I've already heard "this is going to be a long night" from several people. Jax's media elites are walking around. Well, i see Littlepage and that other guy (we've met at least half a dozen times). I'm going to nod my head at him...done.
The agenda is no more than two pages.
The good news: I'm able to access facebook because I was logged in before hooking up to the city's wifi. Remember that key fact. This means I'l have something to during the "anything goes/chat roulette" public comments. I've heard the surprisingly repetitive yet completely indecipherable social commentary from the same people one too many times.
You can watch the meeting live on the link. You'll need flip4mac if you are on an apple device.
http://media.coj.net/COJCouncil (http://media.coj.net/COJCouncil)
there are several big things on tonight's agenda....mobility fee, $9 million for downtown reinvestment, and further action on HRC
Those for the Moratorium have stickers. "Vote Yes on 94." Someone asked "what's 94?" The sticker wearer "...it's essentially a jobs program." However, he was starting to say something like "It gives builders enough time to...It's essentially a jobs program.
If you want to see the legislation it's on the link below:
http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJBillList.asp?Bill=2013-0094
Daniel Davis is speaking in favor of the moratorium. He drove over from Tallahassee. Said there's a lot of noise distracting people from the real issues like traffic counts, bicycle lanes, jobs.....
But don't get distracted by that stuff. Bottom line, they finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. The moratorium is about jobs, plain and simple.
Personally, I agree with him. The moratorium bill should be about jobs. I just don't agree with a strategy that subsidizes job growth we already have. If anything, if someone is struggling perhaps it should be on a case by case basis to evaluate their project at best. I didn't agree with his position on Cecil Field years ago either. Today, we're still waiting on all those jobs that were promised. Quite frankly, 7-11, Wendy's, Waffle House, and Family Dollar shouldn't be getting taxpayer money for market rate feasible projects they're going to build regardless.
Public hearings are open on Mobility Plan. Daniel Davis, former Council Member and head of NE Florida Builders association.
He is saying:
- tough times
- you will hear a lot of noise
- don't get distracted
- bottom line: "i got a call. This person said to him " we are finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. Don't let us lose that light."
- This is all about jobs.
- when i hear nails that means someone is putting food on their table.
- when you don't have a job the prettiest park in the world don't mean anything.
- this will expand the economy in the city of jacksonville
Bishop thanked Davis for everything he does for us in Tallahassee.
Lumb is talking about bill 75. One the link.
http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJBillList.asp?Bill=2013-0075
This is about:
"This bill confirms the Mayor’s reappointment of Parvez Ahmed, as a member of the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission, for a second term ending December 31, 2015."
Lumb is upset with Ahmed about an email Ahmed sent that said something like "Lumb's concerns are probably fed by an anti-muslim group." Lumb is responding saying something like, "Ahmed has written that he is open to anti-blasphemy laws as a part of hate speech/laws regulation. That's against free speech."
So they just voted to approve #75 which keeps Ahmed on the commission.
LOL! Crescimbeni!
Public Comments are about to begin.
First Speaker: Ahmed has a connection to a terrorist. She used the connection of a Muslim in the Army and the Fort Hood Shooting. Essentially, she said, all muslims are gonna kill you it's not if but when.
2nd Speaker: Also about Ahmed, "muslims are everywhere." Does he know that the 2nd largest shareholder in news corp (fox news) is a saudi prince, Alwaleed bin Talal Alsaud ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/8841452/Top-ten-News-Corp-voting-shareholders.html).
Crescimbeni is attacking this guy, wow! He mentioned that the speaker "stole" 625k dollars. And, Crescimbeni, said "I was wondering if you were intentionally mispronouncing his name.
Bishop, slams gavel, when he said to Crescimbeni "we are not going there" and the audience cheered for Bishop. He yells "This will not be a free for all" to the audience.
Flash back to my child hood..."I'm sorry dad!"
Redman, earlier asked, can those opposed to Ahmed please stand. Six women stood and a couple of men.
Someone else is speaking but I had to zone him out in order to breath.
Kim Daniels is talking, she voted for Ahmed, and she's offended by the previous speaker insulting the council. This speaker said that the vote for Ahmed was "treasonous."
The council is up in arms about essentially being called inept.
Who's this McDaniel guy? What $625k did he steal? Now Councilwoman Lee is laying in on him.
Just when you think it can't get weirder.
I can't get over Crescimbeni. He went for the jugular.
This speaker, is monotone, so...you know...facebook calls...but it's about Ahmed.
I'm surprised they voted before hearing the public comments.
Lots of pro moratorium stickers in the city council meeting tonight. Opponents of the moratorium, if you came to the last council meeting and thought you didn't need to come tonight, turns out you do after all. If you are not here already, and can make it, please come ASAP. If you don't want to speak, fill out a speaker card, mark opposed to 2013-94, and just write you don't want to speak.
Kim is speaking to the new speaker, Beth.
Kim, still unintelligible: uh, do you believe in doubt that's reasonable...reasonable doubt? Do you believe in that?
Speaker: yes, no, we have it...? no, we don't? What?
Kim: Do you believe a person is innocent until proven guilty?
Speaker: XYZ court case proves Ahmed's guilty.
Kim: That case was overturned (i summarize. Kim's version was about ten minutes long).
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on February 26, 2013, 06:10:14 PM
Lots of pro moratorium stickers in the city council meeting tonight. Opponents of the moratorium, if you came to the last council meeting and thought you didn't need to come tonight, turns out you do after all. If you are not here already, and can make it, please come ASAP. If you don't want to speak, fill out a speaker card, mark opposed to 2013-94, and just write you don't want to speak.
Ugh. There in spirit from Alabama...
Please I hope they let the intelligent people speak too!
I'm in the Southside with my kids. I was coming but a family situation came up as I was walking out the door. I'm still trying to come but if I make it, I'll be late.
I'm stuck at work too. What was the breakdown of the Ahmed vote?
I don't have the break down.
Dammit. That's three of the intelligent people MIA
Unfortunately, I'm not being paid to be there and no one above me is forcing me to show up in a sticker. Thus, every now and then, I have to tend to Mr. Dad type responsibilities. For what its worth, I'll be at the DIA's mobility fee meeting on Friday.
Well said Ennis...sadly I'm also not there, as somebody (no conspiracy) paid me to be out of town
According to jax.com, the breakdown on Parvez Ahmed was:
For: Greg Anderson, Bill Bishop, Lori Boyer, Reginald Brown, Richard Clark, John Crescimbeni, Kimberly Daniels, Johnny Gaffney, Bill Gulliford, Warren Jones, Stephen Joost, Denise Lee and Jim Love
Against: Doyle Carter, Ray Holt, Robin Lumb, Don Redman, Matt Schellenberg and Clay Yarborough
Make note of this.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-02-26/story/parvez-ahmed-reappointment-jacksonvilles-human-rights-commission#ixzz2M3DteRNC
The New Black Panthers just gave a very rousing speech.
Should probably clarify that it wasn't about the mobility fee.
Holt, Redman and Yarborough will all be termed out. Voters should remember their voting records if they should run for another political office. Holt and Yarborough undoubtedly will. Carter, Lumb and Schellenberg will still be able to run for re-election to their current seats on council. The citizens of Jacksonville need to start thinking now about whether they want to see these people continue on council and be ready to find and support another candidate otherwise history shows us, they will walk right in to another term.
I missed it. What was this young lady's event about that was planned for the library?
Lee was trying to get to the bottom of it and Bishop wants to see the flyer. Ah, it's about a Black History event.
Looks like she will get satisfaction. It sounds like she got some "attitude" from the library director.
She wanted to hold a black history event at a public library and she was told that the library does not hold these types of events.
Dr. Wayne Wood is up to the podium. He commends the council for their decision Ahmed. He cringes at the commentary from other residents about Ahmed. He's dismayed at the lack of civility and the easily believed bumper sticker statements from people in our community.
He continues that Jacksonville is trying to be a first tier city and the council's voice is the first one heard.
I was only able to stay until 6:30, so missed the public comment. Although I don't think any on the council are confused as to my position on the issue. I do plan on going to TEUS committee next week, which is where I am told the real action will happen.
I had some interesting conversations with some of the sticker wearing crowd before the meeting. The first was with the girl handing them out. I asked her what bill 94 was about. She said she didn't know, she was just told to come hand them out. She works for the NE Florida Builders Association.
The second was with a guy near the back of the room. He was trying to build a small restaurant somewhere way out in the "middle of nowhere" and received a fee calculation of $100k. He said it wasn't fair that the new businesses have to shoulder the burden of this cost. It should be spread out to everyone. I said "like a general tax increase?" He said "yes". Then he said, "well no - we shouldn't raise taxes". I said "then how are we going to pay for it? He said "I don't know".
Exactly. Nobody has the answer to that question who supports this bill.
Right you are Doug, check this out.
Imagine the moratorium passes for 3 more years, and imagine during that amount of time we get no more or no less waivers of the mobility fee then the total amount of waivers during the first year 'trial moratorium.' This is how it cooks down:
Value of waivers issued for the past one-year moratorium - $27,000,000 one year.
Total value of waivers to be issued for 3 more years (assuming no changes +/- in our rate of growth) - $27,000,000 x 3 years =
$81,000,000 million dollars.
Add all four moratorium years together and you get - $108,000,000 million dollars.
Take $108,000,000 and divide by the current city population - 822,000
ANSWER - $131.38. This represents an infrastructure tax to every man, woman and child in the city of $131.38, or $2,102.08 for a family of 4, for four years, which means we get a four year tax increase of $525.52 per year for our average family just to provide needed infrastructure.
Quote from: dougskiles on February 26, 2013, 07:18:47 PM
I was only able to stay until 6:30, so missed the public comment. Although I don't think any on the council are confused as to my position on the issue. I do plan on going to TEUS committee next week, which is where I am told the real action will happen.
I'll have to put this meeting on my schedule.
Quote from: dougskiles on February 26, 2013, 07:18:47 PM
He said it wasn't fair that the new businesses have to shoulder the burden of this cost. It should be spread out to everyone.
They say the same thing in Cuba, it's worked out well from what I've been told.
^Well, after all these years, Eisenhower and JFK are long gone and Castro is still living large. It worked out quite well for him.
Girvin will get worse. Too bad there's no money for any of that stuff. As Dan Davis has already stated, that's all noise.
Wait a minute. I've been checking the live feed every once in a while. Are these people complaining about new construction jobs destined for Girvin Road? What is this noise, they speak of?
Yes Castro and his buddies have been living large while the country starves... So, the comparison is pretty fitting actually. The City heads towards a fiscal cliff while a few developers use government subsidies to fatten their bottom line.
I loved Dan Davis' "If I see a crane in the sky I know someone is eating at a table" speech.
It sounds like a speech I made in my college speech class...
"every time I see a college kid with white powder on his/her nose I know that somewhere a dealer has escaped a low paying job and can now support their family."
We are on to bill 89.
http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJBillList.asp?Bill=2013-0089
"Bill Summary: The bill appropriates $11,036,722.63 in debt service savings from bond refinancing to a Downtown Economic Development Fund ($9 million) and to the Countywide Economic Development Fund ($2,036,722.63) for use in stimulating economic development in the city.
Background Information: The bill provides that expenditures from the Downtown Economic Development Fund shall be at the discretion and by the authorization of the Downtown Investment Authority board once a downtown redevelopment plan has been drafted by the DIA and approved by City Council. Prior to that approval, any expenditures from the downtown fund must be approved by City Council, as must any appropriations of funds from the countywide fund at any time.
Policy Impact Area: Economic development.
