Metro Jacksonville

For and Against: The Mobility Fee Moratorium (2013-094)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2135522072_3fsNBcG-M.jpg)

In what is shaping up to be a battle of David and Goliath, Metro Jacksonville continues to stand up to big business interests to illustrate how a three year moratorium (2013-094) on the mobility fee places Jacksonville's taxpayers in a bad financial position. Today, we respond to pro moratorium talking points sheet being used behind closed doors to convince City Council to subsidize all forms of new development without any system of checks and balances at the expense of their constituents.

Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-mar-for-and-against-the-mobility-fee-moratorium-2013-094

Mobility Fee Moratorium's journey this week:  TAKE ACTION

In Rules 10 am this morning. Email your opposition to:

Clay@coj.net, JimLove@coj.net, LBoyer@coj.net, Holt@coj.net, RLumb@coj.net, JRC@coj.net, WAJones@coj.net

In Transportation 2pm this afternoon. Email your opposition to:
GAnderson@coj.net, JimLove@coj.net, RBrown@coj.net, Holt@coj.net, RLumb@coj.net, MattS@coj.net

In Finance10 am tomorrow. Email your opposition to:
Clay@coj.net, GAnderson@coj.net, LBoyer@coj.net, Gaffney@coj.net, Gulliford@coj.net, JRC@coj.net, Joost@coj.ne

all meetings: Council Chamber
First Floor, City Hall
117 W. Duval

If the intention of this bill is a "jobs bill" as Daniel Davis points out, then it seems a better plan would be to introduce a true jobs bill.

All industries could participate in this jobs bill.

This jobs bill could have criteria in place that guarantees jobs to locals.  It could also guarantee that the monies spent by the citizens of Jacksonville for new jobs is monitored and measured.

Dumping millions of dollars in the hands of big developers and hoping that it filters down to jobs for locals is naive at best considering Jacksonville's history in this regard.  At worst, it stinks like corruption.

A "jobs bill" should also not include a provision that exempts certain developments from paying a mobility fee forever, if all they do is plat their property during the proposed three year period.  I'm really not sure that this has anything to do with the economy in the short term.

What's going on with the former K-Mart in St. Augustine is basically what the mobility plan and fee structure guides on a larger scale. Instead of building a new schopping center, this space vacated by K-mart will be redeveloped to house several retailers, including Ross, Ultra and Staples.

Several national retailers to take over Kmart space in St. Augustine

QuoteThe plaza that formerly was home to Kmart on U.S. 1 will soon spring back to life with several new national retail tenants and at least one full-service restaurant, the owner of the property said last week.

“We’re going to completely refresh the Seabridge Square Shopping Center,” said Bonnie Dean, vice president and director of construction for Selig Enterprises, an Atlanta-based company that has owned the property since the early 1980s.

QuoteDean said the demolition and renovation project will cost Selig Enterprises between $6 million and $10 million and that the company is using local contractors and subs to do the work, which should be completed by February.
“Even the existing tenants, like Marshalls, are going to get their facades redone,” Dean said. “We’re also going to do additional landscaping improvements. It’s going to be exciting and will look like a new place.”

full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-03-04/story/several-national-retailers-take-over-kmart-space-st-augustine

Such a project in Jacksonville would have no mobility fee.

Great article Lake!  Thanks for all your hard work.

I can't make Rules this morning, but as of right now I can make the TEU.  I don't represent any specific group, or have a background in urban planning.  I do own a business though, one that could benefit from new development.  But I don't believe their claims, and I think a better Jacksonville benefits everyone.  A better Jacksonville brings businesses, and keeps it's smart youth.  THAT drives jobs, and business for all. 

Everyone needs to email, and stay on them.  I assure you NEFBA has already blasted out emails to their members.

I hate that this is being pigeon holed into a mobility plan/fee vs new development issue, because it's not.  New development is encouraged by the mobility plan set up.  The plan simply guides new development to be financially sustainable instead of the highly subsidized system we've grown accustomed too.  I'm going to try and make it to Rules this morning but I'm not sure if I can make TEU.  At some point, I have to take a little time and produce the things that help keep my lights and water on, lol.

smart growth requires ...well...effort and smarts.

I will attend most of the committee meetings. The problem being that the council has seen me over and over again. The same is true of some of you. Unless the rest of the MJ Mobility Plan supporters show up and speak, it will be like those cards pre-marked by the opposition and given to the Council last week. No show, no go.

2013-94 won't be discussed at the Rules committee today. Supposedly there will be a special joint committee meeting to discuss 2013-94 later in the week. Waiting for it to be official.

Hmm, could a compromise be in the works?

A powerful fact filled piece Ennis, wonderfully done!  Did this get emailed to all the members of council?  How about media?

Yes, I've emailed council members, DIA members last week, and media, as well.  I expect, they'll revise their numbers and attempt to counter with something else, if they already have not.

Very compelling. Great to see this publicized.

wish someone would explain whats happening in laywoman's "It's the first time I have heard of this" terms-

Quote from: Bill Hoff on March 04, 2013, 09:58:24 AM
2013-94 won't be discussed at the Rules committee today. Supposedly there will be a special joint committee meeting to discuss 2013-94 later in the week. Waiting for it to be official.

The reason given by the chair of Rules Committee was the large numbers of people wanting to speak and the time needed for discussion which interferes with Committee business. Keep it up folks. No more behind the scenes deals - let's put the fight out in the open.

Quote from: cindy394 on March 04, 2013, 11:14:43 AM
wish someone would explain whats happening in laywoman's "It's the first time I have heard of this" terms-

This link will provide you with a brief review:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-feb-councilman-clark-wants-mobility-fee-moratorium-

Let me know if you have any additional questions.

Ennis, you can bet some will be trying to rebut what you have shared but they understand they are dealing with someone who has real experience and expertise in this area.  Legislators must listen and take "all" facts into consideration.  Not to do so would scream incompetence and of special interest influence.  The moratorium is just a bad idea and you have explained over and over with appropriate "real" data why that is so.  We cannot afford it for many reasons.

Btw, this was an email sent to me this morning:

Quotebtw, stats on NPR this am were that ped deaths in Jax are up 39% in 2012…and bike deaths are up 80%

Sadly, the JSO answer to this is to ticket people for not crossing at a crosswalk…never mind that the nearest one might be over a half-mile away!

From the Daily Record today.

http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=538890

^ Headline is confusing. Doesn't seem to match the story.

I kind of thought the same thing.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 04, 2013, 11:26:25 AM
Ennis, you can bet some will be trying to rebut what you have shared but they understand they are dealing with someone who has real experience and expertise in this area.  Legislators must listen and take "all" facts into consideration.  Not to do so would scream incompetence and of special interest influence.  The moratorium is just a bad idea and you have explained over and over with appropriate "real" data why that is so.  We cannot afford it for many reasons.

To be honest, I've evolved to the point that I rarely argue the merits of the actual plan anymore, unless discussion goes in that direction.  You can have a field day exposing all the glaring holes in the bad information being presented on why a full fledged moratorium is needed.  One thing that will never change, no matter how you tell the story, is that a full fledged moratorium without individual project checks and balances, directly results in taxpayers subsidizing development and growth that has continued to happen, even during the darkest days of the recession.  For any fiscal conservative who doesn't want to waste taxpayer dollars, this should be a problem.

Quote from: fsujax on March 04, 2013, 11:36:07 AM
I kind of thought the same thing.

Yes, the headline is confusing and it's a great editorial by Jim.  However, I don't agree with the idea that the mobility plan has no impact on downtown.  Jim mentioned this:

QuoteA person's decision to live Downtown is more about lifestyle and convenience than anything else. You live Downtown because you prefer the environment of Downtown compared to living in one of our many outlying communities.

The atmosphere that leads to the urban lifestyle and convenience Jim describes can't effectively happen without additional investment and improvement, such as transit, bike, ped improvements and public policy that promotes pedestrian scale private development.  The mobility plan is a form of policy that does just this and the mobility fees for the urban core are designed to fund the needed multi-modal infrastructure that Jacksonville has largely ignored to date. Yes, we can slowly have a little success by seeing projects like 220 Riverside get underway after a decade of struggling to get off the drawing board.  However, if we want to see the type of change that leads to true vibrancy, investment in public transportation, bike/ped infrastructure, and policies that slow down the proliferation of sprawl will be paramount.

QuoteJim Bailey, The Daily Record: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=538890

The collective commitment to Downtown is as strong right now as I can remember, starting with Mayor Alvin Brown and including political, business and civic leaders.

Heavy lifting is being done for Downtown, as evidenced by Mayor Brown's recent pledge of $9 million for Downtown projects.

Downtown will not live or die on the status of the mobility fee.
Maybe the opponents of the moratorium should offer a compromise, something to the effect of a gradual reduced fee over the three-year period.

When we create a Downtown that attracts people who want the urban lifestyle, the market will demand the construction of more Downtown housing, thus creating more residents.

In the article by Mr. Bailey he states that he has been a supporter of downtown for three decades and then proceeds to make the argument that downtown will not succeed of fail because of the moratorium.  While this may be true at one level what the statement disregards is that the moratorium does more that just impact downtown.  Secondly the inference is that as someone who has cared about downtown for years he perhaps has the street cred to speak up about this issue. This implies that opponents of the issue are not invested in downtown when most clearly are and more importantly actually have real expertise in mobility issues, which Mr. Bailey does not. 

His opinion piece speaks of Richard Clark's statements as to the reason developers are hesitant to proceed with projects, claiming the mobility fee may be part of that problem.  I call "B.S." on this.  First, we are talking about a statement coming from Richard Clark, the same Richard Clark who has spend most of his career in bed with special interests.  Right now his best buddy ever is Tony Sleiman, who backs him in friendship and with his money.  This is the same Richard Clark of the now infamous steakhouse dinner at "Ruth Chris"  hosted by well known lobbyist Paul Hardin.  Richard and others on council left a regular Tuesday night council meeting, dissing the representation of the people who elected them in order to spend time with the lobbyists who wine and dine them.  Nothing Richard Clark says can be measured by anything more than his desire to please special interests with great influence over him and not the citizens nor small business.

Jim also points to the great support for downtown, more than in the past and points to Alvin Brown, political, business and civic leaders.  That statement is also inaccurate and previous efforts to revitalize downtown is evidenced by the millions of dollars poured into it over the past decades as well as the creation of organizations like Downtown Vision and other efforts. 

