I was thinking about something Lake said on the Radio the other day. So 7-11 comes along and guaranties 80 new area stores by the year 2015. Jacksonville reacts by immediate putting a moratorium on the growth fees. Almost 40% of whatever benefit a moratorium could theoretically have is lost in the first year about 2 million dollars.
With most of 7-11's area expansion still in front of them but still a plan to complete in 2015 we propose another moratorium on fees though 2016. The moratorium starts it's race for any success behind the eight ball to the tune of 80 area 7-11 stores even if the plan works better than the developers want to spin it can't make up that kind of ground.
Am I wrong is there some other chain that can pay the growth fees of a Chicago, Paris or Tokyo that is about to get past a non compete deal and is looking to radically expand in Jacksonville to the tune of 80 stores after this moratorium?
This is a once in a great while proposition where a company can and is willing to invest in our area like 7-11 is doing and we are throwing it away.
Yes, it's a bad time for a moratorium. 7-11's alone, we'll see at least 20 or so move forward over the next year or so. The full blown sprawling gas stations are one of the worst offenders of trip generation and will probably have fees waived in the range of $300-$450k each. We also have a few large multifamily developments that should move forward soon and waiving their fees will be well over a million or two alone.
If a full moratorium is approved that also allows certain developments to be exempt for life, we'll lose hundreds of millions off this. Look on the bright side, the subsidies given to these companies to build stuff that they were going to construct anyway can then be used by them to expand in cities that do charge impact fees to cover the costs of new development. So you can say, we are creating jobs, they just might not be in Jacksonville.
300 to 450k each with a company willing to and able to pay for a large number and we just let it go. Wow
I received my "Resident's" Newspaper today which goes to all of Avondale, Riveriside, Ortega and Murray Hill. There is a sizable article in it about the Moratorium Bill written by Steve De Mattia. It features comments from Debbie Thompson. Unfortunately the paper does not have a PDF file for the piece, but I wanted too point out that the mobility moratorium issue is getting a good bit of interest and media coverage. You can phone the paper at (904)388-8839 for copies of the paper and article. The paper also requests that stories of local interest be sent to them so everyone add them to you media mailing list.
Editor@residentnews.net
Why are we considering a moratorium when the economy is clearly improving?
QuoteThe housing rebound continues. More building permits for single family homes have been issued so far this year than any year since 2008.
According to the Northeast Florida Builders Association, 841 permits were issued in January and February in Clay, Duval, Nassau and St. Johns counties.
That's the most since 979 were issued in the first two months of 2008. In the same period of 2012, 514 were issued. In, 2011, it was 369.
All four counties showed increases. The totals for Jan./Feb. 2013 and Jan./Feb. 2012:
Clay - 150, 64
Duval - 262, 151
Nassau - 50, 32
St. Johns - 379, 266
Usually, permit activity picks up early in the early and peaks in summer.
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/472000/roger-bull/2013-03-07/building-permits-continue-upswing
Quote from: thelakelander on March 07, 2013, 07:03:02 PM
Why are we considering a moratorium when the economy is clearly improving?
QuoteThe housing rebound continues. More building permits for single family homes have been issued so far this year than any year since 2008.
According to the Northeast Florida Builders Association, 841 permits were issued in January and February in Clay, Duval, Nassau and St. Johns counties.
That's the most since 979 were issued in the first two months of 2008. In the same period of 2012, 514 were issued. In, 2011, it was 369.
All four counties showed increases. The totals for Jan./Feb. 2013 and Jan./Feb. 2012:
Clay - 150, 64
Duval - 262, 151
Nassau - 50, 32
St. Johns - 379, 266
Usually, permit activity picks up early in the early and peaks in summer.
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/472000/roger-bull/2013-03-07/building-permits-continue-upswing
This is a question the City Council needs to be asking.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 07, 2013, 07:01:09 PM
I received my "Resident's" Newspaper today which goes to all of Avondale, Riveriside, Ortega and Murray Hill. There is a sizable article in it about the Moratorium Bill written by Steve De Mattia. It features comments from Debbie Thompson. Unfortunately the paper does not have a PDF file for the piece, but I wanted too point out that the mobility moratorium issue is getting a good bit of interest and media coverage. You can phone the paper at (904)388-8839 for copies of the paper and article. The paper also requests that stories of local interest be sent to them so everyone add them to you media mailing list.
Editor@residentnews.net
Here is a link to the article: http://residentnews.net/2013/03/06/mobility-fee-moratorium-debate-heats/
The spin masters are out. No real job data but somehow thousands of jobs will be created.......just like the boom we experienced from last year's moratorium.
For those of you who can't tell I'm joking, more permits were pulled during the last year of concurrency (what the mobility fee replaced with a great reduction in fee costs) than those pulled during the moratorium. Out of those pulled, there's no data to suggest these low wage jobs would not have come on their own....as they've done in the past.