Fiscal Impact: The bill appropriates $11,036,722.63 in debt service savings from bond refinancing to two economic development funds. The Finance Department estimates that much smaller amounts of debt service savings will accrue in future years as a result of this refinancing."
terry Lorince of DVI will speak on this bill. The current speaker says this is bull. Terry says...
"Yes, things are starting to click. I support the mayor." Hey, she mentioned a survey "people think downtown is important."
Terri Lorince:
http://www.downtownjacksonville.org/DowntownVisionInc/StaffProfiles/Executive_Director.aspx
This should be good. A fight between the burbs and the mayor over spending $9 million downtown and $2 million on the rest of the city.
Wow. I'm surprised there were only two speakers. One for and one against.
Here we go!
Looks like this is going to take a while.
Mike white, of jacksonville bike coalition. Cites jax business journal poll.
it has begun.
Mike White is the first to the podium. He is wearing a bike pin. He is a transportation planner. His group unanimously opposes the moratorium. A JBJ journal survey of 500 people said that 82% were opposed to the Moratorium.
Explains that the Mobility Fees (MF) from the Mobility Plan (MP) will fund necessary projects in our city.
He says "we've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars developing this bill and we are rendering it useless."
he asked the people opposed to this bill to stand. About 2 dozen stood.
Standing support showed a lot in opposition to moratorium, not outnumbered like i thought.
First supporter is up.
Saving his speech for committee.
This speaker: Riding a bike should extend your life. In Jacksonville it is a risk to your life. The moratorium further hurts our reputation. We are the most dangerous city in the country for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Jim, of Jumping Fish, is speaking. He is voicing his opposition. He has recently started biking again. He was hit by a car.
Jim is the one that swims the St. John's river. He says it's safer to swim long distances on the river than it is to ride a bike.
http://jumpingfish.net/about-us/team-jumpingfish/
Jim, mentions Davis' initial framing of the debate that those who oppose the bill are just noise and shouldn't be listened to. He doesn't appreciate that. He says builders walk. Builders ride bikes. He says opposition to this bill is supporting life.
Great numbers but when it comes time to address those roads in his area, they'll cost over $9 million per mile to expand from two to four lanes.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/policy/costs/costs-D7.pdf
Who pays that cost for the multiple road expansions needed in North Jacksonville/Oceanway when new development fills in?
This speaker mentioned a bunch of numbers in quick succession. He says this bill will allow him to be a job creator.
Chris is up. A rep from the NEFL builders association. He says people saying that the mobility fees are for sidewalks are misleading. It is fiscally irresponsible to use one time payments for recurring cost. Makes it clear this is a JOBS bill.
Tom H. from Connecticut says bike lanes are important. If we give up these standards we are making everything more dangerous. Opposition to this is about safety. His wife worries about him riding his bike on these streets. He does say that there is more courtesy in Florida than in New England.
A contractor speaks. She builds houses. Enjoyed the boom. Suffered the bust. Things are coming back. She is turning work down. Her crew is full time. It is getting harder to keep those employees because they are being lured away. The economy is turning around. We don't need to sell ourselves for a "jobs bill" that we do not need. Do not give the store away. Let's use what we have. Let's fill in the space that we have available to us. Let's not give up on this.
Councilman Gulliford is full of jokes tonight. He's having fun. Sheclown, a contractor, is now speaking she's in opposition to the moratorium. She says we don't need to sell ourselves short for jobs that are already there. She's turning away jobs from new work coming in from a recovering economy.
A rep from the Sierra Club representing 150 people is speaking against the Moratorium. She is quoting Ennis Davis' numbers from the amount we lost and could potentially lose as a result of this bill.
Gulliford is always full of jokes.
Janet Stanko is up. She represents over 1,500 Sierra Club members in North Florida. Her group is against the moratorium.
Lad Hawkins, representing the Greater Arlington is speaking. His group is against the moratorium.
Lad H. up to the podium: Two of his groups are opposed to the moratorium. Everyone is suffering financially there is no reason to play favorites and give some groups a break.
Explains the moratorium that the fees incentivize in fill. With out the fee structure the Mobility Plan is useless. They are selling this Moratorium as a temporary measure. BUT, all developments that are mapped will not have to pay the fee. Technically, they could plat the world and we wouldn't see a penny.
new speaker: Represent 1200 members of the NFL bicycle club. Against the Moratorium. He says, there is no evidence that the last moratorium worked. Zero correlation between the Moratorium and jobs. St. John's county kept their fees and they are doing well. We are ranked 48th nationally in bicycle safety.
lake did you catch what he said about the Health Council?
Nice! Call out of Clark!
I missed that. What happened?
Quote from: TheCat on February 26, 2013, 08:27:00 PM
Explains the moratorium that the fees incentivize in fill. With out the fee structure the Mobility Plan is useless. They are selling
lake did you catch what he said about the Health Council?
He said health costs of hurt cyclists cost the city $40 million
Quote from: TheCat on February 26, 2013, 08:28:34 PM
I missed that. What happened?
Clark walked out, and ms brimmer said,"i thought this was his bill. I don't know if i should feel insulted".
Paul B. of the 5 Points Merchants Association. The merchants discussed pedestrian safety in 5 points. They were horrified to learn that if the moratorium had not been in place they would have seen $900k to help fix their mobility issues.
40 million...just in jax?
Self described injured cyclist: All of the organizations he is a part of are against this. He makes the point all of the people who are for this (speaking) are paid. Everyone else speaks with out financial motive.
I wish I was keeping tabs. So far, overwhelmingly, the speakers have been against the moratorium.
Quote from: TheCat on February 26, 2013, 08:32:57 PM
.
I wish I was keeping tabs. So far, overwhelmingly, the speakers have been against the moratorium.
A lot of cards in support but no speaker. Hmmm.
Why is everyone who is in support, does not wish to speak? Kind of appears that a large group has been asked to fill out cards in support but in reality, they have no clue of what's being debated.
Quote from: Bridges on February 26, 2013, 08:29:51 PM
Quote from: TheCat on February 26, 2013, 08:28:34 PM
I missed that. What happened?
Clark walked out, and ms brimmer said,"i thought this was his bill. I don't know if i should feel insulted".
Don't take offense. Clark could care less about what the public has to say on this issue.
Speaker: lives near 9a and Baymeadows. MBA grad. He is opposed to the moratorium. He is the president of the NE FL bicycle club. He has noticed that his friends are passionate about bicycle road planning. He has visited two cities and made note to see how other cities plan for bicyclist. In Chicago bicyclists feel like they belong (not like Jacksonville). He saw road signs just for bikers. He mentioned that in Seattle pedestrians wave a flag as they cross the road and all the vehicles slow down for them.
Current Speaker: Time wasted in a car, for her personally, will be 5 years because the amount of time it takes for her to travel each day to take care of life.
No reason to take offense Ennis when someone speaks the truth. Clark leaving a meeting when the conversation is not supportive is a classic move of his. He is looking out for his buddies with this bill. That man has more backdoor dealings than you can shake a stick at.
Just to keep score, there are over two dozen organizations (ranging from citizen planning councils, neighborhood organizations, health organizations, merchant associations, city commissions and transportation advocacy organizations) that have come out against the moratorium.
But, that's all 'noise'.
QuoteA lot of cards in support but no speaker. Hmmm.
Speaker fraud!
Current Speaker: The moratorium is a form of crony capitalism that moves against free market capitalism. You will not be able to get people to stay here if you do not build up the infrastructure that people expect for a good quality of life.
Years ago, I used to be excited about infrastructure like Chicago's bike network because it was something that we just didn't have in Jacksonville. Now I've come to the realization that most places (larger and smaller) have well maintained public parks, landscaped streets, connected bike and pedestrian networks, etc. Now it's frustrating that we struggle with things that the rest of the country resolved and moved on years ago.
I demand to see IDs.
Daniel Davis had plenty of his own "noise". Job's bill....
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on February 26, 2013, 08:41:06 PM
No reason to take offense Ennis when someone speaks the truth. Clark leaving a meeting when the conversation is not supportive is a classic move of his. He is looking out for his buddies with this bill. That man has more backdoor dealings than you can shake a stick at.
No offense taken. I'm just not surprised he left.
Quote from: TheCat on February 26, 2013, 08:42:41 PM
QuoteA lot of cards in support but no speaker. Hmmm.
Speaker fraud!
Current Speaker: The moratorium is a form of crony capitalism that moves against free market capitalism. You will not be able to get people to stay here if you do not build up the infrastructure that people expect for a good quality of life.
Well said Cat.
That's Clark's thing. I once showed up at a council meeting with T.V. news camera's en tow to challenge another one of his schemes. He ran to the Green Room when I stood to speak and the media crew followed him.
Quote from: fieldafm on February 26, 2013, 08:41:26 PM
Just to keep score, there are over two dozen organizations (ranging from citizen planning councils, neighborhood organizations, health organizations, merchant associations, city commissions and transportation advocacy organizations) that have come out against the moratorium.
But, that's all 'noise'.
Let's hope they bring some leverage Mike. When the community groups of Jax call on the council to act in the community's best interest they should be listened to.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on February 26, 2013, 08:47:26 PM
That's Clark's thing. I once showed up at a council meeting with T.V. news camera's en tow to challenge another one of his schemes. He ran to the Green Room when I stood to speak and the media crew followed him.
In his defense, it's pretty difficult to offer a rebuttal when your campaign contributors aren't their to spoon feed you answers. Being a politician is tough nowadays, what with having to have your own rational thoughts and all...
The council knows it's not "noise" and those who oppose Clark's bill have been doing a great job. A decade ago we would not have seen this much positive involvement on an issue such as this. If everyone keeps up the pressure and mailing emails, the bill will be defeated.
Current Speaker: Builders don't need another incentive to build. The fee structure to the MP is the incentive. Builders can remove their fees by building inwards. Stresses the incentive is incorporated into the MP. Moratorium is not necessary for a building incentive.
Debbie T: Mobility plan without the moratorium is a jobs bill. It creates all kinds of jobs...construction, transportation...etc. She made a lot of good points. ;D
Does Tom Ingram spend much time in Riverside and RAP meetings? I don't think the neighbors of King Street would agree that there are no transportation impacts from more development.
Cut my speech shorter than i wanted. But hopefully it helps. I can't make the DIA, but will be at the others next week.
The NEFBA was very active the whole meeting planning. The committees are their plans of attack.
Current speaker: for the moratorium. mentions that Kickback's new restaurant would have paid $194,000 and they are in a high density place. Mentions an ATM that would have cost $15k to place. Says, let's look at bicyclist and see how to improve it.
Lumb is speaking and he says "a lot the fees to the MP do not make sense."
Lumb is throwing soft ball questions a the current speaker. Sorry, I missed the name.
Wyatt: for the moratorium. the amount of the fees waived were 3.5 million. The amount of projects completed were worth $85. He says that $3 million that was waived will be paid back in 4 years from the taxes that will come in perpetuity.
Quote from: Bridges on February 26, 2013, 08:58:14 PM
Cut my speech shorter than i wanted. But hopefully it helps. I can't make the DIA, but will be at the others next week.
The NEFBA was very active the whole meeting planning. The committees are their plans of attack.
Thanks Bridges.
Joost: the moratorium didn't work last time. If it doesn't work this time you'll ask for another extension and you won't take us seriously. Is there a compromise somewhere?
Mike H.: All parties did recognize that we are still in a financially dire situation. He says lenders are asking him "why is Jacksonville so far behind in recovery?" 33% of the mobility fees go to widening three roads. Please support the mobility plan.
Quote from: TheCat on February 26, 2013, 09:01:25 PM
Lumb is throwing soft ball questions a the current speaker. Sorry, I missed the name.
