a ponzi scheme or you move to slow in the game of musical chairs. At some point, someone is left holding the bag. Unfortunately for Jacksonville, it will be you, me and the rest of the taxpayers.
Councilman Lumb is a smart guy with an open mind who will listen to voters. He also is a huge supporter of the historic districts. If we want to continue to effect change, then we need to go about it in a constructive way.
You want to win elected officials over with factual arguments not emotional blackmail. You need to build relationships instead of criticizing individuals on a blog.
So if there is a factual case to be made for what we believe, then let's spend some time putting it together. We're talking about a year versus the long-term regarding the mobility fee moratorium.
And I will go on the record and say I am thrilled Robin Lumb is one of our councilmembers. He lives in Riverside and is a former RAP board member. Do we always agree--heck no. Will he listen to you--heck yes. I believe, given some time, he will be one of our most effective elected officials.
Quote from: Kay on October 07, 2011, 09:14:36 AM
Councilman Lumb is a smart guy with an open mind who will listen to voters. He also is a huge supporter of the historic districts. If we want to continue to effect change, then we need to go about it in a constructive way.
You want to win elected officials over with factual arguments not emotional blackmail. You need to build relationships instead of criticizing individuals on a blog.
So if there is a factual case to be made for what we believe, then let's spend some time putting it together. We're talking about a year versus the long-term regarding the mobility fee moratorium.
And I will go on the record and say I am thrilled Robin Lumb is one of our councilmembers. He lives in Riverside and is a former RAP board member. Do we always agree--heck no. Will he listen to you--heck yes. I believe, given some time, he will be one of our most effective elected officials.
It is hardly emotional blackmail to tell the candidates I am keeping score on this one. I do donate to people I want in office. I posted the email I sent and it isn't very harsh. Mr. Lumb responded with his reasoning and a little advice neither of which I agree with but way better than the auto and non responses I received from everyone else.
I'll vouch for Robin Lumb as well. I had the opportunity to talk with him about Monroe Street a month or two ago. I'm of the opinion that he and most of the council in general wants to do what's best for the community.
However, there is an economic education process that needs to happen in Jacksonville. We're going to have to learn to look outside of the borders of Duval County and the First Coast to see what is going on in the world outside of us. Most of our leaders still believe in a ponzi scheme oriented growth based economic model that is currently being naturally corrected by today's market conditions. The city's that have the ability to take advantage of a quality-of-life based economic model will be the ones to succeed going forward. Many like Charlotte, Salt Lake City, etc. have recognized this years ago so we have some catching up to do.
So what does that quality of life model look like?
It's basically where you focus on creating a unique sense of place for the community and you're actual community becomes the main selling point. With this in mind, policies and projects are implemented that best utilize public resources and ROI. Here's a decent article I just found on google hinting at these concepts:
QuoteNew Urbanists: No Economic Recovery Without Smart Growth
by Angie Schmitt on October 6, 2011
What happened to the United States over the past several years is most commonly described as a recession. By the technical definition of the word we’re two years into a recovery. But it sure doesn’t seem that way.
Meanwhile, a growing chorus of intellectual leaders says the country is experiencing something different than a normal cyclical fluctuation: the end of an epoch.
Leading urban thinkers, from Richard Florida to James Howard Kunstler, believe we have reached the limits of our fossil-fueled, double-mortgaged, McMansion-based economy. Relief won’t come, they say, until America begins confronting the systemic problems that produced the meltdown, including inefficient and unsustainable public infrastructure investments and housing development.
“What were seeing right now is an inability to look at how we live and how it relates to our problems, and financial problems,†said Kunstler Tuesday during a speaking engagement with the Congress for the New Urbanism. “Production homebuilders, mortgage lenders, real estate agents, they are all sitting back now waiting for the, quote, bottom of the housing market to come with the expectation that things will go back to the way they were in 2005.â€
But despite massive government expenditures to restart the old economic engine driven by suburban homebuilding, recovery is elusive, Kunstler said. The author of “The Geography of Nowhere†and “The Long Emergency†argues that suburbanization has been a multi-decade American experiment, and a failed one.
Kunstler is joined in that perspective by Charles Marohn, the director of non-profit group Strong Towns. A new report from Strong Towns places blame for the lagging economy directly on policies that favor low-density housing, fossil-fuel dependence and publicly-subsidized overbuilt infrastructure.
In its new booklet Curbside Chat, Strong Towns asserts that since the 1970s, the suburban growth that powered America’s economy operated much like a Ponzi scheme. In towns across the country, politicians traded the short-term payoffs of sprawling development â€" namely increased taxes â€" for long-term maintenance obligations that are just now coming due. And they’re coming up short.
As evidence, the group holds up the fact that the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates the cost of necessary infrastructure maintenance at $2.2 trillion.
“Over a life cycle, a city frequently receives just a dime or two of revenue for each dollar of liability,†says Marohn in the report. “In the near term, revenue grows, while the corresponding maintenance obligations â€"- which are not counted on the public balance sheet â€"- are a generation away.â€
The suburban sprawl bubble has now burst, he said.
“Our problem was not, and is not, a lack of growth; Our problem is sixty years of unproductive growth,†said Marohn. “The American pattern of development does not create real wealth; it creates the illusion of wealth. Today we are in the process of seeing that illusion destroyed and with it the prosperity we have come to take for granted.â€
Strong Towns has taken it one step further, outlining 10 development strategies to help get the country back in the black. Among its recommendations are radically altering road and street standards, adopting form-based codes and tailoring capital investment plans to maximize public return on that investment.
“The way forward for our communities is to adopt a set of rational responses to the current situation,†says Strong Towns. “This will include shedding some ‘dead’ ideas from the recent past and embracing a broad set of strategies to start making America’s communities more productive. Local leaders need to position their communities for change if they want to be prosperous in the coming decades.â€
“The project of suburbia is over,†said Kunstler to CNU attendees. “Even though the project of suburbia is still running. There’s no building going on. If you do see construction in these places, it’s just the last twitching.â€
“We now have to do things differently.â€
http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/10/06/new-urbanists-no-economic-recovery-without-smart-growth/#more-116583#more-267974
Streetcar construction has shown itself nationwide to return $14 dollars for every $1 dollar invested. Will shelving the mobility fee return even more? Doubtful at best.
Since the mobility plan is divided up into mobility districts, if we must have a moratorium, why not by district. A good example would be Riverside, 5 Points, Brooklyn and the downtown core are already pretty dense, and they stand to gain the most from keeping the mobility fee intact. Keeping the fee in these districts for the construction of the streetcar line would allow us to make a side by side compareson of returns on our investments. Downtown - Riverside would get it's streetcar, and the rest of the city would get the fee free incentive to build.
With both programs in effect, we could tell at a glance which one REALLY made things bloom allowing us to make the necessary adjustments in permitting for growth.
The mobility plan and fees are in the national spotlight, I've even been asked by a major transportation industry magazine to do a story on it. Completely shutting it down will forever distroy confidence in our city's ability to pioneer and lead the way.
Where is the 'TEA PARTY' on this one? Has anyone informed them of this hidden tax increase and subsidy of the building industry? One has to ask how many of these supposedly suspended projects are really on hold because the city stands to collect a few thousand dollars up front? From my own experience, a $2500 dollar impact fee didn't make any difference at all in the construction or finance of my house. Of course if we repeal the mobility fees, we'll get to refund many thousands of dollars to the various contractors currently building around the city, "Hello, TEA PARTY?"
Finally the mayor has expressed a vision for Light Rail, this is a vision that will die with the mobility plan.
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: thelakelander on October 07, 2011, 09:36:32 AM
I'll vouch for Robin Lumb as well. I had the opportunity to talk with him about Monroe Street a month or two ago. I'm of the opinion that he and most of the council in general wants to do what's best for the community.
However, there is an economic education process that needs to happen in Jacksonville. We're going to have to learn to look outside of the borders of Duval County and the First Coast to see what is going on in the world outside of us. Most of our leaders still believe in a ponzi scheme oriented growth based economic model that is currently being naturally corrected by today's market conditions. The city's that have the ability to take advantage of a quality-of-life based economic model will be the ones to succeed going forward. Many like Charlotte, Salt Lake City, etc. have recognized this years ago so we have some catching up to do.
If ever there is a time to promote planning and "design", as a civic priority it's now as the world recognizes and commemorates the design and art of Steve Jobs. He built a massive corporate force, by thinking differently and prioritizing design. His products were things people wanted, because they were "cool", innovative, different, and well-designed. Some can argue whether Apple's products were "better", but no one can argue the transformative power of their design appeal. Apple is proof that quality design and innovation can power a robust economic revolution.
These same facts apply to our cities. As Apple has led the technological revolution and become an economic force through design, mid-level cities like Austin and Portland have become powerhouses in attracting educated workers, innovating, and creating a superior quality of life. Even southern cities have emerged and innovated - Savannah has recaptured its once-rich history and celebrated it's architecture and public spaces, and Greenville has invested in its downtown and civic spaces and risen from an ordinary textile-driven town to become one of the nations most innvoative and desirable cities. These transformations have been design and planning-led, and are sustainable building blocks - and create places that people just want to (or feel like they have to) be - resulting in long term economic growth & attractiveness, and cultural success.
Without recognizing this fact, on issues like Monroe Street, the mobility plan/growth management, the design of our urban spaces, how we value/prioritize our public riverfront, etc. Jacksonville will not be competitive -- ever.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on October 07, 2011, 12:08:17 PM
Since the mobility plan is divided up into mobility districts, if we must have a moratorium, why not by district. A good example would be Riverside, 5 Points, Brooklyn and the downtown core are already pretty dense, and they stand to gain the most from keeping the mobility fee intact. Keeping the fee in these districts for the construction of the streetcar line would allow us to make a side by side compareson of returns on our investments. Downtown - Riverside would get it's streetcar, and the rest of the city would get the fee free incentive to build.
With both programs in effect, we could tell at a glance which one REALLY made things bloom allowing us to make the necessary adjustments in permitting for growth.
Normally I would be in favor of anything that provides the urban core an opportunity to separate itself from the suburbs, however, in this case we would be doing the exact opposite of what the mobility plan is intended to do. We would be encouraging more sprawl because it would be cheaper (no fee).
However - if this type of thing could be done to guarantee NO more infrastructure improvements in the areas that choose not to participate in the Mobility Plan, then it would be a good thing.
If they overturn the mobility fee, they're basically canceling the whole 2030 mobility plan. If they do that, I'm afraid I'll have to leave town and look for a "real city" That I can afford to live in, because I need mass transit and walkability to get around. I had it in North Jersey and I'm thinking" I should've never left the Northeast. Please get this right COJ; And stop overturning the few good ideas that you come up with!
Quote from: urbaknight on October 07, 2011, 02:30:57 PM
If they overturn the mobility fee, they're basically canceling the whole 2030 mobility plan. If they do that, I'm afraid I'll have to leave town and look for a "real city" That I can afford to live in, because I need mass transit and walkability to get around. I had it in North Jersey and I'm thinking" I should've never left the Northeast. Please get this right COJ; And stop overturning the few good ideas that you come up with!
They'll find a way to cancel it. This is why I've never put too much thought into this plan or got my hopes up. Because at the end of the day, you've still got the same people with the same tired mindsets running the show.
I dunno. Jax could be such an amazing place, but I've almost given up on it entirely. Obviously any city that has this much sprawl & will tear down entire neighborhoods at the drop of a hat has no vision & isn't capable of smart design planning. They're obviously only interested in the status quo & trying to maintain this unsustainable structure through "tax revenues". It's pure insanity.
Sprawl & automobile/oil-based growth has came to an end. Any smart city out there is hip to that & is dealing with it. Apparently Jax didn't get that memo & still thinks you can grow economies that way. Well you can't. And not to mention, it's a terrible burden on people in general in a number of ways.
I dunno guys. I honestly sometimes think we're just whacking each other off in here & at the end of the day, the goons who run this town will ultimately have their way with us all. As soon as something good actually happens, about 3 horrible things happen that erases that good & takes us further back.
What's happening is related purely to the economy. I had this discussion with someone this morning...in very rough times people are still willing to throw money at our schools, no matter how much of a waste that ends up being, but they are reluctant to spend public money or pay "fees" for anything else, especially public transit.
The irony is that the only thing that has any possibility of being built right now in Jacksonville is apartments. Institutional and other multi-family investors are generally very large fans of transit, density, and walkability as that boosts their potential rental revenue and helps their developments. The complainers must be developers and landholders who have all this land and control all these halted master-planned developments, and they must think that getting rid of the mobility fee will somehow allow them to resume whatever their plans were.
Someone is trying to force the council's hand here. I doubt they would consider repealing it if there were no complainers.
This goes back to a point, as well, that I have made repeatedly on this site. Jacksonville is a very unsophisticated real estate market that lacks deep pockets and cutting edge developers/investors. Developers/owners in Jacksonville would not know what to do or how to react if public transit actually happened down there. The city barely knows what to do. I have heard stories about investors coming into town from larger cities literally mowing over the city, getting practically everything or most of what they wanted...and since no transit is happening, the best developments are cheap sprawl things.
Most of the big guys are exiting or not increasing their investments in smaller-than-top-20 markets in the US, but in the south there are two very notable exceptions where everyone wants to be: Charlotte and Austin. Both cities play above their league and government works really well with the private sector there. For some reason, the big investors can see eye to eye and actually have good talks with city officials in those two cities, but I can tell you people kind of look down on Jacksonville city officials and local investors as unsophisticated, "good ol boys", not as highly educated, etc etc. You would think that would be an advantage, but it actually makes things more difficult. Plus major loan originators and investors like PMCC, AimCo, and Metlife are throwing money at destination cities with walkable streets and density (and current or future transit options). They, along with young professionals and the college educated, prefer vibrant cities where ideas are easily shared and life is more exciting. Jacksonville fits no categories, unfortunately, so it's harder to get institutional financing and harder to land exciting developments that will be filled with wealthier and more upwardly mobile professionals.
Quote...Plus major loan originators and investors like PMCC, AimCo, and Metlife are throwing money at destination cities with walkable streets and density (and current or future transit options). They, along with young professionals and the college educated, prefer vibrant cities where ideas are easily shared and life is more exciting. Jacksonville fits no categories...
That's the quality-of-life based economic structure I mentioned our public investment needs to be going into. The city's that build themselves as places people want to spend time in will continue to pull away from those who believe the 1990s are coming back.
How can the leaders in Jax look at Charlotte 1950 same as Jax, 1970 same urban decay as Jax and now booming urban money making machine and not want to follow in that type of development?
Is'nt this moratorium of fees kind of like defunding some of our infrastructure? Is'nt this a problem that we already have?..Also...is this like saying i bought a boat but paying for the gas is going to break me so i dont' want to pay for that part?....If fees or a tax is causing a company to not thrive...they are doing something very wrong...
Quote from: simms3 on October 07, 2011, 02:51:23 PM
The complainers must be developers and landholders who have all this land and control all these halted master-planned developments, and they must think that getting rid of the mobility fee will somehow allow them to resume whatever their plans were.
QuoteOFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CHERYL L. BROWN 117 WEST DUVAL STREET, SUITE 425
DIRECTOR 4TH FLOOR, CITY HALL
OFFICE (904) 630-1452 JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32202
FAX (904) 630-2906
E-MAIL: CLBROWN@coj.net
Finance Committee Agenda Meeting Minutes
October 4, 2011
9:30 a.m.