The reality here is that we now have a DIA on which Jim sits.  That DIA reflects the influences Mr. Bailey spoke of in his piece "some" of which still resonate the influence of the GOB way of doing business.   Let's review some facts about who is behind Alvin Brown's interest in downtown and that begins with Peter Rummell and the "Nifty Fifty" now called the "Civic Council".  Alvin wanted to be mayor and some, including Rummell wanted a person in office whom in his own words "he could work with".  Some of the wealthy movers and shakes of Jacksonville have personal interests in downtown and prior to the mayors election were busy "feeling out" the other candidates and the degree to which they may "expect" support from this candidate for "their own list of priorities".  The candidate most willing to work with their agenda was Alvin Brown.  It was then, later in the campaign that we saw Peter Rummell pour over $400,000.00 into Alvin's campaign as well as some others Republicans.  Some lauded this as a bi-partisan effort, when in fact it had nothing to do with bi-partisanship and everything to do with promises of support from Alvin and Alvin has delivered.  First with 9 million in funding (delivered without a plan) and now attempts to back up that effort with a moratorium on mobility fees to make that money in downtown stretch further for investors who will be looking at how that 9 million will be spent in incentives and how to grow that amount of money to use in their projects downtown.  That is what this is all about. 

I still think Jim is a stand up guy and respect his view but wonder if that view is not one partially expressed in support of some of his peers on the DIA as opposed to support of the entirety of Jacksonville.

As to compromise from opponents of the moratorium, Mr. Bailey mentions a phase out sort of deal.  Perhaps a deal where investors get a waiver after completing projects that meet a specific criterion for job creation (in Jacksonville) and positive financial impact is met. 

^I don't believe that a moratorium on mobility fees will stretch dollars for downtown projects? Downtown is exempt from the mobility fee structure through 2017 because of preexisting development agreements.  In one view, this further levels the playing field in downtown over other areas of town that have been subsidized over the last 60 years at downtown's expense.  On the other hand, a full moratorium, takes this potential financial advantage away from downtown.

^Great point Stephen I have not heard it put that way before.  I hope that one day Downtown is a tax surplus area again but that is not why I want a vibrant downtown.

From downtown I would agree, but folks like Tony Sleiman and others don't just develop downtown.  What I am saying is that this is at it's heart about funds that back builder/investors personal efforts.  They stretch their own money using "incentives" and "waived fees".  In this case Jim made the argument all about downtown and it's not. I should have stated my view with a bit more clarity.  :)

Stephen's statement is a bit more in line with the reality I was pointing to.  It is not just about downtown which is the bulk of the emotional pull in Jim's piece.  I just want folks to look at all the angles and understand why we end up on these merry-go-rounds as opposed to moving forward.

^I'd have to dig a little deeper but I suspect that once you drill things down, one of the core reasons for a push for a mobility fee moratorium is about salvaging speculative land investments on the fringes during the previous real estate boom.  If this is the case, then there will be those who don't care about the mobility plan's credit adjustment system or fee elimination by redeveloping existing underutilized commercial sites.  Yes, 7-11 can select various locations that eliminate their mobility fee but that doesn't help me if it's my pre-owned lot (I want to sell them) getting tagged for higher automobile trip generation, due to it's far out location. Given the last five years, we've all seen our real estate go down the tubes, so that's understandable, but a public subsidy for all new development across the board, to make good on a personal business decision gone bad isn't right for the taxpayer either.

Quote from: thelakelander on March 04, 2013, 12:34:09 PM
^I'd have to dig a little deeper but I suspect that once you drill things down, one of the core reasons for a push for a mobility fee moratorium is about salvaging speculative land investments on the fringes during the previous real estate boom.  If this is the case, then there will be those who don't care about the mobility plan's credit adjustment system or fee elimination by redeveloping existing underutilized commercial sites.  Yes, 7-11 can select various locations that eliminate their mobility fee but that doesn't help me if it's my pre-owned lot (I want to sell them) getting tagged for higher automobile trip generation, due to it's far out location. Given the last five years, we've all seen our real estate go down the tubes, so that's understandable, but a public subsidy for all new development across the board, to make good on a personal business decision gone bad isn't right for the taxpayer either.

"Exactly"!

Quote from: thelakelander on March 04, 2013, 12:34:09 PM
^I'd have to dig a little deeper but I suspect that once you drill things down, one of the core reasons for a push for a mobility fee moratorium is about salvaging speculative land investments on the fringes during the previous real estate boom.  If this is the case, then there will be those who don't care about the mobility plan's credit adjustment system or fee elimination by redeveloping existing underutilized commercial sites.  Yes, 7-11 can select various locations that eliminate their mobility fee but that doesn't help me if it's my pre-owned lot (I want to sell them) getting tagged for higher automobile trip generation, due to it's far out location. Given the last five years, we've all seen our real estate go down the tubes, so that's understandable, but a public subsidy for all new development across the board, to make good on a personal business decision gone bad isn't right for the taxpayer either.

+ 1000

The Daily record should print that.

Quote from: stephendare on March 04, 2013, 12:19:13 PM
And to be certain, I think that this is the result of literally decades of people trying to sell downtown as a tax piggy bank for the rest of the city instead of a thing to be desired on its own.

This has been the traditional mindset of a few generations of developers.  For some reason the downtown existed to fund their expansion and the expansion had no responsibility to stand on its own.

But the goose that laid the golden egg finally ran dry, and there literally is no back up plan.

Good point.  Given the small amount of land area in comparison to the rest of county, there's most likely still an unfair balance of revenue being generated by the urban core to sustain lower density environments that surround it.  I imagine everything from downtown vibrancy to inner city neighborhoods, parks and public schools would be better off today, if each area of town had to be supported/sustained by the amount of revenue it takes in.

In essence, this falls in line with the arguments of those who believe consolidation has hurt certain areas of the city.  From that viewpoint, if you had several smaller municipalities, they'd start to compete based off quality of life.  For example, one my say they'll strive to be a city of parks, while another decides to build itself around cultural attractions or industrial development.  While there are pros and cons to this, this appears to by playing out in South Florida and compact counties with multiple municipalities like Pinellas.

Quote from: thelakelander on March 04, 2013, 12:34:09 PM
^I'd have to dig a little deeper but I suspect that once you drill things down, one of the core reasons for a push for a mobility fee moratorium is about salvaging speculative land investments on the fringes during the previous real estate boom.  If this is the case, then there will be those who don't care about the mobility plan's credit adjustment system or fee elimination by redeveloping existing underutilized commercial sites.  Yes, 7-11 can select various locations that eliminate their mobility fee but that doesn't help me if it's my pre-owned lot (I want to sell them) getting tagged for higher automobile trip generation, due to it's far out location. Given the last five years, we've all seen our real estate go down the tubes, so that's understandable, but a public subsidy for all new development across the board, to make good on a personal business decision gone bad isn't right for the taxpayer either.

Not to mention the opportunity to purchase outlying land at fire sale prices while the market is suppressed, apply for mobility fee waivers, and then wait until the market comes back to develop the land.  Remember, under this bill 2013-94, the waivers are not just for the moratorium period, but forever as I understand it.

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on March 04, 2013, 01:04:33 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on March 04, 2013, 12:34:09 PM
^I'd have to dig a little deeper but I suspect that once you drill things down, one of the core reasons for a push for a mobility fee moratorium is about salvaging speculative land investments on the fringes during the previous real estate boom.  If this is the case, then there will be those who don't care about the mobility plan's credit adjustment system or fee elimination by redeveloping existing underutilized commercial sites.  Yes, 7-11 can select various locations that eliminate their mobility fee but that doesn't help me if it's my pre-owned lot (I want to sell them) getting tagged for higher automobile trip generation, due to it's far out location. Given the last five years, we've all seen our real estate go down the tubes, so that's understandable, but a public subsidy for all new development across the board, to make good on a personal business decision gone bad isn't right for the taxpayer either.

Not to mention the opportunity to purchase outlying land at fire sale prices while the market is suppressed, apply for mobility fee waivers, and then wait until the market comes back to develop the land.  Remember, under this bill 2013-94, the waivers are not just for the moratorium period, but forever as I understand it.

And the waivers are what makes this so political as they are often handed out to a few special folks with money for lobbyists but not for fees.  Funny how that works. 

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on March 04, 2013, 01:04:33 PM
Not to mention the opportunity to purchase outlying land at fire sale prices while the market is suppressed, apply for mobility fee waivers, and then wait until the market comes back to develop the land.  Remember, under this bill 2013-94, the waivers are not just for the moratorium period, but forever as I understand it.

A lot of the land that is in the competition for mobility fee waivers is land that was recently tree farms, rural subdivisions replatted, or small farms. The trees burned, the paper company went to Brazil, the 2 acre ranchettes failed because nobody wanted to drive that far, and the small farmer went broke.

They are dirt cheap in the sense that there are no neighbors to complain, the lots front on a major FDOT highway, a bulldozer can drive from side to side without going around big trees. Plus, the city and state will have to come up with the money to put in more highway lanes, connect the sidewalks, build the schools, and put up a fire and police station. What a deal. 

Quote from: thelakelander on March 04, 2013, 11:28:22 AM
Btw, this was an email sent to me this morning:

Quotebtw, stats on NPR this am were that ped deaths in Jax are up 39% in 2012…and bike deaths are up 80%

Sadly, the JSO answer to this is to ticket people for not crossing at a crosswalk…never mind that the nearest one might be over a half-mile away!

and in a related story from Tampa....

QuoteHaunted by the death of an 8-year-old girl, the City Council pleaded with transportation officials for a more urgent approach to making Busch Boulevard safer for pedestrians.

"I have seen too many of these," council member Frank Reddick said. "It's good to educate, but it's also good to put something in place that would prevent these tragedies from happening."  The latest was Feb. 3, when Jayla Shubbar was hit by a sport utility vehicle while trying to cross Busch Boulevard to go to a convenience store with her 12-year-old sister.

Local and state officials say they have worked to make Busch safer, filling in gaps in sidewalks, making crosswalks more visible and installing pedestrian count-down signals. But a big problem remains. Busch is a six-lane road with fast-moving traffic and stretches as long as half a mile where there are no crosswalks at all â€" so pedestrians cross in the middle of blocks.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/tampa-officials-say-fixing-busch-boulevard-is-urgent/1277032

Let's see Mr Clark ran for a state congressional seat and if he had been elected would have been required to move out of Duval County.  And most likely when his public office gravy train runs out in Duval County he will return to the county where he was raised. Yea....this guy has what is in the best interests for the taxpayers and residents of Duval county long term.

