The Price of Sprawl: Are We Bankrupting Our Future?
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/985906189_qqQ4Y-M.jpg)
According to Tischler Report economic analysts, cost-of-services studies show Florida taxpayers pay $1.39-2.45 for every tax dollar paid by a new development. Costs at the higher end of this range are for development in rural areas. If new development already wasn't covering its costs directly or indirectly, what will be the ultimate economic impact of the recently approved mobility fee moratorium on Jacksonville? Do we even care to put forth the effort to find out where we truly stand economically?
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-nov-the-price-of-sprawl-are-we-bankrupting-our-future
Another great article and can see the same correlations on how our Waterways have been impacted to what use to be referred to as a working waterfront.
The timing of this article with the JTA gas tax article is impeccable.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-11-01/story/jta-cools-gas-tax-talk (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-11-01/story/jta-cools-gas-tax-talk)
What really strikes me is this quote from CM Warren Jones (council's JTA liasion):
QuoteJones said neither the city nor its motorists can afford to wait for such proposals to be debated.
He said JTA has the expertise to plan and conduct major road and bridge construction and should be enabled to proceed while the economy is keeping construction costs relatively low.
“It creates jobs and helps the economy,†Jones said.
He also dismissed the idea of JTA being simply a transit agency. It was created as a state organization in the 1950s to help keep Jacksonville’s transportation infrastructure, he said.
“JTA is better suited at building those roads â€" that is if we want to stay ahead of growth.â€
The belief that more roads relieve congestion is widespread in our community, despite evidence that more roads simply lead to more congested areas. Our work is cut out for us.
I agree with Mr. Jones assessment that we need to continue investing in our infrastructure and look forward to meeting with him to discuss the alternatives to road building as a way of improving our city.
^You beat me to it. I was just about to post something similar, regarding CM Jones' comments in the JTA gas tax article.
Consider the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs review/comments and objections lodged with Brannon Chaffee and Lake Asbury Sector Plan.
The monetary cost burden,other damaging elements of Sprawl were acknowledged within the Citizen's DCA,however sparingly,and the discipline has been recently largely excised from DCA.
MJ would do well,as a study,to post DCA Brannon Chaffee and Lake Asbury Comments & Objections.
Wow great article but I think you missed so of our local sprawl positives. Now due to the thoughtful actions of our city council and their Mobility Fee moratorium local GOB developers can have a larger model number on their Mercedes, Wendy's will finally be able to afford to sell burgers and the next new residential construction boom is immanent. Have to go I see a unicorn climbing a rainbow.
Quote from: north miami on November 01, 2011, 06:43:05 AM
and the discipline has been recently largely excised from DCA.
actually it was DCA that got excised
How did things end up this way? The future was suppose to bring a better lifestyle and better things to us. We had flight, cars, the internet, we even reached the moon! How is it the cities built way back when ended up being better than what we have now? How did the future of city planning end up worst then the past?
I think we were sold on child safety and that we could live like rich people live by purchasing McMansions. Dead end streets are seen as private drives. Certainly zoning and people not understanding the true costs of roads played into it. Developers understood they would reap more profit by clearing virgin land than with infill projects and ramped up the marketing machine to shape the desires of the consuming public.
In light of this article, I feel compelled to share a recent e-mail exchange with Councilman John Crescimbeni. I post this to show some of at least one member's thinking behind these recent steps, and though I disagree with the measures taken and the reasoning behind it, I do applaud Councilman Crescimbeni for being the only council member to provide something more than a one line, auto reply. I really appreciated his effort and respect his view, and the evidence he sited in support of his argument. It goes a long way to proving his worth as someone you can at least talk to and have an exchange with.
Having said that, I still think the moratorium was a big mistake that will be almost impossible to rectify by reinstating. It was all wrong thinking mired in an old, outdated and discredited philosophy regarding growth and economic viability.