Topic: Finance Committee agenda meeting
Location: Conference Room A, City Hall â€" St. James Building; 117 West Duval Street,
Suite 425
In attendance: Council Members Clark (Chair), Anderson, Boyer and Schellenberg
Peggy Sidman and Jason Gabriel â€" Office of General Counsel; Kirk Sherman and Janice Billy â€" Council Auditor’s Office; Lin White and Bob Williams â€" Public Works Department; Chief Moreland â€" Fire and Rescue Department; Maxine Person, David Kilcrease and Andrea Smith â€" Sheriff’s Office; Jessica Deal â€" Mayor’s Office; Stan Johnson, Sonia Johnson, BeLinda Peeples, Debbie Delgado and Bridgette Green - ECAs; Jessica Stephens â€" Legislative Services Division; Jeff Clements â€" Council Research Division; Chris Warren â€" Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce; Curtis Hart, Chris Hagen and Mike Herzburg â€" Northeast Florida Builders Association
Meeting Convened: 9:32 a.m.
Chairman Clark convened the meeting and reviewed the Auditor’s marked agenda which included 11 items to be deferred, 8 items ready for action and 17 items to be read a second time and re-referred.
2011-89 (appropriation for Martin Luther King Jr. parade: the sponsor will need to amend to reflect the current fiscal year.
2011-300 (dissolving EBO office and transferring functions to other offices): Chairman Clark will recommend that it be withdrawn and taken up in the administrative reorganization.
2011-323 (JSO stop station and substation agreements): Maxine Person of JSO requested one more deferral; the bill may be withdrawn at the next meeting.
2011-379 (appropriation for construction of 3 temporary Fire Department facilities): Peggy Sidman explained that the FY11-12 budget requires that matching funds for grants that do not materialize be returned to their fund of origin rather than used as proposed in this ordinance. Chairman Clark recommended that the bill be withdrawn and a separate bill specific to a permanent station for the Bartram Park location be introduced. Council Member Boyer stated that a private developer is donating the property for the Bartram Park location. In answer to a question Fire Chief Moreland stated that a fire station structure costs approximately $2.3 million, plus an additional $2 million for vehicles and equipment, plus the operational cost of staffing.
2011-617 (moratorium on collection of mobility fees): Curtis Hart stated that he had met with Council Members Crescimbeni and Boyer since yesterday’s Rules Committee meeting and has worked out a solution to their concerns. The Office of General Counsel has worked out language for a hold-harmless and indemnification agreement for developers to sign when they take the fee waiver. Mike Herzberg stated that Rep. Mike Weinstein will be introducing a development fee waiver bill in the 2012 legislative session that will specifically permit what is being proposed here.
Council Member Anderson requested the Chairman to appoint a Finance subcommittee on parking garages; Mr. Clark will appoint the subcommittee at the committee meeting with Mr. Anderson as chairman.
Meeting Adjourned: 9:47 a.m.
Minutes: Jeff Clements, Council Research
10.4.11 Posted 3:00 p.m.
Tapes: Finance agenda meetingâ€" LSD
10.4.11
Materials: Auditor’s marked Finance agenda
10.4.11
Anyone care to guess who Mr. Herzberg works for?
Yep.
City Council can't find a way to release $5 million of the historic preservation trust for the Laura Street Trio project, but has no problem giving these groups a free ride.
Both are smart talented businessman. Too bad we can't turn those talents to rebuilding the urban core.
Ardent development interests "joined at the hip" with local,regional government.
The "Public" transfixed,unaware of it's role in......granting........'vesting'..........development "Rights",habitual adolescent marching to the beat of "Inevitable Growth" narrative.
Current events simply the latest Narrative Chapter.
Awkward Teen years,growth (ahem....) spurts.
Quote from: stephendare on October 07, 2011, 06:40:01 PM
seems like here is the problem.
too many people with connections in the real estate and development industries being appointed to positions where it would be impossible for them not to have a conflict of interest.
Pretty much. The mobility plan taskforce was purposely littered with them. They got the original mobility fee slashed in half and now they want to pass all of the costs for their negative impacts to you and me. When you have people with a conflict of interest constantly in the council's ear its easy to understand how one who may not be generally educated on a particular issue can be easily persuaded.
Quote from: dougskiles on October 07, 2011, 07:41:28 PM
Yep.
City Council can't find a way to release $5 million of the historic preservation trust for the Laura Street Trio project, but has no problem giving these groups a free ride.
Both are smart talented businessman. Too bad we can't turn those talents to rebuilding the urban core.
All disguised in the in the name of "job creation" and "putting people back to work."
I think some of the most irrational decisions are made in the name of desperation.
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on October 07, 2011, 07:52:05 PM
I think some of the most irrational decisions are made in the name of desperation greed.
Hope you don't mind if I fixed that for you.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 07, 2011, 07:44:03 PM
Quote from: stephendare on October 07, 2011, 06:40:01 PM
seems like here is the problem.
too many people with connections in the real estate and development industries being appointed to positions where it would be impossible for them not to have a conflict of interest.
Pretty much. The mobility plan taskforce was purposely littered with them.
It's really just a variation of a Ponzi scheme. We give them a lot of our money and somehow the money that we give them is supposed to come back to us with interest.
The really bad part of all of this is that the money we give them undermines our own (urban) quality of life.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 07, 2011, 07:44:03 PM
Quote from: stephendare on October 07, 2011, 06:40:01 PM
seems like here is the problem.
too many people with connections in the real estate and development industries being appointed to positions where it would be impossible for them not to have a conflict of interest.
Pretty much. The mobility plan taskforce was purposely littered with them. They got the original mobility fee slashed in half and now they want to pass all of the costs for their negative impacts to you and me. When you have people with a conflict of interest constantly in the council's ear its easy to understand how one who may not be generally educated on a particular issue can be easily persuaded.
exactly!
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qyhZ9_eXCHM/TDpAm5jQx5I/AAAAAAAAFs8/KmU65ebS8vc/s1600/2001-a-space-odyssey-ape.jpg)
So we're all about to get the shaft, as the developers have convinced our city council to allow them escape any fiscal responsibility and at the same time unload their cost of doing business on the tax payers.
Where is the tea party? Where are the protesters? Where is the tea party? Where is the since of responsibility? Where is the tea party? How much will we have to refund to developers that have already paid their mobility fees? Where is the tea party? Will the mayor sign this? Where is the tea party?
I don't get the math here, according to certain conservative politicos, the government should not use a dime of my tax money to fund rail transportation, or anything but the bare minimum of mass transit. It is said that mass transit should 'make money', something the tea party would readily agree too. So why is it I'm being asked to pay for infrastructure wherever this band of flimflam artists decide to slap down another new building? Pay for it yourselves gentlemen, and neither tell me your sad stories nor piss on my leg and tell me its raining.
If the collective intelligent conciseness of the local government were equal to that of the famed striped assed ape we wouldn't be having this discussion.
OCKLAWAHA
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
We're kidding ourselves if we think the mayor won't sign this. He's too new on the job for a fight with the council to be worth it. This is a shocking (but not unsurprising) lack of foresight on the part of the council, and we're stuck with it.
Would this moratorium be a violation of FL statute? Didn't the Mobility Plan replace a previous growth management plan which we are required to have? If we suspend the fee aren't we suspending our entire plan?
Rick Scott killed that when he got into office.
Not surprised.
QuoteWould this moratorium be a violation of FL statute? Didn't the Mobility Plan replace a previous growth management plan which we are required to have? If we suspend the fee aren't we suspending our entire plan?
Quote from: thelakelander on October 08, 2011, 11:33:11 AM
Rick Scott killed that when he got into office.
It's not that simple.
My understanding is that HB 7207, the bill that made transportation concurrency optional, also requires that some kind of a substitute procedure be implemented.
I'm pretty sure that the mobility fee would have fulfilled that requirement, but I'm not so sure about the moratorium. It would be worth looking into.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on October 08, 2011, 10:37:44 AM
Would this moratorium be a violation of FL statute? Didn't the Mobility Plan replace a previous growth management plan which we are required to have? If we suspend the fee aren't we suspending our entire plan?
nope...not in any way.
All that used to be (and still ) required is a committment to mitigate the impacts of development and provide acceptable LOS on infratsructure....and reality is that responsibility lies with the local government....if they don't get developers to do it, they have to do it themselves.
stephen....read what Chapter 9J-5 F.A.C said and then get back to me...
https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ruleno.asp?id=9J-5.019
Disclosure....most of that was expunged from law as part of the 2011 legislative session
fact is the state oversight never cared who paid for mitigating impacts....just that the mitigation was supposed to occur...and, yes, in the end it is the job of government to provide needed facilities (such as schools and infrastructure).
stephen...perhaps this is the diclosure you are looking for:
I work for a planning and engineering firm...and have deone more concurrency/traffic studies and reviews on behalf of local governments than for developers.
My understanding of HB 7207 is that if you drop transportation concurrency then something else has to take its place. A moratorium might be acceptable because it holds out the promise that something else will take its place eventually. But I expect that this premise could be challenged in court, if an interested party had the means and the inclination to do so.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 08, 2011, 03:21:20 PM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on October 08, 2011, 10:37:44 AM
Would this moratorium be a violation of FL statute? Didn't the Mobility Plan replace a previous growth management plan which we are required to have? If we suspend the fee aren't we suspending our entire plan?
nope...not in any way.
I disagree with tufsu1 on this point. The moratorium could lead the city into a violation of the current FL statute.
how dashing dan?
many local governments have impact fee mortatoriums...others have reduced the fees...and others have outright eliminated them...to my knowledge none of them have been found to be in violation of FL statutes on the issue.
again...the issue here is whether local governments approve development without mitigating its impacts in some way (and that is defined pretty broadly)....they surely can let the developer off the hook as long as they pick up the bill themselves.
But the mobility fee is not an impact fee. Impact fees were not required but state law whereas the concurrency system was. The law requiring the concurrency system was changed and that led the way to the mobility plan. To my knowledge, that law hasn't been changed (even though the agency that pushed for it has been eliminated). That may be why Mike Herzberg was in the meeting minutes as having said that Mike Weinstein was in the process of introducing state legislation that would make this legal. So, apparently a moratorium may not be legal ... Yet.
concurrency workd the same way....all the state cared about is that SOMEONE mitigated the impacts of development...if a local government chose to reduce a develeoper's impacts (which was done often) that was their perogative....in the end, the onus shifted to the local government.
so perhaps the issue here is that Jax. doesn't want to take on the ultimate responsibility of mitigating development impacts.....of course very few local governments ever followed through with that committment anyway...which is partly whey we are where we are these days....local and state governments minimized required mitigation from development (for a multitude of reasons) and then backfilled.
A thoughtful letter to the editor by Janet L. Stanko, chairwoman, Sierra Club Northeast Florida
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/letters-readers/2011-10-09/story/letters-readers-paying-roads (http://jacksonville.com/opinion/letters-readers/2011-10-09/story/letters-readers-paying-roads)
QuotePAYING FOR ROADS
No time for breaks
I am appalled at the City Council proposal (ordinance 2011-617) to delay the mobility fee which would assess developers for new road construction related to new development.
Until passage of the Mobility Fee, Jacksonville collected a fair share fee that has provided $15.9 million for roads.
Not assessing the fee on developers will place the burden on taxpayers.
The rationale for rollback of the fees is to stimulate development in Jacksonville.
Developers already get a great deal by only having to pay an impact fee for roads. Many local governments, including St. Johns, require impact fees that cover schools, roads, buildings, safety services, fire rescue, parks and waste management.
Their impact fees are much higher. It is only fair to require developers to at least pay for traffic concurrency. Don't foist more road costs on to taxpayers.
We taxpayers already pay gas taxes that go for roads, we are paying a half-cent in sales tax under the Better Jacksonville Plan.
Did you know - Jacksonville's residential vacancy rate is 11.38 percent?
Our home values have declined 10 percent in the last year and 31 percent since 2006.
We have vacant shopping centers and office buildings aplenty. Additional development will cause further property value decreases and more vacancy of existing structures.
A 2010 study by James T. Nicholas of the University of Florida found that development is unaffected by reductions in impact fees. Developers base development decisions on other factors.
Please tell your council member that new growth and development in Jacksonville must pay for itself.
Janet L. Stanko, chairwoman,
Sierra Club Northeast Florida
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/opinion/letters-readers/2011-10-09/story/letters-readers-paying-roads#ixzz1aI1ulprC
I wish she had mentioned the corrupting figures whose hands are all over this.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 09, 2011, 08:46:12 AM
concurrency workd the same way....all the state cared about is that SOMEONE mitigated the impacts of development...if a local government chose to reduce a develeoper's impacts (which was done often) that was their perogative....in the end, the onus shifted to the local government.
so perhaps the issue here is that Jax. doesn't want to take on the ultimate responsibility of mitigating development impacts.....of course very few local governments ever followed through with that committment anyway...which is partly whey we are where we are these days....local and state governments minimized required mitigation development (for a multitude of reasons) and then backfilled.
There is a means test. If a government can't afford to implement the plan, then the unaffordable parts of the plan don't count towards meeting the level of service requirement that is still a part of the legislation.
As Lakelander has noted, the mobility plan provides the same needed additional capacity at a far lower cost.
One simple fix for the added costs of development billed to the taxpayer is to deny permits for any development that does not include, at builder cost, the entire infrastructure associated with creating that new development. Sprawl would come to a complete halt.
The problem with that solution is most city leaders still believe sprawl based growth is good. They don't want sprawl to come to a halt, which is why ideas and projects like mobility fee moratoriums, Outer Beltways and SR 9Bs keep coming online.
Jim Loves response:
"Thanks for your comments. This one involves a tough decision, especially right now. With commercial, industrial, and residential building in a severe slump, I support this temporary moratorium on the Mobility Fee. The growth of the economy and job creation are intertwined, and by stimulating development and construction, we will increase jobs, payrolls, and ultimately the tax base (without raising tax rates). Also - the increase in infrastructure use, which the Mobility Fee addresses, has already been somewhat offset by the slight decrease in useage due to the poor economy.
I do support the Mobility Plan which will be an important tool in developing adesirable multimodal transportation system and preventing unsustainable sprawl. The Mobility Fee is only one part of it. I am only in support of a temporary 1 yearmoratorium on this fee.
Once again,I really appreciate your comments and and your desire to make Jacksonville a great city! If you have any more thoughts or information that you would like to pass to us, Please don't hesitate to contact me or my assistant, Kevin Kuzel at (904) 630-1677.
Sincerely,
Jim Love
Jacksonville City Councilman
District 14
904-630-1390"
Quote from: Ralph W on October 09, 2011, 11:33:17 AM
One simple fix for the added costs of development billed to the taxpayer is to deny permits for any development that does not include, at builder cost, the entire infrastructure associated with creating that new development. Sprawl would come to a complete halt.
This is a very accurate description of the principle behind concurrency management. But the practice of concurrency management has eroded to the point where we don't even recognize the principle behind it.
Quote from: stephendare on October 09, 2011, 08:58:53 AM
If you don't want to pay money, build where there is already density. There are zones where there is practically no fee at all
actually right now that isn't the case....the mobility fee ranges from about $9 per trip per mile in the urban core to $13 per trip per mile in the far flung edges of Duval County....the additional density credits you are referring to aren't in place yet.
One thing I find troubling is council's position that a moratorium will spur economic development and put people back to work. Its spoken in these responses like its an absolute truth. In reality, there's no statistical data to back that assumption (there's a lot to say that it won't result in their desired wish). Instead, we're hoping that eliminating what could be 1% of total building costs will be enough to overcome banks not lending money and an overbuilt market.
Why do dumb ideas sound so truthful?
You see a very simular attitude taking shape in higher education at the time. The student is now a customer not a student ::)
We need to think of the foundation (or lack of) we are creating for the future of we will be paying the price later!
I read on this site and myspringfield how springfield people had 15 speak at a recent luz meeting about mothball policy. If springfield can get 15 to show up for a techincal modification to a policy then how many can San Marco, Riverside Avondale, Springfield, Downtown and MetroJacksonville.com get to speak against this moratorium?
riverside avondale 20
springfield 15
san marco 15
downtown 10
metrojacksonville 10
That would be 60 people and if readers are serious about opposing it then organize and get 60 people to show up to speak against it. trust me that will not be ignored.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 09, 2011, 01:35:06 PM
One thing I find troubling is council's position that a moratorium will spur economic development and put people back to work. Its spoken in these responses like its an absolute truth.