The joining together of the three committees into one meeting is not in the best interests of those of us opposed to the moratorium. It limits the exposure.  You will still have only 3 minutes to speak except now, you only have at best three public hearings instead of five. Unless they do a Saturday thing again, like for Mellow Mushroom, the public loses and the committees members only have to listen to us once.  It  would be interesting to see if this is really even legal . Sometimes things are “interpreted” the way they want it rather than being correct.

Something else that keeps going through my mind.  If a developer is based  in Jacksonville, then will not he pursue the same development whether the fee is there or not?  Isn't that how he makes his money?  So the fee will not chase off the development.

Also, if the developer is not Jacksonville based, then common sense says that the bulk of the money earned as well as the bulk of the construction type jobs will go to where they are based out of, not remain in Duval County.  So much for repaying those tax payer “incentives” though the jobs created.  And being about bringing jobs to our residents.

Last, I wonder what it takes to get an ethics inquiry started.  Let's face it, the only reason the moratorium passes is developer money.  Not jobs, not new development and certainly not common sense.

Agree with you Lakelander.  For comparison's sake, a similar issue has evolved in Atlanta, which has the most lots entitled for single family construction in the entire country (somewhere around 130,000 empty, entitled lots, many of which have the utilities in and nothing more).  It was such a bubble that you had borderline clandestine foreign groups "securitizing" the future value of these lots and selling off the pieces to investors, and then raising more money by further subdividing each lot.  This also translated to spec retail development (a la Sleiman).

What's happened is a complete abandonment of development on the fringe.  There is virtually no new construction further than 15 miles out from the city center now, which is saying a lot for that metro.  Many think there will be a sweet spot of new development to fill in the gaps 10-20 miles out, but beyond that...nothing.  I can't speak to fees in these suburban counties, or lack thereof, but I think the focus of development for the past 3-4 years going forward has been on infill/redevelopment (even in the suburbs around the "town squares" in Marietta, Woodstock, Lawrenceville, etc) and I can't recall such fierce battles about what to do with all those empty lots that lost a lot of money for so many people.

Jacksonville is less dense overall and 1/4 the population.  The city should not be trying to make whole anyone who made bad decisions to buy, entitle, and/or develop lots in areas of the metro that needn't be developed at all and are too far away from anything to justify development in the first place.

Quote from: strider on March 04, 2013, 06:08:15 PM
The joining together of the three committees into one meeting is not in the best interests of those of us opposed to the moratorium. It limits the exposure.  You will still have only 3 minutes to speak except now, you only have at best three public hearings instead of five. Unless they do a Saturday thing again, like for Mellow Mushroom, the public loses and the committees members only have to listen to us once.  It  would be interesting to see if this is really even legal . Sometimes things are “interpreted” the way they want it rather than being correct.

Something else that keeps going through my mind.  If a developer is based  in Jacksonville, then will not he pursue the same development whether the fee is there or not?  Isn't that how he makes his money?  So the fee will not chase off the development.

Also, if the developer is not Jacksonville based, then common sense says that the bulk of the money earned as well as the bulk of the construction type jobs will go to where they are based out of, not remain in Duval County.  So much for repaying those tax payer “incentives” though the jobs created.  And being about bringing jobs to our residents.

Last, I wonder what it takes to get an ethics inquiry started.  Let's face it, the only reason the moratorium passes is developer money.  Not jobs, not new development and certainly not common sense.

You can call the city's Ethics hotline or email the office directly with your concerns.  They will follow up with you and can be depended upon them to do so in all fairness.  :)  There is also a State Ethics office but working with them means a bunch of paperwork and if pursued, trips to Tallahassee.

It's incredulous that anyone thinks the fee waiver over the past year is what "boosted" Jacksonville's ranking to 39th best real estate bet in the country.  It's a macro FL thing as growth and tourism have returned (key drivers of FL economy)...and it's barely trickled down to Jacksonville, which needs to learn to rely less on growth and tourism and more on a real economy.

Here's the SNAPSHOT from the ULI Emerging Trends publications...it's an insult they even quoted

Commercial Investment / Commercial Development / Homebuilding

Miami

2012:: 17 / 26 / 29 (ranked 17th overall based on investment prospects)
2013:: 11 / 11 / 16 (ranked 12th overall on all parameters)

Net change:: +6 / +15 / +13

Overall ranking:: +5


Tampa Bay

2012:: 33 / 35 / 40 (ranked 33rd overall based on investment prospects)
2013:: 25 / 29 / 29 (ranked 29th overall on all parameters)

Net change:: +8 / +6 / +11

Overall ranking:: +4

Orlando

2012:: 29 / 30 / 25 (ranked 29th overall based on investment prospects)
2013:: 26 / 28 / 27 (ranked 28th overall based on all parameters)

Net change:: +3 / +2 / +2

Overall ranking:: +1

Jacksonville

2012:: 40 / 41 / 37 (ranked 40th based on investment prospects)
2013:: 39 / 39 / 41 (ranked 39th based on all parameters)

Net change:: +1 / +2 / -4

Overall ranking:: +1


Now someone go back to Council and show these numbers and ask if they think the fee did much to improve Jacksonville's rankings.  Is Miami curbing fees and regulations?  Is Tampa?  Not only that, would we call Jacksonville's increases in these rankings all that impressive?  These people who make decisions in this city are all nuts.

Quote from: simms3 on March 04, 2013, 06:21:06 PM
It's incredulous that anyone thinks the fee waiver over the past year is what "boosted" Jacksonville's ranking to 39th best real estate bet in the country.  It's a macro FL thing as growth and tourism have returned (key drivers of FL economy)...and it's barely trickled down to Jacksonville, which needs to learn to rely less on growth and tourism and more on a real economy.

Here's the SNAPSHOT from the ULI Emerging Trends publications...it's an insult they even quoted

Commercial Investment / Commercial Development / Homebuilding

Miami

2012:: 17 / 26 / 29 (ranked 17th overall based on investment prospects)
2013:: 11 / 11 / 16 (ranked 12th overall on all parameters)

Net change:: +6 / +15 / +13

Overall ranking:: +5


Tampa Bay

2012:: 33 / 35 / 40 (ranked 33rd overall based on investment prospects)
2013:: 25 / 29 / 29 (ranked 29th overall on all parameters)

Net change:: +8 / +6 / +11

Overall ranking:: +4

Orlando

2012:: 29 / 30 / 25 (ranked 29th overall based on investment prospects)
2013:: 26 / 28 / 27 (ranked 28th overall based on all parameters)

Net change:: +3 / +2 / +2

Overall ranking:: +1

Jacksonville

2012:: 40 / 41 / 37 (ranked 40th based on investment prospects)
2013:: 39 / 39 / 41 (ranked 39th based on all parameters)

Net change:: +1 / +2 / -4

Overall ranking:: +1



Now someone go back to Council and show these numbers and ask if they think the fee did much to improve Jacksonville's rankings.  Is Miami curbing fees and regulations?  Is Tampa?  Not only that, would we call Jacksonville's increases in these rankings all that impressive?  These people who make decisions in this city are all nuts.
 

Simms, email council members and media with this info.  That way they will have it before the next meeting

I would sign on to a request for an ethics investigation if this thing passes.  The logic for a moratorium is just not there. Reasonable people can disagree but so can People who have an interest in promoting Jax with people who have an interest in lining their pockets or receiving election contributions.

Quick question. I noticed that a lot of pedestrian improvements are underway right now on Normandy Blvd. between Lane Ave and 295 like you were talking about in point 3. Is this being funded by the Mobility Fee?

Will do Diane.  Also...look at the numbers.  They don't lie.

Last year metro rankings were based only on Investment prospects.  If they were based on all parameters, Jacksonville may have DIPPED in the rankings.

While Miami moved up 34 spots overall in all 3 parameters, Tampa moved up 25, and Orlando moved up 7, Jacksonville went DOWN by 1 spot because apparently nobody believes there is reason to go into homebuilding in the metro.

The equation isn't some inverse relationship where lower fees = job growth and development.  The equation is [real] job growth based on sustainable and growing industries = development regardless of fees.  The other equation is [no job "growth" but fantastic fundamentals and impossible barriers to entry because of *insane* fees and regulations and land/asset prices] = the *ultimate* investment/development markets reserved only for the most sophisticated institutional capital looking for the most safety possible (i.e. SF, Manhattan, Boston, DC)

It's the Dallas vs Boston question - you want to be in one because of the sheer job growth (and it happens to be very high quality job growth, too...not just low wage workers), and you want to be in the other because you won't face too much competition and you'll never have to worry about diminishing market fundamentals.

Jacksonville just doesn't fit either category...and lowering fees is NOT the magic wand.  It's already about the cheapest, easiest city to buy and build in...it cannot possibly get cheaper or easier than it is already.

Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on March 04, 2013, 07:57:41 PM
Quick question. I noticed that a lot of pedestrian improvements are underway right now on Normandy Blvd. between Lane Ave and 295 like you were talking about in point 3. Is this being funded by the Mobility Fee?

No. We haven't really given the mobility fee a chance to generate revenue for capital improvement projects.  We placed a moratorium on it, less than a month after approving it.

If you want a thing to pass, you limit the amount of time people can speak to oppose it.

In the past 24 hours there has been an encouraging statement from one of the more thoughtful Council leaders that he needs to continue to plow through the data and analysis and is not (yet) committed to the unanimous vote CM Clark seeks. Disproving, once and for all, the unsupportable proponent claims of job creation is starting to "gain traction" as they say in City Hall.That argument and the fiscal irresponsibility of publicly subsidizing land speculation in the urban fringe needs to continue to be repeated this week and next. But why are a relatively few, noisy, do-gooders carrying the ball for downtown landowners, the neighborhood organizations, the Mayor's Office, and the Civic Council? Where are the developers who've already paid significant fees through their Developments of Regional Impact, Development Agreements, Fair Shares, and TIF contributions? Why is it the cyclists outnumber the vested Real Estate interests in this public debate? I know from looking at the number of reads these threads are getting that there is significant interest in the points of view being expressed and I truly am amazed that the people who are most affected individually are sitting by and listening when they should be on the ground and in the Council Chambers, arguing to protect their own prepaid investments in building an infrastructure grid that will, in fact, create jobs and future prosperity. Can MetroJacksonville possibly stimulate a few silent bystanders to make calls to the people they helped get elected? Or get them to offer some compelling dollars and sense data about real deals and how they work and don't work? Possibly so, but time is running short. Those MJ posters who have influence with SPAR, RAP, SMPS, GACC, Argyle Civic Council and so on, need to get those organizations to show up at the Joint Committee next week with position statements on this Bill.

Quote from: sheclown on March 05, 2013, 07:19:57 AM
If you want a thing to pass, you limit the amount of time people can speak to oppose it.