QuoteFrom: Chris Hagan [mailto:CHagan@NEFBA.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 4:54 PM
To: Chris Hagan
Cc: Jamie Atkins
Subject: Governmental Affairs Alert
Importance: High
We need your support!!
We are making the final push to wave development fees in the City of Jacksonville and create thousands of jobs in the construction industry.
The Mobility Waiver Bill was slated to be heard Monday and Tuesday of this week by the Rules, the Finance and the Transportation, Energy and Utilities committees. Rule Chairman Clay Yarborough deferred the bill to be heard in a joint meeting on Monday, March 11, at 4 PM, in the Council Chambers.
It is very important we have a strong turnout for this meeting. This bill will only be heard one time before being voted on by the full council.
The details to the meeting are listed below.
City Council Joint Rules, Finance & TEU Committee Meeting
Date: March 11, 2013
Time: 4:00 p.m.
Location: City Hall
117 W. Duval St., 1st Floor
Council Chamber
Please pass this information onto all your friends of the construction industry. Our industry is depending on us to pass this bill. Thank you
Chris Hagan
Government Affairs Director
Northeast Florida Builders Association
103 Century 21 Drive, Suite 100
Jacksonville, FL 32216
(904) 725-4355
chagan@nefba.com
So it is friends of construction vs Friends of Jacksonville.
Well, we all knew the spin was coming our way along with the magical job creation claims. The Council needs to put the spin and politics aside and look at the record of the last moratorium. It does not match the claims made then and doesn't match the ones being made now. We cannot afford this moratorium.
Ennis, thanks for the link on the other article. Message me when you have time and tell me where to look for links from the publication in the future if you will. Thanks.
Here's what Lumb thinks of our citizen - intelligence.
QuoteAs I understand it, the $3 million would have been spread out over 5 separate mobility districts with funding silos in each for mass transit, roads & highways and bike paths/pedestrian improvements. That's a paltry $600K per district which isn't enough to pay for very much of anything.
No bike paths or pedestrian improvement projects could be initiated unless a) they had been approved early in the process (the system isn't designed for flexibility)and b) there were enough funds to pay for each project in its entirety. This seems odd to me since road & highway funds will accumulate rapidly and could easily help fund bike and pedestrian improvements if the silos could borrow from one another. Unfortunately, the present arrangement doesn't allow for borrowing between accounts which will unnecessarily delay bike lanes and pedestrian improvements.
I'm told that the mobility fees were intended to generate $440MM over 18 years ($25MM a year). The $3MM is lost revenue from the 2011-2012 moratorium clearly indicates that the level of development remains so depressed that it's unlikely that the mobility fees will generate anywhere near the $440MM that was projected.
This was in my in box and I had missed it.
...And now from Gilliford:
QuoteFrankly, I would like to do all of them. But you missed my point. The mobility fee income is not solely dedicated to bicycle infrastructure and that is the problem. You even illuminate that out in your list of suggestions. I think it is a much bigger funding issue than the mobility fee and that was my point. How do we fund all those things we need to do. I have an idea that I will pursue. Stay tuned...
That $3 million he mentioned in your post had risen to $5 million as of last week. As the rest of the applicable mobility fee waivers make their way through the system this year, it will end up being much higher. Lumb is clearly not a transportation guy because he would now more about what you could do with $600k and everything under and above it. However, without being able to prove that we're not subsidizing jobs that are happening anyway, it doesn't matter if all the fees lost were 1 million at this point. It's still an egregious error of fiscal judgement and trust to give taxpayer's money way on something that has no real checks and balances to limit corruption or even track if jobs are actually being created.
Anyway, I'm sitting down with Lumb next week to answer any questions or concerns he may have regarding the mobility plan, as well as discuss the fiscal flaws within the current proposed legislation. Because at the end of the day, this isn't about the mobility plan or the projects in it, this is about protecting the taxpayer. To be honest, I don't expect to change his position but we will have a conversation.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on March 07, 2013, 10:13:50 PM
...And now from Gilliford:
QuoteFrankly, I would like to do all of them. But you missed my point. The mobility fee income is not solely dedicated to bicycle infrastructure and that is the problem. You even illuminate that out in your list of suggestions. I think it is a much bigger funding issue than the mobility fee and that was my point. How do we fund all those things we need to do. I have an idea that I will pursue. Stay tuned...