If a moratorium on development fees is a guarantee for spurring growth, then Clay and Nassau would be booming right now.
Council members seem to be ignoring this reality. Unfortunately, if the ordinance passed unanimously in committees, which I believe it did, then this will go on the consent agenda. The consent agenda takes place BEFORE the public comment period.
QuoteMr. Sutton:
Regarding your previous e-mail and the e-mail below.
1. It’s good to know that you will weigh a number of factors â€" and not necessarily a vote on this one issue â€" in deciding who to support in the next election. As contentious as this issue has become, I’m confident that on other issues we will share a commonality of purpose.
2. I don’t see the decline in real estate values as “the market…correcting for the sprawl type of constructionâ€. I see the collapse of real estate as the result of the easy credit that fed a speculative boom. If it were a corrective for sprawl then the decline in prices would have been limited to the suburbs.
3. I never thought anyone was trying to get rid of cars. My point was that to focus on only the direct costs of transportation infrastructure without considering the enormous wealth effect of private automobile ownership materially misstates the significance of the financial impact caused by development. The present economy notwithstanding, the prosperity we enjoy as a society is directly related to private automobile ownership which in turn is dependent on having adequate roads and highways. If you punish those who prefer suburban living you undermine an important economic pillar and delay recovery.
4. With its support of Mobility Fees the building and construction industry has conceded the eventual necessity of paying Mobility Fees as a means of funding transportation projects. What I hope from those who are so single minded in their insistence on the immediate collection of Mobility Fees is that they will concede the necessity of a TEMPORARY waiver of Mobility Fees in the interest of the greater good.
5. I believe that the logic of my original argument is compelling. If a TEMPORARY waiver causes a measurable rise in construction then we have at least done something to create jobs. If no significant increase is recorded then the waiver will do little to affect future funding for transportation projects.
I believe that what I propose is a fair and reasonable compromise. It does nothing to undermine the concept of Mobility Fees and only seeks a temporary waiver for the purpose of stimulating construction activity in the near term.
Best regards,
Robin Lumb, City Council
Group 5 At Large
There is just a belief on the council that the development world did not change. Just a simple hiccup with the banks and the sprawl boom cycle is right back on. The banks don't matter to new development if people were still buy developers would still be building.
If we are protesting Tuesday morning before the vote I will be there.
I guess the council feels like Jacksonville is so ugly that if she expects dinner she is never getting kissed. I think this city is wonderful and I like Jacksonville for dinner.
Quote5. I believe that the logic of my original argument is compelling. If a TEMPORARY waiver causes a measurable rise in construction then we have at least done something to create jobs. If no significant increase is recorded then the waiver will do little to affect future funding for transportation projects.
The problem with this argument is, that if the waiver does cause an increase in jobs - there will be pressure to continue the waiver, else we will be "killing jobs". If it does not increase jobs, there will be pressure to continue the waiver, after all if no jobs were created with a waiver, it will be much worse if the fee is imposed.
Charles, you hit the nail squarely on the head. Once a fee goes away the impossibility of getting support to reinstate it will not be there. Killingsworth put together a panel of smart and forward thinking people to agree to the mobility plan and support it with politicos. They worked through all the problems of concurrency and how to fund road needs as well as transportation needs in places where roads are built out. That scenario will not happen again.
You are both right and the truth is the market will or will not create those jobs regardless of the Moratorium.
Boys and girls... If this moratorium works for the Mobility fee and does indeed stimulate job creation then I see no problem in declaring a moratorium on all forms of taxation, both local and federal, because it will have been proven that such forward thinking action creates the jobs our nation so desperately needs,
And if it doesn't, which is something that has been already proven time and time again?
Well, if it doesn't, just about face and ramp up taxation to 90%. If 10% is enough for JC it's enough for the rest of us. Right?
How about just leaving it as is? Why should the general public have to pay for the negative impacts caused by unsustainable private development?
Quote from: thelakelander on October 09, 2011, 08:43:06 PM
And if it doesn't, which is something that has been already proven time and time again?
No no Lake Mr. Lumb told me it is just a little mess up by the banks. The sprawlville boom will be back on the second we give our city away for free.
Lake, Lake, Lake ... why do you refuse the Kool-Ade? Don't you know that ALL Development is Good; and MORE Development is BETTER? ::)
Surely Lake you can't argue that if we just clear some land on the outskirts of the county, drain it, build some roads, sewage, schools, ect. ect. Then the developers can build some more master planed communities full of houses on dead end roads no one will buy everything will be rainbows and unicorns. I mean don't you get it?
Don't forget the strip malls with the empty units and the ones that are filled will be from retailers fleeing Regency. Sure fire.
Quote from: stephendare on October 09, 2011, 01:30:15 PM
disingenuous, tufsu. You know as well as I do that they are part of the Mobility Plan.
no they aren't...they are an add-on to the concept...and I believe they will require Council resolutions to implement
I'm with Ock... where are the Tea Party on this one????? Really do you only bitch when it is call taxation?
What about fee, toll, etc? Who is going to responsible for paying for this infrastructure? Developers? No us!
This bill is based on the false belief that it will increase development and thereby jobs. Let's hope our councilmembers are wise enough to realize the two things will happen: first, very few if any new development projects will occur due to this small reduction in a projects cost; and second, YOU WILL BE INCREASING OUR TAXES since the taxpayers will have to pay for the infrastructure on ALL the new projects, most of which would have happened without the waiver. STUPID BILL. Kill it quick.
Quote from: stephendare on October 09, 2011, 11:13:04 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 09, 2011, 10:42:54 PM
Quote from: stephendare on October 09, 2011, 01:30:15 PM
disingenuous, tufsu. You know as well as I do that they are part of the Mobility Plan.
no they aren't...they are an add-on to the concept...and I believe they will require Council resolutions to implement
well by all means, keep on believing if it makes you happy.
not to get in a back and forth argument....but I have 10+ years experience working with concurrency in Florida....and I'm quite comfortable knowing what the laws do and do not say
Quote from: thelakelander on October 07, 2011, 07:44:03 PM
Quote from: stephendare on October 07, 2011, 06:40:01 PM
seems like here is the problem.
too many people with connections in the real estate and development industries being appointed to positions where it would be impossible for them not to have a conflict of interest.
Pretty much. The mobility plan taskforce was purposely littered with them. They got the original mobility fee slashed in half and now they want to pass all of the costs for their negative impacts to you and me. When you have people with a conflict of interest constantly in the council's ear its easy to understand how one who may not be generally educated on a particular issue can be easily persuaded.
That's why all of us need to be in ear also, so they are not just hearing from one side.
Quote from: stephendare on October 10, 2011, 02:15:05 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 10, 2011, 02:14:13 PM
Quote from: stephendare on October 09, 2011, 11:13:04 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 09, 2011, 10:42:54 PM
Quote from: stephendare on October 09, 2011, 01:30:15 PM
disingenuous, tufsu. You know as well as I do that they are part of the Mobility Plan.
no they aren't...they are an add-on to the concept...and I believe they will require Council resolutions to implement
well by all means, keep on believing if it makes you happy.
not to get in a back and forth argument....but I have 10+ years experience working with concurrency in Florida....and I'm quite comfortable knowing what the laws do and do not say
No doubt. and even more comfortable misrepresenting and parsing, which is what you are doing now.
well then...please explain what you believe to be factual about the adopted mobility plan and credits for building in dense neighborhoods
so you agree that the credits for dense/transit-oriented/context-sensitive development are not in place yet....and that the mobility fee that is enacted only adjusts things between $9 and $13 per trip per mile based on area of town?
and if so, that my statement in post #81 is also correct?
I love how you deflect questions....but I won't...no, I do not agree.
The Mobility Plan, as adopted, does not include these credits...what it does is provide credit for internal capture, pass-by, and diverted trips...which yields what are called net new external trips...but traditional concurrency systems (including the City's old one and traffic operations/impact studies provide for these reductions too
http://www.coj.net/Departments/Planning-and-Development/Community-Planning-Division/Mobility-Plan.aspx
The last time I read through the Mobility Plan, it had an adjustment factor (or credits?) for developments incorporating transit elements into the function of the facility. In other words, if a project is built across the street from a Skyway station and was relying on the Skyway for mobility, then that project would be credited those trips (and subsequent vehicle miles) that the Skyway was providing.
Was that part of the plan that was passed by City Council?
Does it matter whats in there if the council "Temporarily" waves the fee today it is not likely to ever come back. They showed a little spine passing it in the first place but it looks like they won't be bold enough to stand behind it.
I hope I am on this site this afternoon eating my words.
Quote from: dougskiles on October 11, 2011, 06:20:11 AM
The last time I read through the Mobility Plan, it had an adjustment factor (or credits?) for developments incorporating transit elements into the function of the facility. In other words, if a project is built across the street from a Skyway station and was relying on the Skyway for mobility, then that project would be credited those trips (and subsequent vehicle miles) that the Skyway was providing.
Was that part of the plan that was passed by City Council?
Doug...the Planning Department has been working on a robust credit system, based on California's URBEMIS model.
http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/urbemis.html
http://greatcommunities.org/intranet/library/sites-tools/great-communities-toolkit/Appx_URBEMIS_apr08.pdf
The idea is that mixed-use developments near transit, employment, affordable housing, etc. generate far fewer trips....and as such would have their mobility fee decreased.
the Mobility Plan as adopted mentions the concepts, but the details and potential credits had not been finalized yet.
2011-617 is not currently on the agenda for tonight's meeting. I understand that it did not make it out of Rules Committee. However, that doesn't mean it can't be added to the agenda at the last minute at the pleasure of the City Council President (Joost) or the Rules Committee Chairman (Bill Bishop).
Should the bill not go for final vote tonight, there is still an opportunity to speak about it during the general public comment period. I also recommend that people contact Council President Joost and Councilman Bishop and request that the matter be defered with more opportunity for public input. That is what I am going to do.
If you do contact them, PLEASE interact with them respectfully. It does no good to threaten them or insult their intelligence. This is a matter of education - and letting them know that there are other voices out there, not just those who have been pushing the bill forward.
It took at least 2 years of public meetings and discussion to get the Mobility Plan passed and now we are faced with less than 2 months of very little public input to sweep it away. At the least, we should have a properly noticed public workshop to discuss the merits and dangers of this proposed moratorium.
This threat that I so offended the council with was that I would keep score and put my money where my mouth is. But you are correct they hated and were truly offended (to the point it may be counter productive) that someone might want to hold them accountable.
The issue is that NOBODY likes to be threatened. It immediately puts them on the defensive. Believe me, the lobbyists for this bill are winning right now, not because they are threatening, but because they are offering promises. Our job is to demonstrate that our vision produces a better Jacksonville than theirs does.
Your right and I got it. I will not threaten accountability again. Kid gloves if that is all they can handle that is what they will get. I want to be productive not win an argument. It did surprise me how thin skinned they were.
I was just coming to post the same response he sent me.
Edit: Tried to attach the pdf. Didn't work.
I would take a "non existent" $800000 for street car, bike lanes etc.
I don't think he took into consideration what I even wrote him.
The scary thing about that line of thinking is that I see no end in site to this moratorium. If it doesn't succeed in an uptick in construction (which isn't the argument we're making), then you could argue the same "non-existent" line again next year. If it does lead to more construction then we could see it used as an excuse for a longer moratorium.
Quote from: John P on October 11, 2011, 04:38:09 PM
I would take a "non existent" $800000 for street car, bike lanes etc.
Yeah, i'll bet you would get more jobs in that than in construction of new commerical props
Commercial property is not selling any better than residential. all warehouse space you need is available on any side of town. This is just to get the Mobility Fee sidelined so that it will be a fight to bring it back.
As feared this seems to be more of a trial period than a "TEMPORARY" suspension.
QuoteMr. Sutton:
Thank you for your follow up email.
If approved, the moratorium established by ordinance 2011-617 will sunset (expire) automatically twelve months after the effective date.. I can assure you that if the numbers (at the end of the year) do not reflect new jobs and a substantial increase in ad valorem valuation, then I will be the first to vote on any ordinance which attempts to reintroduce the practice.
John R. Crescimbeni
City Councilman, At-Large, Group 2
Office of the City Council
City Hall at St. James
117 West Duval Street, Suite 425
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
(904) 630-1381
Attorney Terrell Arline,at the time with Thousand Friends of Florida and a Florida Wildlife Federation Board Member,once mumbled that the then newly emerged Jax "Fair Share " was "illegal".
Cheers!
Well... I was at the City Council meeting and seeing that 2011-617 was going to be added to the agenda, I filled out the little blue speakers card for the general public comment period. The public hearing for this particular bill was back in September, so my understanding was that I cold no longer address the council when the bill came up for vote, any comments would have to be during the general comment. I also knew from several email exchanges that there was very little chance of this not being approved unanimously.
Before the meeting started I had a nice exchange with Mike Herzberg. He joked about me saying things about him all over the message boards (and now I'm just trying to live up to my reputation). He says that he has all kinds of data proving that this type of incentive works. I asked him for the data and will share it once I receive it. Mike and I have been friends for several years. We just happen to be on opposite sides on this one.
There was a nice recognition of John Crofts and his service. John was understandably a little emotional about it and did an amazing job of expressing his gratitude and disappointment over how the situation was handled. John will be missed.
So - then we got to the general public comment. I listened to a wide range of pleas by citizens - some carefully prepared and some, not so much. But I was ready to express my disappointment about not having more opportunity for public input and request that the effectiveness of this moratorium be tracked. The promise is that this will lead to more building permits and jobs. This should be easy enough to track, we just need to make sure that we are comparing our performance to the economy in general, and not giving credit to this moratorium when in reality it was an uptick in the economy as a whole that provided the results.
But, my name wasn't called. There was a second public comment period at the end of the council meeting and I can only assume I didn't make the cut for the first period. It wasn't my intent to stay late so regrettably I had to leave. I did get a chance to talk to Stephen about it, and hope to hear from him how it played out.
I am not done with this, however. I will continue to reach out to the council members and will begin a system of tracking that should provide them (and all of us) a more informed opinion about the entire matter. If anyone wants to join me in the research and meetings, please email me.
We have to begin our campaign to not have this "Temporary" moratorium extended. My guess is when it is due to expire the Tea Party will step up and claim it amounts to a new tax that only Obama would love. Thanks for your efforts Doug. I am waiting to hear from Stephen as well.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 09, 2011, 09:12:14 PM
How about just leaving it as is? Why should the general public have to pay for the negative impacts caused by unsustainable private development?
Quote from: north miami on October 11, 2011, 08:36:32 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on October 09, 2011, 09:12:14 PM
How about just leaving it as is? Why should the general public have to pay for the negative impacts caused by unsustainable private development?
+1
I have to say that I am reading this thread and wondering why this group is unanimously opposed to this? I hear the "make the developer pay!' argument but really question the stick it to the rich logic. Read the numbers provided by Planning. 2006 less than $8million collected? 2006! that is as good as it gets! 2007 was more only bc of the development backlog. So we are not talking about a great deal of money to the city and moreover, the city will receive roughly the equivalent of the impact fees EVERY YEAR after construction is completed through ad valorem taxes which is what pays for city services. $800k last year? why bother?
In terms of the moratorium lifted forever, i seriously doubt that once development starts whenever that may be and for whatever reason, dont think our city leaders at that time wont relook at all of that potential "revenue" once again.
If the argument is just anti-development or anti-sprawl well then that is another argument. My guess is that Metrojaxers wouldnt be singing the same tune if a developer proposed a TND in Brooklyn as a result of the moratorium....
Quote from: SunKing on October 11, 2011, 08:54:43 PM
If the argument is just anti-development or anti-sprawl well then that is another argument. My guess is that Metrojaxers wouldnt be singing the same tune if a developer proposed a TND in Brooklyn as a result of the moratorium....