I think, in this case, the combination of the 3 committees into 1 meeting is a good thing

 PSOS, SPAR, RAP and as of last night, the Urban Core CPAC has or is coming out against the moratorium.  Many e-mails have been sent.

Unfortunately, most meetings for this will be starting before many can get to the meeting due to work.  Many people have commitments after work, kids, other meetings ETC.  So it is tough to get  a lot of people at every meeting.  The opposition plans on this and remember, they hire professionals to make the rounds to the councilmen, stand up at the meetings and pass out stickers in support of the moratorium. We are fighting against money not facts.

The idea of having many,many peole speak against the moratorium at multiple meetings is not to present the councilmen with facts, they already know those facts.  It is to cause discomfort.  It is to cause additional media attention.  It is political.  Three meetings into one lessens that.

I am bothered by the concept that a councilman now " ... needs to continue to plow through the data and analysis and is not (yet) committed to the unanimous vote CM Clark seeks."  Has this not been an important enough issue that the committees are coming together in a single meeting?  Did we not already have one public meeting were many facts were presented?  At this point, I have trouble believing it is the facts the councilmen are weighing. In issues like this, it seldom is.

But of course, the facts must be repeated time and time again.  But we also have to look behind the scenes and make sure we have avenues to pursue if the facts are ignored.

Any future ethics investigation should begin with the passing of the first moratorium and follow through to this one.

Quote from: tufsu1 on March 05, 2013, 08:38:39 AM

Quote from: sheclown on March 05, 2013, 07:19:57 AM
If you want a thing to pass, you limit the amount of time people can speak to oppose it.

I think, in this case, the combination of the 3 committees into 1 meeting is a good thing

why would that be?

So is the moratorium coming up in the finance committee this morning?

No, the moratorium issue has been deferred for all committee meetings this week.  The legislation will be considered at a joint meeting (of all three committees) scheduled for 4:00 PM on Monday, June 11, 2013 in City Council chambers.

Well my Morning is opened up maybe I get by Bold Bean.

Quote from: sheclown on March 05, 2013, 08:47:01 AM

Quote from: tufsu1 on March 05, 2013, 08:38:39 AM

Quote from: sheclown on March 05, 2013, 07:19:57 AM
If you want a thing to pass, you limit the amount of time people can speak to oppose it.

I think, in this case, the combination of the 3 committees into 1 meeting is a good thing

why would that be?

for 2 reasons:

1. it allows members of each committee to hear directly what members of other committees think
2. because deferrments often mean that a bill is being worked on/modified

Quote from: thelakelander on March 05, 2013, 08:56:01 AM
No, the moratorium issue has been deferred for all committee meetings this week.  The legislation will be considered at a joint meeting (of all three committees) scheduled for 4:00 PM on Monday, June 11, 2013 in City Council chambers.

I think you mean March 11th

Oops. That's what I get for cutting and pasting emails.

Great video find, Ock.  That explains Florida's situation is less than 3 minutes.  Also to be honest, I'm impressed to see that many people cross the street on foot in Miami.

We need some crosswalk sting action

Since Ennis mentioned the piece Bob shared is less than three minutes I am guessing that this piece will be played at the next meeting as it is allowed under council rules.  Point being you have the right to play it during the three minute speakers time.  You likely know that but just in case...

Quote from: Jumpinjack on March 04, 2013, 01:21:27 PM

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on March 04, 2013, 01:04:33 PM
Not to mention the opportunity to purchase outlying land at fire sale prices while the market is suppressed, apply for mobility fee waivers, and then wait until the market comes back to develop the land.  Remember, under this bill 2013-94, the waivers are not just for the moratorium period, but forever as I understand it.

A lot of the land that is in the competition for mobility fee waivers is land that was recently tree farms, rural subdivisions replatted, or small farms. The trees burned, the paper company went to Brazil, the 2 acre ranchettes failed because nobody wanted to drive that far, and the small farmer went broke.

They are dirt cheap in the sense that there are no neighbors to complain, the lots front on a major FDOT highway, a bulldozer can drive from side to side without going around big trees. Plus, the city and state will have to come up with the money to put in more highway lanes, connect the sidewalks, build the schools, and put up a fire and police station. What a deal. 

In 2003, we built a house in Ashley Woods, off Ashley Melisse, between Kernan and Girvin.  Not far from the now closed Girvin dump (PC term is landfill.)  That subdivision now runs for about a mile from Kernan to past Hickory Creek Road.  There were, are are still, fences along Ashley Melisse by the subdivision with green signs that say "Tree Farm."  It's a good long drive from there to where I worked, which is one reason we sold it.  The other reason is that a family member depends on bus transportation, and the nearest bus stop was 2-1/2 miles away.  Something I didn't think to check as in other Jacksonville neighborhoods I had lived in, I was never move than a 10 minute walk to a bus stop.

I heard Ennis Davis will be on First coast connect 89.9fm radio show tomorrow morning to talk about the mobility fee moratorium.

Can people call in?

From today's Daily Record:  http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=538905

Quote from: John P on March 05, 2013, 04:20:28 PM
I heard Ennis Davis will be on First coast connect 89.9fm radio show tomorrow morning to talk about the mobility fee moratorium.

Can people call in?

yes, the show does accept callers

Yes, I'll be on First Coast Connect in the morning to discuss the mobility fee moratorium.  I'm looking forward to the discussion.

The Transit Miami video clip recalls the good old days of mobility...before we called it mobility. My office was three blocks away from the spot where the cameraman was standing when he shot this, and my apartment was three blocks behind him. I walked through that crosswalk twice a day for two years. It was just as bad in 1980 as it is in that video today. But back then anything was better than the 65 minute/12 mile automobile commute from the "burbs".

Quote from: tufsu1 on March 05, 2013, 09:04:04 AM

Quote from: sheclown on March 05, 2013, 08:47:01 AM

Quote from: tufsu1 on March 05, 2013, 08:38:39 AM

Quote from: sheclown on March 05, 2013, 07:19:57 AM
If you want a thing to pass, you limit the amount of time people can speak to oppose it.

I think, in this case, the combination of the 3 committees into 1 meeting is a good thing

why would that be?

for 2 reasons:

1. it allows members of each committee to hear directly what members of other committees think
2. because deferrments often mean that a bill is being worked on/modified

I will give you another reason:

None of us who are advocating against the mobility fee moratorium are lobbyists who are being paid by the hour.  Every time lakelander, tufsu1, xplanner, fieldafm, sheclown and the rest of us sit through a committee meeting it is keeping us from paid work.

I hope as many of you can attend the joint meeting on Monday as possible.  A strong presence is important, even if there may not be an opportunity to speak.  Committee meetings typically do not open the floor for public comment (not to be confused with LUZ where public hearings are held).

Quote from: thelakelander on March 05, 2013, 04:54:32 PM
Yes, I'll be on First Coast Connect in the morning to discuss the mobility fee moratorium.  I'm looking forward to the discussion.

What time?

9am I believe

549-2937. Call to comment or ask questions.

Good luck this morning, Lakelander! Thanks for representing the voice of reason on this topic this morning's First Coast Connect  ;D

All over.  That was pretty fun.  Btw, here's some more proof that the economy is improving.  I assume, the mobility plan and mobility fee system wasn't enough to keep all of these projects from recently pulling construction permits:

Freshfields Farm permit pending for $1.5M project
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=538906

Great job today Lake. Tom really did consistently make the case that there should not be a full-blown moratorium. I do think his comment about there should be more of a difference between what the core neighborhoods get waived and sprawlville  that was a good one. Your point about the money we gave away to 7-Eleven was the coup de grace however.

^Financially, a full blown moratorium does not make sense from all the data and statistical information out there.  However, there is some validity to possibly adjusting the credit reductions for better growth.  I much rather see that, then a full blown moratorium that basically subsidizes nationwide expansions of 7-11, Waffle House, and Family Dollar. Our overall annual city budget hovers around $2 billion.  How on earth can it make sense in anyone's view that a company which enjoyed $77 billion in sales globally last year can't open in podunk little Jacksonville because we require them to cover their negative impact.  I know some of us consider Jax as this huge city but in reality it really isn't.

You can be assured that Wendy's has a line item covering their impact fees in their project proformas. You can also be assured that Combo #1 will cost you the same in Jax, Miami, Tampa, and Orlando, despite the differences each place may charge in impact fees.

Well done Ennis!  Thank you for taking your time and energy in this way.

When you can't fight the facts what does one do?  Well apparently Daniel Davis and the N.E. Florida Builders organization have decided to go for "Gimmick's".  Cool huh?  If you can't prove your case for a continued moratorium with valid facts and documentation go for blocks of wood.  Even in the face of clear evidence that a moratorium does not work and the last one failed,  you have your friends send "blocks of wood with stickers on them saying yes on 94" to all the members of City Council!  Certainly impressive as the blocks must be delivered with regular mail to all council members.  To up the anti you then go on the evening news broadcast and promote the false notions that this is a"jobs bill". The "jobs creation line" seems to be the latest meme when one want's to get the attention of legislators and have them blindly side with you.  lol   Never mind that the last moratorium failed, never mind there is no proof of job creation and this is not a jobs bill. Certainly do not point out that current facts show both building and the economy are making the positive turn around in Jacksonville and this bill isn't needed.

Gimmick's cannot replace facts and I have an idea what council can do with those blocks the builders are sending them and no it's not what you think.  lol  My suggestion is that they use those blocks of wood as doorstops to their chambers because you can be darn sure that the public and opponents of this bill are not going to sit back and let a gimmick override that facts in this case and the facts do no match the spin, in spite of all the money thrown behind lobbyists and attempts to push this bill through.  So hold open the doors city hall, the people are on their way.  :)

http://www.news4jax.com/Mobility-Fee-Debate/-/475982/19245412/-/7g4gaz/-/index.html

And on the same broadcast we get news of improvements nationally and in Jax and this while no moratorium is in place. I truly hope everyone is paying attention to the facts and not the fantasy's.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/Job-Market-Continues-Growth/-/475880/19244738/-/wre0aoz/-/index.html

The only group supporting this bill is the group who can financially benefit from it.

On the other hand, the many groups who oppose this bill, do so out of a desire to improve the city they love.

Indeed. Also notice that New4Jax presented this a bicyclists against builders.  That piece of inaccurate information needs to be made clear.  This is not just about bike paths, it is about our city as a whole losing out on much needed funding via an unneeded moratorium bill.

What time would that 4:00 meeting be over? I can make it about 6:00 .