My e-mail:
From: PWhitford
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 11:06 AM
To: Mayor Alvin Brown; Yarborough, Clay; Bishop, Bill; Clark, Richard; Redman, Don; Boyer, Lori; Schellenberg, Matthew; Gaffney, Johnny; Lee, Denise; Jones, Warren; Brown, Reggie; Holt, Ray; Carter, Doyle; Gulliford, William; Love, James; Daniels, Kimberly; Crescimbeni, John; Joost, Stephen; Anderson, Greg; Lumb, Robin
Subject: Ordinance 2011-617
Dear Mayor Brown and Council Members:
Please do not put a moratorium on the Mobility Fee. Vote against Ordinance 2011-617. Jacksonville taxpayers subsidizing 100% of private development's negative impacts on public infrastructure is not acceptable or productive. The Mobility Fee helps Jacksonville’s citizens maximize the benefits of needed development. A moratorium will not encourage development in a community where over 50% of residential properties are currently underwater and office vacancy rates are over 20%. To date, there is little to no evidence to support the proposition that such a moratorium significantly stimulates any private sector development and hence no evidence of the measure’s actual benefit to anyone other than a few developers. That is a non-argument. Please do not support the moratorium.
Thank you,
His reply:
from Crescimbeni, John JRC@coj.net
sender-time Sent at 4:19 PM (UTC). Current time there: 2:45 PM. ✆
to PWhitford
date Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 4:19 PM
subject RE: Ordinance 2011-617
mailed-by coj.net
Important mainly because of the words in the message.
hide details Oct 11
Mr. Whitford:
Thank you for your email about proposed ordinance 2011-617 which will be considered by the full City Council at tonight’s meeting.
Although I have previously been reluctant to waive the collection of fair share or (what is now known as the) mobility fee, I recognize the fact that we are in a significant recession and I am interested in spurring any type of activity that would create jobs. In addition, information provided by the Planning and Development Department (shown in the table below) clearly suggests that in recent years, the collection of fair share or (what is now known as the) mobility fee have fallen to almost non existent levels.
Fiscal Year Amount # Projects
2006-07 $7,142,171 56
2007-08 $9,162,613 56
2008-09 $2,740,333 18
2009-10 $826,564 5
Likewise, the economy seems to be taking a toll on traffic counts. The Florida Department of Transportation is reporting a marked decrease in vehicular traffic on local state roadways. I am attaching several links from various roads which clearly show declines in usage (traffic) after peak traffic counts were established in 2007-2008.
With that said, ordinance 2011-617 proposes to waive the mobility fee for twelve (12) months from the effective date of the ordinance â€" and further requires the completion of the construction project to occur within thirty six (36) months of the effective date. Because of current surplus inventory, I can’t imagine that any residential development (particularly single family) will result from the passage of this legislation. However, commercial construction could result, which would in turn lead to two things; new jobs (both short term construction and long term employees for the businesses occupying the newly constructed buildings and additional ad valorem tax revenue for both the city and Duval County Public Schools.
Again, while previously reluctant to waive the collection of fair share or (what is now known as the) mobility fee, based on recent fair share collections (or the lack thereof) and the promise of new jobs, I think a twelve (12) month experiment to create jobs is worth taking a chance on.
In closing, thank you again for your email.
John R. Crescimbeni
City Councilman, At-Large, Group 2
Quote from: JeffreyS on November 01, 2011, 10:18:22 AM
I think we were sold on child safety and that we could live like rich people live by purchasing McMansions. Dead end streets are seen as private drives. Certainly zoning and people not understanding the true costs of roads played into it. Developers understood they would reap more profit by clearing virgin land than with infill projects and ramped up the marketing machine to shape the desires of the consuming public.
We can all live on less ,and live in a less expensive "Mc Mansion" and do without a lot of things we think we must have. It is only my opinion that we are at the tip of the iceberg on the economic slump and we will find that we WILL live on less income, have less possessions , live simpler and most likely be happier and less stressed.
There really is something to be said for simpler times.
Urban Sprawl is contributing to our economic demise IMO.
Dead shopping malls rise like mountains beyond mountains...
Would I be correct in assuming that most people who moved to the outer-limits of the city did so to escape the 'hustle & bustle' of living in the city; they didn't realize that all of the urban issues that they were theoretically running from were expanding outward because of them.
well there's that...there are also those that went outside for better schools, more land, or for affordability (drive until you qualify).
The diverse three arms of Florida's economy: Tourism, Sprawl, and Wendys ::)
Quote from: tufsu1 on November 01, 2011, 03:07:47 PM
well there's that...there are also those that went outside for better schools, more land, or for affordability (drive until you qualify).
And the homebuilding/mortgage/real estate industry has been selling the american public that the american dream is to own a home. Our government has been in on the act, too.