Because that is the whole point of the Fee. Smart development is rewarded while development that has a negative impact has to pay for itself.
(http://files6.fliiby.com/images/_original/b4ydeppyqx.jpg)
Jacksonville
I look at this situation this way. You have an individual (Jacksonville) who is a heroin addict (addicted to unsustainable sprawl growth). This individual has been placed into a painful process called rehab (recession, over-building, etc.). If that person can successfully get through rehab by changing their ways (leaving the addiction behind), they have a chance to live a productive life (win economically with an economy based on quality-of-life over growth) going forward. Instead of attempting to change (the mobility plan stimulates change), the council just sent that addict in rehab some blue magic and a few needles (mobility fee moratorium). Looking short term, one could argue that getting high every now and then will help the addict deal with the pain of the rehab process. In reality, long term, you just make it easier for the addict to OD.
Quote from: stephendare on October 11, 2011, 08:48:30 PM
Doug. I stayed through the entire meeting and within five minutes of you leaving they called your name out.
Because you attached the bill number to your card, they waited until there was a motion on that particular bill to call you.
Ahhh shame on me. Thanks for jumping in, you probably explained the position better than I would have, though. Was there any discussion amongst the council members?
Hearing people talk about how $800k isn't worth the trouble to collect makes me realize how little of this plan people truly understand. I see the greatest impact not in the fees collected but in how it promotes smarter growth.
Thanks for staying and speaking to the issue. As stated earlier, I will begin the followup process with the council members.
Yes and as a general rule city councils see ad valorem tax revenue as goal of what they are doing. Not QOL or revenue vs expenses budgeting, just look how much new revenue I brought in.
Someone will need to explain to me exactly how the mobility plan promotes smart growth.
The Mobility Fee is actually LESS EXPENSIVE to developers than the old Fair Share. So now instead of $800k look for about 2/3 of that on average. But guess what? You will never see your $533k go to a bike lane Downtown because the money that any developer would presumably pay could be offset by making road improvements specific to its own development.
Look I live in Avondale and I would love to take a streetcar to FivePoints or Downtown every day. Yes sprawl = bad, I get it. But saying you want a developer's impact fees to pay for it is like taxing the drug dealer to pay for rehab for the junkie (to borrow an earlier comparison). Does taxing cigarettes prevent lung cancer?
We live in a city encompassing what 850 square miles? You want smart growth? Draw circles around the city cores, inside a cores is urban, outside is rural. That is how you address a problem.
A lot of smart people on this website and I appreciate smart dialogue but think this mobility fee is a red herring to the real issue that is being discussed. Focus resources on the real issue.
Quote from: dougskiles on October 12, 2011, 05:25:55 AM
Quote from: stephendare on October 11, 2011, 08:48:30 PM
Doug. I stayed through the entire meeting and within five minutes of you leaving they called your name out.
Because you attached the bill number to your card, they waited until there was a motion on that particular bill to call you.
Ahhh shame on me. Thanks for jumping in, you probably explained the position better than I would have, though. Was there any discussion amongst the council members?
Hearing people talk about how $800k isn't worth the trouble to collect makes me realize how little of this plan people truly understand. I see the greatest impact not in the fees collected but in how it promotes smarter growth.
Thanks for staying and speaking to the issue. As stated earlier, I will begin the followup process with the council members.
$800k isn't worth collecting, unless it's parking fines. Which cost more to collect than what they bring in.
But for some odd reason, people just loooooove those.
Quote from: SunKing on October 12, 2011, 08:55:22 AM
Someone will need to explain to me exactly how the mobility plan promotes smart growth.
The Mobility Fee is actually LESS EXPENSIVE to developers than the old Fair Share. So now instead of $800k look for about 2/3 of that on average. But guess what? You will never see your $533k go to a bike lane Downtown because the money that any developer would presumably pay could be offset by making road improvements specific to its own development.
Look I live in Avondale and I would love to take a streetcar to FivePoints or Downtown every day. Yes sprawl = bad, I get it. But saying you want a developer's impact fees to pay for it is like taxing the drug dealer to pay for rehab for the junkie (to borrow an earlier comparison). Does taxing cigarettes prevent lung cancer?
We live in a city encompassing what 850 square miles? You want smart growth? Draw circles around the city cores, inside a cores is urban, outside is rural. That is how you address a problem.
A lot of smart people on this website and I appreciate smart dialogue but think this mobility fee is a red herring to the real issue that is being discussed. Focus resources on the real issue.
The idea is that the mobility fee is higher out in sprawlburg and less expensive in the dense areas where new infrastructure won't be needed to support it. There are also additional credits to be earned if the construction provides density (multi-use, multi-family) or is Transit Oriented. The fees would then help promote more sustainable growth and a percentage of the fees goes directly to transit.
Quote from: SunKing on October 12, 2011, 08:55:22 AM
Someone will need to explain to me exactly how the mobility plan promotes smart growth.
Wow. It promotes smart growth by integrating transportation investment and sustainable land use policies. The mobility fee structure provides a financial incentive for more sustainable quality development in the urban core and the burbs. Here is a good overview article that includes links with access to greater detail on the plan:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-sep-2030-mobility-plan-the-cutting-edge-of-planning
QuoteThe Mobility Fee is actually LESS EXPENSIVE to developers than the old Fair Share. So now instead of $800k look for about 2/3 of that on average. But guess what? You will never see your $533k go to a bike lane Downtown because the money that any developer would presumably pay could be offset by making road improvements specific to its own development.
Actually, the plan divides the city up into mobility zones. Mobility fees would be spent in the same Mobility Zone as the development. This is something that fair share did not do. Thus, a downtown development would pay into an urban core mobility zone. So in essence, that downtown developer would not have to construct a new street. Although that development's fee would be significantly lower, things like mass transit, bike and ped improvements don't cost nearly as much as road construction either. So, yes an improvement like bike lanes could be done with little money in an area of town that this particular development would be impacted by.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1122466646_PU8Sb-M.jpg)
Mobility Zone MapQuoteLook I live in Avondale and I would love to take a streetcar to FivePoints or Downtown every day. Yes sprawl = bad, I get it. But saying you want a developer's impact fees to pay for it is like taxing the drug dealer to pay for rehab for the junkie (to borrow an earlier comparison). Does taxing cigarettes prevent lung cancer?
You want a developer to pay for their negative impact to public infrastructure. If they don't, you do in the form of additional taxes. It's really as simple as that.
QuoteWe live in a city encompassing what 850 square miles? You want smart growth? Draw circles around the city cores, inside a cores is urban, outside is rural. That is how you address a problem.
Read the executive summary in this link:
http://www.coj.net/Departments/Planning-and-Development/Community-Planning-Division/Mobility-Plan.aspx
You find that this is a well thought out plan that answers all the questions/concerns you've raised and more.
QuoteA lot of smart people on this website and I appreciate smart dialogue but think this mobility fee is a red herring to the real issue that is being discussed. Focus resources on the real issue.
The real issue is becoming a financially sustainable and economically viable community. To get there, we'll have to change from a ponzi scheme oriented growth-based unsustainable economic structure. The mobility plan and fee is the best thing we have at this point to make that transition.
What a measly $800,000 will pay for:
4.26 miles of 5' wide sidewalks ($187,465 per mile)
3.56 miles of 6' wide sidewalks ($224,958 per mile)
2.39 miles of 12' wide multi-use trails ($334,731 per mile)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/852550518_3CiDT-M.jpg)
This is a map of Jacksonville's sidewalk network on its major streets. Green = existing sidewalk, Blue = committed sidewalk (most likely a part of a planned road improvement project) and Red = no facilities.
Part of the plan is to strengthen the connectivity of Jacksonville's sidewalk and bike network. $800,000 could go a long way to filling in a several gaps within the overall network. With all of this said, this is locally generated money. There's no reason it can't be used for various matching grants and P3 deals to make more significant improvements. So that measly $800,000 could easily become $1.6 million in some cases. In short, being a city with no money, every little penny counts if there is a good ROI on a particular issue.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/792164901_Z8LrL-M.jpg)
Arlington is an example of a short stretch of highway where pedestrian/bike improvements would be significant to a community divided by an expressway.
I wrote Crescimbeni back. I thanked him for his reply and stated that we didn't see eye to eye on the purpose of the Mobility Plan. I outlined several issues, mainly that his idea that the mobility fee was just another name for fair share. I also said that his argument for non-existent fees as a reason to put a moratorium on the plan was self-defeating. I asked if we can expect the same argument in 12 months if no development, or if there is a small uptick in development will we see that as an excuse for a continued moratorium?
His response:
QuoteI think you are right: we don't see "eye to eye" on this issue.
As a follow-up, please know that the City Council unanimously approved 2011-617 last night, and the ordinance will automatically sunset (end) after twelve (12) months from its effective date. If there is no significant evidence of job creation and ad valorem valuation increase, I will be the first to vote against any attempt to reintroduce or extend the moratorium.
Soo.. does that mean the mobility fee plan passed? Or was completely shot down?
Quotehttp://I outlined several issues, mainly that his idea that the mobility fee was just another name for fair share.
This shows that he doesn't have a decent understanding of what he just voted to severely limit. I expect the majority of council may have the same issue. We're going to have to do a better job of educating our representatives because there are others who have a direct conduit into city hall to promote their positions. If there is no counter argument presented by a credible source, then it should be no surprise why things turn out the way they do in Jax.
Quote from: Doctor_K on October 12, 2011, 11:04:03 AM
Soo.. does that mean the mobility fee plan passed? Or was completely shot down?
The plan passed a while back. They just voted to not implement it for a full year. By not charging mobility fees, they are of the position that the money saved by developers will help new growth get underway. What such a position doesn't answer is the overall market. If you have an over-built supply of product and your customers aren't buying, there's little incentive to produce more.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 11, 2011, 10:57:27 PM
(http://files6.fliiby.com/images/_original/b4ydeppyqx.jpg)
Jacksonville
I look at this situation this way. You have an individual (Jacksonville) who is a heroin addict (addicted to unsustainable sprawl growth). This individual has been placed into a painful process called rehab (recession, over-building, etc.). If that person can successfully get through rehab by changing their ways (leaving the addiction behind), they have a chance to live a productive life (win economically with an economy based on quality-of-life over growth) going forward. Instead of attempting to change (the mobility plan stimulates change), the council just sent that addict in rehab some blue magic and a few needles (mobility fee moratorium). Looking short term, one could argue that getting high every now and then will help the addict deal with the pain of the rehab process. In reality, long term, you just make it easier for the addict to OD.
Great analogy.
Having watched the collective intelligentsia of this city over the last 50 years, I tend to think you can bank on the 'fair share', 'impact', or 'mobility fees' being a thing of the past. Last night the City Council made a unanimous decision to choose cheap, over quality of life. In the name of the possibility of development, we have decided a city with horrible transit, bad roads, no commuter rail, no light rail, no streetcars, no Skyway, no sidewalks, no bike trails, etc. will cause a developers land rush. I've said it many times before, and some still don't get it, returning to Jacksonville from Medellin and Bogota is like a descent into 1960.
So if your a big blue chip corporation looking to relocate and build a new office tower in downtown, we offer nothing, we'll plan nothing, and we will achieve nothing in terms of true urban infrastructure. If your dream of a metropolitan panacea is one without vision, services or progress, we're your town. And hey you'll be able to get all 100% of our nothing, for a few dollars less then it will cost you to locate in Orlando, Miami, or Atlanta.Tough decision eh? All is not lost though, we'll still fine you for putting up a sign, and ticket you for parking downtown. The 'Land Before Time,' is alive and well in Jacksonville, sounds like a slam dunk to me.
OCKLAWAHA
We are going to have to dig in. The hogs around here are used to being fed no questions asked. They don't expect this in St. Johns county but here they want the trough kept full or squealing is epic.
Quote from: stephendare on October 12, 2011, 01:09:03 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on October 12, 2011, 12:59:54 PM
We are going to have to dig in. The hogs around here are used to being fed no questions asked. They don't expect this in St. Johns county but here they want the trough kept full or squealing is epic.
What kills me is that the money is just as easily made by doing it in a way that doesnt screw over the tax payer. If these guys would just take a moment and educated themselves on the new ethos that the country is moving in, they would realize how childish all this is.
I would say more money can be made in a dense urban environment. The only reason there hasn't been a landslide of OUT OF TOWN developers building up DT and the core neighborhoods is the closer you get to downtown the more hoops you have to jump through. The local boys will never get it and the out of town boys have pretty much written us off as a place to get a decent ROI.
+1
I know what the policy says....(check my statement in post #119)....but what are the exact credits a development can get?
From what I understood, the potential credits had not been determined in May (when the plan was adopted) as the study based on URBEMIS was still underway.
Maybe I'm confused but how is wanting privately financed development to cover its cost 100% considered liberal? The mobility plan's concept of discouraging this guy's desire to suckle on the teet of the taxpayer for his personal profiting is about as conservative as it gets. It appears we have those in our community who don't know what the true definition of fiscal conservativism and responsibility. Just in case, he or someone who knows him, reads this (which I'm sure will happen), here is the definition of fiscal conservatism:
Fiscal conservatism - is a political term used to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as ensuring balanced budget of paramount importance.
Considering our annual budget issues, it appears our decades old growth-based economic model doesn't work. If all the development that has taken place over the last 30 years paid for itself, then we should be swimming in money. The fact that the public budget went into the red so quick when the market dried up, suggests we've been doing something wrong and need to modify our policies of the past. The mobility plan and fee does just that for those who have the ability to look at things from a holistic level.
The mobility fee is basically a fiscal policy that helps local government (really you & me, the taxpayer) avoid long term deficit spending (think extra schools, roads, fire/police, utility maintenance, etc.) needed to support development that doesn't truly pay for itself.
I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative. I already have kids I have to raise and financial burdens to handle. I prefer not to have my tax dollars going to support this guy's leeching lifestyle outlook at the fiscal expense of my community's quality-of-life. Yes, I'll be the bad guy and admit, I'd prefer my tax dollars used to keep libraries open, school facilities up to date and parks maintained over subsidizing a few short term jobs and additional strip malls to the overbuilt supply we already can't fill. With that said, I'm as pro-development as they come. Just have a little personal responsibility and foot your own bill.
Using the label 'liberal' is just a way to smear the opposition, and turn the discussion away from merits and into simpleton diatribes and jargon.
BTW, ANYTIME the government charges a fee or levies a tax, for any purpose, it is 'liberal'. Therefore the Tea Party is not in support of that.
That is why the Tea Party had no issue with the moratorium. Their agenda is to get to the point where no taxes or fees are levied for any reason. Everyone just does there own thing without 'interference' from the government.
Sprawl is just the free market working it's 'magic'. If people didn't want to live in the suburbs, builders would not build there.
I'd actually okay with it becoming a free market, in the form of the government not building or providing infrastructure subsidies with a bad long term ROI. If you want to build 20 miles out on a rural two lane road, feel free. Just don't come asking for police/fire protection, facilities/vehicles needed to support them or roadway infrastructure needed to efficiently connect your project to the rest of the world or equal to areas where these services can be efficiently operated and maintained. Let a little personal responsibility play into things and we'll really find out what the free market is and will support.
Indeed the appropriate response to the moratorium is to say that since no fees are being collected, no additional infrastructure will be built.
As the new development causes congestion, simply let it get congested, and provide no relief.
Essentially that is what Atlanta did. Once the suburbs got hopelessly congested, such that nothing brought relief, people started returning to the core in droves.
Quote from: vicupstate on October 12, 2011, 04:13:03 PM
Indeed the appropriate response to the moratorium is to say that since no fees are being collected, no additional infrastructure will be built.
As the new development causes congestion, simply let it get congested, and provide no relief.
Essentially that is what Atlanta did. Once the suburbs got hopelessly congested, such that nothing brought relief, people started returning to the core in droves.