Hard to say Debbie.  It may last awhile but you never know. 

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-04-06/story/jacksonville-council-panels-hear-new-version-contested-mobility-fee (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-04-06/story/jacksonville-council-panels-hear-new-version-contested-mobility-fee)

QuoteBy Steve Patterson
Stalled legislation that would waive some developer fees to help Jacksonville’s construction industry is resurfacing after critics and backers accepted compromises suggested by a City Council member.

Three council committees are scheduled to meet jointly Monday to debate a new version of a bill (2013-94) that had divided people involved in development and groups who want bicycle and pedestrian facilities the fees help pay for.

Councilman Richard Clark had originally proposed a three-year waiver of the city’s “mobility fee,” which charges fees from developers based on how each project is expected to affect roads and other transportation systems in their part of town.

Councilman John Crescimbeni said Friday he plans to offer a substitute version of that bill, which was tabled in March after strong lobbying by backers of the fee system. If it’s approved by the three committees, the new version could be voted on by the full council Tuesday.

Crescimbeni’s version of the bill shrinks the waiver period to 18 months and then sets new limits meant to motivate developers to start projects soon.

After a three-month “ramp-up” period when the waiver wouldn’t be in effect â€" that would let companies get ready, Crescimbeni said â€" the city would waive 75 percent of the normal fee for projects permitted in the next six months.
If the project was permitted after that six months, the waiver would cover only 50 percent of the fee, then after another six months the waiver would drop to just 25 percent.

That scaled-down offer represented a compromise that Crescimbeni said advocates on both sides told him they could live with.

“From where I sit, I think they walk away with something they wanted and didn’t have to surrender to something they didn’t,” he said.

Advocates seemed to appreciate that.

“I think John has come up with a very good idea that both sides can agree. … None of us got exactly what we wanted, but we got something,” said Curtis Hart, a developer and lobbyist who was part of talks Crescimbeni held to hear out both sides. “I’m hoping it just passes. Since you’ve got a consensus of those for and those against, the council will, I hope, just take up the bill and pass it out.”

Under the substitute version, the fees that aren’t waived would be steered first to accounts that finance bicycle- and pedestrian-oriented projects listed in a city work plan. If those are fully funded, the rest of the fees collected would go to other transportation projects.

The city set up the fee system in 2011 and quickly waived it in hopes a recession-scarred building industry would regain some strength.

The first 12-month waiver period expired in October.

The city waived $3.2 million worth of fees in that year, but couldn’t be sure what it had truly given up. The fee system includes credits that would have lowered some developer costs, but weren’t calculated since they weren’t going to matter.

To get the waiver, Crescimbeni’s bill would require developers to complete a more complicated fee calculation.
Clark said he hasn’t seen Crescimbeni’s legislation and can’t comment on it but feels he was right to offer the original bill.

“I have every intention of moving on and supporting the construction industry 100 percent,” he said.

Anyone here been involved with this? It claims to have involved both sides of the debate. I strongly suggest that the bill be given a very close review as the original gave things away forever, who's to say this one won't as well?  And it seems likely to be pushed through so the "noise" can't be heard.

Frankly, anything like this, any kind of "compromise" at this point is a loss for Jacksonville as a whole and a nod to the power and money of those who think of us regular old taxpayers as nothing but noise.

This was as good a deal as we were going to get after 9 months of hard work, unfortunately. 

So this pops up on Monday and will be voted on by Tuesday?  This is what this is saying?

How can that be?

Concerned citizens paid babysitters and provided dinners to their families in styrofoam containers to attend city council meetings.  Legions of clerks and accountants shot out emails from their desks during breaks.  Small business owners closed shop early to attend and have their voice heard on this matter AND NOW YOU SAY THAT YOU WILL DO THIS WITHOUT ANY CHANCE FOR THE PUBLIC TO HAVE A SAY?

At least it puts the mechanisms of the mobility fee plan in place and seems to do away with the open-ended nature of the first moratorium.

this is exactly why you have an apathetic citizenry.  Items sneak in at the last minute when the average Joes don't have time enough to plan.

SHAME ON YOU.

This is nothing but selling out those of us who took off work or shut businesses down early to go to the meetings and support the mobility fee.  Take a look at the videos of those meetings.  How many of the people speaking for the moratorium were not paid in one way or the other to do so?  How many supporting the mobility fee were being paid to do it?  None, in fact we were actually paying for the right to speak on it's behalf.

If this was such a wonderful thing, Fieldafm, you would have been plastering it all over this site. This is a slap in our faces and supporting the fact that us caring taxpayers are nothing but NOISE.  I, for one resent that.  Meanwhile, how about posting the “new” bill here now so we can see what is being done to us? You must have it if you are saying it is as good of a deal as we can get. And even then, how on earth do you figure that in any way?  We have a fee that was voted on and passed unanimously and yet the best we can get is to have it ignored?

And Dogwalker, how do you know it does away with the open ended nature of the first (proposed?) moratorium?  Have you also seen the new bill?  Did you have time to read and understand it?  By the way, we do not need a compromise to put the mechanisms of the mobilty fee in place; it is legally already in place.

Yes, I know the normal definition of a compromise â€" the best compromise is one that both sides walk away from the table unhappy.  But is it even a compromise if all on both sides are not aware of it?  Is it a compromise if it is being rammed through without giving those it effects the chance to understand it and comment on it?

Besides, are there not some things that should never be compromised on?  Isn't the future of Jacksonville one of them?

I do not trust our leadership not to follow the money.  And in this case, all the money is going the wrong way.  All the arguments have been made and still, the award winning mobility fee is going to be ignored. The future of Jacksonville is being ignored.  I guess, after all this, I should not be surprised that the “Noise” is being ignored as well.

If this is really a best deal compromise, then our leadership needs to not vote on it Tuesday but rather give us the time to read and comment.  Rushing it is what proves it to be not in the best interests of this city. And proves that everyone involved with the compromise knows that.

QuoteIf this was such a wonderful thing, Fieldafm, you would have been plastering it all over this site.

Let's not throw stones.  Frankly, it would be best if you took a deep breath and reconsider taking your anger out on me.  I sacrificed a tremendous amount arguing against the moratorium.  I don't think any moratorium in any form should take place, instead I think the trip credit system should be modified and the VMT adjusted within certain mobility zones.  So, no I am not happy with what looks like the end result will be... But two months ago things looked about as bleak as they could have been.  To get to this point, while not perfect, is quite an accomplishment considering the current lineup of city council representatives.  The best thing that can happen, would be for the majority of them to be replaced next election. 

I know you spent a lot of time on this, but frankly, that means that you of all people should not be accepting a compromise at all.  You have worked hard for this city and managed to do some good things.  I disagree things looked bleak, they certainly could have been bleak, but you and others rose to the occassion.  Defending the compromise makes it seem like you have given up the fight.

Still waiting for the compromise bill to be put up here so we can see it.

Last week, CM Crescimbeni invited three members from each side to meet and see if a compromise could be achieved.  Those were:

Pro-moratorium:

Curtis Hart (homebuilder), Mike Herzberg (commercial developer), Wyman Duggan (land use attorney for residential developer)

Anti-moratorium:

Steve Tocknell (BPAC), Mike Saylor and me.  Both Mike and I were clear to explain that we were not official representatives of any group, however, because we have both been publicly active on this issue, I suppose CM Crescimbeni considered us to be like-minded with the larger group of advocates.

I can't say that I like the proposed amendment, because I still believe that a moratorium is unnecessary.  However, I also am beginning to understand the realities (and necessity) of political consensus in our government.  Regardless of how much I might not like something, there are 19 elected members of the council who have the legal authority to make this decision, and I have to live with the result.  I can choose to pout at the loss, pack up my toys and go home; or I can choose to stay in the game and continue working toward a better city.  Lasting progress is made in tiny steps, and sometimes those steps seem to go the wrong way.  The surest way to guarantee losing is to stop taking those steps.

As far as the amendment language goes, I don't believe that it has been officially submitted by CM Crescimbeni.  I expect that will happen at or shortly before the next joint committee meeting held Monday after at 4:00 pm.

Quote
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
JOHN R. CRESCIMBENI
Councilman, At-Large Group 2
OFFICE (904) 630-1381
FAX (904) 630-2906
E-MAIL: JRC@coj.net      117 West Duval Street
City Hall, Suite 425
Jacksonville, FL  32202

TDD: (904) 630-1580

April 5, 2013
10:05 A.M.

NOTICE


TO:      Finance Committee Members
      Rules Committee Members
      Transportation, Energy & Utilities Committee Members
   
FR:      Honorable John Crescimbeni, Chair
      Finance Committee

      Honorable Clay Yarborough, Chair
      Rules Committee

      Honorable Greg Anderson, Chair
      Transportation, Energy & Utilities Committee

Re:       Notice of Joint Finance, Rules and TEU Committee Meeting â€" April 8, 2013

Notice is hereby given that the Honorable John Crescimbeni, the Honorable Clay Yarborough and the Honorable Greg Anderson hereby call a Joint Finance, Rules and TEU Committee Meeting to discuss pending legislation on Monday, April 8, 2013 at 4:00 PM, in Council Chambers, 1st Floor, 117 West Duval Street. Jacksonville, Florida, 32202.

  2013-94   ORD Waiving Portions of Chapt 655 (Concurrency & Mobility Mgmt Syst), Sec 655.503 (Mobility Fee Requiremt, Certificate, Appl Process & Calculation), Ord Code to Auth the Waiver, under Certain Circumstances, of Mobility Fees for 3 Yrs after Effective Date of this Ord. (Reingold) (Introduced by CM Clark) (CPAC Ltr to Deny)
Public Hearing Pursuant to Chapt 166, F.S. & CR 3.601 - 2/26/13
   1. 2/12/2013 CO  Introduced: R, TEU,F
       2/19/2013 R Read 2nd & Rerefer;    2/19/2013 TEU Read 2nd & Rerefer
       2/20/2013 F Read 2nd & Rerefer
   2. 2/26/2013 CO PH Read 2nd & Rereferred; R, TEU, F

Please mark your calendars accordingly.  All interested parties are invited to attend.

Please contact Carol Owens â€" Legislative Services Division at (904) 630-1404 for additional information or correspondence.

JC/clo

xc:   Council Members/Staff                                                                                 
        Cheryl L. Brown, Director/Council Secretary                                    
        Dana Farris, Chief â€" Legislative Services Division
        Carol Owens, Assistant Chief â€" Legislative Services Division
        Jeff Clements, Chief, Research Division
        Kristi Sikes, Chief, Administrative Services Division
        Office of General Counsel
        Public Notice System â€" City Council Web Page
        Electronic Notice Kiosk â€" 1st Floor City Hall
        Media Box
        CITYC@COJ.NET

Does anyone have the details on this?  Doug?