Wyatt: for the moratorium. the amount of the fees waived were 3.5 million. The amount of projects completed were worth $85. He says that $3 million that was waived will be paid back in 4 years from the taxes that will come in perpetuity.
That speaker is Toi on the forum. He gave Councilman Lumb some inaccurate information. I emailed the Councilman and said I'd be willing to meet with him and answer or explain any questions he may have. Do you think I'll get a response? Btw, that 33% on three roadways is off-base too.
I got a response! I'm going to call his aide in the morning.
Wow...that is surprising....I had counted Lumb on the other side from the start
He probably will stay there but I'll at least attempt to point him to the true sources and answers. What he does with that information is for him to decide.
Good comments, Ock. Mike Saylor of the DIA is now up.
Councilman Lumb has been the builders private enabler.
Ocklawaha : Completely opposes the moratorium. Builders do not understand that street cars increased property values by 53%. Within 3 blocks of a street car line property value increases by 150%.
Quote from: tufsu1 on February 26, 2013, 09:08:48 PM
Wow...that is surprising....I had counted Lumb on the other side from the start
Lumb, who reads this forum, is
squarely on the side that supports the moratorium.
Great comments by Mike.
Lumb want's to see what Ennis has to say so that his "peeps" will be able to rebut those facts with their own info.
Lumb? Based on the interaction I just saw...no. He is for the moratorium. He was feeding leading questions to "Toi".
And then lumb thanked him for explaining everything so well.
Good bye. Good talk everyone.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 26, 2013, 09:07:14 PM
I got a response! I'm going to call his aide in the morning.
I'm not surprised. Lumb is probably the most accessible council member there. He is always quick to return calls and emails, and is a very enjoyable person to discuss issues with. Some we disagree on, however, he is easy to like and respectful.
I don't see him as all that respectful. His attitude and bias toward Mr. Ahmed and members of the GLBT community was deplorable.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on February 26, 2013, 09:15:47 PM
Lumb want's to see what Ennis has to say so that his "peeps" will be able to rebut those facts with their own info.
All you can do with facts that don't support your case is create...umm.....noise. You know....pollute the river, it's about jobs. Spend $300 million on the Outer Beltway, well it's about jobs. A moratorium with a clause that provides a waiver for eternity...umm we need jobs. We'll let's just hope we aren't subsidizing job creation at a rate to where it never actually pays for itself.
If these guys can provide actual documentation without a doubt that a moratorium is a fiscal plus for Jacksonville taxpayers, both short and long term, then let's sit down and have a serious discussion. However, at this point, like Dan Davis, all I hear is noise around a fee structure that already gives them a huge break and the opportunity to reduce it more.
Also, at what point does an impact fee make a project not feasible and how do you come to that conclusion to throw the baby out with the bathwater by implementing a moratorium for everyone? Do we really believe 7-Eleven and Waffle House are struggling to penetrate Jacksonville's market?
When I see that Waffle House getting built, I just thank the good Lord that taxpayers subsidized minimum wage jobs.
So true Ennis and my experience tells me they will be making a lot of noise in the face of facts. They are masters of spin, but those opposed to the bill can cancel that noise with documentation and numbers. Lumb has bought into this and what we saw tonight with his repeated launching of softballs was a well orchestrated give and take which I have seen far to many times in this city. What will happen between now and the vote will be a lot of maneuvering behind the scenes to shore up votes for this bill. Promises will be made and good buddies aplenty to satisfy. Believe it or not, one of the people you should talk to in this case is Redman who is an avid bike rider. Opponents to this bill need to be every bit as active between now the the day the bill is voted on. I say this from years of first hand experience.
Daniel Davis did make a reference to dribbling a basketball.....I did notice the Globetrotters will be in town this weekend....talk about deflection...how appropriate!
Quote from: thelakelander on February 26, 2013, 09:06:15 PM
Quote from: TheCat on February 26, 2013, 09:01:25 PM
Lumb is throwing soft ball questions a the current speaker. Sorry, I missed the name.
Wyatt: for the moratorium. the amount of the fees waived were 3.5 million. The amount of projects completed were worth $85. He says that $3 million that was waived will be paid back in 4 years from the taxes that will come in perpetuity.
That speaker is Toi on the forum. He gave Councilman Lumb some inaccurate information. I emailed the Councilman and said I'd be willing to meet with him and answer or explain any questions he may have. Do you think I'll get a response? Btw, that 33% on three roadways is off-base too.
Ennis: table 4.3.1 of your company's mobility plan provides the list of road projects to be funded and their estimated cost. 148 million of the total 444 million that is assumed to be raised from the plan (assuming there are no credits given for high residential densities, mixed uses, etc), is to 6 lane three roads: philips hwy, normandy, and southside. my calculator tells me that is 33 percent.
i was and am sincere about my comments on funding bike improvements. i think our collective time would be better spent to convince the council to fund specific bike projects and ped improvements from the general fund, perhaps by convening a subcommittee of teu together with seeking greater staff resources for the bpac. by and large the bike and ped projects are relatively inexpensive and most if not all of them in the mobility plan list are in areas first developed long ago. as you know the standard practice of the city and dot for years has been to install bike lanes and sidewalks on new roads - maybe they are not all perfect or even good but they are generally there. see the mobility plan transportation study, tables 9 and 10 for the lists of bike and ped improvements under the mobility plan. for example, the "priority 1" bike improvements are on the following streets: riverplace blvd, laura st, newnan st, and old kings road from the s line to martha st. together the total cost of these was estimated at about 2.2 m. compare that to the recent announcement for improving the jtb interchange at a cost of about 78 m or so.
So Toi, is the promise of improvements for bikes going to be the bargaining chip?
So, infrastructure is great... As long as everyone but you pays for it. Now go outside and play while the adults go create jobs. Got it!
Bring on some more gas stations and those heavily taxpayer subsidized $90k annual payrolls!!!
Thank you Lord for answering our most humble prayers by suppressing all that pesky noise, passing on our costs to others and keeping food on our table paid for by the old lady who lives on the other side of town.
Toi, that's exactly the issue. Under your plan, those improvements would have to come from the general budget (ie, everyone's taxes) because there'd be no contribution from the new developments that cause the greatest strain on the infrastructure. There has to be a compromise somewhere.
Quote from: toi on February 26, 2013, 10:31:11 PM
Ennis: table 4.3.1 of your company's mobility plan provides the list of road projects to be funded and their estimated cost. 148 million of the total 444 million that is assumed to be raised from the plan (assuming there are no credits given for high residential densities, mixed uses, etc), is to 6 lane three roads: philips hwy, normandy, and southside. my calculator tells me that is 33 percent.
Toi, Table 8 in the full report will provide you with a list of all the road projects within the mobility plan.
Quotei was and am sincere about my comments on funding bike improvements. i think our collective time would be better spent to convince the council to fund specific bike projects and ped improvements from the general fund, perhaps by convening a subcommittee of teu together with seeking greater staff resources for the bpac. by and large the bike and ped projects are relatively inexpensive and most if not all of them in the mobility plan list are in areas first developed long ago. as you know the standard practice of the city and dot for years has been to install bike lanes and sidewalks on new roads - maybe they are not all perfect or even good but they are generally there. see the mobility plan transportation study, tables 9 and 10 for the lists of bike and ped improvements under the mobility plan. for example, the "priority 1" bike improvements are on the following streets: riverplace blvd, laura st, newnan st, and old kings road from the s line to martha st. together the total cost of these was estimated at about 2.2 m. compare that to the recent announcement for improving the jtb interchange at a cost of about 78 m or so.
To be honest, I'd be happy if we can find dollars in our general fund to turn our street lights back on, properly maintain our parks, and mow the ROW on our streets on a regular basis. Considering our budget deficits, it's a stretch to say it makes sense to give 7-11, Waffle House, Family Dollar, Wendy's, etc. breaks on a mobility fee that could be partially utilized for these improvements to find money in a pot already struggling to fund our most basic public services.
I agree with the idea that the mobility plan/fee isn't an end all to all our problems, but it certainly helps the situation. An all out moratorium that gives public subsidies to several low paying developments that would happen anyway does this community no good. Such a concept to me would get more traction if projects truly "crippled" by a mobility fee were evaluated on an individual basis.
Quote from: Tacachale on February 26, 2013, 10:58:38 PM
Toi, that's exactly the issue. Under your plan, those improvements would have to come from the general budget (ie, everyone's taxes) because there'd be no contribution from the new developments that cause the greatest strain on the infrastructure. There has to be a compromise somewhere.
From my view, it's not a plan because the general fund is a struggling one itself. If it were the answers to all our needs, our bike/ped death rates wouldn't be so high right now because the issue would have been addressed years ago.
Nevertheless, that's issue is something I'd refer to as "noise." Even if 100% of the mobility plan fees went to roads, they should still be paid by new development as opposed to passing that burden on the existing taxpayer.
My parting shot tonight was: "At some point this Council is going to have to decide if you are a Council of the people, or, are you a Council of the special interests?"
Tonight gave both sides a look at the other guy's cards. I hope the MetroJacksonville side is prepared for what happens next. The lobbyists will be going into overdrive for their land development clients this weekend to cook-up some more data and numbers, since, IMO, the simplistic "it's about jobs" argument didn't move anyone. The ploy of having speaker cards filled out by people who didn't want to speak-up for the moratorium also flopped. To those on the dais, that's the same as a no-show.
Having observed City Councils for 35 years in this town I sense this is going to be a close vote and the pro-moratorium side is going to go to the building trades next, to generate a vocal head-count for the Committees. The problem is, those Committees meet in the daytime and most tradespeople who are worth a damn ARE working during the day. Good tradespeople in JAX have a backlog of work in remodeling and additions, as well as general maintenance. The ones complaining about not working are the horizontal land developers because they overloaded their own inventory of suburban lots while believing the Gold Rush would last forever. They probably need to go out and find a new gig.
And, BTW, there is not a shred of truth to the jobs argument. The same trades that are needed to build unnecessary subdivisions in the far suburban fringe...to clear trees, dig borrow pits, lay pipe and pave roads...are pretty busy right now in, of all places, the infill neighborhoods!
I will agree however, that we have a serious jobs problem here, as exists throughout the lower southeast US. But that unemployment problem is felt acutely among two main groups...recent high school dropouts and all unskilled laborers. Two groups that have no chance of survival in a competitive marketplace like the one we are in.
If the builders and developers who were represented at City Hall tonight really want to do something about joblessness, they should band together and build a vocational tradeschool by and for the hard core unemployed. Teach them a skill that they can use and then let them compete on a level field. But, build that school on an infill site.
For shits and giggles. Included in the list of projects that applied for mobility fee waivers from the previous moratorium:
3 - 7-Elevens
2 - Family Dollars
4 - Dollar Generals
6 - Waffle Houses
I don't even feel like adding up the percentage of dollars lost by waiving fees for stuff like this and the countless number of gas stations (most of the larger fees waived were for gas stations) on the list. Those who support a moratorium really need to come up with a true list of projects that would not have been built if a moratorium wasn't in place. Because stuff like this would fill our suburban arterials even if we had the old Fair Share system still in place.
Quote from: xplanner on February 26, 2013, 11:14:38 PMIf the builders and developers who were represented at City Hall tonight really want to do something about joblessness, they should band together and build a vocational tradeschool by and for the hard core unemployed. Teach them a skill that they can use and then let them compete on a level field. But, build that school on an infill site.