We do the opposite see Collins road.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 12, 2011, 02:53:36 PM
The mobility fee is basically a fiscal policy that helps local government (really you & me, the taxpayer) avoid long term deficit spending (think extra schools, roads, fire/police, utility maintenance, etc.) needed to support development that doesn't truly pay for itself.
At least one of my reply's from the council indicated the increased ad valorem taxes would help pay for things like the schools in the city. They just believe any growth is good and there ore no impacts. They look at tax revenue only from what may come in and just believe pixies are going to take care of the cost.
QuoteAt least one of my reply's from the council indicated the increased ad valorem taxes would help pay for things like the schools in the city. They just believe any growth is good and there ore no impacts. They look at tax revenue only from what may come in and just believe pixies are going to take care of the cost.
Let's talk taxes and schools. Yes, increased tax revenue by any development would add to the pot for schools. However, if the increased tax revenue doesn't match the increased expenses associated with providing more schools, staff, facilities, etc. for new development, then you're at a net loss.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 12, 2011, 02:52:54 PM
I know what the policy says....(check my statement in post #119)....but what are the exact credits a development can get?
From what I understood, the potential credits had not been determined in May (when the plan was adopted) as the study based on URBEMIS was still underway.
(http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee24/MaxVest/backpedal.jpg)
backpedalling from something I wrote the other night?
The FTU finally has an article up on this subject....
QuoteJacksonville developers get city fee waiver to boost construction jobs
Hoping to get construction crews working, Jacksonville’s City Council has approved a one-year waiver on fees the city charges developers to pay for road improvements.
“It’s totally a jobs bill,†said Curtis Hart, a developer who encouraged the legislation. “Five or six months from now, I think you’ll see more work going on.â€
It’s not clear how much money the city could be giving up.
Jacksonville collected about $3.7 million in 2010 through a system known as fair-share fees, and another $650,000 that year from development agreements that can span several years. But the city recently approved a different system, called mobility fees, which measure costs differently.
Those fees are expected frequently to be less on each development than they would be under the fair-share system, but they would be collected on many more projects â€" so a waiver’s effect could be wider.
“This bill’s purpose is to stimulate jobs and get projects under way,†Councilwoman Lori Boyer emphasized at a committee debate, saying she didn’t want businesses “just pulling a permit and sitting on it for two years.â€
To avoid that, she pitched a one-year limit from the permit date for projects worth less than $1 million to be completed. Projects worth more have to be finished within three years of the bill taking effect.
Councilman Bill Bishop had 11 co-sponsors for his bill by time it passed Tuesday night, but the plan took some shots from critics who said taxpayers are picking up the cost.
“You’re basically just handing a public credit card to the developers,†local writer Stephen Dare told council members during a hearing.
“And we are on the hook for as long as people live out there. … The few jobs that may be created by this one year of a moratorium are simply not worth the costs you will incur for the next two generations [the buildings are in place].â€
Hart said the waiver decision will matter most to small commercial projects, where construction costs of less than $1 million can be paired with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees. Although the fees are often higher in large projects like big-box stores, they’re smaller piece of the total construction cost.
“For the small commercial projects … it will be a great spur,†he said.
Hart said the city will benefit in the long run because the construction will be followed by new businesses with new employees. A small restaurant like Wendy’s can employ 80 people, he said.
“You’ve got people going to work. … You’ve got people to build the buildings and then the Wendy’s turns around and pays ad valorem taxes,†Hart said. “It keeps on paying.â€
full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-10-12/story/jacksonville-developers-get-city-fee-waiver-boost-construction-jobs
Quote“For the small commercial projects … it will be a great spur,†he said.
Hart said the city will benefit in the long run because the construction will be followed by new businesses with new employees. A small restaurant like Wendy’s can employ 80 people, he said.
“You’ve got people going to work. … You’ve got people to build the buildings and then the Wendy’s turns around and pays ad valorem taxes,†Hart said. “It keeps on paying.â€
I hate to say it but this is pretty pathetic. Wendy's? Seriously? Wendy's? We're whoring our community out for the hope of a few extra Wendy's fast food style restaurants and small strip malls to blight our landscape? Jacksonville, this is a new low. Btw, Mr. Hart should know that the cost of the mobility fee is flexible depending on where and how each project is constructed. He was a member of the mobility plan taskforce. It's almost disingenuous to say a mobility fee numbers into the hundreds of thousands for a project that costs less than $1 million and not even mention of the credit system for development that lowers the amount of vehicle trips it generates. If you have a development where a mobility fee costs you something like 15-20% of your total project price, there must be something seriously wrong with your proposed project.
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/2009/magazine/specials/2000s/12/03/quotes/allen-iverson.jpg)
Anybody tell you that I missed Wendy's... If, If, if a Coach say I missed Wendy's, and y'all hear it, then that's that.
I mean, I might have missed one Wendy's this year but if, if somebody say he doesn't come to Wendy's, it could be one Wendy's...Nevertheless, we're talking about a Wendy's? Man look, I hear you... it's funny to me too, I mean it's strange... it's strange to me too, but we're talking about Wendy's man, we're not even talking about the SJTC or RCM... the actual mega strip centers this city loves, when it matters... We're talking about Wendy's ...
Detroit goes Urban Ag and LRT. Charlotte goes LRT, Streetcar and Complete Streets. Miami implements Form-Based Zoning Codes for sustainable development. Orlando goes Sunrail. Atlanta goes Beltline. Jax one ups everyone by going Wendy's. Houston, we have a problem.
(http://www.duckgoesmoo.com/uploads/charles/wendys1.jpg)
Our economic savior? Coming soon to an outparcel two blocks from your existing neighborhood fast food joint.
You know Jax if it has a drive thru it gets what it wants.
Maybe we can base our entire economy on hamburgers. Wimpy would certainly approve.
(http://charlieforoakland.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/wimpygovernment.jpg)
That's funny.
Upside and downside to every event. The upside for them is that they got their moratorium. The downside for them is that now we have a few more eyes on the issue and several council members on record stating that they will be watching to see if it really works. We have the opportunity to present real statistics over the course of the year - and back up what we have been saying.
There are two issues at hand:
1. Does a fee moratorium stimulate economic growth? That will be relatively simple to track.
2. What is the true cost of suburban development? This will be a little more complicated, but with cooperation from various city departments, we should be able to provide the data. To be truly effective, it will take an agreement up front from the policy makers that our methodology is unbiased.
My goal is that we will no longer have to point to other places to support our logic. We will have the cold hard numbers from right in here in our backyard to make our case.
If there are any financial analysts out there who want to help with these studies, please email me.
Yes but I am sure if a Wendy's is built they will claim it is the moratorium not that a company thinks it can sell burgers that made it happen. So we will need to really be on our toes.
Yeah if I wasn't laughing the Wendys bit really almost made spit my coffee up. How shortsighted are council are!
Quote from: dougskiles on October 13, 2011, 05:38:43 AM
Upside and downside to every event. The upside for them is that they got their moratorium. The downside for them is that now we have a few more eyes on the issue and several council members on record stating that they will be watching to see if it really works. We have the opportunity to present real statistics over the course of the year - and back up what we have been saying.
There are two issues at hand:
1. Does a fee moratorium stimulate economic growth? That will be relatively simple to track.
2. What is the true cost of suburban development? This will be a little more complicated, but with cooperation from various city departments, we should be able to provide the data. To be truly effective, it will take an agreement up front from the policy makers that our methodology is unbiased.
My goal is that we will no longer have to point to other places to support our logic. We will have the cold hard numbers from right in here in our backyard to make our case.
If there are any financial analysts out there who want to help with these studies, please email me.
Doug: Your approach is the way to proceed IMO. Hart's argument is simple to understand and what many folks believe. He laid out clearly what we're up against and need to factually refute.
^This should be pretty easy to track and refute the tax revenue argument Curtis Hart makes. We might as well start now and hit people over the head repeatedly with the data over the next year because the group who bambozzled council has had a direct conduit into the ears of city hall for years.
Brown just said he supports the moratorium on the radio. Said he talked to Dan Davis and Curtis Hart.
The mayor on the radio just said construction is down he mentioned home building specifically and said he supports the mobility fee to address it. He wants that business back. Wow they all think that sprawlville glory days are coming back.
There is an economic re-education process we're going to have to take our leaders and public officials through. Although they hold elected positions, many of the impactful economic decisions aren't topics most of those individuals have professional experience in dealing with. They say the squeaky wheel gets the oil and in this case the development community has been squeaking for years. Its all good. I think we're all up to the challenge and will introduce a little technology into this Jacksonville discussion. There's a ton of data supporting the issues we've addressed and poking holes in the builder's tired old arguments. The challenge will be breaking the data down in a manner to where the general population can easily decipher the information. JTA found out what a force we could be when they rolled out with that initial BRT plan. It's time to apply that pressure to others with just as much force.
First off our bubble was not real. Building is down because we DON'T NEED IT! Yeah at this point it is physical revolution or education and I take the education. When they know the facts hopefully they will make more informed decisions.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 13, 2011, 08:57:03 AM
There is an economic re-education process we're going to have to take our leaders and public officials through. Although they hold elected positions, many of the impactful economic decisions aren't topics most of those individuals have professional experience in dealing with. They say the squeaky wheel gets the oil and in this case the development community has been squeaking for years. Its all good. I think we're all up to the challenge and will introduce a little technology into this Jacksonville discussion. There's a ton of data supporting the issues we've addressed and poking holes in the builder's tired old arguments. The challenge will be breaking the data down in a manner to where the general population can easily decipher the information. JTA found out what a force we could be when they rolled out with that initial BRT plan. It's time to apply that pressure to others with just as much force.
This is right. The squeeky wheels get the grease so until smart policy minds are in the same social circles, dinner parties, and have the same access as sprawling developers they will always get priority.
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on October 13, 2011, 09:13:37 AM
First off our bubble was not real. Building is down because we DON'T NEED IT! Yeah at this point it is physical revolution or education and I take the education. When they know the facts hopefully they will make more informed decisions.
Nice that you brought this up John, what the general public does NOT understand is the fact that funding for education, roads, health, ports, etc. All come from different agencies both federal and state. For example even if the Port got $20 Billion dollars, not a cent of that money could legally be used for schools. If the schools got it, not a cent could be used at the port. Government grants to transportation, education, welfare, and such must follow very strict and rigid guidelines, step out of those and you'll be paying uncle Sam back for a century.
This is why the recent quote Mike Blaylock recently made was misleading at best and complete propaganda at worse. Blaylock said something like, "Streetcars could work here, but we really need money for the port, the port is much more important." The Times-Union jumped on this and tossed a bomb at the streetcar plan based largely on Ballcock's disinformation. Blaylock knows good and well that streetcar money and port money come from different sources, and having one but not the other wouldn't make a bit of sense in the federal process.
When I was a city councilman in Oklahoma, I wrote over a million dollars worth of grants for infrastructure improvements. A good example is our road grants, which were to cover paving for several hard packed gravel roads. The grants were for 2 inch asphalt overlay (yes that's pretty light for a road) but the bottom line is it was for 2", not 1.5" or 3" inches, we had to follow the letter of the grant. When we were done paving access to a couple of new housing additions we hadn't used all of the money, i called the state and begged that we be able to use the surplus to lay chip and seal pavement over several more farm roads. We got permission provided the county would sign off on the project and we followed the letter of our grant modification.
When our projects were complete not only did the state demand to see the 'books', the Northwest Oklahoma Development Authority wanted a physical inspection AND photographs. Using this money any other way would have resulted in fines to our city and the chance of jail time for its councilmen.
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: thelakelander on October 13, 2011, 08:43:22 AM
^This should be pretty easy to track and refute the tax revenue argument Curtis Hart makes. We might as well start now and hit people over the head repeatedly with the data over the next year because the group who bambozzled council has had a direct conduit into the ears of city hall for years.
Bingo. We don't even have to wait for the new data on projects. A good place to start would be past projects that are net loses. Right now, it's easy for them (developers) to control the narrative of "jobs" and "development".
Another thing we will have to battle is that no one has defined what a successful developmental period under the moratorium would look like. So, if we don't get the word out about the true costs, then they can pick any project and hold it up as an example...even a Wendy's.
If you look at the comments on the FTU article, there are a lot of people upset about this.
Yes. I'm sure they knew this would never fly easily with the public, which is why it was done the way it was. Even the FTU didn't have a single article about this issue until two days after it was approved by council.
A good friend shared his motto with me at breakfast this morning. "Everything works out for the good in the end - and if things aren't good right now, then we are not at the end."
Very appropriate for this issue. We are nowhere close to the end. I am more excited than ever about the opportunity to educate our community (and ourselves) about the true cost of an unsustainable economy and development.
This is definitely a great learning opportunity and case study for Jacksonville economics. The positive to all of this is that council just kicked a hornet's nest. We're going to find out real quick if this view towards job creation and our economic climate and sustainability actually works. Best of all, the data produced won't be from Seattle, Austin, Houston, etc. It will be from Jacksonville. I can't wait to see the type of debate that will come a few months from now when a segment of the community starts to push extending the moratorium.
The problem is that the criteria for success or failure is undefined.
Over the course of a year I'm sure a Wendy's will open, or a new KFC will pop up. When these things happen the council can proclaim success. It was already mentioned that a Wendy's brings 80 jobs.
What a vision for Jacksonville that is. If we just give our city away for free more of us can flip burgers.
Quote from: Lunican on October 13, 2011, 10:30:38 AM
The problem is that the criteria for success or failure is undefined.
Over the course of a year I'm sure a Wendy's will open, or a new KFC will pop up. When these things happen the council can proclaim success. It was already mentioned that a Wendy's brings 80 jobs.
What is HIGHLY disengenious about that argument is that the reality of the situation is that there is in fact financing available for high quality commercial deals. The projects that don't have the proper financial footing to get financing, STILL won't get built... and the ones that were going to get built anyway will just now be built with a cheaper price tag to the developer. It's a zero sum game.
It's just not true that a mobility fee would hold up construction. If a franchisee couldn't construct a standalone fast food restaurant b/c of a $20,000 concurrency issue... they quite frankly can't afford to build anything.
You would be amazed to know the amount of fast food and fast casual restaurants that opened in Jacksonville in 2010 and 2011... concurrency fees did not influence these openings in the least bit.
That is the reality on the financing side. The rest is just political theory, which is very unproductive.
What Lake is saying about combining local money with other matching grants should not be discounted. Especially on transportation issues, local money is often met with outside multipliers. In a city that is desperate to find new revenue sources, I can't understand the financial logic behind cutting income streams.
-Mike Field
registered Republican and fiscal conservative
Quote from: Lunican on October 13, 2011, 10:30:38 AM
The problem is that the criteria for success or failure is undefined.
Over the course of a year I'm sure a Wendy's will open, or a new KFC will pop up. When these things happen the council can proclaim success. It was already mentioned that a Wendy's brings 80 jobs.
You kill that by comparing Jax's (before and after moratorium) permit activity with other communities in the State and region. If there isn't a significant uptick in Jax's numbers, say compared with Orlando, Savannah or St. Johns County's numbers over the next year, it would suggest the moratorium has no impact.
Btw, I'm still LOLing over the Wendy's example. Since when did Wendy's become the small guy? I seriously doubt Wendy's is getting taken out by Jax's miniscule impact fees. Perhaps, he would have made more sense going for something local like a Carmine's or City Kidz? Nevertheless, they wouldn't pay anything by simply consuming some of the millions of square feet of commercial space that's already built and sitting vacant across the city.
Even if there is an uptick does the Ad Valorum cover new infrastructure, schools and roads needed. If it is a net negative it does not matter if there is more activity.
Of course it's disingenuous. Whether the moratorium works or not is completely left to the discretion of each council member.
If you think it was easy to create this moratorium, watch how easy it will be to extend it.
One of the things I think politicians in general fail to realize is that the money to fund public projects is entirely different from private funding. Public funds are taxes collected and preallocated unless someone plays with the sand pile. Relating this to construction. If taxes are not collected and certain development goes forward, then the sand pile is insufficient and the whole allocation of funds formula is affected. Somewhere, someone will be shortchanged. Witness the current crunch in our small city as well as others across the nation.