It was only through a close reading of the other that we realized the moratorium could be wrangled to waive the fees for future development.

Why the rush to this compromise?

Are these questions considered "pouting?" 

Perhaps it's because I'm a Great Grandson of Confederate Bushwhackers?  My Southron Blood rises to a boiling point when I think about these spineless, pandering, weaklings on our City Council. If we can pull it off, I say we ALL SHOW UP at the meetings. It would be great if we could get some signs quickly made demanding we impeach Clark, Crescimbeni and the rest of the gang that supports this breach of the public will and trust. Such a protest makes for great new's and it would give us a chance to air this to the greater public.

Is stoning illegal in Jacksonville? Just wondering...

 We all need to remember something.  We have the Mobility fees NOW.  Any so called compromise is a huge loss.  If they are giving up anything it is because of the pressure they got over this.  If it worked well enough to give them pause, why won't it work to stop any kind of moratorium?  Why give up?  Doug, it is only a loss of you give up and walk away from the table accepting the small little "gift" they are offering you.   Are they not only offering that "gift" because they are afraid of losing themselves?

Meanwhile, we may have all of a day to see what they are doing to us.  And even then, no guarantee that they won't take it away for Tuesday's vote and screw the city even more.

Quote from: strider on April 07, 2013, 10:38:54 AM
This is nothing but selling out those of us who took off work or shut businesses down early to go to the meetings and support the mobility fee.

actually I disagree 100%....this is a direct effect of people speaking up...otherwise a full moratorium of the fee would have passed!

and yes, several on this site were involved in the compromise discussions....the deal was presented at BPAC the other night and supported by them as well

This may be a great bill - or it may be more of the same.  Without an opportunity to read it, the citizens - and Council Members - won't know until the last minute.  What is the rush?

Also, I am a bit confused, the TU article said the legislation language won't be ready until Monday, yet people who were invited to the meeting are saying it is a good compromise.  "What" is a good compromise, if there is no bill language yet?

Sounds to me like 50/75% of the whole damn Council could be tossed out, if only we had the will to fight on. Anybody recall that BJP $100 Million for transit?

QuoteThe 2012 Florida Statutes


Title X
PUBLIC OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND RECORDS
Chapter 112
PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: GENERAL PROVISIONS
View Entire Chapter
112.51 Municipal officers; suspension; removal from office.â€"

(1) By executive order stating the grounds for the suspension and filed with the Secretary of State, the Governor may suspend from office any elected or appointed municipal official for malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty, habitual drunkenness, incompetence, or permanent inability to perform official duties.

(3) The suspension of such official by the Governor creates a temporary vacancy in such office during the suspension. Any temporary vacancy in office created by suspension of an official under the provisions of this section shall be filled by a temporary appointment to such office for the period of the suspension. Such temporary appointment shall be made in the same manner and by the same authority by which a permanent vacancy in such office is filled as provided by law. If no provision for filling a permanent vacancy in such office is provided by law, the temporary appointment shall be made by the Governor.

so many secrets...always secrets and last minute maneuvering...

Quote from: tufsu1 on April 07, 2013, 02:23:42 PM

Quote from: strider on April 07, 2013, 10:38:54 AM
This is nothing but selling out those of us who took off work or shut businesses down early to go to the meetings and support the mobility fee.

actually I disagree 100%....this is a direct effect of people speaking up...otherwise a full moratorium of the fee would have passed!

and yes, several on this site were involved in the compromise discussions....the deal was presented at BPAC the other night and supported by them as well

Yes, if we (meaning a whole lot of people) hadn't spoken up it might have passed as it was.  Isn't it great that we spoke up and they stopped to consider what we said?  Of course it is.  But why a sudden back room deal, 'cause that is certainly what this feels like.  We should not stop here, we should be going for it all, not a compromise that is nothing but a loss.

And what did the bike people get for this loss, I'm wondering? What about the rest of us? Or am I wrong and the battle against the moritorium was only for them and not what was best for the real future of Jacksonville?

If several here were involved, why did they not speak up?  Were they not the same ones who encouraged us by asking for support right here on this forum?  And now a back room deal under which we once again LOSE the Mobilty fee ( or most of it) and what it could do for all of us.

Still no real word from those present at the talks about what this loss is really costing us.

In a nutshell:

18 month moratorium period that will consist of three (3) six-month periods

• 0 to 6 months = 75% fee waiver
• 6 to 12 months = 50% fee waiver
• 12 to 18 months = 25% fee waiver

The first 6-month period would start 3 months after the bill is signed by the mayor.

Bike/ped projects within the mobility plan will be funded at the same dollar value (not percentage) they would have been funded at if they were collecting 100% of the fee.  The non bike/ped projects will get what is left over.

The part of the bill that exempted residential lots based on construction of infrastructure was removed.

Quote from: stephendare on April 07, 2013, 05:03:54 PM

Quote from: dougskiles on April 07, 2013, 04:52:16 PM
In a nutshell:

18 month moratorium period that will consist of three (3) six-month periods

• 0 to 6 months = 75% fee waiver
• 6 to 12 months = 50% fee waiver
• 12 to 18 months = 25% fee waiver

The first 6-month period would start 3 months after the bill is signed by the mayor.

Bike/ped projects within the mobility plan will be funded at the same dollar value (not percentage) they would have been funded at if they were collecting 100% of the fee.  The non bike/ped projects will get what is left over.

The part of the bill that exempted residential lots based on construction of infrastructure was removed.

So for the first 6 months, all the other taxpayers will only have to pay for 75% of the taxes that the suburban developers would have to pay under the mobility fee?

And that is half of what they were paying before under the concurrency.

Which I guess means that now the rest of the taxpayers are going to pay for 87.5% of the development tax for them, and then 100% of all the maintenance for every bit of infrastructure that their development force to be built every year afterwards.

But thats just for the first six months.

Then it goes down to an average of 75% of the old concurrency rates will be funded by the tax payers for the first year, and then 100% every year afterwards.

And then for another six months, the taxpayers will only pay 50% of the old concurrency on behalf of the developers and 100% for every year after that?

nobody could spring for hookers and a massage?

Seems awfully unfair to the developers.

They sure think so.

Quote from: stephendare on April 07, 2013, 05:19:40 PM
and btw doug thanks for showing up and representing in a kangaroo court meeting.  It looks like all other parties, including the Times Union threw you under the bus as being the Other Side, even though you made clear that you were there as a group of individuals.

Thanks for recognizing that.  It was a bit of an awkward position to be in.  Mostly, because I saw this reaction (today on MJ) coming from the moment I agreed to be part of the meeting.

However, I completely understand the frustrations expressed today about how these decisions are made.

Quote from: dougskiles on April 07, 2013, 04:52:16 PM
In a nutshell:

18 month moratorium period that will consist of three (3) six-month periods

• 0 to 6 months = 75% fee waiver
• 6 to 12 months = 50% fee waiver
• 12 to 18 months = 25% fee waiver

The first 6-month period would start 3 months after the bill is signed by the mayor.

Bike/ped projects within the mobility plan will be funded at the same dollar value (not percentage) they would have been funded at if they were collecting 100% of the fee.  The non bike/ped projects will get what is left over.

The part of the bill that exempted residential lots based on construction of infrastructure was removed.

On the surface, transit and roads appear to take the brunt of the hit.  A significant portion of bike/ped project infrastructure additions were included as a part of road construction costs.  For example, widening Normandy Blvd to 6 lanes between I-295 and Cecil Commerce Center included over five miles of new sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides of the street as a part of the $54 million road construction estimate.  Those facilities were not included in the bike ($36 million) and ped (13 million) budget.  Other examples of this include complete streets road projects along Southside, Dunn, Trout River, New Berlin and Philips Highway. Any idea on how this extra money intended for bike/ped will be broken away from the road project costs that are getting hit with the staggered 18 month subsidy period?

As a member of the Jacksonville BPAC, I would like to say that there was not any support given for this compromise. The chair and a few other members complimented CM Cresimbeni for his work to negotiate a solution but many on the committee were dismayed and openly questioned whether this was just a placeholder situation until another effort to destroy the mobility plan will occur.

I could not help but notice in the T-U article today that quotes were given by Curtis Hart and CM Richard Clark but none by the other participants.

Doug you have done a wonderful job educating everyone on the mobility fee.  Your presentations clarify a difficult concept. And like it or not, you are a leader of this charge.  We followed you and your direction.

And we will follow you again, if you choose to stand against this "compromise". 

We care about this because you, Ennis, Mike, made us care about it.  Made us understand it.

Quote from: dougskiles on April 07, 2013, 04:52:16 PM
In a nutshell:

18 month moratorium period that will consist of three (3) six-month periods

• 0 to 6 months = 75% fee waiver
• 6 to 12 months = 50% fee waiver
• 12 to 18 months = 25% fee waiver

The first 6-month period would start 3 months after the bill is signed by the mayor.

Bike/ped projects within the mobility plan will be funded at the same dollar value (not percentage) they would have been funded at if they were collecting 100% of the fee.  The non bike/ped projects will get what is left over.

The part of the bill that exempted residential lots based on construction of infrastructure was removed.

All well and good.  OK, not good, it's still a big loss.  What concerns me is that no one spoke up about this.  And that means there is something we are going to miss.  If this is rushed through next Tuesday, are we going to find that the 75% can be carried forth forever if this or that is done?  Or will this be a token "compromise" that will hopefully keep the Dougskiles at bay long enough to pull a fast one and get what they really want at the very last minute.

By the way, it is not that anyone went to the meeting.  It is that nothing was said about it.  Where were the posts about the meeting Dougskiles went to that involved all of us? Where was the post about the coming meeting on Monday and the possibility that there would be a vote on it on Tuesday?  I found out by accident when certainly the major players knew about it.  That is what I, and I suspect lots of others, take exception to. Going to a meeting and getting beat up is one thing.  Failing to tell us, the people who followed your lead on this issue, is quite another.


The BPAC ( Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee) is a citizen's advocacy group that promotes safe and healthy places and programs for pedestrians and bicyclists.  And interesting is it not that a member has gone on record to say they did not support this "comporomise".


Never give up... and never surrender. - Jason Nesmith - Qalaxyquest - 1999

I think the case against this cozy deal  has been clearly framed by Stephen - the taxpayers get to cover the costs, 75%, 50%, 25% of any and all transportation impacts created by new development in this burg for over a year.

