Metro Jacksonville

So far it looks like the majority of the people here tonight are for the moratorium. Employees and lobbyists.

There is no time allotted for public hearing. 

The way this will work. Each side has a designated presenter. Presentation time than rebuttal time.

You can watch the presentation live on the link below.

http://media.coj.net/COJCouncil

calvin burney, Director of Planning is up.

Starts with a historical perspective.

says:

4 strategies of mobility plan:

connect land use and transportation
provide a multi modal plan
fund mobility
incentivize quality growth and development

Each of the 5 development areas were designated a VMT to assess a projects impact.

Mobility Fee formula:

A x B X C = Mobility Fee

A= cost per VMT (24.31)
B= average VMT per development area
C= projected daily vehicle trips

Fee is applied to defined geographic area.
Ensures a rational relationship between transportation cost and development

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 11, 2013, 03:44:55 PM
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.

With this in mind, I noticed Curtis Hart coming out of the green room about five minutes before the meeting started....

of course.

Quote from: thelakelander on March 11, 2013, 04:15:43 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 11, 2013, 03:44:55 PM
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.

With this in mind, I noticed Curtis Hart coming out of the green room about five minutes before the meeting started....

Chesire nailed it.

Mobility Plan will be evaluated every 5 years with the N. Fl. TPO's long range transportation plan. Fees may be reassessed at that time.

MP does:

incentivizes infill and redevelopment
incentivizes quality growth
guides the market
focuses on the future

Shows that we have lost at least 5 million.

The first waiver:

construction had to be completed.


2nd waiver:

Construction did not have to be completed.

Burney is at his ten minute mark. Clay is asking him to wrap up.


Burney compares St. Johns to Duval...but I missed his point.

Calvin Burney is giving a general presentation on the background of the mobility plan. We ran a presentation similar to this a while back. Here's a link:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-dec-2030-mobility-plan-presentation

Unfortunately, Calvin is getting cut off because his 10 minutes are up. However, he did mention that under this current mobility fee moratorium proposal, certain projects would be exempt from paying a fee for eternity. I'm not sure what a short term moratorium has in common with this.

I have fought many a fight at this City Hall and know the game.  Make sure equal time is allotted for both sides.  I mean have someone time the speakers.  Who is supposed to be speaking for the opposition to the moratorium?

W. Doug.

Promises to not speak more than 6 minutes. Why? he's already talked to all of them. He's not presenting anything....just talking.

Says:
--Moblity plan only allots 8% for bike/pedestrian development.
--82 million dollars in development have been incentivized from the first waiver.
--Mobility fee is not bondable.
--Reminds council of developments in brooklyn that received a fee waiver. The mobility fee moratorium is like that.

Is this noise?  lol  Didn't some of the Brooklyn developments fall through?

Wyman Duggan is up for the moratorium proponents. Wyman just mentioned his flawed spreadsheet's $82 million.  Here's a copy for you:

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Mobility-Plan-Study/i-rsbsZ5p/0/XL/Wymans%20Spreadsheet%20-%20Comments-XL.jpg)

Wyman's $82 million number includes several projects that had nothing to do with the waiver.  40% of those projects he's included, should not be on his list.  I wonder if any councilmember will pick this up.

Curtis Hart is up. He just mentioned he directly benefited from the mobility fee moratorium when his fee was waived for a Tractor Supply store on the Northside. They also mentioned 7-11 and RaceTrac sent letter saying they would not have built in Jax if there was no moratorium in place.

They have a letter from 7-11 stating that 7-11 would have abandoned Jax market if fees in place.  My eyes just rolled out of my head onto the floor.

Sleiman is involved with a large number of local 7-11 projects this year.  I'm very skeptical of that letter, since they are also rapidly expanding in Tampa, Orlando, and Miami.....all of which have some form of transportation impact fee. On 7-11 alone, we could easily give up $8-$10 million to them this year.

7-11 announced the growth before the moratorium talk began.

This was to be counted upon.  As soon as 7-11 came into the anti moratorium discussion, those who were for it would have made sure to get a statement for their side as well as remind them of potential further savings for their development in the future.  Expected counteraction.  Lot's of shoulder rubbing in this town.

Opponents of this bill need to stay on your toes.  If you hear proponents make claims that are not factual or misleading, do not hesitate to send a message via legislative services to a council member who also opposes with corrected info or ask to speak to them briefly in the green room so you can give them accurate facts.  ;) 

Lake and others, if Wyman's presentation sheet is flawed, make sure the council is made aware of this!  Point it out to media as well as folks like Joost via a message through their aide or legislative services.  Don't let bad facts go unanswered if you can help it.