For far too long, it has been the standard for success. Ironic that it is now the greatest source of stress for most americans.
Quote from: cityimrov on November 01, 2011, 09:50:08 AM
How did things end up this way? The future was suppose to bring a better lifestyle and better things to us. We had flight, cars, the internet, we even reached the moon! How is it the cities built way back when ended up being better than what we have now? How did the future of city planning end up worst then the past?
Because sprawling growth is easy. Smart planning actually takes effort.
My whole take on this is that there are many cities in our country (Jax included) that just doesn't get it, and it shows. If there's one thing this housing/economic crisis has shown us it's that the way we've been going about things is wrong. Growth itself isn't wrong, its the just the lazy type of easy sprawly growth is. Its unsustainable & actually makes our lives much more difficult/unfulfilling in the long run in a number of ways.
But now, cities such as ours are trying to prop up that old way because they're not capable of thinking outside the box & seeing things for what they really are, so they'll keep trying to force it. And in the process wreck any chances of pulling out of it, so it'll just get deeper & deeper until it ends by the force of it all (meaning the cities themselves can't sustain what they've done).
Its unfortunate, but I honestly don't have a good outlook on these types of "lazy growth" cities. They're pulling funds left & right for things that would actually help the situation (stuff that's long overdue) & instead are putting it towards the thing that caused the problem in the first place, one that which has no future anyway. They might as well be flushing the money down the toilet. But good luck trying to convince them.
Quote from: peestandingup on November 01, 2011, 05:13:37 PM
Quote from: cityimrov on November 01, 2011, 09:50:08 AM
How did things end up this way? The future was suppose to bring a better lifestyle and better things to us. We had flight, cars, the internet, we even reached the moon! How is it the cities built way back when ended up being better than what we have now? How did the future of city planning end up worst then the past?
Because sprawling growth is easy. Smart planning actually takes effort.
A very clear and to the point response. +1
I am not against suburban development if Impact fees and taxes on the homeowners the sprawl is 100% paid for plus a little to the general fund. In other words sustainable.
Very nicely done article.
So, I am sorry if I have to ask this question...but, why does a city like San Diego Grow so compact when a city like Jax grows so sparse. What is put in place to force San Diego (as an example) to grow so dense. I guess you can use LA as an example as well. If you look at Satellite images of Jacksonville/ The development patterns look so... how do you say... half ass!
Sorry, but forgot to add ?
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on November 01, 2011, 08:58:09 PM
So, I am sorry if I have to ask this question...but, why does a city like San Diego Grow so compact when a city like Jax grows so sparse. What is put in place to force San Diego (as an example) to grow so dense. I guess you can use LA as an example as well. If you look at Satellite images of Jacksonville/ The development patterns look so... how do you say... half ass!
California Coastal Commission has guided (LIMITED) growth "pressure".
See too examples further north- Marin County adjacent to San Francisco.Wine Country public lands complex.
California had it's willing hand out during the era of National Forest placement- simply one element of an entrenched 'something different' population.
What would San Francisco do with The Shipyards?
Quote from: north miami on November 01, 2011, 10:20:39 PM
What would San Francisco do with The Shipyards?
That is a great way to look at it. +1
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on November 01, 2011, 08:58:09 PM
So, I am sorry if I have to ask this question...but, why does a city like San Diego Grow so compact when a city like Jax grows so sparse.
San Diego has plenty of sprawling suburbs too...in fact I took the one light rail/streetcar line for at least 45 minutes east of downtown out to Santee (yes it is cool they stil have at least have rail transit ouit there).
Quote from: JeffreyS on November 02, 2011, 07:20:47 AM
Quote from: north miami on November 01, 2011, 10:20:39 PM
What would San Francisco do with The Shipyards?
That is a great way to look at it. +1
best guess....debate it for about 20 years....take a look at what they're doing with the Candlestick area as an example
San Diego's burbs are significantly more transit friendly along transit corridors. This is because they are one of the first cities in the country to implement transit oriented land use and zoning regulations to support their public transit investments. That alone, over the course of 30 years, is a significant factor in change in landscapes between that city and Jax, despite both having similar economic structures, demographics and locational assets.