Many of our council members are contemplating how they can get rid of this mobility plan forever. Perhaps they hope that Representative Lake Ray will help them do it with two state bills to prohibit local mobility and impact fees which counties use to pay for unfunded impacts to schools and transportation.  Curtis Hart may be crying about how sad this compromise is for him and the Jacksonville builders group, but he is probably grinning as the legislature takes over the job in Tallahassee.

Quote
And that I think is a big problem.

Weve got to transform this.

Well, your best chance will be at the next election.  That's as clear as ever after being a part of this convoluted process. 

Quote from: Jumpinjack on April 07, 2013, 07:32:00 PM
I think the case against this cozy deal  has been clearly framed by Stephen - the taxpayers get to cover the costs, 75%, 50%, 25% of any and all transportation impacts created by new development in this burg for over a year.

Many of our council members are contemplating how they can get rid of this mobility plan forever. Perhaps they hope that Representative Lake Ray will help them do it with two state bills to prohibit local mobility and impact fees which counties use to pay for unfunded impacts to schools and transportation.  Curtis Hart may be crying about how sad this compromise is for him and the Jacksonville builders group, but he is probably grinning as the legislature takes over the job in Tallahassee.

More information on this please?

The mobility fee bill Lake Ray is sponsoring will not affect the plan adopted in Jacksonville

Recent note I have sent to the council and Mayor.

QuoteThe Bureau of labor Statistics March report showed a general slowdown in March. The bright spot was that construction jobs continued to show very strong growth almost 20,000 jobs.  The fantastic growth in the first Quarter close to 100,000 construction jobs is good news for the council. Now there is conclusive evidence that no Mobility Moratorium is at all needed and nothing needs to be done.  Since construction is so strong now the only purpose for a moratorium is to bail out sprawl speculators who invested in outlying properties and would like to shift their costs to the local tax payers.

Doug, my ire was not directed at you, it is clearly aimed at the city council, a corrupt, conniving and unprincipled collection of human waste as has ever been enthroned.  At least when North Korea nukes us and takes charge they'll find we have already seated  the "Provisional People's Committee" in Jacksonville.

Stephen, I think we should be very loud and very public about this and put any member of the council that supports any compromise on notice that we are coming after you, in print, and in photos, and IN PUBLIC.

Sheclown, in a nod to your post, in our message to these council members, I offer this. "You fools! You fail to realize that with your excuses gone MJ, will tear through you like tissue paper!  Well, let me tell YOU something, Mr/Ms Councilperson, It doesn't take a great actor to recognize a bad one. You're sweating!"  ;)

The Mobility Plan's Heritage Streetcar Project has the singular ability to ramp up both development and real property value more then any other line item in the plan.  Sadly the very weight of our excellent bicycle participants in this process convinced the council and the media that the mobility plan is all about sidewalks and bike trails.  This no doubt was an unintended consequence of not having a lobby to speak up on things like the streetcars, S-Line, commuter rail or the Skyway.

I just finally caught up on this thread... my interest in the issue is as a cyclist, and a somewhat peripheral member of the JBC (Jacksonville Bicycle Coalition).  I've been to several of the meetings to protest the moratorium at various stages.  And I'm pretty disappointed, thought not surprised, at how quietly the "compromise" has been worked...

But here's the point that worries me:

Quote from: dougskiles on April 07, 2013, 01:25:42 PM
I can choose to pout at the loss, pack up my toys and go home; or I can choose to stay in the game and continue working toward a better city.

I think this is just what nearly an entire generation of our city's Millennial children might just do, or at least those with the means and education to do so.  Seeing that Jacksonville leadership doesn't share they're values, and that they don't have a voice in the process, they'll simply leave.

Cities all over America are waking up to the fact that 77 million Millennials are close to settling down for their 30's and 40's, and are vying to create communities that reflect, at least on some level, the values they prefer.  In Jacksonville, we're busy give kickbacks to suburban developers.

QuoteCities all over America are waking up to the fact that 77 million Millennials are close to settling down for their 30's and 40's, and are vying to create communities that reflect, at least on some level, the values they prefer.

Unfortunately, Jacksonville has totally ignored or overlooked this particular issue.  We're already at disadvantage and we're fighting to stop or significantly neuter the very few things that would make the city more attractive to a generation that's larger than the baby boomers we built all these highways and artery clogging fast food joints for. Ultimately, I don't see much changing without a massive change in leadership. However, that really comes down to doing something about our apathetic voting base.

hard to fight developer bucks and the corruption it buys

^Just about every community has developers that funnel money into campaign contributions.  However, for whatever reason, it doesn't always equate to this place fighting tooth and nail to keep itself in the Dark ages. The bad thing about this particular situation is that without the grass roots opposition that showed up at city hall a couple of weeks ago, a full blown moratorium of some sort would have been approved. It just would have been something like a year, instead of three. Sometimes I think this is our grand answer to facing economic related changes many have already figured out..

(http://bloggingblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Ostrich-man-head-in-sand.gif?bfc6c1)

As someone who chose a battle with city hall and fought it at all costs, I understand the tendency to give in and take what is offered.  OK, perhaps that statement isn't exactly true.  You don't choose those battles, they choose you.  And the price you pay is dear.  In time, in relationships and very much in money. The battle I'm talking about did not involved the entire city, just a few hundred of it's residents. If a compromise like the one suggested here for the mobility fee had been accepted by us, the result only would  have been 75% of the effected people losing their homes.  But of course, only for a year.  Then a third of those 75% could have returned .   As you might imagine, a compromise like that would not do.  So you fight until you win.  The “compromise” we ended up with was our side giving up verbiage and the other side not getting what they wanted.  The politicians sure made it seem like a real compromise, it's what they do.  But in the end, the bottom line was we won. Frankly, we didn't win with facts, we won because we found a bigger stick to wield than the other guys had. And we are still paying for that win.  Having to do over again the only thing I would change is getting smarter faster. We had to learn as we went and that costs too.

For the mobility fee fight, we have had some of the smartest guys in Jacksonville on our side.  Now though it appears that the other side is winning because the smart guys are giving up. They are deciding the price is too high to pay. They fear they will be ignored if they continue.  They are convincing themselves that they can't win and saving a small part of the mobility plan is as good as a win. They are looking forward and seeing nothing but roadblocks for the mobility fee and even themselves if they continue.

Perhaps they are right.  I don't know.  I can't know because I don't have all the facts. I didn't think I needed all the facts because we had these smart guys leading our way. Now, I feel lost.  And that is why I was at first angry with those smart guys we were following.  Today, after a sleepless night, I am no longer angry at them.  I just feel sorry for them.  In giving up, they are abandoning themselves, they just haven't realized it yet.  If they become the leaders in this city as we hoped they would, they won't be the leaders we imagined, they will be the same leaders we have today for change or fighting for what is right always costs.  You have to be willing to pay those costs and if you aren't, nothing will change.

I felt all along that the facts do not really matter in this fight.  The way to win is to make City Council as uncomfortable as possible.  To have a back-up plan that makes City Council nervous, that worries the Office of the General Council.  I think that there is a bigger stick here that can be welded.  Are you smart guys smart enough to see and use it?  Are you really the future leaders we need to move Jacksonville forward out of the dark ages?

Quote from: strider on April 08, 2013, 09:05:36 AM
As someone who chose a battle with city hall and fought it at all costs, I understand the tendency to give in and take what is offered.  OK, perhaps that statement isn't exactly true.  You don't choose those battles, they choose you.  And the price you pay is dear.  In time, in relationships and very much in money. The battle I'm talking about did not involved the entire city, just a few hundred of it's residents. If a compromise like the one suggested here for the mobility fee had been accepted by us, the result only would  have been 75% of the effected people losing their homes.  But of course, only for a year.  Then a third of those 75% could have returned .   As you might imagine, a compromise like that would not do.  So you fight until you win.  The “compromise” we ended up with was our side giving up verbiage and the other side not getting what they wanted.  The politicians sure made it seem like a real compromise, it's what they do.  But in the end, the bottom line was we won. Frankly, we didn't win with facts, we won because we found a bigger stick to wield than the other guys had. And we are still paying for that win.  Having to do over again the only thing I would change is getting smarter faster. We had to learn as we went and that costs too.

For the mobility fee fight, we have had some of the smartest guys in Jacksonville on our side.  Now though it appears that the other side is winning because the smart guys are giving up. They are deciding the price is too high to pay. They fear they will be ignored if they continue.  They are convincing themselves that they can't win and saving a small part of the mobility plan is as good as a win. They are looking forward and seeing nothing but roadblocks for the mobility fee and even themselves if they continue.

Perhaps they are right.  I don't know.  I can't know because I don't have all the facts. I didn't think I needed all the facts because we had these smart guys leading our way. Now, I feel lost.  And that is why I was at first angry with those smart guys we were following.  Today, after a sleepless night, I am no longer angry at them.  I just feel sorry for them.  In giving up, they are abandoning themselves, they just haven't realized it yet.  If they become the leaders in this city as we hoped they would, they won't be the leaders we imagined, they will be the same leaders we have today for change or fighting for what is right always costs.  You have to be willing to pay those costs and if you aren't, nothing will change.

I felt all along that the facts do not really matter in this fight.  The way to win is to make City Council as uncomfortable as possible.  To have a back-up plan that makes City Council nervous, that worries the Office of the General Council.  I think that there is a bigger stick here that can be welded.  Are you smart guys smart enough to see and use it?  Are you really the future leaders we need to move Jacksonville forward out of the dark ages?

That's harsh and condescending towards people who have sacrificed as much as anyone for this, and more than most - probably including you. Be mad all you want, but directing it at people like Doug and Mike is pointless and unproductive.

Maybe it was a bit harsh.  And yes, I believe they did more for this fight than I did.  No question.  Doesn't change the fact they asked us to pick up the fight. I just think it is important that they are then also the last men standing for this fight. Instead, they are the first to say this is the best we can do.  So, yes, I am critical of that.  Perhaps I am wrong here.  If so, I will admitt it. 

The only option right now is to go tonight and see if we will be given time to do anything about this at all.  Voted on tonight, council approve tomorrow and that means no time to do anything else but watch. Only a few that may have direct access can do anything at this point.

I think the point you are missing is that they are reporting what the best achievable outcome was at this time. I don't believe they are saying this is deal live with it. I received good responses from the council to the message I sent yesterday. We can continue to fight this fight if the new moratorium is implemented then let's work to get it cut short or have new ground up construction not be included in the moratorium. We keep fighting until good development policy is in place.