Doug Skyles is up:

* His work is directly impacted by the waiver.
* He thinks that the fee should remain in place.
* Total of 16 million from Fair Share went to capital improvements. About 3.3 million a year.
* Because we removed fair share our funds are literally disappearing to fund projects.
* Addresses property tax argument by the pro moratorium. The other side can't use that as an argument, he says, because as we develop required city cost of those developments are barely covered by the property tax.
* Why are encouraging even more development? Builders are saying increase supply. So, value of properties will invariably go down.
* banks understand to not release all of their "shadow" inventory.
* St. John's county has been charging an impact fee. At least, moratorium should help us catch us up to them. St. John's county is getting investment because they focus on quality of life.
* We cannot ignore the fact we are one of the most dangerous cities in the city.
* Conclusion: we need to collect this fee.

Best presentation so far.

Do we really believe 7-Eleven won't come to Jax because of a transportation impact fee?  I find that hard to believe that a company having $77 billion in sales last year can afford to open everywhere else expect Jacksonville. Let's get real.

Quote7-Eleven, Inc. Plans Aggressive Expansion

DALLAS â€" (May 15, 2009) â€" 7-Eleven, Inc. is focused on growing its store base to expand its convenience offering in the U.S. and Canada.

While many retailers are contracting or limiting expansion, 7-Eleven is aggressively growing and expects to add more than 200 new stores this year. Plans call for the company to accelerate store development over the next several years through organic growth, acquisitions and its Business Conversion Program.

7-Eleven has a multi-pronged approach to growth that includes in-line, end-cap space in shopping centers, freestanding stores, urban locations in light industrial sites, city residential areas and suburbia.       

The company, which operates and franchises more than 6,200 stores in the U.S. and Canada, opened 170 stores in 2008.

“7-Eleven is looking to partner with property owners on new site development to determine how both parties can succeed for the long term and survive or even thrive in these difficult market conditions,” said Dan Porter, 7-Eleven’s vice president of real estate. “The company is investment grade and, therefore, an attractive tenant for landlords.”

7-Eleven’s latest growth vehicle is its Business Conversion Program, where the company looks for existing independent retail store operators who want to convert to the national chain and become a part of 7-Eleven’s franchise system.

The convenience chain leader invests an average of $280,000 into these conversions.  If the existing owner holds the lease or owns the building, they retain the responsibility for the real estate.  There are now 110 outlets that have been converted to 7-Eleven stores since the program started in 2006.

Said Porter, “7-Eleven’s system is more than just a trademark:  it’s the entire brand with a complete turn-key franchise system, including our proprietary retail information system, equipment, training, consulting support, a distribution network with daily delivery of fresh-foods, advertising, bookkeeping, payroll preparation, vendor payments and quarterly audits.”

Typical 7-Eleven stores have 1,800 to 2,200 square feet of selling space within densely inhabited areas that have strong daytime traffic.  The company also wants to be part of re-gentrification in its growth markets.

Among 7-Eleven’s growth markets are: New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Washington, D.C.; Tidewater, Va.; and Miami, Orlando, Tampa, Ft. Myers, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Chicago, Denver, Salt Lake City, the San Francisco Bay area, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Alberta and British Columbia, Canada.

“7-Eleven is expanding amid the gloom of retail retrenching,” said Porter. “There is opportunity for our company to fill the void at once vibrant locations that are going vacant.   We are flexible in that we will buy a site and remodel, sign 10-year shopping center, building or ground leases with options to renew or purchase a site at the right location and build a ground-up store.”

http://corp.7-eleven.com/Newsroom/2009NewsReleases/7ElevenIncPlansAggressiveExpansion/tabid/307/Default.aspx

Good stuff!  Fact's and reasonable explanations in the face of unproven promises is always a good thing.

Councilman Clark is closing out the comments by refuting Doug's presentation. Clark's throwing downtown under the bus in favor of allowing more sprawl growth at the expense of taxpayers.

Clark is speaking, bill sponsor:

* he's had so many people contact him. One real estate agent said, "this is exactly what we need."
* he will choose the guy who hammers nails over the guy who rides a bike.
* it's about getting government out of the way.

Ennis, we know 7-11 would come here regardless. They will follow the market.  This is one of those lets pretend the fee stands in the way of development levers being used to sway opinions on council.  Pretty transparent.

Councilman Clark stated that Downtown's main problems are not enough parking and difficultly getting in & out.

That if the Council doesn't approve the moratorium, development in Jacksonville is dead.

And, of course, that infill shouldn't be incentivized over brand new development.

Crescembeni:

Calls up Doug and the other presenter (for the moratorium). asks who is working for who?

Doug says No one. The other says "Fairfield residential."