With the school board talking about closing a few inner city schools, perhaps they can even get one donated via surplus and get some on-the-job training in restoration work.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 26, 2013, 10:58:56 PM
Quote from: toi on February 26, 2013, 10:31:11 PM
Ennis: table 4.3.1 of your company's mobility plan provides the list of road projects to be funded and their estimated cost. 148 million of the total 444 million that is assumed to be raised from the plan (assuming there are no credits given for high residential densities, mixed uses, etc), is to 6 lane three roads: philips hwy, normandy, and southside. my calculator tells me that is 33 percent.
Toi, Table 8 in the full report will provide you with a list of all the road projects within the mobility plan.
Ennis - table 7 on my copy of your company's study and the table i referenced in the plan are the same list of projects. again, 33 percent, one third.
When listening carefully to the arguments being made for a moratorium, initially, the pitch is that this is a temporary "jobs bill". But, when it gets specific it sounds more like an argument against the mobility plan entirely, regardless of economic conditions. They say the fee is too much or the money spent is going toward the wrong use.
These are worthy discussions that would ultimately lead to a better plan, however, we will never address them if we simply put a moratorium on the entire thing. It seems that some council members may be looking for a compromise. I hope we can find one that does not result in extending the moratorium. There are other ways.
If the concern is where the money spent, city council has the authority to adjust the priority projects. If the concern is the amount or how it is calculated, again, that can be adjusted.
Quote from: toi on February 26, 2013, 11:32:11 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on February 26, 2013, 10:58:56 PM
Quote from: toi on February 26, 2013, 10:31:11 PM
Ennis: table 4.3.1 of your company's mobility plan provides the list of road projects to be funded and their estimated cost. 148 million of the total 444 million that is assumed to be raised from the plan (assuming there are no credits given for high residential densities, mixed uses, etc), is to 6 lane three roads: philips hwy, normandy, and southside. my calculator tells me that is 33 percent.
Toi, Table 8 in the full report will provide you with a list of all the road projects within the mobility plan.
Ennis - table 7 on my copy of your company's study and the table i referenced in the plan are the same list of projects. again, 33 percent, one third.
To be clear and for the record, I'm not employed with that company anymore and the study and plan is the City of Jacksonville's. I've been gone since July 2012. Feel free to post an image of what you're looking at because I don't think you have the full list.
Nevertheless, this an issue that Dan Davis referred to as "noise." 33% on three needed complete streets roads, 100% on roads, etc. whatever. None of this addresses this still doesn't address the major problem with a full moratorium. There's still no documentation/data proving that all mobility fee waivers granted were from projects that would have not happened without the moratorium. I've already listed several examples and when you start adding them up, they really eat into the nearly $5 million that's been given away so far. How is this in any way, good for the taxpayers?
Quote from: dougskiles on February 27, 2013, 06:02:22 AM
When listening carefully to the arguments being made for a moratorium, initially, the pitch is that this is a temporary "jobs bill". But, when it gets specific it sounds more like an argument against the mobility plan entirely, regardless of economic conditions. They say the fee is too much or the money spent is going toward the wrong use.
These are worthy discussions that would ultimately lead to a better plan, however, we will never address them if we simply put a moratorium on the entire thing. It seems that some council members may be looking for a compromise. I hope we can find one that does not result in extending the moratorium. There are other ways.
If the concern is where the money spent, city council has the authority to adjust the priority projects. If the concern is the amount or how it is calculated, again, that can be adjusted.
Doug, what I've seen over the last few days is a lot of noise from several with their own self interests and agendas. It can't be just about a "temporary" jobs thing because that can't be proven without a doubt that more temporary jobs are created with a moratorium than without it. We're clearly giving away subsidies for numerous 7-11s, Family Dollars, Waffle Houses, etc. that were expanding anyway. The "temporary" thing is also suspect with the grandfather clause that exempts certain projects from paying a mobility fee for eternity.
Now some don't like a few specific projects within the list. So kill it and have zero projects across the entire city is the answer. Some want a few projects but desire taxpayers to pay for it. Some simply see the light at the end of the tunnel by piecing together enough council votes to boost their profit margins at the expense of everyone else. Some last night were clearly advocating for the worst type of sprawl possible at the expense of the financially sustainable growth that the community has kept asking for, for years. I found public comments last night very telling. Was there anyone, that would not directly profit more personally from a moratorium speak in favor from it? All I saw were self interests, paid guns, and a stack of cards where no one wanted to speak. It was pretty weird to see that compared to the diverse amount of community group representatives who shared their concerns last night.
On top of that, the pro moratorium talking points list, is all over the place with erroneous information that completely ignores the reality of what's before taxpayers. We're being asked to shoulder the cost of negative impacts of new development 100% (without any evidence that last year's moratorium worked), while this same city can't even manage a budget that keeps our street lights on and streets properly maintained.
At least tonight the insane hypocrisy of the last meeting was gone.
The developers are talking about jobs...theirs. Most big projects bring in outside workers.
Do Clay and Nassau counties have any kind of transportation fees, concurrency? Are they being swamped with construction permits?
I watched the meeting on line and while there were many who were against the moratorium, the most points were made by those in support of the ordinance. Of course, having Council Lumb ask questions of Toi was a huge plus to those for the moratorium. The overall impression I got was that it is already decided. Of course the council will pass this jobs bill.
It seems to me that while it is important to talk about the cyclists, it is a mistake to make it in the forefront of the debate. It makes it look like this relatively small group is taking our tax dollars for themselves while the developers are offering jobs. I know better but you need to look at it from the perspective of the average person out there. If the media decides to spin it that way, it gives the council the way out to pass the moratorium regardless of the facts.
Offering to compromise is not the answer. Right now, why should they? Council will only want to come up with a compromise if they think they can't get away with passing the bill and right now, they certainly could. Just look at Council Lumb. Are we really to believe he doesn't have the true facts right now? Does he need to get them from Lake? Or does he have them but doesn't care about them and is going to do what he thinks is best for himself? Wasn't it already posted that he reads MetroJacksonville and are not the very facts we want him to have already posted on the forum? Does he not read for himself or at least have an assistant that will do the research for him?
Trying to convince Lumb or any other councilman who is currently for the moratorium of the facts is not what will work. What does is making it too painful for both the individual councilmen and/ or the city not to leave the Mobility Fee alone. We are fighting against money and power, not facts.
Get people mobilized for the coming meetings. Don't bother with Lumb, find the ones that are against the moratorium or at least on the fence and talk to them. Try to get them to help do the mobilization needed. See if they can help identify people wiling to put in the dollars needed to fight this. Find out if there is hope for a lawsuit against the city for ignoring the mobility plan and costing us tax payers for the coming and permanent freeze on fees on much of the future development this city will see.
Be aware that the people behind this moratorium are already paying expensive people to fight you on this. It will cost us to win this battle. It will end up being a full time job for some. I know as we (Sheclown and I) have done it on something much smaller and less important to the public and yet, it cost thousands and thousand to win. Just like it cost thousands and thousands for the opposition to lose.
In the end, fights like this are not about the facts, though the facts are certainly important and need to be stated and restated, it is, in the end, about the money. We need to ask ourselves just how important the future of this city is to us, how far are you willing to go for that future?
Don't be so sure Strider. I admit it is a tough battle but this is the Council that passed the Mobility Fee.
Quote from: Jumpinjack on February 27, 2013, 08:34:54 AM
Do Clay and Nassau counties have any kind of transportation fees, concurrency? Are they being swamped with construction permits?
no...and no
Nothing like a good fight. We just have to be armed with accurate facts and figures. I wonder if other cities like Charlotte, Austin, Nashville, etc. have suspended their impact fees, fair share, etc.? anyone know?
Same fight going on in Naples, Fl. Citizens against the moratorium.
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/feb/11/commissioners-flooded-with-emails-opposed-to-fee/
Everyone, please remind Council members that the 3 years fee waiver in the bill hides the part about permitted projects getting a permanent waiver. Someone will pay for transportation impacts - if this waiver of a fee goes on for 3 years or forever, it will be residents, businesses, employees, school kids, and just ordinary people who didn't gain anything from this moratorium.
Conservative council members who are quick to say that they want to rein in taxes are playing a shell game with voters. If you are one of these elected leaders and reading this, tell me -Why are you sticking us with the bill?
While I'm grateful for the cyclists who showed up in force both times, I'm with Strider. I said it here earlier. Having too many people talk about cycling makes it seem like the bill is all about bicycles. I hope those of you who had other things to add and who could not make it last night are emailing. :-)
Doug, I used some of your talking points last night. I also reminded them they had passed this plan that reduced the fees under the old plan, and then immediately suspended it, and didn't even put back the old plan instead. I used Ock's math with the $108 million tax increase, and gave them a copy of the handout he brought. I told them if they passed this bill, they would be approving a HUGE tax increase on Jacksonville taxpayers to the tune of $525 per year for an average family of four.
Somone else reminded them of the thousands of constituents who oppose the bill and who sent their representative with their opposition...The NE Florida Bike Club, Ready2Ride Bike Tours, CPACS from Beaches, Arlington, Urban Core, Southside, Murray Hill Historic Preservation, RAP, SPAR, PSOS, and the Sierra Club. I probably left some out.
Someone else mentioned the indefinite nature of the waivers under this bill, unlike the current "temporary" moratorium.
These fees have for years traditionally been paid by builders and developers. The builders are paying NOTHING right now and the taxpayers are getting stuck with the bill. The builders (of course) want this to continue indefinitely. You can bet they'll be back in three years if this passes. The economy is improving, and there will be more jobs, regardless. But they will say it's because of the moratorium, not the improving economy.
I'm not certain they were even listening at that point. They opened the public comments for Daniel Davis at the very beginning who told them opponents of 2013-94 "were just noise" and then closed it again for three or four hours making the rest of us wait until amost 9:00 to speak.
I think we can get ourselves turned around a lot when we argue for the Mobility Plan.
Back when the mobility plan was talked about and passed, we decided as a community and council that the, at the time, fair-share agreement was unfair to developers and burdening our city with unsustainable sprawl. So the Mobility Plan was visioned to reign in the sprawl and encourage smarter development that took the community as a whole into account. In order to encourage that development, we came up with the new Mobility Fee. Through the fee and its credit offsets we could direct the type of development we wanted. The aim was to create that, but it didn't stop all development. There's no rules prohibiting development, only that there are incentives for developing a certain way.
In that sense, the Fee IS the Plan. That gets lost on a lot of the council. They still view the fee in the same way as the old fair-share. When it is more of a means to an ends. The end being the plan as a whole.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on February 27, 2013, 10:29:41 AM
I'm not certain they were even listening at that point. They opened the public comments for Daniel Davis at the very beginning who told them opponents of 2013-94 "were just noise" and then closed it again for three or four hours making the rest of us wait until amost 9:00 to speak.
IMO, the big battle will be in the committees. That is where this will be won and lost. The builders and lobbyist will have their presentations.
RulesNext Monday. 3/4
Agenda Meeting at 9:30am
Meeting at 10:00 am
Council Chamber
First Floor, City Hall
117 W. Duval StreetMembers- Clay E. Yarborough - Chair Clay@coj.net
- Raymond E. Holt - Vice Chair Holt@coj.net
- Lori N. Boyer LBoyer@coj.net
- John R. Crescimbeni JRC@coj.net
- Warren A. Jones WAJones@coj.net
- Jim Love JimLove@coj.ne
- Robin Lumb RLumb@coj.net
Copy Paste EmailsClay@coj.net, JimLove@coj.net, LBoyer@coj.net, Holt@coj.net, RLumb@coj.net, JRC@coj.net, WAJones@coj.net
Transportation, Energy & Utilities Committee (TEU)Next Monday. 3/4
Agenda Meeting at 1:30pm
Meeting at 2:00 p.m.