If anyone wants to talk to me about this issue in person, please send me a PM and I would be happy to call and explain my perspective on this.  While I find online forums very useful as a means of discussion, there does come a point where I feel direct communication is the more appropriate avenue.

Quote from: strider on April 07, 2013, 09:23:30 AM
I strongly suggest that the bill be given a very close review as the original gave things away forever, who's to say this one won't as well? 

I haven't read the bill myself yet, but I attended Thursday's BPAC meeting and asked Councilman Gulliford about that very loophole; apparently something to this effect is written into the new bill:

If your project is under $1M, and you pull a permit to build during these 21 months, you have 1 year from the date of your permit to finish your project and get your Certificate of Occupancy from the city. If you don't finish the project completely and get your CO within that year, you get fined and will pay back the discount Mobility Fees you received before your CO is granted. If your project is a $3M project or more, you have 3 years to complete it and get your CO. No more savvy builders applying for permits to wrangle themselves out of the fee, then waiting 7 years to build.

While I'm not thrilled with this new bill, it seems that more council members are aware that their constituents want smart urban planning with mass transit, walkability/bikeability. I've only been involved with these issues for about 3 years, but it seems like the folks with the power to make decisions are starting to wake up to bike/ped/transit issues. Perhaps I'm just being too optimistic.

Does anyone know if public comment will be accepted at the joint committee meeting this afternoon at 4:00?

Quote from: Jumpinjack on April 08, 2013, 01:18:41 PM
Does anyone know if public comment will be accepted at the joint committee meeting this afternoon at 4:00?

Be there at 4 pm, they can't keep us out.

Quote from: Koula on April 08, 2013, 10:23:50 AM
While I'm not thrilled with this new bill, it seems that more council members are aware that their constituents want smart urban planning with mass transit, walkability/bikeability. I've only been involved with these issues for about 3 years, but it seems like the folks with the power to make decisions are starting to wake up to bike/ped/transit issues. Perhaps I'm just being too optimistic.

There should be a provision in there where they can't ever discuss reducing the fees again after the 18 months is over, otherwise, we'll be in the same position then as we are now. This is a win for the anti-Jax (or pro themselves with an indifference toward the future of Jax, to put it politically) developers. Its better than the original bill, but that's not saying much. The original bill was a farce. The bike/ped funding appears to be pandering to get the biking organizations (that turned out in force) to approve. Call it a bribe.

^ Yes.

Quote from: thelakelander on April 08, 2013, 07:51:10 AM
^Just about every community has developers that funnel money into campaign contributions.  However, for whatever reason, it doesn't always equate to place fighting tooth and nail to keep itself in the Dark ages. The bad thing about this particular situation is that without the grass roots opposition that showed up at city hall a couple of weeks ago, a full blown moratorium of some sort would have been approved. It just would have been something like a year, instead of three. Sometimes I think this is our grand answer to facing economic related changes many have already figured out..

(http://bloggingblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Ostrich-man-head-in-sand.gif?bfc6c1)

good point

Quote from: stephendare on April 08, 2013, 09:22:07 AM
strider i completely agree with you on the general fight.

But I think that its also time that more of us stepped up to the plate and disseminated the burden and blunt force.  Doug and Mike Saylor have been involved from the beginning, and its not their fault that they were used by the other side for their own purposes.  In fact, from a scottish viewpoint, its kind of funny in a strategy kind of way.

I think its high time that several of us called steve patterson however.  He seems to be the point man on this issue at the Times Union, and he has clearly been given the business from the 'other side'.

What kind of legal option are you thinking of?

Should we all get together?

yes  --  at tomorrow nights city council meeting

Quote from: strider on April 08, 2013, 09:48:54 AM
Maybe it was a bit harsh.  And yes, I believe they did more for this fight than I did.  No question.  Doesn't change the fact they asked us to pick up the fight. I just think it is important that they are then also the last men standing for this fight. Instead, they are the first to say this is the best we can do.  So, yes, I am critical of that.  Perhaps I am wrong here.  If so, I will admitt it. 

The only option right now is to go tonight and see if we will be given time to do anything about this at all.  Voted on tonight, council approve tomorrow and that means no time to do anything else but watch. Only a few that may have direct access can do anything at this point.

I don't think you can pin this one the three pro mobility fee advocates who had the opportunity to be a part of Crescimbeni's private meeting.  Myself, not being there, I have no idea on what they were bombarded with, what had already been cooked up before the meeting and what the actual political reality of the situation was that they were confronted with. Heck, has a bill even been drawn up at this point for the public to see?

Personally, the speed of things have caught me off guard.  From the last joint committee meeting, we all knew (or was under the impression) that Crescimbeni was going to put together a committee to discuss a short term resolution while Bishop was going to form a committee to look at things long term.  I'm not sure anyone (at least pro mobility fee advocates) knew the committee would be one closed meeting with limited participation and that the results of that closed meeting would be immediately voted on by a joint council committee.

I found out about the meeting results late Friday.  However, all throughout this process, there have been several people from both sides sending emails and individually meeting with various council members. I'm not sure anyone has the time to post the results of every single time someone meets with a public official to discuss whatever is on their mind.  Nevertheless, like you, I didn't really realize that there would be no more discussion and that this thing could have a final vote by council as early as tomorrow.  I didn't know that until reading this thread while at San Marco Books yesterday. To me, this is an example of why most Jax citizens have become so apathetic and distrusting of local politics.  This is probably more frustrating to your generation than mine.  Unfortunately for Jax, we're so mobile today, we simply pick up and move when we feel things are completely hopeless.

QuoteThe only option right now is to go tonight and see if we will be given time to do anything about this at all.

I don't think anyone quit.  Logically, the next step is to go to the meeting in five minutes (those of use who can switch their schedules around at the last moment), see how things play out and then chart a course of action after then because even if this 18 month thing gets approved, there's still a lot more work to be done.

According to others at tonights meeting, there were multiple meetings, not just one.  A mention of this couldn't be made?  Or how about Dougskiles doing a good job of distancing himself from those that supported him?


Frankly, everybody quit.  The only difference is some of us had no choice because we were sort of left at the altar.

No one has quit. Doug in the end was trying to make the best of a bad list of choices. Should he have held his breath and pouted.  He at every turn said we did not need any moratorium , waiver or this reduction schedule. Mitigating damage is not the same as causing damage and it is disgusting to hear you spin it as such.

Quote from: JeffreyS on April 08, 2013, 08:06:24 PM
No one has quit. Doug in the end was trying to make the best of a bad list of choices. Should he have held his breath and pouted.  He at every turn said we did not need any moratorium , waiver or this reduction schedule. Mitigating damage is not the same as causing damage and it is disgusting to hear you spin it as such.

thank you, thank you, thank you!!!

Quote from: JeffreyS on April 08, 2013, 08:06:24 PM
No one has quit. Doug in the end was trying to make the best of a bad list of choices. Should he have held his breath and pouted.  He at every turn said we did not need any moratorium , waiver or this reduction schedule. Mitigating damage is not the same as causing damage and it is disgusting to hear you spin it as such.

Well said. Thank you Jeffrey.

I stand by it.

Quote from: strider on April 08, 2013, 07:52:18 PM
According to others at tonights meeting, there were multiple meetings, not just one.  A mention of this couldn't be made?  Or how about Dougskiles doing a good job of distancing himself from those that supported him?


Frankly, everybody quit.  The only difference is some of us had no choice because we were sort of left at the altar.

NONE OF US QUIT! Doug, TheCat and Myself were there the whole time. There was not the regular public speaking format, they called on those of us they wanted to question then debated the pros and cons. I can tell you Doug was front and center taking the bullets for the 200+ of us that were NOT THERE. In FACT had we packed the house this afternoon, I don't believe they would have passed any moratorium. They seemed to see the empty seats as a free pass. Clark even waved his hand out over the 2 dozen occupied seats and said, "'Councilman Love's heart is in the right place, I want the amendment to pass, there's more to Jacksonville then these guys in here." When the meeting ended the builders clustered around Clark talking and laughing loudly, I sort of expected them to hoist him up on their shoulders and march him out. He reveled in the spotlight and resembled a 5-year old boy that has to pee really bad.

Nobody won a clear victory, while the builders might have won this battle, I believe history will show that we won a tactical victory. By the way, I've been invited to speak to the Builders Association about the benefit of streetcars. 

I am working in Gainesville this week but I will do my best to finish up early enough to look at those bastards on the Council in the eye tomorrow and show them my disgust.

Joe (Strider) speaks his mind.

And he cares deeply about this topic.

He read, wrote, attended meetings (or picked up my slack so I could attend meetings). And one or the other of us was there for each of the meetings including yesterday.

And after following this through the original mobility fee legislation, through the moratorium and then through the Clark bill, we find out about the compromise through...Patterson's article.

When you told him to stand behind you, he did.  And he did it with his whole heart.

So back off.

Critisizing people is what strider does just look at his posts about rap and spar. Now the antimoratorium leaders are getting his wrath. Watch out St. johns riverkeeper you are next!

Quote from: John P on April 09, 2013, 09:44:48 AM
Critisizing people is what strider does just look at his posts about rap and spar. Now the antimoratorium leaders are getting his wrath. Watch out St. johns riverkeeper you are next!

I forgot that RAP and SPAR were above criticism.

I am just saying thats like mostof what he posts about. Nobody is above criticizim but have perspective man. antimoratorim leaders have now been baptized.

Sheclown I imagine Strider is a big enough boy to be told the truth if his attack disgusted somebody. Clearly you know him better so if you are calling him someone who needs kid gloves then kid gloves it is.

 Ahh Jeffrey.  You're kinda cute.  ;)

You have all given me great entertainment with this dialogue.  I appreciate the support and respect the critique.  It's all good with me.  I have no hard feelings to anyone.

^ definition of a gentleman.

You are right, JefferyS, I do not need to be treated with kid gloves.  I really could care less if you think my post was disgusting.  You are doing nothing but defending someone you consider a friend so how can I not applaud that?  Doesn't mean I have to agree with your sentiments nor you mine.

JohnP â€" perhaps if SPAR had not helped tear down historic house after historic house, perhaps if both RAP and SPAR stopped viciously attacking people and businesses and even to various degrees the very historic districts they are supposed to serve, there would be no need for truthful negative posts. Just sayin'...

Doug, I have no doubts that you are a gentleman and that you wish things were different. I suspect you had a tough decision to make and even I can't fault the decision as I am not in your shoes. I just believe you could have handled the situation better and fairer to all those who stood behind you when you asked.  Whether you wanted it or not, you were the De facto leader, we felt it, and so did the opposition and City Council.