And who makes a closing statement against Clark's claims?  Where is Joost?

Doug Skiles is representing himself. Mr. Duggan is a lobbyist on the clock for Fairfield Residential. He mentioned that he filed the proper paperwork.

Exactly Crescimbini!  Who else on Council is going to challenge Clark's words and his special interest bill?

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 11, 2013, 04:52:42 PM
And who makes a closing statement against Clark's claims?  Where is Joost?

No one. I don't think Joost is present.

Has Joost said a word yet?  Is he there?

According to Calvin Burney, 13,277 residential lots exist today that already don't have to pay a mobility fee.

Hmmm, Where is Joost?  I am beginning to wonder if he was "advised" not to be at this meeting.  Perhaps someone should inquire about this later and ask why he did not come given the fact that he has gone on record saying the last moratorium was a failure.

What media outlets are covering this.  Anyone know?

Matt Schellenberg doesn't believe the economy is getting better. He mentions most of the US jobs are going to Texas. He suspects in Jax, that the economy is slugging along.

Crescimbeni:

We haven't heard anyone drum roll jobs. He can't support a blanket moratorium for three years. We don't know where we will be in three years. We already have over 13k plots that are ready to go that are not being developed. does not feel comfortable supporting developers storing land and developing whenever they want.

Schellenberg:
* jobs are going to Texas.
* Somehow, blames Obama for the state of our economy.

Lumb:

Ask Burney how much money we expected the Mobility Fee to generate. Burney says " I don't know" The lobbyists says "$400 million." Bishop says " no one knew. this plan was made in the depths of the recession. Nothing was going on. We could not guess on the fee. This was a forward looking plan."

Someone is playing footsie with Matt.  Here is a man commenting on a failing economy when all factors indicate an uptick.  Has Schellenberg presented any facts or just talk about Texas?

What was a forward looking plan?

Lumb:

We are falling far short of where we need to be to meet our city's needs.

Asks Burney: Do you think the moratorium will encourage more development? Burney says " well,..." Lumb cuts him off    "it's a conundrum."

Is it possible that we do have access capacity on our roadways that can absorb developments. Burney says "there are some roads that can absorb that but we are short on capacity overall..."  I may have missed Burney's point.

Mr. Burney seems to be in favor of the mobility fee.

Mr. Burney is stating the factual data.  In this case, the facts speak for themselves.  I just hope the ultimate decision is based on facts that protect the taxpayers.

Amen Ennis!

Councilman Holt is in favor of a one year renewal as opposed to a full three year moratorium.

Lumb asks if there is anyone in the department that specializes in bike/pedestrian? Burney, " no...we are thinking of funding a position for that purpose."

Doug Skyles:

Clarifies that the 82 million dollar figure that the developers are saying is a result of the waiver is not correct. I don't have the number but Doug identified projects that were definitely not developed because of the waiver.

Holt:

Has an issue with the three year length. Wants to consider a one year renewal. Lobbyist says "we're okay with that."

Jim Love asks Bishop "the mobility plan won an award from the American Planners Association, why?"

Bishop says, " I don't really know but the plans intent was to flatten the fee so all new development has to pay a fee and so everyone has to pay less. "

So he gets paid to lobby for it every year.

Classic negotiating tactic.  Start with an offer so absurd that anything sounds reasonable.

Is Clark wearing jeans?

Of course lobbyists are "okay" with it .  That way another bill can be introduced in a year and hopefully the opposition to the moratorium will be asleep at the wheel when that happens.

Lumb, there is no conundrum!  The moratorium has not worked and there are no facts that support any suggestion that it did.  Pay attention please!  We don't need to extend the moratorium for a year, two or three.  Come on council!  Represent the entire city and stop allowing money to be lost to certain interests without constraints that require those investments have done what supporters claim they will do.  Our city cannot afford this and it isn't needed now.  Things are looking up and the facts and market prove that to be true.

Gulliford:

Reminds everyone that fees are marginal costs to builders. It does not dictate whether or not something will be built.

construction drives the economy?? 

I love Councilwoman Boyer. We need to clone her to replace a few council seats.

Gulliford and Crescimbeni discuss the actual time length of the moratorium. Gulliford talks for a long time and ends with "yeah, i think this is necessary."

Boyer:

The florida supreme court decided that impact fees can be charged.  They decided that there is a very real connection between new developments and transportation costs.

Impact fees will have to be paid. This is a zero sum game. If the developers don't have to pay the general public has to pay. We are not talking about whether these fees should exists or not. We are talking about WHO should be paying these fees.

We have a major issue that we are borrowing money just to resurface roads. We're not even scratching the surface of costs associated with development.