Council Chamber
First Floor, City Hall
117 W. Duval StreetMembers- Greg Anderson - Chair GAnderson@coj.net
- Jim Love - Vice Chair JimLove@coj.net
- Reginald L. Brown RBrown@coj.net
- Raymond E. Holt Holt@coj.net
- Robin Lumb RLumb@coj.net
- Matt Schellenberg MattS@coj.net
Copy Paste EmailsGAnderson@coj.net, JimLove@coj.net, RBrown@coj.net, Holt@coj.net, RLumb@coj.net, MattS@coj.net
FinanceNext Tuesday. 3/5
Agenda Meeting at 9:30am
Meeting at 10:00 am
Council Chamber
First Floor, City Hall
117 W. Duval StreetMembers- John R. Crescimbeni - Chair JRC@coj.net
- Greg Anderson - Vice Chair GAnderson@coj.net
- Lori N. Boyer LBoyer@coj.net
- Dr. Johnny A. Gaffney Gaffney@coj.net
- Bill Gulliford Gulliford@coj.net
- Stephen C. Joost Joost@coj.net
- Clay E. Yarborough Clay@coj.net
Copy Paste EmailsClay@coj.net, GAnderson@coj.net, LBoyer@coj.net, Gaffney@coj.net, Gulliford@coj.net, JRC@coj.net, Joost@coj.net
Quote from: JeffreyS on February 27, 2013, 09:25:15 AM
Don't be so sure Strider. I admit it is a tough battle but this is the Council that passed the Mobility Fee.
Jeffrey do you have a list of those on council who originally passed the Mobility Fee? Who specifically voted yes and who opposed. This can be very useful information. If they passed it to begin with, what has the moratorium on it done to change their original views? What are the facts that show this dang thing worked? Take the discussion directly to those people.
Ennis has great numbers and documentation and the facts do matter to the public and to those on council who are sitting the fence on this issue. His discussion about throwing money behind Waffle house, 7/11 speaks well to the argument and is tantamount to waste of tax dollars when we can least afford it. Councilman Joost made an important statement during the meeting to the fact that the moratorium did not work the first time. So what has changed? Nothing has. It would be helpful for those opposing Clark's bill to be able to point to just how big of a failure the moratorium was along with the fact that Clark and those supporting the bill have yet to be able prove at any level that having the moratorium did anything beyond help some builder/developers out and create further sprawl. What was the return anyway? Where are the validated numbers of jobs created last time? What was the real economic impact? How much money was lost, was and will be paid out by the city (taxpayers) via the last moratorium and this potential new one? In this debate, do not forget "the taxpayer" portion of this argument. Taxpayers are tired of footing the bill for others. Has anyone spoken to the "concerned taxpayers group", are they aware? Some principals at city hall are fixing to launch another round of attacks on the pension costs with the threat of closing parks and libraries again. Why, because they want to inflame the taxpayers. Part of this argument should be how the heck can the council shut off street lights, public services such as grass cutting and at the same time put a moratorium on a revenue source that in essence is supposed to counteract costs to taxpayers?
The argument should indeed be one of facts, documents and emotion where it counts. In this case I am very sure that taxpayers will not cotton to the idea of the continued burden of development on their backs when there is no proof doing so has worked.
Another very important aspect for all opposed to Clark's bill is this.
Copy all local media on every correspondence to council on this issue and do not forget to include T.V. media as well. You can do this people.
*if someone has an updated media list, now might be the time to share it* Mine isn't current.
I've been away from the computer for most of the day. I just wanted to share an email (I have a ton of emails to still go through) that was sent to me this morning on this issue. I'm glad people are doing their homework!
QuoteOkay, here is what I know today that I didn't know yesterday.
The Property Appraiser's Office provided me a summary of an inquiry they were requested to generate last week by someone else. It is the number of vacant residential parcels in all of Duval County:
· Lots 2 to 20 acres (typically RR and AGR)..............1,699
· Lots between 1 and 2 acres.......................................1,433
· Lots 1 acre or less (typically subdivision lots)...........17,572
Total, inventory of entitled residential lots 20,714
The annual absorption of lots, (ie: issued building permits for new construction) between 2002 and 2006 was 6,659. After the bubble burst, from 2007 through 2012, the annual absorption of vacant lots was 2,090. For the past four years the annual absorption of that inventory was 1408.
Given above statistical facts from the City of Jacksonville's own records, and the assumption that single-family homeowner finance realities will not significantly change for some time to come, it is a safe bet to state that we have enough entitled inventory of single family residential lots in Duval County to handle the anticipated demand for new construction for the next ten years and possibly longer. If the market recovered to the levels of new building activity of, say, 2004, then we would have to adjust to the possibility that we would face an inventory shortage in three years. A very long-shot bet.
These numbers do not reflect any adjustment for the rising number of empty nesters moving to multi-family living, or single family tear-down and build-backs.
I assume you knew all this already, but I had to run the exercise myself to be convinced that this moratorium really just benefits one narrow group of land development players who are looking to hedge their bets on cheap land and a (continued) free ride on roads.
Bingo! Facts, facts and more facts in the face of noise! This is the exact type of information that council and the citizens need to be made aware of. I would suspect their are similar numbers for retail as well.
I still cant get over Daniel Davis referring to those us who oppose the moratorium as "noise". Really?
FSU, it's an old tactic used oh so many times to discredit the views and voices of others. It's one of those "listen to me, cause I am the cool in the know guy as opposed to the rabble who don't know you and the facts like I do "Wink, wink!" The comment did one thing in my view which was to make Daniel look petty and self absorbed.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on February 27, 2013, 12:52:21 PM
Jeffrey do you have a list of those on council who originally passed the Mobility Fee? Who specifically voted yes and who opposed. This can be very useful information. If they passed it to begin with, what has the moratorium on it done to change their original views? What are the facts that show this dang thing worked? Take the discussion directly to those people.
It passed unanimously on September 13, 2011:
Quote62. 2011-536 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 655 (CONCURRENCY AND MOBILITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM), PART 1 (GENERAL PROVISIONS), PART 2 (JACKSONVILLE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REGULATIONS) AND PART 3 (FAIR SHARE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES); AND STRIKING PART 5 (INDUSTRIAL USES) AND ESTABLISHING A NEW PART 5 (MOBILITY FEE), ORDINANCE CODE, TO CREATE A MOBILITY SYSTEM TO REPLACE THE TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY AND FAIR SHARE ASSESSMENT CONTRACT SYSTEM, CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE 2030 MOBILITY PLAN AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA CONCURRENCY STATUTE, SECTION 163.3180, FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.; 8/9/2011 - Introduced: TEU,LUZ; 8/23/2011 - PH Read 2nd & Rereferred; TEU, LUZ
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, ENERGY & UTILITIES: September 06, 2011
Recommend to AMEND and APPROVE.
COUNCIL MEMBERS - Anderson, Daniels, Gaffney, Love, Lumb, Redman, ( 6 )
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LAND USE & ZONING: September 07, 2011
Recommend to AMEND and APPROVE.
COUNCIL MEMBERS - Boyer, Brown, Carter, Holt, Love, Lumb, Redman, ( 7 )
REPORT OF COUNCIL: September 13, 2011
The Floor Leader moved the AMENDMENT(S).
The motion CARRIED.
Roll Call was ordered.
The Chair declared the File APPROVED as AMENDED.
AYES - Anderson, Bishop, Boyer, Brown, Carter, Clark, Crescimbeni, Daniels, Gaffney, Gulliford, Holt, Jones, Joost, Lee, Love, Lumb, Redman, Schellenberg, Yarborough, ( 19 )
If I understand this right, the first moratorium was passed within a month or two of the Mobility passing? So the question that comes to my mind is: was there a reason the fair share laws could not be just suspended (a moratorium on them) and it was easier to pass the new one and then pass the moratorium? I guess I was assuming that the same people who voted no on the mobility fee to start with just got a few more people on their side to get the moratorium passed. It is a bit suspicious that it passed unanimously and then got put on the shelf.
Quote from: stephendare on February 27, 2013, 06:06:57 PM
By the way, Arash, (and everyone) thank you so much for the excellent job live blogging last night. You guys did such a service keeping a record of the meeting for everyone who couldnt attend.
This is my first time being on the other side of the liveblog experience locally, and it was really fantastic!
Agree 100%
I bumped into Ennis for a second today and mentioned to him that I was able to keep up during after my son's baseball last night on the live blog.
Quote from: strider on February 27, 2013, 05:34:55 PM
If I understand this right, the first moratorium was passed within a month or two of the Mobility passing? So the question that comes to my mind is: was there a reason the fair share laws could not be just suspended (a moratorium on them) and it was easier to pass the new one and then pass the moratorium? I guess I was assuming that the same people who voted no on the mobility fee to start with just got a few more people on their side to get the moratorium passed. It is a bit suspicious that it passed unanimously and then got put on the shelf.
I've been wondering this myself. Considering we saw the state studies on mobility fees and impact fees about 4-5 years ago. Now we're seeing the move to halt these fees at ever increasing time frames with dangerous implications for our future.
I don't think that the plan all along was to move to the mobility fee then strip it. Rather developers seemed to love the predictability and application of the mobility fee. It was, after all, way better than the previous fees.
This is from the state legislature in 2009 http://www.1000friendsofflorida.org/wp-content/themes/1000freinds/formpop/download.php?file=pops/joint-report/MobilityFee.pdf (http://www.1000friendsofflorida.org/wp-content/themes/1000freinds/formpop/download.php?file=pops/joint-report/MobilityFee.pdf)
Quote. The State of Florida has operated under transportation concurrency for nearly a quarter century. A significant benefit has been coordinating the timing of development with the availability of transportation facilities and services. The concurrency system also provides guidance for land use decisions and infrastructure priorities and has allowed private developer contributions to support needed transportation improvements. During this time however, new development and background growth in traffic has consumed and often exceeded available capacity in the system. Public and private investment in transportation has not been sufficient to achieve desired level of service standards.
As our urban centers have become more congested, the cost of mitigating for transportation impacts has escalated. Meanwhile, suburban and rural areas with available roadway capacity have little or no mitigation costs for transportation impacts. When combined with the lower costs of land, concurrency is often seen as a factor in promoting suburban sprawl and discouraging infill, redevelopment and transit supportive communities.
It appears the moratorium bill was 2012-023, however the complete document is not in the online files. It is listed as omitted. I wonder if anyone can access the legislation as well as find out who voted it up or down. Looks to me like the moratorium legislation in 2011 was then followed immediately in 2012 with the moratorium.
Below is the entire bill from2011-536 which Doug was kind enough to give us the number for.
Sec. 655.301. - Existing valid fair share contracts.permanent link to this piece of content
The Council declares as a matter of public policy that the implementation of F.S. § 163.3180(11), is a public necessity and is important in the protection and enhancement of the quality of life in the City of Jacksonville and State of Florida.
(a)
The adoption of the 2030 Mobility Plan and Part 5 of this Chapter does not abridge or modify any rights or any duties or obligations set forth in any validly existing fair share assessment contract or any other contract relating to a valid fair share contract. The development authorized by a fair share assessment contract may be completed in reliance upon and pursuant to the terms of the fair share assessment contract unless the developer or landowner has requested to terminate the fair share assessment contract or a portion of the rights set forth in the fair share contract as set forth in subsection (b) below. Any proposed change to a development which is governed by a fair share assessment contract and 1) increases the trip generation of the development, or 2) changes the trip distribution of the development shall be governed by the requirements of Part 5 of this Chapter.