Private funds are those controlled by profit seeking entities and ONLY allocated when the perceived benefit outweighs the costs. Developers with eyes on the bottom line will applaud one less fee not necessarily passing the savings along to the consumer. In addition, developers also realize that because of the previous construction boom and the current recession, there is no demand for ramping up major construction for the near future. Funding sources, such as banks or even venture capitalists, are also holding on to their cash.
These folks are not stupid. A moratorium on fees with the expectation that in itself will stimulate construction is pie in the sky thinking by the council. What happens at the end of the moratorium when development and construction is still stagnant due to lack of demand and the lack of private funding from gunshy developers and the banks that could - but won't - support them? Another moratorium? Or worse yet, a mistaken belief that public stimulation funds, another drain on the preallocated sand pile, will shake loose development leading right to the reestablishment of the mobility fee to attempt to fill up the hemorrhaging sand pile.
We've seen that playing catchup doesn't work. One of the most glaring examples of that is the police pension fund. As unsustainable as it always was and is, the failure of the city fathers to prefund (think mobility fees) has caused that fund to be further behind than it should be at this point. Although the people in charge should have been paying attention, because the principle of compound interest was at play here, they weren't and in the case of the mobility fee, are still not.
QuoteI seriously doubt Wendy's is getting taken out by Jax's miniscule impact fees. Perhaps, he would have made more sense going for something local like a Carmine's or City Kidz? Nevertheless, they wouldn't pay anything by simply consuming some of the millions of square feet of commercial space that's already built and sitting vacant across the city.
Exactly. The example of the Wendys actually PROVES the opposition's point. You can look at the ACTUAL numbers in relation to new fast food and fast casual restaurants opened in 2010 and 2011 to disprove this claim. Jax is actually in the
top 10 in the nation as far as new restaurant openings in these categories measured as a % of population. Hell, there was a Jax Biz Journal article on the subject a few months ago. The fact that council members charged with economic development apparently don't read even the Biz Journal is a sad commentary on the state of affairs in politics.
The reality of the situation does not support the other side's argument. They just happen to be effective lobbyists.
I am Mr Pro Growth. My livelihood depends on this growth. But as a fiscal conservative, the only growth that makes sense is high density growth that actually has a positive effect to the supply side of the revenue chain(the collection and spending of taxes). That being side, when you look at real numbers... this moratorium doesn't add up. Its a zero sum game in relation to new construction, and this game comes at the expense of the taxpayer.
Everyone in Council pledged to not raise taxes this past election. What they have done is simply shift this burden from the end user(developer) to the taxpaying citizen. If it smells like a tax increase and quacks like a tax increase, then City Council just passed a tax increase on their consituents.
QuoteIf you think it was easy to create this moratorium, watch how easy it will be to extend it.
Doug made a great point a few days ago... it took two years of extensive public vetting with SUBSTANTIAL input from the development community to institute the Mobility Plan... and about 5 weeks and VIRTUALLY NO public input to effectively kill the plan... at least in the 'short term' :wink wink:
Quote from: thelakelander on October 13, 2011, 10:45:54 AM
Quote from: Lunican on October 13, 2011, 10:30:38 AM
The problem is that the criteria for success or failure is undefined.
Over the course of a year I'm sure a Wendy's will open, or a new KFC will pop up. When these things happen the council can proclaim success. It was already mentioned that a Wendy's brings 80 jobs.
You kill that by comparing Jax's (before and after moratorium) permit activity with other communities in the State and region. If there isn't a significant uptick in Jax's numbers, say compared with Orlando, Savannah or St. Johns County's numbers over the next year, it would suggest the moratorium has no impact.
Btw, I'm still LOLing over the Wendy's example. Since when did Wendy's become the small guy? I seriously doubt Wendy's is getting taken out by Jax's miniscule impact fees. Perhaps, he would have made more sense going for something local like a Carmine's or City Kidz? Nevertheless, they wouldn't pay anything by simply consuming some of the millions of square feet of commercial space that's already built and sitting vacant across the city.
I'm having trouble picturing a scenario in which something will be so different in one year that the council will reverse their stance when a bill is sponsored to continue the moratorium. What makes sense to them now will make just as much sense to them in a year.
^Hopefully a year of us.
+1
Let's hope so.
The other options are to do nothing or simply move. We really have no choice.
Stephen, I agree with you 100%! It is time for many of us on this board to run for Council.
True - and have an influence with the people who do run for council. It really isn't that hard to get to know these ladies and gentlemen. All of the ones I reached out to this past week have been very respectful and interested to know about my concerns.
If some of you guys run, I'd vote for all of you. Would some of you really run? If you thought of it already, please consider it further!
Everywhere I go I try to spread the word about MJ. But many don't seem to care about the issues that are important to us. I truly think that most of it is out of laziness or fear of being branded a radical. Others feel as though they don't have a voice. and so they won't even try.
A few (possibly contrarian) points...
First, I somewhat disagree with the characterization that waiving the fee amounts to a tax hike. Rather, it's a tax reallocation. The mobility fee itself is a tax - a focused, localized tax, but a tax nonetheless. Part of the point is to make it more expensive to do business in some areas rather than others (or, at least, level out the comparative costs across the city). So instead of a large tax increase on a tightly focused area, you've got a much smaller one spread out over the entire region. There's at least a logical argument why the latter is preferable in a recession. It may not be convincing, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. But referring to this decision as a massive tax increase is a little misleading - the massive tax increase has already occurred, and the moratorium offers a temporary reallocation of where that tax money is coming from.
That said, what's rather pernicious about this decision is the timing. It strikes me that the developers are doubling-down on their bet here, and hoping for an economic turnaround in the next 12 months (which as scary as it is to say, is the worst case scenario for proponents of the Mobility Plan). Any sort of economic turnaround (even a small one) would both increase jobs and general tax revenue. As long as that happens in the next 12 months, you can see the easy argument being made that "hey, look, we increased jobs and revenue without the mobility fee. Let's talk about a permanent moratorium." Opponents of that argument could be pretty easily cast as anti-business since they'll have to hope there's no turnaround. The developer lobby wins across the board - it's a pretty stunning move from a political position.
Finally, the thing that bugs me the most about this decision is that we've seen "incentives" like this over and over the past few years, and they almost universally fail. The two most obvious examples are "Cash for Clunkers" and the First Time Homebuyer credit. In all three scenarios, the theory is the same - offer an incentive to jump start things, and the benefit will multiply out helping the economy. In reality, all Cash for Clunkers and the homebuyer credit did was pull future purchases forward - look at car and home sales after both incentives ended (hint: they were terrible). At best, that's what will happen here - a few projects planned a little longer down the line will be pulled forward by the incentive, leaving a glut of supply without the requisite demand for additional development, thus destroying the following year(s). This is exactly the wrong kind of incentive to spur business.
Excellent take on the issue, Clem1029. One critical part of any analysis we do will be to benchmark state and national averages of development activity. That way, we can determine if what happened locally is due to the moratorium or a larger recovery. It wouldn't surprise me to see a similar spike of pulling the future forward as you described with the cash for clunkers incentive, and then a drop-off at the end of the period. And it won't be just pulling from the future, there will be a delay of projects now waiting until after the moratorium passes.
QuoteThat said, what's rather pernicious about this decision is the timing. It strikes me that the developers are doubling-down on their bet here, and hoping for an economic turnaround in the next 12 months (which as scary as it is to say, is the worst case scenario for proponents of the Mobility Plan). Any sort of economic turnaround (even a small one) would both increase jobs and general tax revenue. As long as that happens in the next 12 months, you can see the easy argument being made that "hey, look, we increased jobs and revenue without the mobility fee. Let's talk about a permanent moratorium." Opponents of that argument could be pretty easily cast as anti-business since they'll have to hope there's no turnaround. The developer lobby wins across the board - it's a pretty stunning move from a political position.
It's not shocking to me. The economic conditions are irrelevant. You can argue it from two angles no matter what happens to the economy. If the economy improves, one could claim it was because of the moratorium, thus the moratorium should continue. If things still suck, you can argue to extend it as well. So from this position, they just needed to get their foot in the door, which has now happened. The one true way to fact check this is to not only log local data but tying the results to economic conditions of the nation, state and region as well. If Jax's economic growth over the next year is a postive outlier compared to the nation/state/region, etc. then that bolsters the argument that concurrency limits development. If Jax is consistent, then there's an argument that they don't. Nevertheless, no of this answers the bull in the china shop, which is if low density sprawl pays for itself. If it doesn't (which it hasn't in the past), someone has to eventually make up the difference. If we're putting out private sector projects that don't pay for themselves 100% indirectly, then the taxpayer is getting screwed.
Yes, yes, yes all great points. But after all is said and done, how is the Mobility Plan any different from the Fair Share Plan? Philosophically I understand, but we are talking reality.
To a developer it is purely economic and from what I can tell, the Mobility Plan impacts a non-concurrent development less than the Fair Share.
What I dont understand and maybe someone can shed some light, does the Mobility Plan require the fees paid to go toward improving the impacted roads or does it go into a general transportation fund to be used as the JTA sees fit? It seems that if it is the former it defeats the purpose and if it is the latter, all the worse. But I admit that I dont know the answer there either way.
Quote from: SunKing on October 13, 2011, 04:06:28 PM
Yes, yes, yes all great points. But after all is said and done, how is the Mobility Plan any different from the Fair Share Plan? Philosophically I understand, but we are talking reality.
The mobility plan ties transportation and land use policies together in a manner that integrates with the City's adopted neighborhood vision plans. Fair Share doesn't. The mobility fee is also designed to be spread development costs equally. Fair Share didn't.
QuoteTo a developer it is purely economic and from what I can tell, the Mobility Plan impacts a non-concurrent development less than the Fair Share.
To a developer, development is all about revenue generation. Any way to put more money in your pockets at the expense of others is a net plus.
QuoteWhat I dont understand and maybe someone can shed some light, does the Mobility Plan require the fees paid to go toward improving the impacted roads or does it go into a general transportation fund to be used as the JTA sees fit?
The best thing about the mobility fee is that the money generated does not go to JTA (unless the city allows it). Those funds generated would go to a variety of projects that promote mobility choice and enhance Jax's quality-of-life while also supporting the development of a more sustainable and human scaled community. Those include auto, transit, bike and pedestrian facilities. This is also something that Fair Share did not do.
Littlepage: Let’s hope the Jacksonville development fee holiday worksQuoteLast week, the City Council put in place a one-year moratorium on the fees the city charges developers to pay for transportation improvements.
The reason was obvious. In this down economy, creating jobs is critical, and the hope is waiving the fees, which developers say make some projects financially unworkable, will get construction rolling again.
One of the area’s bigger developers, Toney Sleiman, has been pushing for a moratorium for more than a year, saying he had a number of projects waiting in the wings.
I talked to him Friday to see if that was still the case.
“Absolutely,†Sleiman said. “I’m going to start them.â€
Projects he has in mind include apartment complexes, big box stores, a LA Fitness Club, a convenience store chain and a movie theater.
“It’s going to create jobs,†Sleiman said. “We need jobs.â€
I hope Sleiman is right.
Construction jobs are needed, and each project will require permanent employees.
The proof will be what happens over the next several months.
But paying for transportation improvements can’t be ignored forever. The city’s new mobility fee plan is an improvement over the previous fair share system, which didn’t work.
We will have to get back to the mobility plan as the economy improves.
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/400601/ron-littlepage/2011-10-15/let-s-hope-jacksonville-development-fee-holiday-works
Ron don't be so gullible. Depending on where and how they are built, some of those projects would have never paid a mobility fee in the first place. Some others cost so much that the little fee they would have had for their negative impacts to public infrastructure has no real impact on the project being feasible or not. All we're doing is adding to the developer's take home profit for projects that would have been developed anyway. Let's make sure we track these projects over the next year to compare with peer communities that still have impact fees (St. Johns County being one of them).
+1
The companion bill 2011-629 to the mobility fee moratorium is up for vote next Tuesday at full council. It is a text amendment to the comp plan that makes the moratorium legal.
Is there a chance in the next 5 days to convince half the city council to reverse their position on the issue? This will be the same night as the Monroe Street closure.
I understand this is done "in order to encourage economic growth". It would be nice to see an assessment of long term cost of these policies in the ordinance as well. Similar to several years ago when the state ballot initiatives were required to include the cost associated with implementation.
QuoteORDINANCE 2011-629
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING PROPOSED 2011G SERIES TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE RELATING TO THE WAIVER OF MOBILITY FEES, FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA’S VARIOUS AGENCIES FOR REVIEW; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Department has initiated certain revisions and modifications to the text in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in Chapter 650, Part 4, Ordinance Code to facilitate the appropriate and timely implementation of the plan, and has provided the necessary supporting data and analysis to support and justify the amendments determined to be required and accordingly has proposed certain revisions and modifications which are more particularly set forth in Revised Exhibit 1, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Jacksonville Planning Commission, as the Local Planning Agency, held a public hearing on this proposed amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, with due public notice having been provided, and reviewed and considered all comments received during the public hearing, and made a recommendation to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use and Zoning (LUZ) Committee held a public hearing on this proposed amendment pursuant to Chapter 650, Part 4, Ordinance Code, having considered all written and oral comments received during the public hearing, has made its recommendation to the Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this proposed amendment with public notice having been provided, pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 650, Part 4, Ordinance Code, and having considered all written and oral comments received during the public hearing, the recommendations of the Planning and Development Department, the Planning Commission and the LUZ Committee, desires to transmit this proposed amendment through the State’s Expedited State Review Process for amendment review to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (“DEOâ€), as the State Land Planning Agency, the Northeast Florida Regional Council, the Florida Department of Transportation, the St. Johns River Water Management District, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Department of State’s Bureau of Historic Preservation, and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; now, therefore
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council for the City of Jacksonville:
Section 1. Approval of Amendment for Transmittal Purposes. The Council hereby approves the proposed 2011G Series’ text amendment to the Capital Improvements Element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Revised Exhibit 1, attached hereto, for transmittal to Florida’s various required State Agencies for review.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective upon the signature by the Mayor or upon becoming effective without the Mayor's signature.
Form Approved:
/s/ Dylan T. Reingold_______
Office of General Counsel
Legislation Prepared by: Dylan T. Reingold
(http://i53.tinypic.com/w6t4r9.jpg)
QuoteBill Type and Number: Ordinance 2011-629
Introducer/Sponsor: Land Use and Zoning Committee
Date of Introduction: September 27, 2011
Committee(s) of Reference: LUZ
Date of Analysis: September 29, 2011
Type of Action: Text Amendment Transmittal Approval
Bill Summary: This bill approves a proposed 2011G Series text amendment to the Capital Improvements Element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for transmittal to various required state agencies for review.
NOTE: The exhibit which sets forth the proposed text amendment appears to contain a scrivener’s error in the second line of the new language (finite periods “of†time vs. finite periods “or†time).
Background Information: The proposed amendment adds a new Policy 1.6.9 whereby the City, through enactment of an ordinance, may establish finite periods of time in which the payment of the mobility fee will be waived for all development within the City in order to encourage economic growth.
Policy Impact Area: Planning and Development; Comprehensive Plan; Mobility Fees; Economic Development; Waivers
Fiscal Impact: Undetermined
Analyst: Campbell
QuoteIs there a chance in the next 5 days to convince half the city council to reverse their position on the issue?
I hate to be a negative Nancy but.......no.
If one council member changed their vote, it would be a step in the right direction.
I'm not sure what scares me more - that we will have a one year moratorium, or that we are opening the door in our comp plan for all kinds of moratoriums on fees in the future.
Okay, once again the taxpayers get a chance to pay for all the infrastructure associated with a project.