San Diego also has a very strong regional authority called the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). This is a strong group of elected officials from several counties and cities in the region. With a staff of over 200 and deidcated funding, the have the resources to be the implementer of transit and foster TOD, throughout the region. They work from a regionally adopted plan called the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). This is what we must do here as well.
thanks that clears it up a bit. When I was out there it seems like every space was developed- although I was in LA. We seem to semi develop areas and then move on further out without thinking at all about land use. I mean I guess this is what the conversation is always about, but how do we force developers to build more responsible. We seem to be so lax on land use in Florida in general. Our mindset seems to be 'let them build how ever they want or they won't build' - although we know from looking at other cities this is not true.
Aside from their superior land regulation and zoning, land prices out there are so expensive such that a certain level of density combined with higher rents and home prices must be achieved for developers to make a high enough return for their investors and lenders.
In Jacksonville, everything is so cheap that "half-assed" developments are all that is required to make the required returns. Perhaps we should completely shut the land spigot and see what happens for a year. If nobody wants to come in, maybe we'll have to follow Atlanta's route and build out far enough as to be unsustainable before we can build up.
Quote from: simms3 on November 02, 2011, 02:21:00 PM
Aside from their superior land regulation and zoning, land prices out there are so expensive such that a certain level of density combined with higher rents and home prices must be achieved for developers to make a high enough return for their investors and lenders.
In Jacksonville, everything is so cheap that "half-assed" developments are all that is required to make the required returns. Perhaps we should completely shut the land spigot and see what happens for a year. If nobody wants to come in, maybe we'll have to follow Atlanta's route and build out far enough as to be unsustainable before we can build up.
Building out before we build in is the Florida Way.
Im surprised we aren't trying to add on to the size of the Peninsula just to create more sprawl . :)
This sprawl is just developers who have no real attachment to place and people doing whatever thier minds can come up with..paying off the city officials for permits allowing them to do whatever they will. Money makes our world go around and permits are aplenty. Stop the effing permits that are given away like candy. Personally i'd like for every single permit to be voted on by the citizens...the developers have screwed us for years..should we have more control than we do now?
When will we learn. Sprawl is harmful. Period.
QuoteIn Jacksonville, everything is so cheap that "half-assed" developments are all that is required to make the required returns. Perhaps we should completely shut the land spigot and see what happens for a year.
Hmmm, that should do wonders for our local economy and the multiplier of jobs that pertain to housing. Why not just shoot ourselves instead?
Our housing market is saturated. There may be some construction jobs but they come at the expense of every home owner in the area. Trying to stimulate the construction industry is just a little better than stimulating the lamp oil industry. There is no demand right now. We need to be in QOL mode not growth mode to stimulate property values here.
QuoteOur housing market is saturated.
How do you know? In most areas of the country, the housing industry is coming back. Old homes, new homes, new housing is the generator of new jobs and it has been missing in this recovery. Until housing comes back, the economy will bump along at 1-2 percent growth, which is about what we are now.
Housing inventories are down compared to last year and they continue to get better. People are beginning to look for new houses, and there are more and different types of loans available for buyers. Go check out a bank and see that they now even have investor loans available, something that was taboo a few years ago. Back in 2005, the average housing starts for a year are 1.4 million, in 2007, the best year of the decade, they were at 2 million, then in 2009, they fell to 500,000. We have risen off the low of 500k, but we have a ways to go, and the economy is improving, but wages and jobs are not.
I will admit what I am getting is street level feedback. My mother works for a new home builder. They are having to give a way many extras to keep people off of existing homes because there are so many to be had for a song. I know the situation has improved but we over built and it has and continues to show in declining existing home values.
Assuming that there really is a need for new residential units in our community (of which I am not convinced), why are we continuing to promote the least efficient way of doing that? Not to mention promoting a lifestyle that is proven to cause health problems. By promoting densification of our existing developed areas, we improve walkability (which has a direct link to improved health) and make better use of the infrastructure investment we already have.
Quote from: dougskiles on December 08, 2011, 07:58:07 PM
Assuming that there really is a need for new residential units in our community (of which I am not convinced), why are we continuing to promote the least efficient way of doing that? Not to mention promoting a lifestyle that is proven to cause health problems. By promoting densification of our existing developed areas, we improve walkability (which has a direct link to improved health) and make better use of the infrastructure investment we already have.
Because there is not an intelligent decision-making process in place, or a framework to articulate the consequences and outcomes associated with our course of action.
There is no shortage of data, or case-studies to draw upon.