(b)
If requested by the developer or landowner, the fair share assessment contract or a portion of the rights set forth in a fair share contract shall be administratively terminated by the Director of the Planning and Development Department upon a showing that all required payments or other mitigation related to the amount of development that has commenced on or before the date of termination has been paid or mitigation completed. In order to terminate a fair share contract or a portion of the rights under a fair share contract under this Section, the developer or landowner shall submit a notarized affidavit to the Director of Planning and Development acknowledging that no outstanding rights to be terminated have been transferred to other parties. Additionally, the developer or landowner shall at least 30 days prior to termination provide written notice of all owners of real property within that portion of the fair share contract proposed to be terminated. Evidence of the written notice shall also be submitted to the Director of Planning and Development. If the fair share contract is terminated or portion of rights in any fair share contract are terminated, any future development subject to the termination would be governed by Part 5 of this Chapter.
(Ord. 2011-536-E, § 1)
Sec. 655.302. - Extension of fair share assessment contracts.permanent link to this piece of content
(a)
In the event a developer or landowner wishes to extend the duration of a fair share assessment contract, the developer or landowner shall submit such request on the form available with the CMMSO and pay an application fee of $500.
(b)
For those fair share assessment contracts that were approved through the administrative approval process and for which such extension does not cause the contract to be longer than a total of five years, such extension request may be approved by the Director per the criteria set forth in subsection (d) below. If a request for an extension is approved, the CMMSO shall then forward the fair share assessment contract extension to the Office of General Counsel and the Council Auditor's Office for review and approval, with notice thereof to the district council member and members of the committee of reference, prior to execution by the Director. Such determination may be appealed pursuant to Section 655.114, Ordinance Code.
(c)
For those fair share assessment contracts that were approved by the Council or for those contracts that were approved through the administrative approval process, but would be longer than five years total, such extension request may be approved by the Council per the criteria set forth in subsection (d) below.
(d)
Fair share assessment contracts may be extended based upon the following criteria:
(1)
The extent to which the developer or landowner has complied with the performance schedule set forth in the fair share assessment contract.
(2)
Demonstration of the developer or landowner's good faith efforts at compliance with the performance schedule set forth in the fair share assessment contract.
(3)
Delays in obtaining permits necessary for compliance with the performance schedule, including permits required from regional, state, or federal agencies. Such delays may serve as a basis for an extension when the delays are not attributable to inaction by the developer or landowner, such as unreasonable delays in responding to agency requests for additional information.
(4)
The quantity or type of proposed development and duration (term) of the fair share assessment contract, as originally approved, for example, large scale or mixed use developments.
(5)
Unusual and widely reported nationwide or statewide conditions in the economy or in the market demand for the uses proposed.
(6)
The extent to which a developer or landowner has invested in construction services or infrastructure for development not yet commenced.
(e)
No fair share assessment contract may be extended for more than five years in a single application or for a total duration of longer than twenty total years.
(f)
In the event a fair share assessment contract is extended, the developer or landowner, will be required to pay five percent of the total assessment including the annual inflation adjustment to the CMMSO on each anniversary date of the extension of the fair share assessment contract. Such annual fee will only be applied to a future fair share assessment payment made by the developer or landowner. The developer or landowner is not required to pay the annual fee in the event the contract includes a developer proposed improvement that has been delayed by the City or other governmental agency, unless such delay is attributable to the developer's actions or inactions.
(Ord. 2011-536-E, § 1)
Sec. 655.303. - Transportation facilities and/or transportation projects constructed by a landowner or developer.permanent link to this piece of content
(a)
Applicability. A landowner or developer may construct, or cause to be constructed, transportation facilities and/or transportation projects to offset the transportation impacts of development set forth in a fair share contract.
(b)
Credit against Fair Share Assessment. A landowner or developer who constructs, or causes to be constructed, transportation facilities and/or transportation projects authorized in subsection (a) shall receive credit against fair share assessments as provided in this section for the design, permitting, and construction of roadway and/or intersection improvements meeting the written criteria that has been adopted by the Planning and Development Department and approved by the Office of the City Council Auditor. Such credit may be transferred to other landowners or developers and applied to any fair share assessments for proposed developments which have transportation impacts that would be offset by the constructed facilities and/or projects.
(c)
Calculation of Credit. The credit authorized in subsection (b) shall be calculated using the cost estimates in the most recent issue of the Florida Department of Transportation, Office of Policy Planning, Policy Analysis and Program Evaluation publication entitled Transportation Costs. The cost estimates for facilities and/or projects not identified in Transportation Costs shall be determined by the Public Works Department, prior to the approval of any credit.
(d)
Construction costs, security, and review.
(i)
If the actual cost of construction of the transportation facilities and/or transportation projects is less than the estimated cost of the construction of the transportation facilities and/or transportation projects, the landowner or developer shall receive credit for such difference.
(ii)
If the cost estimate of the construction of the transportation facilities and/or transportation projects is less than the total fair share assessment for which the developer or landowner is responsible, the developer or landowner shall be responsible for paying the difference between the cost estimate of the construction of the transportation facilities and/or transportation projects and the total fair share assessment to the City.
(iii)
The costs shall be deemed incurred and credit shall be provided pursuant to this section when a contract for the construction of the transportation facilities and/or transportation projects is awarded, and a payment and performance bond, or other form of security approved by the Office of General Counsel, is provided to the City to guarantee the funding of the facilities and/or projects. The City shall be a co-obligee under the bond or other form of security.
(iv)
All transportation facilities and/or transportation projects shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to, and after construction to verify completion and fulfillment of any fair share assessment requirements.
(e)
Credit against Mobility Fee. Unless the fair share contract or fair share contract amendment contains a contrary provision, the credit authorized in this Section may be applied toward the payment of a mobility fee owed to the City for development within the same Mobility Zone as the transportation facilities and/or transportation project. Unless the fair share contract or fair share contract amendment contains a contrary provision, credit may also be transferred to other landowners or developers for payment of a mobility fee owed to the City for development within the same Mobility Zone as the transportation facilities and/or transportation project.
(Ord. 2011-536-E, § 1)
Sec. 655.304. - Deposit of fair share assessments; appropriation of funds.permanent link to this piece of content
(a)
Funds received pursuant to fair share assessment contracts shall be deposited into the Fair Share Sector Areas Transportation Improvements Special Revenue Fund established pursuant to Section 111.530, the Fair Share Specific Projects Special Revenue Fund established pursuant to Section 111.535, or other Special Revenue Funds or accounts. The funds deposited into the Fair Share Sector Areas Transportation Improvement Special Revenue Fund shall be assigned to the appropriate account for the affected sector. When the proposed development lies in or affects more than one sector, the Director and the Director of Public Works shall, in their sole discretion, determine whether to deposit the funds in the account of one sector or to allocate the funds between or among the accounts for the other affected sectors. The funds deposited into the Fair Share Specific Projects Special Revenue Fund established pursuant to Section 111.535, or other Special Revenue Funds created by the City, shall be assigned as described therein.
(b)
Appropriated expenditures from the Fair Share Sector Areas Transportation Improvement Special Revenue Fund, from any other Special Revenue Funds, or from any other accounts shall be made when there are sufficient funds which, either alone or in conjunction with other funding sources, equal the amount necessary to commence engineering, acquisition of necessary right-of-way or easements or construction of the specific transportation project(s) determined by the Director and the Director of Public Works to be adequate to serve the proposed developments. The Director shall cause the necessary amendments to the CIP and funding appropriation to be prepared and submitted to the Council for approval.
(Ord. 2011-536-E, § 1)
Secs. 655.305â€"655.308. - Reserved.permanent link to this piece of content
Sec. 655.309. - Existing CRC and CCAS not subject to a fair share contract.permanent link to this piece of content
Any existing CRC or CCAS that is not the subject of 1) an existing and valid fair share assessment contract, or 2) a pending paid application for a fair share contract as of the effective date of Ordinance 2011-536-E, cannot be converted into a fair share contract in order to reserve traffic circulation and mass transit capacity.
(Ord. 2011-536-E, § 1)
FOOTNOTE(S):
--- (2) ---
Editor's noteâ€" Ord. 2011-536-E, § 1, amended the Code by, in effect, repealing former Pt. 3, §§ 655.301â€"655.309, and adding a new Pt. 3, §§ 655.301â€"655.304 and 655.309. Former Pt. 3 pertained to similar subject matter, and derived from Ord. 98-576-E; Ord. 2003-1127-E; Ord. 2004-587-E; Ord. 2004-588-E; Ord. 2005-952-E; Ord. 2006-422-E; Ord. 2006-679-E; Ord. 2007-839-E; Ord. 2008-343-E; Ord. 2008-680-E; and Ord. 2010-695-E. (Back)
From my recollection, the back door lobbying for the first moratorium had already started before the mobility plan/fee was officially adopted. IMO, it was all coordinated to play out the way it did. At the time, I knew, no matter the results, once the precedence was set, these guys would keep coming back. If we had an uptick in construction, they would ask for an extension to keep it flowing. If there was no spurt, they'd do what they're doing now and what Dan Davis tried to sell last night.......we see the light at the end of the tunnel. we need a little help in getting us there. Btw, the statistics keep following into my email account. Here's the latest:
QuoteCouncil Members suffer from a short look-back because of term limits and oftentimes, selective memory. Recall that starting in late 2008, when housing starts dropped by half, then half again in 2009, there was a "run" on converting residential lands to industrial use. Big land owners who had speculated a few years prior that the housing boom would last forever, had converted tree farms and family lands to residential projects. After the housing bust, they came back to the trough, from 2008 through 2010, and took 12,000 or so residential lots out of the inventory.
Council approved the conversion of about 4000 acres of residential zoning to industrial/mixed use in a period of three years...at the bottom of the economic bust. All these rezoning applications stated the same objective: "job creation related to the expanding Port of Jacksonville". Most of those industrial conversions were more than 20 miles from the Port and had no waterfront, rail, or highway access. Instead of multi-modal facilities, these were to be non-modal projects. "Job creators", according to the zoning agents. And, by the way, JAXPORT wasn't really growing at that point, because they were already out of deep waterfront real estate.
Had it not been for the permissive zoning attitude of that City Council era, there would be 30,000 residential lots sitting in the available inventory. As it stands today, we have, easily, double the acreage of industrial land in Duval County as the market could hope to absorb in the next decade, in addition to the ten years of capacity we have in residential. It may sound noisy, but the fact is we could shut down the zoning application intake at Planning and Development and not see one blip on the economic development monitor. In my opinion, we could work off the existing inventory of entitled lands until the 2030 Comp Plan is built-out.
Therein lies the real objective of this moratorium. A Monopoly game, played in real time with real land and real (public) money but with no value-added to the public side of the ledger.
Thanks to all of you who are helping to educate us cyclists and transportation advocates on this complicated issue. I'm not a planner or an economist, just a geologist who rides a bike to work. I've been to this country's top bike cities so I have a good understanding of just how bad and dangerous Jacksonville is.
Wow. That quote from Lake's email is absolutely fascinating. Perfectly laid out. The battle never stops for these people, and why should it? We've shown time and time again that we will give in to them at the expense of current and future generations.