When the roads get too crowded or the intersections jammed up, when bicyclists and pedestrians have no safe way to move through an area, we, we the people get to pay and pay. There will be no moratorium for us. Thanks city council. A finger salute to the builders' association who really run this burg.
not that I'm in favor of the moratorium...but...aren't taxpayers the folks who use the infrastructure?
^How about it this way. You use and pay for your car. However, if I caused a negative impact to your piece of infrastructure (like ramming my truck into it), would you want me to pay the damage?
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 20, 2011, 03:44:52 PM
not that I'm in favor of the moratorium...but...aren't taxpayers the folks who use the infrastructure?
I will take the bait..
We are the ones who use it, and the ones making the investment. We should also be profiting from the investment (in terms of a higher QOL and sustainable ecomony). As it stands now, a large number of people each make a small investment - so that a small number of people can reap a great reward.
I hear that the 2030 Mobility Plan won a national award.
I think we should contact the group that gave it out, and tell them that council was just making a cruel joke to the people of JAX; And furthermore they should be publicly stripped of the award and forced to apologize to everyone affected.
Correction-A small number of people take a huge risk and make a huge investment so they hope to make a large reward
It seems to me it is like this:
Two roads, A and B. Both have a development located almost at the end of the street. Both have the same amount of traffic. Both have rush hours that takes the average resident 20 minutes to get home.
A new developer on road A puts a huge development at the end of the road. The traffic doubles. It now takes residents and average of 40 minutes to get home.
Who should pay for the road widening to eliminate the longer commute? Who should pay for the increased maintenance the higher traffic volume will cost? Should the original residents of Road A and the residents of road B pay for the increases and needed improvements? Should their water bills go up to pay for the water and sewer extensions needed? Should they pay for the extra two lanes of road?
Or should the developer who is profiting from the development pay at least a fair share?
This just seems like it should be a no brainer. And the fact that our leaders actually think that the increasing of expenses for the taxpayers and the continuing lack of progressive development for our urban core is actually offset in anyway by a potential increase of jobs for the typically out of town workers the bigger developers bring from other states to avoid the higher Florida construction worker costs is absurd. Increased tax base as a reason perhaps? I might believe that if this city wasn't so fast to turn properties into lower tax producing properties almost daily through demolition and basically reckless policies enforced by MCCD.
I keep wondering who is really profiting by this because it sure isn't us average taxpayers.
Quote from: bill on October 20, 2011, 04:59:18 PM
Correction-A small number of people take a huge risk and make a huge investment so they hope to make a large reward
I do not understand this remark - does it refer to a previous post? If so, what was it and who posted it?
If not then please expand the wording, so that it better describes what you are trying to say.
Thanks.
Quote from: urbaknight on October 20, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
I hear that the 2030 Mobility Plan won a national award.
I think we should contact the group that gave it out, and tell them that council was just making a cruel joke to the people of JAX; And furthermore they should be publicly stripped of the award and forced to apologize to everyone affected.
The mobility plan and fee won an award from the APA FL chapter last month, and I believe that it has been nominated for an award by the national APA, which would be given next April.
In my opinion -
Even with the moratorium the mobility plan and fee still might win that national award. If the moratorium is just for one year, then the award would be deserved. But if the city never enacts the mobility fee, then the national award should probably go someplace else.
Quote from: Dashing Dan on October 20, 2011, 07:22:22 PM
Quote from: urbaknight on October 20, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
I hear that the 2030 Mobility Plan won a national award.
I think we should contact the group that gave it out, and tell them that council was just making a cruel joke to the people of JAX; And furthermore they should be publicly stripped of the award and forced to apologize to everyone affected.
The mobility plan and fee won an award from the APA FL chapter last month, and I believe that it has been nominated for an award by the national APA, which would be given next April.
In my opinion -
Even with the moratorium the mobility plan and fee still might win that national award. If the moratorium is just for one year, then the award would be deserved. But if the city never enacts the mobility fee, then the national award should probably go someplace else.
That's an incredibly fair assesment.
The worse thing you can do in life is not make a mistake, but to make the same mistake twice.
City Council failed to enact an enforcement structure to the 2005 Growth Management Plan... in 1975. It's ashame that history is repeating itself again. The 2030 Mobility Plan offers a common sense approach to providing a path for fiscally sustainable growth in our community. In fact, a recent Chamber of Commerce study revealed that the public's satisfaction over the handling of our city's growth management ranks near the bottom of all metrics measured. To once again, render a growth management plan innefective at the hands of City Council 25 years later is a decision that will cost all of us for the next 30 years.
I can exagerate sometimes, but on this point I am quite clear. To repeat mistakes of our past is the worst imaginable sin that will cast your constituents into yet another purgatory. It's time we stop paying for the sins of our past.
http://www.planetizen.com/node/51908
Americans Think Planning Process is Unfair
Posted by: Tim Halbur
17 October 2011 - 10:00am
A new survey found that 64% of Americans think that the relationship between local officials and developers makes the approval process unfair.
The Saint Index asked people a lot of questions about city planning, and concluded that NIMBYism is more prevalent than ever, and skepticism over the planning process is the rule of the day. Nearly 1 in 5 people surveyed had actively fought a development from being built:
"Opposition activities include forming neighborhood groups, calling and writing elected officials, signing or gathering petitions, attending and speaking out at local hearings, fundraising, and hiring lawyers and experts such as traffic engineers and environmental consultants."
Asked why they were opposing development, "protecting the environment" ranked highest, followed by the more direct impacts like property value and increased traffic.
Lots of interesting results over at The Saint Index.
http://saintindex.info/
The 2011 Saint Index delivers wide-ranging insights into what is happening in the politics of land use. Why do some kinds of development projects attract fierce opposition? Are Americans telling the truth about wind energy? The sixth annual Saint Index identifies important trends in American attitudes about real estate development projects. For the first time, we’ve also examined the Tea Party movement and its implications for real estate development projects. The 2011 Saint Index results contains news and useful information for developers, planners, elected officials, decision makers and citizens who support or oppose real estate development projects.
Click the links in the headlines below to go directly to that section of the Saint Index Executive Summary, or click here to start at the first section.
HEADLINES:
Despite the economy, NIMBY attitudes increased.
The most unwanted local projects
Nearly one in five Americans or a family member actively opposed a project.
Energy development will be contentious, even for wind projects.
Natural gas drilling faces emerging opposition and activism.
Americans have a harsh but helpful message for Aggregate Quarries.
The hardest land use to get approved could be a “Linear Land Use.â€
Attitudes about Walmart and other Big Boxes are changing.
Local government does “fair to poor†on growth decisions.
Tea Party members will be active on land uses.
I don't get it.
Developers are NOT altruistic individuals. They are bottom line corporations and stockholders who will never put profit on the table to carve into portions for the end consumer.
Mobility fees, as well as all the other costs associated with bringing out a product, will be calculated into the selling price of each and every parcel up for sale after development and if the numbers don't crunch in favor of the developer, the project will not go forward. Raw speculation is gone and everyone from the angel to the conventional bank owns a sharp pencil. It will make no difference whether there is or is not a mobility fee. If there are no end users there is no development.
However, the current head in the sand thinking is that development will happen if the up front bill is perceived to be low enough by the developer so that, without putting a dent in the developers profit, he can unload on the end user a property that will overload the current tax base and also come as a nasty surprise to the consumer who thought he was getting such a great deal. Sorry folks, we had to hoodwink you by placing a false moratorium on a fee to get you into this development but now that you are here and captive, bend over.
Quote from: dougskiles on October 20, 2011, 04:39:46 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 20, 2011, 03:44:52 PM
not that I'm in favor of the moratorium...but...aren't taxpayers the folks who use the infrastructure?
I will take the bait..
We are the ones who use it, and the ones making the investment. We should also be profiting from the investment (in terms of a higher QOL and sustainable ecomony). As it stands now, a large number of people each make a small investment - so that a small number of people can reap a great reward.
ok I will buy that....+100
now, that said, anyone who believes developers ever pay for the costs out of their own pockets are deluding themselves...even when they are required to stroke the check or build infrastructure, they do things like
1. Increase the sale price for land
2. Increase price of homes or commercial space
3. Set up Community Development Districts (CDD) that tax the area owners
In the end, the collective "we" pay for it anyway....in the form of higher rents, higher food prices, etc.
The big issue for me has always been the amount of cost for development in the suburbs/exurbs vs. in urban core areas that already have much of the needed infrastructure.
btw...if anyone would like to know more about how concurrency has been and may be implemented in Florida, here's a short draft report from FDOT
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/propshare/
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 21, 2011, 08:01:54 AM
now, that said, anyone who believes developers ever pay for the costs out of their own pockets are deluding themselves...even when they are required to stroke the check or build infrastructure, they do things like
1. Increase the sale price for land
2. Increase price of homes or commercial space
3. Set up Community Development Districts (CDD) that tax the area owners
4. Borrow the money required and then turn it back over to the bank when the deal fails.Guess who is paying those bills now?
So, while I agree with 'bill' that typically those who take the greatest risk get the greatest reward, our system is set up to bail people out far too easily for that to be true across the board.
I have spoken with many developers over the past year, and when asking them how did things turn out with "_____" project, the response is often, "Oh I turned that back over to the bank".
The great irony is that now those same people are complaining that the banks won't lend them any money for new projects.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 21, 2011, 08:01:54 AM
In the end, the collective "we" pay for it anyway....in the form of higher rents, higher food prices, etc.
There is a huge caveat you're downplaying in the development world and that's the market. For the most part, the product you put out is only going to sell for what the market will bear. Setting aside a certain percentage in soft costs for impact fees, concurrency, mobility fees or whatever anyone wants to call them are typically already in the proforma when determining the feasibility of a project. You, as the consumer are going to get charged based on the price the market sets. So in reality, something as minute as a mobility fee amounts to nothing more than additional take home revenue in the investor's pockets. So in this case, you the taxpayer, will pay the price the market sets, regardless of if there is a mobility fee or not.
Quote"Oh I turned that back over to the bank".
The great irony is that now those same people are complaining that the banks won't lend them any money for new projects.
That's the truth and then some.
There is money available for high quality deals. Not so much for shaky deals. The weak deals still aren't going to get financed and subsequently not built... and meanwhile this 'moratorium' represents an enourmous tax hike to everyone else.
It would be like the government cancelling the stamps tax on liquor sales and passing a universal sales tax increase to everyone so that underage individuals and people that don't drink now have to make up that tax revenue. It's simply not a fair taxation scheme.
Do you realize that road projects in your own neighborhoods(ESPECIALLY the Southside) will now suffer funding shorftalls b/c of this moratorium? Guess who gets to make up those shortfalls? The entire taxbase of the city. Instead of localized money going to localized projects(aka fair taxation), now the ad valorum tax revenue (which is not even close to half of the city's tax revenue) will have to bridge that gap. That's the same ad valorum tax revenue that already isn't enough to fund police/fire/libraries/schools/etc.
I can go on and on about why this is not good fiscal policy, why it
won't spur new development, how its just history repeating itself or why we owe it to the taxpayers to follow a sustainable economic development model... but I gotta go back to work so I can earn enough money to pay for a fire station to be built in Oceanway.
From my understanding the ad valorum tax is about 1/3 of the city's revenue. Police and Fire alone are over 50% of the city's budget. So the ad valorum tax revenue can't even fund public safety alone.
Quote from: Dashing Dan on October 20, 2011, 07:22:22 PM
Quote from: urbaknight on October 20, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
I hear that the 2030 Mobility Plan won a national award.
I think we should contact the group that gave it out, and tell them that council was just making a cruel joke to the people of JAX; And furthermore they should be publicly stripped of the award and forced to apologize to everyone affected.
The mobility plan and fee won an award from the APA FL chapter last month, and I believe that it has been nominated for an award by the national APA, which would be given next April.
In my opinion -
Even with the moratorium the mobility plan and fee still might win that national award. If the moratorium is just for one year, then the award would be deserved. But if the city never enacts the mobility fee, then the national award should probably go someplace else.
We all know deep down, based on history, the moratorium is here to stay, unless we can manage to elect a better council.
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/400669/jeff-brumley/2011-10-26/fdot-announces-resurfacing-about-3-miles-southside
$4,000,000 for improvements 2.8 miles of generic road on southside boulevard. How far would $4 million go towards streetcar which actually generates new development and investors and riders?
Quote from: John P on October 26, 2011, 05:46:49 PM
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/400669/jeff-brumley/2011-10-26/fdot-announces-resurfacing-about-3-miles-southside
$4,000,000 for improvements 2.8 miles of generic road on southside boulevard. How far would $4 million go towards streetcar which actually generates new development and investors and riders?
I stay on Baymeadows rd and I have no clue what they are doing to SS blvd? There is nothing wrong with it. That is a pure waste of money!!
Quote from: duvaldude08 on October 26, 2011, 05:51:47 PM
Quote from: John P on October 26, 2011, 05:46:49 PM
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/400669/jeff-brumley/2011-10-26/fdot-announces-resurfacing-about-3-miles-southside
$4,000,000 for improvements 2.8 miles of generic road on southside boulevard. How far would $4 million go towards streetcar which actually generates new development and investors and riders?
I stay on Baymeadows rd and I have no clue what they are doing to SS blvd? There is nothing wrong with it. That is a pure waste of money!!
That road is in really bad shape in that section! I have hoped they would fix this road for forever. I'm pretty happy about it and can't wait to see it re-done.
Quote from: John P on October 26, 2011, 05:46:49 PM
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/400669/jeff-brumley/2011-10-26/fdot-announces-resurfacing-about-3-miles-southside
$4,000,000 for improvements 2.8 miles of generic road on southside boulevard. How far would $4 million go towards streetcar which actually generates new development and investors and riders?
It wouldn't do much. I've seen Lake (thelakelander) give many examples of streetcar lines and I've never seen any cheaper than 10 million and mile.
Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2011, 06:11:13 PM
on behalf of all the rest of us who will never use that bit of road, you are welcome, imarvin.
Well sorry, but the whole city pays for things like this. We've all paid for roads we don't use. And I don't even use this road that much (about once a month).
Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2011, 06:17:06 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on October 26, 2011, 06:14:08 PM
Quote from: John P on October 26, 2011, 05:46:49 PM
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/400669/jeff-brumley/2011-10-26/fdot-announces-resurfacing-about-3-miles-southside
$4,000,000 for improvements 2.8 miles of generic road on southside boulevard. How far would $4 million go towards streetcar which actually generates new development and investors and riders?
It wouldn't do much. I've seen Lake (thelakelander) give many examples of streetcar lines and I've never seen any cheaper than 10 million and mile.
Except that you don't have to replace the trolley line every 4 years.
No one has to say:
"that trolley is in really bad shape in that section! I have hoped they would fix this line for forever"
So it actually goes much further than the temporary bandage on the asphalt road.
I agree but a streetcar isn't going to be in that area anytime soon and the improvements were needed.
Quote from: iMarvin on October 26, 2011, 06:14:08 PM
Quote from: John P on October 26, 2011, 05:46:49 PM
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/400669/jeff-brumley/2011-10-26/fdot-announces-resurfacing-about-3-miles-southside
$4,000,000 for improvements 2.8 miles of generic road on southside boulevard. How far would $4 million go towards streetcar which actually generates new development and investors and riders?
It wouldn't do much. I've seen Lake (thelakelander) give many examples of streetcar lines and I've never seen any cheaper than 10 million and mile.
Here are a few that were cheaper than $10 million/mile:
Kenosha Streetcar - $2.6 million/mile(http://www.ibj.com/ext/resources/IBJ-Print/00-2011/082911/streetcars-pittsburgh.jpg)
MATA Trolley (Memphis) - (phase 1 - $7 million/mile, phase 2 - $4.7 million/mile, phase 3 - $12 million/mile (built to LRT standards)(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-1955-121914296_ea0199eb90_b.jpg)
Little Rock River Rail - $8.3 million/mile(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/454391812_Uq2S9-M.jpg)
Source: http://visioncincinnati.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/streetcar-data-in-other-cities1.pdfIf you're willing to go heritage and "no-frills" without all the impressive bells and whistles the price per mile drop can get pretty significant.