I've talked with Gulliford on this issue. He is right in that the fee isn't solely dedicated to bicycle infrastructure. It's intended to improve all modes. However, outside of it, we really don't have anything else that even bothers to address the bicycle situation. A full moratorium only makes the bicycle situation worse. Some have mentioned waiving fees in hopes of getting ad valorem taxes to use instead. However, the reality of our sick budget is JSO and Fire & Rescue's combined budget expenditures are $91 million more than all the ad valorem taxes we take in. Without the mobility fee, the only other realistic option to fund local mobility is to raise everyone's taxes. One thing I'll be looking into, depending on the outcome, is the legal situation of the city with no true means to fund mobility. There are a few laws on the books that we could end up in violation of.
So glad you will be speaking with both of them Ennis. Bob, thanks for sharing this correspondence. Everyone needs to see the thinking of those on council regarding this and other issues.
Alright Folks lets remember the Committee meetings are all combined into one today at 4pm in the council's chamber be there.
For those of you who may have missed Mark Woods piece.
QuoteThis week the city will decide whether to continue a moratorium on a Mobility Plan fees â€" a fancy term for fees paid by developers and used to fund infrastructure projects.
The argument for continuing to waive these fees basically has been: jobs, jobs, jobs.
The counter-argument basically has been: There is little evidence, here or elsewhere, that waiving impact fees leads to more development and jobs.
But beyond this, there is the long-term, big-picture question of how we want to grow. And who will pay for some much-needed infrastructure. The developers? The taxpayers?
The answer often has been: neither.
The Mobility Plan could change that. Last year the moratorium led to $4.8 million in impact fees being waived. More than a third of those breaks went to 7-Eleven, the world’s largest operator of convenience stores. So while you’re thanking heaven for 7-Eleven, the Dallas-based company is thanking you for a sweet deal.
On Saturday, thousands of people filled the streets as the city held its annual celebration of foot traffic, healthy living and community. The Gate River Run.
By Monday, our streets will go back to being some of the most dangerous in America for pedestrians.
It doesn’t have to be like this. And this isn’t just about walking or biking.
To sum up why it’s time for the moratorium to end, I can’t top something said by Doug Skiles, president of Envision Design and Engineering: “Quality never happens by accident. Quality of living is no exception.â€
Skiles’ company does civil engineering for land development projects. He wants growth. He just wants it to be the kind that makes a city better.
For full story:
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/401820/mark-woods/2013-03-09/mark-woods-are-we-so-desperate-growth-any-kind-growth-well
A good job by Mark Woods.
Is there anyone who isn't a councilmember, developer, works for a developer or is a developer's attorney who is in favor of an additional moratorium?
Having your hand out seems to be the litmus test as to if you are for the fee.
I hope someone can blog the meeting or at least give us some updates during. I cannot be there yet would love to know what is going on. :)
Wish I could go, but have to do that work thing.
I believe we're going to live blog the meeting. I'll be heading downtown in 30 minutes.
Thanks Ennis and good luck guys. I will be watching the blog. Don't let Daniel Davis talk too much "noise"! lol
so is it true, there will be no public comment allowed? an email i just recieved.
"Just so we are all clear, there will be NO PUBLIC COMMENT allowed either today or tomorrow, before the vote on the Moratorium.
I checked with Councilman Redman’s assistant first, and then confirmed this with Councilman Yarbrough’s assistant.
I am disappointed, as I was ready to speak with visual aids. I will send them to council now."
I have prepared comments as well this is just unacceptable.
Hold up FSU. Go to the meeting and speak with Councilman Joost about your visual aids and documentation. He has every right to call you up, ask you questions etc. during the meeting as does any other council member who opposes the moratorium. Also, people can speak at the will of the person chairing the meeting. If the committees intend to allow lobbyists and Daniel Davis speak, then they need to allow alternate information to get a balanced view of the issue.
Guys, speak with the committee chair persons in advance of the meeting. Make sure to give them you names and that you are available to answer questions and add facts to the discussion. If they intend to question proponents of the bill, they need to allow those opposed equal opportunity which they can do at their will. Don't let them tell you otherwise.
i really do not understand how they can not accept public comment before a vote. Sunshine Laws?
This is what Carla Miller is working on right now and the reason for the thread she opened here on MJ asking about this very issue. Make sure to read what she is asking which directly pertains to this.
Those attending the meeting, here is what to watch for. Richard Clark or another supporter on council will likely call forward a speaker of his choice under the guise of asking a question or two, of course this is in order to open up the floor to comments supporting his bill. This is how committee meetings are gamed toward one side or the other. Go to the council members who oppose the extension and let them know you come with alternate facts and would be happy to "answer their questions about why the moratorium is not needed." You must get this message to them prior to the meeting and if you must, give a note to their council aides declaring your presence and willingness to "answer questions about the moratorium issue." If you see the meeting being gamed by proponents and buddies on council, make sure to send a "note" via legislative services while the meeting is in session, to the chair of the committee letting them know you see this as unfair and that you know what is taking place.
Limited speakers they say equal time for and against.
Good deal!