Quote from: fsujax on February 27, 2013, 03:12:11 PM
I still cant get over Daniel Davis referring to those us who oppose the moratorium as "noise". Really?
maybe the rumors of Daniel Davis running for Mayor are also only "noise"
Quote from: thelakelander on February 27, 2013, 07:52:03 PM
From my recollection, the back door lobbying for the first moratorium had already started before the mobility plan/fee was officially adopted. IMO, it was all coordinated to play out the way it did. At the time, I knew, no matter the results, once the precedence was set, these guys would keep coming back. If we had an uptick in construction, they would ask for an extension to keep it flowing. If there was no spurt, they'd do what they're doing now and what Dan Davis tried to sell last night.......we see the light at the end of the tunnel. we need a little help in getting us there. Btw, the statistics keep following into my email account. Here's the latest:
QuoteCouncil Members suffer from a short look-back because of term limits and oftentimes, selective memory. Recall that starting in late 2008, when housing starts dropped by half, then half again in 2009, there was a "run" on converting residential lands to industrial use. Big land owners who had speculated a few years prior that the housing boom would last forever, had converted tree farms and family lands to residential projects. After the housing bust, they came back to the trough, from 2008 through 2010, and took 12,000 or so residential lots out of the inventory.
Council approved the conversion of about 4000 acres of residential zoning to industrial/mixed use in a period of three years...at the bottom of the economic bust. All these rezoning applications stated the same objective: "job creation related to the expanding Port of Jacksonville". Most of those industrial conversions were more than 20 miles from the Port and had no waterfront, rail, or highway access. Instead of multi-modal facilities, these were to be non-modal projects. "Job creators", according to the zoning agents. And, by the way, JAXPORT wasn't really growing at that point, because they were already out of deep waterfront real estate.
Had it not been for the permissive zoning attitude of that City Council era, there would be 30,000 residential lots sitting in the available inventory. As it stands today, we have, easily, double the acreage of industrial land in Duval County as the market could hope to absorb in the next decade, in addition to the ten years of capacity we have in residential. It may sound noisy, but the fact is we could shut down the zoning application intake at Planning and Development and not see one blip on the economic development monitor. In my opinion, we could work off the existing inventory of entitled lands until the 2030 Comp Plan is built-out.
Therein lies the real objective of this moratorium. A Monopoly game, played in real time with real land and real (public) money but with no value-added to the public side of the ledger.
That sounds about right Ennis. The requests to extend the moratorium would continue regardless. We have reached the point in Jacksonville politics that even the most short sighted legislation is given serious consideration by some and readily accepted by others because someone in power want's to impress or payback someone else. We are again facing down this idea of entitlement that leads an industry, in this case builder/developers to believe that the entire city should support their views and plans, even when what they are insisting upon can be shown to not only not work but to have also opened doors to other bad practices. The difference this time around is that those in opposition are informed, educated and active in response to a piece of legislation that should not be passed.
The information in the email exposes yet more flaws in the story being presented by those in support of this bill. This discussion has already begun to percolate in media and in so doing into the consciousness of taxpayers and the response is already a "hell no" to extending the moratorium. This is a bad bill presented under the guise of a jobs bill that has been "glitter bombed" by cronies and lobbyists to make it oh so sparkly and attractive to some of the members on this council. Problem is, the glitter wears off real soon.
I'm digging into more data and adding numbers up. Did you all know that 7-11, Waffle House, Dollar General & Family Dollar combined, adds up to 43% of the $4.77 million already given away in mobility fee waivers? This number should go up because the recently announced Waffle House on Merrill Road applied for +$53,000 in waivers. If I add Wendy's, McDonalds, and a few more gas stations to the list, I'm sure I'll hit 50%.
What's pretty crazy is that four 7-11 gas stations account for 36% or $1,727,680 of the waivers given away so far. If this is about jobs as Daniel Davis suggests, can we at least start pinpointing what jobs would have come to town regardless of if we had a mobility fee, fair share, or nothing at all? Since 7-11 announced before the first moratorium was implemented that they were planning to open 80 stores here by 2015, these are definitely low paying jobs that were coming anyway.
Ennis, I was honestly not aware of the specific numbers and now that I see them I am actually shocked to see the amount of money that four entities have waltzed away with in fee waivers. It really irks me (and I am sure will greatly bother others) to know that exemptions were handed out to a company that had announced their intentions before the moratorium was in place. This all going on during a period where this city is in financial straights.
It is also clear that this is not about jobs. It's about wrapping up a package in a veneer of rhetoric that makes this legislation an easier sell to legislators. It reminds me of the old fairy tale of the hustler who sold a king a set of invisible clothes claiming they were of the finest materials in the land but the garments did not exist. However the king still decided to parade around the public square in these oh so fine robes. The people of the kingdom, saw he was naked but pretended that he was in fact dressed in glory until a small boy finally exclaimed that "The king has no clothes".
This bill and what it pretends to do is about as valid as those "imaginary" garments and the royalty being fooled just happen to sit on our city council. I hope most of them will be as smart as the child in the fairy tale and realize that this bill is a facade to a promise that has not been made real in the past and will not become golden through another extension.
Give me a minute. I'll upload the list of specific projects for everyone to see.
Stephen, do you happen to have an updated media email list?
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Mobility-Plan-Study/i-cS3XPW7/0/X2/Waiver%20Reports%202-13-13_Page_1-X2.jpg)
Bank drive thru lanes, an ATM, a doctors office, an addition to a doctors office, a warehouse addition to name a few items added to the high paying job creating entities of McDonalds and Wendy's. Seriously? Someones office and warehouse and another dollar store with a huge chunk of money going to 7/11 stores who announced before the moratorium? Wow!
I am now interested to see how these zones match up to council districts and who the people behind the businesses are that were on the receiving end of these fee waivers. I think that may shed a bit of light on things.
I'm your huckleberry. Here's a map with the mobility zones overlayed over the council districts:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Mobility-Plan-Study/i-2VrxqRc/0/L/Mobility%20Zone%20Council%20Map-L.jpg)
A map of mobility zones overlayed over at-large council districts:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Mobility-Plan-Study/i-pJQXcnj/0/L/Mobility%20Zone%20At%20Large%20Council%20Map-L.jpg)
Quote from: TheCat on February 26, 2013, 07:53:06 PM
We are on to bill 89.
http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJBillList.asp?Bill=2013-0089
"Bill Summary: The bill appropriates $11,036,722.63 in debt service savings from bond refinancing to a Downtown Economic Development Fund ($9 million) and to the Countywide Economic Development Fund ($2,036,722.63) for use in stimulating economic development in the city.
Background Information: The bill provides that expenditures from the Downtown Economic Development Fund shall be at the discretion and by the authorization of the Downtown Investment Authority board once a downtown redevelopment plan has been drafted by the DIA and approved by City Council. Prior to that approval, any expenditures from the downtown fund must be approved by City Council, as must any appropriations of funds from the countywide fund at any time.
Policy Impact Area: Economic development.
Fiscal Impact: The bill appropriates $11,036,722.63 in debt service savings from bond refinancing to two economic development funds. The Finance Department estimates that much smaller amounts of debt service savings will accrue in future years as a result of this refinancing."
Two speakers spoke on this legislation during Public Comment. One for, one against. The against speaker noted that part of this debt restructuring was from the famous Downtown Destination Grand Jury investigation Location of Shipyards/Landmar. WOW! Lets get ready for Shipyards III.
Shipyards I - $36,500,000 of taxpayer money Downtown gone. 16 acres of Public space, 150 slip marina with not even one slip for the Public. The contract was written wrong.
Palms Fish Camp- next to a FIND project. Someone will be handed a million bucks and they never even opened the door. The contract was written wrong.
Berkman Plaza- Plaza at Berkman, The contract was written?
The Jim Love, Kevin Kuzel 2013 FIND grant project of a floating dock compromise next to Shipyards totally misrepresented by OGC at the last Jacksonville Waterways Commission meeting. The contract was? 2013-105 was also up for Public Comment. Make some noise on this. We are so LOST.
One speaker was for.
Pick and choose the winners and losers.
Downtown Hemming Plaza-Are the tables and chairs in or out?
Jacobs Clock- Who is the new guy at JEA? The clock has been spotted in Talleyrand. As an Independant Agency what is the chance of getting a slab and hooking up this fancy light pole (clock).
Jim Robinson- Same question.
In the meantime do we have any bids?
Parking- We need an app for that. Free parking for judges and council members 2012-202.
FSCJ and the midnight email by Wallace for an extra $500,000 and then voted on and approved by a Board 10 hours later.
JTA and a golden parachute for Blaylock voted on by a Board.
JSO and a million dollar pension by a Board for a convicted felon that victimized children. This week Folio.
150 City employees just let go.
So now we have $11,036,772.63
Our city is broke.
For?
Against?
Monuments for everyone. Check out the new #1 sign.
Ben- JCCI - We need to kayak Downtown before 2025
Another point about this being a "jobs bill" is that the construction itself will generate jobs. Does anyone know the percentages of local hires to "foreign" (meaning coming from outside of Duval County) hires for the major commercial or industrial projects currently being built here? As far as I could tell, in the boom times, the majority of workers on the residential homes were from outside of Duval county. Was not the same true about projects like the Library and the court house?
How about asking them to add an amendment to this moratorium that 95% of the workers (both blue collar and white collar) on any project that gets the waiver must be permanent residents of Duval county and of this country or the fee gets paid anyway. That 95% of all subcontractors must also be home based in Duval County or they pay the fee anyway. That the subcontractors used must prove 95% of their workers meet the residential requires as well. That 90% of the jobs generated by the project itself must be at 125% of minimum wage or they pay the fee anyway. (By the way, the above probably just raised the cost of a project by way more than the cost of the fees waived. )
Tell them that if they want to make this a "jobs bill" that will bring so many jobs to Duval Councty and save us tax payers, then make it about the jobs.
Quote from: strider on February 28, 2013, 08:21:23 AM
Another point about this being a "jobs bill" is that the construction itself will generate jobs. Does anyone know the percentages of local hires to "foreign" (meaning coming from outside of Duval County) hires for the major commercial or industrial projects currently being built here? As far as I could tell, in the boom times, the majority of workers on the residential homes were from outside of Duval county. Was not the same true about projects like the Library and the court house?
How about asking them to add an amendment to this moratorium that 95% of the workers (both blue collar and white collar) on any project that gets the waiver must be permanent residents of Duval county and of this country or the fee gets paid anyway. That 95% of all subcontractors must also be home based in Duval County or they pay the fee anyway. That the subcontractors used must prove 95% of their workers meet the residential requires as well. That 90% of the jobs generated by the project itself must be at 125% of minimum wage or they pay the fee anyway. (By the way, the above probably just raised the cost of a project by way more than the cost of the fees waived. )
Tell them that if they want to make this a "jobs bill" that will bring so many jobs to Duval Councty and save us tax payers, then make it about the jobs.
AGREED! If they claim this is about the jobs, make them PROVE it.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 28, 2013, 12:50:02 AM
I'm your huckleberry. Here's a map with the mobility zones overlayed over the council districts:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Mobility-Plan-Study/i-2VrxqRc/0/L/Mobility%20Zone%20Council%20Map-L.jpg)
A map of mobility zones overlayed over at-large council districts:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Mobility-Plan-Study/i-pJQXcnj/0/L/Mobility%20Zone%20At%20Large%20Council%20Map-L.jpg)
Thanks so much Ennis. I am going to do some cross referencing and all around investigating into who benefited and who lobbied for certain projects.
Quote from: sheclown on February 28, 2013, 08:34:15 AM
Quote from: strider on February 28, 2013, 08:21:23 AM
Another point about this being a "jobs bill" is that the construction itself will generate jobs. Does anyone know the percentages of local hires to "foreign" (meaning coming from outside of Duval County) hires for the major commercial or industrial projects currently being built here? As far as I could tell, in the boom times, the majority of workers on the residential homes were from outside of Duval county. Was not the same true about projects like the Library and the court house?