^So realisitcally how much do you think we could do with 4 million? I don't see us being able to build anymore than 1.5 miles with that much.
Quote from: iMarvin on October 26, 2011, 06:32:20 PM
Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2011, 06:11:13 PM
on behalf of all the rest of us who will never use that bit of road, you are welcome, imarvin.
Well sorry, but the whole city pays for things like this. We've all paid for roads we don't use. And I don't even use this road that much (about once a month).
I drive on that stretch about once or twice a week. It's about time to resurface it. I have no problem with maintaining and improving existing infrastructure. There's just a huge ongoing cost associated with it, which is why I'm against building new highways for the sake of opening someone's property up for development at the public's long term expense.
I noticed they also mentioned sidewalks. As wide as that highway is, there are only sidewalks on the east side of it. So I hope they're creating new sidewalks on the west side.
Quote from: iMarvin on October 26, 2011, 06:49:57 PM
^So realisitcally how much do you think we could do with 4 million? I don't see us being able to build anymore than 1.5 miles with that much.
Depends on the corridor and the conditions you can play with. If you can find existing track to utilize, you've saved a ton of money. If you're willing to buy another city's used cars, you can stack some cash. If you're willing to have stops instead of stations, you can keep a little money in your pockets.
Starting from scratch, I'd be hesitant to say something significant in Jax would come in around $4 million/mile. However, if tracks were reinstalled on the old F&J ROW (city owned between Springfield and the Eastside) or portions of the S-Line, you could probably get it done in that range. This would be because the city owns most of the old rail ROW and make the assumption that the line would be no-frills. Unfortunately, ridership would suffer because you aren't hitting many compact centers of activity.
Thus, realistically speaking, I like to play with the $10 million/mile figure. That gives you some wiggle room. At that number, $4 million would get you about 8 blocks. Using Newnan Street as an example, that stretch is Bay to Union.
Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2011, 06:50:21 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on October 26, 2011, 06:37:45 PM
Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2011, 06:17:06 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on October 26, 2011, 06:14:08 PM
Quote from: John P on October 26, 2011, 05:46:49 PM
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/400669/jeff-brumley/2011-10-26/fdot-announces-resurfacing-about-3-miles-southside
$4,000,000 for improvements 2.8 miles of generic road on southside boulevard. How far would $4 million go towards streetcar which actually generates new development and investors and riders?
It wouldn't do much. I've seen Lake (thelakelander) give many examples of streetcar lines and I've never seen any cheaper than 10 million and mile.
Except that you don't have to replace the trolley line every 4 years.
No one has to say:
"that trolley is in really bad shape in that section! I have hoped they would fix this line for forever"
So it actually goes much further than the temporary bandage on the asphalt road.
I agree but a streetcar isn't going to be in that area anytime soon and the improvements were needed.
We also need the streetcar in the area that I live in. So I guess its all about how we pick our priorities. Your road won.
I don't live in that area. There are things that need to be done right in the area that I live in.
Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2011, 06:51:43 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on October 26, 2011, 06:32:20 PM
Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2011, 06:11:13 PM
on behalf of all the rest of us who will never use that bit of road, you are welcome, imarvin.
Well sorry, but the whole city pays for things like this. We've all paid for roads we don't use. And I don't even use this road that much (about once a month).
yes. I think that was the point i was making.
Ok well good then.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 26, 2011, 06:55:47 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on October 26, 2011, 06:32:20 PM
Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2011, 06:11:13 PM
on behalf of all the rest of us who will never use that bit of road, you are welcome, imarvin.
Well sorry, but the whole city pays for things like this. We've all paid for roads we don't use. And I don't even use this road that much (about once a month).
I drive on that stretch about once or twice a week. It's about time to resurface it. I have no problem with maintaining and improving existing infrastructure. There's just a huge ongoing cost associated with it, which is why I'm against building new highways for the sake of opening someone's property up for development at the public's long term expense.
I noticed they also mentioned sidewalks. As wide as that highway is, there are only sidewalks on the east side of it. So I hope they're creating new sidewalks on the west side.
I don't like new roads either. I have thought this road needed to be re-surfaced for at least a year (probably more). That's why I'm happy about it. Plus, this is going to make the whole road better, not just the asphalt.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 26, 2011, 07:00:35 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on October 26, 2011, 06:49:57 PM
^So realisitcally how much do you think we could do with 4 million? I don't see us being able to build anymore than 1.5 miles with that much.
Depends on the corridor and the conditions you can play with. If you can find existing track to utilize, you've saved a ton of money. If you're willing to buy another city's used cars, you can stack some cash. If you're willing to have stops instead of stations, you can keep a little money in your pockets.
Starting from scratch, I'd be hesitant to say something significant in Jax would come in around $4 million/mile. However, if tracks were reinstalled on the old F&J ROW (city owned between Springfield and the Eastside) or portions of the S-Line, you could probably get it done in that range. This would be because the city owns most of the old rail ROW and make the assumption that the line would be no-frills. Unfortunately, ridership would suffer because you aren't hitting many compact centers of activity.
This is what I thought. I can't see where 4 million would do anything for a starter line. I see this as a much better use of the money.
$4 million would go a long way to helping cyclist and pedestrians being able to cross FDOT's wide arterial highways. With that amount of cash, you could get a couple of pedestrian overpasses built over the Arlington Expressway to keep local residents from playing frogger with that roadway. They could also build a nice multiuse path paralleling Southside, that would be well used by the thousands of residents adjacent to this road. Nevertheless, this is probably from FDOT's maintenance pot and that's pretty much what this particular project is.
Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2011, 07:18:18 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on October 26, 2011, 07:17:05 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on October 26, 2011, 07:00:35 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on October 26, 2011, 06:49:57 PM
^So realisitcally how much do you think we could do with 4 million? I don't see us being able to build anymore than 1.5 miles with that much.
Depends on the corridor and the conditions you can play with. If you can find existing track to utilize, you've saved a ton of money. If you're willing to buy another city's used cars, you can stack some cash. If you're willing to have stops instead of stations, you can keep a little money in your pockets.
Starting from scratch, I'd be hesitant to say something significant in Jax would come in around $4 million/mile. However, if tracks were reinstalled on the old F&J ROW (city owned between Springfield and the Eastside) or portions of the S-Line, you could probably get it done in that range. This would be because the city owns most of the old rail ROW and make the assumption that the line would be no-frills. Unfortunately, ridership would suffer because you aren't hitting many compact centers of activity.
This is what I thought. I can't see where 4 million would do anything for a starter line. I see this as a much better use of the money.
second only to burning it
If you drive down this road, you would see that the road is in bad shape. The road needs to be resurfaced.
Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2011, 07:19:41 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on October 26, 2011, 07:04:02 PM
Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2011, 06:50:21 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on October 26, 2011, 06:37:45 PM
Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2011, 06:17:06 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on October 26, 2011, 06:14:08 PM
Quote from: John P on October 26, 2011, 05:46:49 PM
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/400669/jeff-brumley/2011-10-26/fdot-announces-resurfacing-about-3-miles-southside
$4,000,000 for improvements 2.8 miles of generic road on southside boulevard. How far would $4 million go towards streetcar which actually generates new development and investors and riders?
It wouldn't do much. I've seen Lake (thelakelander) give many examples of streetcar lines and I've never seen any cheaper than 10 million and mile.
Except that you don't have to replace the trolley line every 4 years.
No one has to say:
"that trolley is in really bad shape in that section! I have hoped they would fix this line for forever"
So it actually goes much further than the temporary bandage on the asphalt road.
I agree but a streetcar isn't going to be in that area anytime soon and the improvements were needed.
We also need the streetcar in the area that I live in. So I guess its all about how we pick our priorities. Your road won.
I don't live in that area. There are things that need to be done right in the area that I live in.
I don't live on the Southside. There are things that need to be done right in the area that I live in.
What???
Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2011, 07:37:17 PM
If you walked through the urban core, you would see that the 60 year old infrastructure is in bad shape. The street car lines need to be restored.
I agree with you but this amount of money would do very little for a streetcar line.
Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2011, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on October 26, 2011, 07:40:47 PM
Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2011, 07:37:17 PM
If you walked through the urban core, you would see that the 60 year old infrastructure is in bad shape. The street car lines need to be restored.
I agree with you but this amount of money would do very little for a streetcar line.
how much, legitimately is it doing for southside boulevard as a whole?
As a whole, I don't think it would do much. But for the stretch between Atlantic and Touchton, I can see this making the street more pedestrian friendly and easier to drive. For development, I don't think it will do anything because the area is pretty much built out.
Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2011, 07:41:14 PM
what do you mean, what?
I don't understand why you copied my statement. My point was that things need to be done all over town. This city is too big landwise for every area of town to get projects completed right when they need to be completed. I don't see the point in complaining about this because a) this needs to happen and b) these things happen all over town.
4 million would be very meaningful. The budget for the first Riverside (King Street) to Downtown line is 50 million so almost 10%. I think Phase on is closer to 20 million so 25%. I do not think these projects should be compared head to head. The road we made our bed lets just cut back on making more. The streetcar we have not yet taken advantage of but we need to start.
I don't have problem with FDOT maintaining infrastructure, but this should serve as a powerful example of how expensive these big roads are to maintain and why it is not fiscally responsible to propose building more of them.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 26, 2011, 06:55:47 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on October 26, 2011, 06:32:20 PM
Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2011, 06:11:13 PM
on behalf of all the rest of us who will never use that bit of road, you are welcome, imarvin.
Well sorry, but the whole city pays for things like this. We've all paid for roads we don't use. And I don't even use this road that much (about once a month).
I drive on that stretch about once or twice a week. It's about time to resurface it. I have no problem with maintaining and improving existing infrastructure. There's just a huge ongoing cost associated with it, which is why I'm against building new highways for the sake of opening someone's property up for development at the public's long term expense.
I noticed they also mentioned sidewalks. As wide as that highway is, there are only sidewalks on the east side of it. So I hope they're creating new sidewalks on the west side.
exactly Lake...the saddest thing is that FDOT came through and resurfaced Southside down near Philips a few years ago....they regraded areas for better stormwater and all...but didn't bother to add sidewalks...or crosswalks and ped signals near the mall for that matter...I see folks crossing from the office park to the mall every day and hope that nobody gets hit!
Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2011, 12:37:23 AM
Quote from: iMarvin on October 26, 2011, 08:03:01 PM
Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2011, 07:41:14 PM
what do you mean, what?
I don't understand why you copied my statement. My point was that things need to be done all over town. This city is too big landwise for every area of town to get projects completed right when they need to be completed. I don't see the point in complaining about this because a) this needs to happen and b) these things happen all over town.
I don't really agree with your point, actually. These things do not happen all over town. They happen in the newer parts of town, which is an ever expanding circle that creeps outward over the decades. And anytime discussion is introduced which points this out, someone pipes in with how their brand new neighborhood needs the money.
As though their needs were the only ones that mattered, and that we should all just understand why their needs should be met first.
Well, I dont agree, personally.
We need to start spending responsibly, and I don't know why the historic core gets to go 60 years without any goddam maintenance, but everyone agrees that obviously something on southside cant experience the same lack of maintenance for a while.
ya know?
Yeah I know. I'm pretty much on the fence about this. I feel like all parts of town deserve to be maintained, but the suburbs cost more to maintain for obvious reasons. I think more money does get put into the newer areas of town, but the core has had a few projects lately also. Stockton, Jefferson, Laura, and Main Streets were all improved in the last 2 years. Either way, I do agree with you about us needing to start spending responsibly.
Quote from: urbaknight on October 25, 2011, 02:59:42 PM
Quote from: Dashing Dan on October 20, 2011, 07:22:22 PM
Quote from: urbaknight on October 20, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
I hear that the 2030 Mobility Plan won a national award.
I think we should contact the group that gave it out, and tell them that council was just making a cruel joke to the people of JAX; And furthermore they should be publicly stripped of the award and forced to apologize to everyone affected.
The mobility plan and fee won an award from the APA FL chapter last month, and I believe that it has been nominated for an award by the national APA, which would be given next April.
In my opinion -
Even with the moratorium the mobility plan and fee still might win that national award. If the moratorium is just for one year, then the award would be deserved. But if the city never enacts the mobility fee, then the national award should probably go someplace else.
We all know deep down, based on history, the moratorium is here to stay, unless we can manage to elect a better council.
Actually there is language in the moratorium legislation that lifts it automatically after twelve months. There is also a provision that puts a time limit on the completion of the projects depending on their size so that a builder could not put in for the fee waiver and then not build the project for a few years.
We can thank Ms. Boyer for refining this to keep it from being abused.
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 27, 2011, 02:09:38 PM
Quote from: urbaknight on October 25, 2011, 02:59:42 PM
Quote from: Dashing Dan on October 20, 2011, 07:22:22 PM
Quote from: urbaknight on October 20, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
I hear that the 2030 Mobility Plan won a national award.
I think we should contact the group that gave it out, and tell them that council was just making a cruel joke to the people of JAX; And furthermore they should be publicly stripped of the award and forced to apologize to everyone affected.
The mobility plan and fee won an award from the APA FL chapter last month, and I believe that it has been nominated for an award by the national APA, which would be given next April.
In my opinion -
Even with the moratorium the mobility plan and fee still might win that national award. If the moratorium is just for one year, then the award would be deserved. But if the city never enacts the mobility fee, then the national award should probably go someplace else.
We all know deep down, based on history, the moratorium is here to stay, unless we can manage to elect a better council.
Actually there is language in the moratorium legislation that lifts it automatically after twelve months. There is also a provision that puts a time limit on the completion of the projects depending on their size so that a builder could not put in for the fee waiver and then not build the project for a few years.
We can thank Ms. Boyer for refining this to keep it from being abused.
Well that's good news. I still don't like it, but I thought it would have been worse.
With 12 newly abandoned strip centers, it would be interesting to hear some opinions from the moratorium supporters on the council.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 12, 2012, 08:47:44 AM
More empty strip malls coming to a neighborhood near you:
QuoteAll Food Lion stores on the First Coast, including a dozen in Jacksonville, are closing, company officials announced Wednesday night. The stores will be closed within 30 days, the company said.
Approximately 900 Florida employees of the chain will be affected with about 450 of those coming from Jacksonville locations, according to Food Lion spokeswoman Christy Phillips-Brown.
Stores in Clay, St. Johns, Nassau, Baker and Alachua counties are also closing. In addition, the Food Lion in Waycross is among the Georgia stores slated to be closed.
The company will convert its Food Lion in Lake City to a Harveys store. All of the other stores in Florida are closing.
http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2012-01-11/story/food-lion-closing-all-first-coast-stores
QuoteWith 12 newly abandoned strip centers, it would be interesting to hear some opinions from the moratorium supporters on the council.
The Council (moratorium supporters, builders lobbyists' et.al.) don't care about abandoned strip centers. Their bread is buttered in new development. They would prefer to build new strip malls in greenfields. And they would prefer not to pay fees in order to do that.
Quote from: cline on January 12, 2012, 03:35:46 PM
QuoteWith 12 newly abandoned strip centers, it would be interesting to hear some opinions from the moratorium supporters on the council.
The Council (moratorium supporters, builders lobbyists' et.al.) don't care about abandoned strip centers. Their bread is buttered in new development. They would prefer to build new strip malls in greenfields.
Yes the moratorium is not about infill unless you mean fill in some wetlands.
Quote from: cline on January 12, 2012, 03:35:46 PM
QuoteWith 12 newly abandoned strip centers, it would be interesting to hear some opinions from the moratorium supporters on the council.
The Council (moratorium supporters, builders lobbyists' et.al.) don't care about abandoned strip centers. Their bread is buttered in new development. They would prefer to build new strip malls in greenfields. And they would prefer not to pay fees in order to do that.
Well, obviously. But it's nice to have it on record.