How about asking them to add an amendment to this moratorium that 95% of the workers (both blue collar and white collar) on any project that gets the waiver must be permanent residents of Duval county and of this country or the fee gets paid anyway. That 95% of all subcontractors must also be home based in Duval County or they pay the fee anyway. That the subcontractors used must prove 95% of their workers meet the residential requires as well. That 90% of the jobs generated by the project itself must be at 125% of minimum wage or they pay the fee anyway. (By the way, the above probably just raised the cost of a project by way more than the cost of the fees waived. )
Tell them that if they want to make this a "jobs bill" that will bring so many jobs to Duval Councty and save us tax payers, then make it about the jobs.
AGREED! If they claim this is about the jobs, make them PROVE it.
I'd be interested to see how many jobs the $23k in mobility fee waivers given for the installation of an ATM created.
I'm also sure that the $460 mobility fee waived didn't stand in the way of Tremron Manufacturing's financing approval for their plant addition.
Quote from: strider on February 28, 2013, 08:21:23 AM
Another point about this being a "jobs bill" is that the construction itself will generate jobs. Does anyone know the percentages of local hires to "foreign" (meaning coming from outside of Duval County) hires for the major commercial or industrial projects currently being built here? As far as I could tell, in the boom times, the majority of workers on the residential homes were from outside of Duval county. Was not the same true about projects like the Library and the court house?
How about asking them to add an amendment to this moratorium that 95% of the workers (both blue collar and white collar) on any project that gets the waiver must be permanent residents of Duval county and of this country or the fee gets paid anyway. That 95% of all subcontractors must also be home based in Duval County or they pay the fee anyway. That the subcontractors used must prove 95% of their workers meet the residential requires as well. That 90% of the jobs generated by the project itself must be at 125% of minimum wage or they pay the fee anyway. (By the way, the above probably just raised the cost of a project by way more than the cost of the fees waived. )
Tell them that if they want to make this a "jobs bill" that will bring so many jobs to Duval Councty and save us tax payers, then make it about the jobs.
Strider, there is no guaranty in any of this that construction jobs, or other jobs for that matter will go to locals. Ennis is correct about the jobs created by ATM installation and the great stimulus of the 460 bucks to expand another facility.
On the whole the building of the courthouse should be testament to the fact that jobs created by our local projects often go to outsiders. Remember how hard and heavy local construction workers lobbied, appealed and plead for jobs on the courthouse? It fell on deaf ears when it came to the Mayor's office and many on council in office at the time. Turner repeatedly hired illegals and even when found out continued to do so and used them to support out of town construction companies and their workers. Frankly, it would be worthwhile to investigate who actually got the construction jobs on some of the items Ennis listed. I have found in the past that constructions jobs that do actually go to local companies seem to find their way into the hands of a special few, which is another story.
If the city is eager to pass a "jobs bill", then let's have one.
Let's write it up as one.
Let's have public meetings about it as one.
Let's go through the legislative process about it as one.
The citizens of Jacksonville, who are struggling to keep on the street lights and mow the city's grass, deserve to decide if they need a jobs bill and what should be in the jobs bill.
Let's not just hand a blank check to the developers. That has worked so well for us in the past.
Well said
It is funny that every "jobs" bill I've ever heard off pays first for the jobs with no guarantees. Wonder why no one suggests a jobs bill where the tax break/incentive takes place after results.
You want a fee waived to create jobs? Fine, pay the fee now, and upon completion of your work, you prove the jobs to us, and we'll refund your money at the safe market risk interest rate. Of course, most of these requests aren't about jobs in the first place.
But that is all separate from the Mobility Plan, cause doing away with the fee is counterproductive to the plan and vision.
It was interested to find out exactly what the parameters are for a mobility fee waiver and what people or entities can request them for. I hope you are all ready for this because it is amazing.
The mobility fee moratorium ended October of 2012. It has been a small window of about four months during which developers and others have been required to pay mobility fees, but even then, they have been allowed to file for a waiver of such fees. The waiver it would follow is necessary for the project to proceed and have a positive impact on Jacksonville. Really? The glaring reality when you investigate this is the fact that many of the projects receiving waivers are in fact nothing more than improving existing structures and in some cases pure foolishness, like pads for trailer parks and the like or larger projects that would likely proceed with or without the fee being paid. Interestingly after the waivers have been filed there is no mechanism within the city to determine if allowing those waivers created jobs or not. There is also no measure by which one might determine the financial impact of those projects on Jacksonville. I have just gotten off the phone with the city office that handles mobility fee's, applications and relevant issues. In order to find out the entities behind who received these waivers you must go down to the city office with the application number in hand, however if you do so, I have been informed, many of those records are "in storage" and must be retrieved.
What follows is the Mobility Fee Waiver application. Look at the parameters for that waiver yourselves and ask, how exactly does what is allowed benefit Jacksonville as a whole? Answer, it often does not and as far as proof that a moratorium made things better in our city. There is no way to do that without standards in place to measure that information and there apparently are none. Looks like a lot of fairy dust has been blown with regard to what a moratorium can and cannot do and if you are keeping score, fairy dust is a few notches down from noise.
MOBILITY FEE CALCULATION CERTIFICATE
APPLICATION FORM
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
OFFICIAL
USE
ONLY
APPLICATION #
DEVELOPMENT #
APPLICATION DATE
I.
TYPE OF MOBILITY FEE REVIEW:
MOBILITY FEE CALCULATION
EXPEDI
TED MOBILITY FEE CALCULATION
(Includes Trip Reduction Credits)
II.
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT:
RESIDENTIAL
NON-RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT NAME:
PROJECT NAME:
ADDRESS:
A.
TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT: (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
A. NEW BUILDING L. OTHER
B. ADDITION O. CONVERTING USE
C. ALTERATION AND REPAIRS R. TRAILER PARK
G. FOUNDATION ONLY W. ACCESSORY BUILDING
J. MOBILE HOME (NEW) X. HORZ. DEVELOPMENT
B.
IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN TH
E BOUNDARIES OF AN APPROVED DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT AREA? YES
___
NO
___
IF YES, INCLUDE TH
E DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
NUMBER
_________.
(THIS WILL BE AN EXISTING CCAS OR CRC APPLICATION NUMBER)
C.
IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDAR
IES OF AN APPROVED FAIR SHARE AREA? YES
___
NO
___
IF YES, INCLUDE THE FAIR SHARE CONTRACT NUMBER
________
___
(THIS WILL BE AN EXISTING CCAS OR CRC APPLICATION NUMBER)
D.
IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN TH
E TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT AREA?
IF YES, INCLUDE SECTOR AND SUBSECTOR #.
SECTOR _________ SUBSECTOR _________
E.
IS THERE AN ASSOCIATED CCAS/CRC#? IF
YES, INCLUDE APPLICATION # ____________________
III. PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT LOCATION
A. COUNCIL DISTRICT
PD/TAZ
PLANNING DIST.
CENSUS TRACT
PANEL NUMBER
MOBILITY ZONE
MOBILITY DEVELOPMENT AREA
1
B.
INTERSECTING STREETS: BETWEEN
AND
C.
REAL ESTATE NUMBER:
IV. AGENT AND OWNER INFORMATION
(PLEASE MAKE SURE THERE IS A ZIP CODE)
A.
AGENT/DEVELOPER
ADDRESS
CITY
ST
ZIP
PHONE
( )
B.
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
ST
ZIP
PHONE
( )
C.
MAIL THE MOBILITY
FEE CERTIFICATE TO:
AGENT
OWNER
V. COMMENTS
VI.
PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT SPECIFICATIONS
A.
TRANSPORTATION LAND USE CODE
PREVIOUS TRANSPORTATION LAND USE CODE
B.
TOTAL LAND AREA
ACRES
C.
ENCLOSED AREA OF
PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT
ENCLOSED SQUARE FEET
D.
TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS
SINGLE FAMILY
DUPLEX
TRIPLEX/QUAD
APARTMENT
MOBILE HOMES
CONDOS
NUMBER OF ROOMS
NUMBER OF BERTHS
NUMBER OF PADS
NUMBER OF BEDS
NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES
NUMBER OF SEATS
OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
2
The ironic thing us that Daniel Davis' statement on Tuesday actually backed up the argument for not supporting the moratorium... The only construction cranes erected have been at the Town Center and Brooklyn, each of which are under a previous transportation concurrency agreement. They are paying fees to payback road construction that already occurred :).
So, according to Daniel Davis... The type of construction that creates jos that fees families occur in areas that pay a form of impact fees.
Couldn't agree more sir!!! Thank you for proving our point.
Quote from: fieldafm on February 28, 2013, 01:46:07 PM
The ironic thing us that Daniel Davis' statement on Tuesday actually backed up the argument for not supporting the moratorium... The only construction cranes erected have been at the Town Center and Brooklyn, each of which are under a previous transportation concurrency agreement. They are paying fees to payback road construction that already occurred :).
So, according to Daniel Davis... The type of construction that creates jos that fees families occur in areas that pay a form of impact fees.
Couldn't agree more sir!!! Thank you for proving our point.
I think it is important that this is pointed out to all members of council. I have to say that it really takes some chutzpah to pretend this is about jobs when it is actually about something else, like paying back expenses already incurred. Amazing isn't it? Remember as well that Daniel is representing the NF Builders so even if it were about jobs, it would be securing jobs for many outside of Jacksonville while we pay the tab.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on February 28, 2013, 01:54:35 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on February 28, 2013, 01:46:07 PM
The ironic thing us that Daniel Davis' statement on Tuesday actually backed up the argument for not supporting the moratorium... The only construction cranes erected have been at the Town Center and Brooklyn, each of which are under a previous transportation concurrency agreement. They are paying fees to payback road construction that already occurred :).
So, according to Daniel Davis... The type of construction that creates jos that fees families occur in areas that pay a form of impact fees.
Couldn't agree more sir!!! Thank you for proving our point.
I think it is important that this is pointed out to all members of council. I have to say that it really takes some chutzpah to pretend this is about jobs when it is actually about something else, like paying back expenses already incurred. Amazing isn't it? Remember as well that Daniel is representing the NF Builders so even if it were about jobs, it would be securing jobs for many outside of Jacksonville while we pay the tab.
Sort of like pretending that reducing the Human Rights Commission is about making the group more productive.
Agree. Fieldafm's point needs to be driven home. :-)
Quote from: Bridges on February 28, 2013, 01:27:01 PM
It is funny that every "jobs" bill I've ever heard off pays first for the jobs with no guarantees. Wonder why no one suggests a jobs bill where the tax break/incentive takes place after results.
You want a fee waived to create jobs? Fine, pay the fee now, and upon completion of your work, you prove the jobs to us, and we'll refund your money at the safe market risk interest rate. Of course, most of these requests aren't about jobs in the first place.
But that is all separate from the Mobility Plan, cause doing away with the fee is counterproductive to the plan and vision.
Bridges, this statement is bang on. Why has this city not made any effort to make sure that all the improvements promised via waiving these fees manifest in the end product? It is a good question. I will add to that the fact that the city has not done it's due diligence when it comes to other incentives given for projects throughout the city. In many cases I have found there was never any real effort to insure that incentives given to some companies, developers or builders with specific requirements like employing small business in their development or requirements for minority participation in a project were actually fulfilled. I spent a great deal off time over the years in city hall going through contracts, specifically in LaVilla where vast amounts of money and tax breaks were given as incentives, yet no effort what-so-ever was was made to make sure those receiving the money kept their end of the bargain. I can tell you categorically that many did not. Why the lack of oversight? As Bridges pointed out, those wanting these benefits should do their thing and if they meet the criterion and promise behind the financial incentives, then they get the money and credit!