Lori Boyer is currently slaying it

Lori Boyer for Mayor!

Boyer is great.

"This would be kicking the can down the road. The costs of infrastructure would be shifted to the public."

Go Lori!    This is one smart woman!

Boyer is the first Council person to speak intelligently, quickly and deliberately.

Yeah I would say!  Seems to be only sign intelligence up there. 

Wow....Boyer brings up that River City Marketplace and St. Johns Town Center as local examples where growth is still strong, yet a fee is still required. Now she's ripping apart the lobbyist's flawed spreadsheet.

The public is exactly who should not burden the cost of fees at this time.  Remember all these developers and builders will still be looking for other "incentives".  The fee moratorium sweetens the pot for them.  However the council is there to represent the entire community and not just builders and developers.

Boyer defines infill per MP. Infill is not just riverside, avondale, san marco...etc. Infill means reuse. The vacant strip malls all over town qualify.

Seriously everyone.  Let's hope Lori runs for her council seat again and if she doesn't that she runs for Mayor.  We need this type of leadership and once here to retain it.  Facts and more facts will show that this moratorium is not needed.

Robin Lumb tells the crowd that he's willing to risk taxpayer dollars for the hope of spurring construction jobs. Lumb calls the moratorium a short term compromise.

Boyer:

Supported the first waiver. Did not see the first waiver produce. She has a problem with the way this bill is written. But that's not even her issue. She has a real problem for the general public shouldering the costs of new development.

because we were in a building bubble.  The jobs are not going to come back... get over it... move on!

Lumb is squarely in the pocket of the developers. He's still quoting sources that have already been proven wrong.

Lumb is fighting for his "faith" in the moratorium. When his assumptions are addressed he defaults with " I just have to believe that the moratorium will work."

The Mayor only wanted a one year moratorium. Now he's waiting to hear the council debates before taking a position.

Sounds like the mayor does not support the moratorium

Quote from: jcjohnpaint on March 11, 2013, 06:04:41 PM
Sounds like the mayor does not support the moratorium

He shouldn't.  Especially with his support of Jax 2025, and it's survey results.

Mr. Lumb is not interested in looking out for the people but rather pats on the back from those in this community he feels hold the greatest influence be it religious or political.  What Lumb does not see is that this posturing for insiders and for the moratorium are another nail in his political coffin.  He may run for office again, but with the JFRD, JSO targeting him for removal from office and average citizens realizing that their tax dollars are something Lumb will readily play with or sacrifice, well that tells us all we need to know about him with regard to city finances and what his priorities are.  We already know the ugly side of his views on equality and race.  None of this bodes well for him politically or otherwise.

Reading between the lines a statement from the mayor's office says "I didn't see the moratorium going any longer than a year but I'm open to hearing your perspective."

Crescimbeni says the only way he can support another moratorium is if we have concrete numbers of what we can expect to happen as a result of the moratorium. He's not happy with the results of the first moratorium which was supposed to "jump start the economy."

Crescimbeni is right on regarding this.  Show us the numbers and prove them out with documentation and facts.  The facts are not there to support this moratorium and that has been made plenty clear by now.

Anderson:

Thinks the first moratorium had mixed results, at best. There were benefits. People were employed. We also have to consider that infrastructure improvements create jobs as well. Reminds CIty Council that they have a good record on "jobs." On a recent trip to downtown he noticed all of the broken infrastructure and wondered what is the perception to our city's visitors. He wants to see the bill reworked so that it is fair for the entire community. 

Clark:

We didn't lose as much money as we thought we had lost because the initial mobility fees (the ones that were waived) did not receive credits because there was no point. The fee was waived.

Did Clark just come from a golf game? 

Quote from: jcjohnpaint on March 11, 2013, 06:15:48 PM
Did Clark just come from a golf game? 

We were lucky to have the esteemed councilman from St. johns county even show up.  His play in this game is solely for future backing in other races. 

you think he could  buy a suit with his special interest money.  This guy is a dunce

Clark has likely spent his day with lobbyists and on the phone with Daniel Davis and others and perhaps some time visiting with Tony at the Landing.  ;)

Clark:
Traffic projects never came from fair share fees. Not one road project was funded by fair share. It covered gaps. It did that. Mobility Fee will not cover costs for projects either.

The reason why bike and pedestrian topics are never discussed is because no one ever championed it.

We can still fund these projects. And, if you honestly believe that the end user does not pay for fees on the developer you are absolutely wrong.

We know why people go in droves to St. Johns county...it's their school system. They have the number one school system in the state. If you really want to improve our economy help our school board build a better school system.

Richard is busy trying to form friendships with folks he think may be willing to back him in another political run of some sort.  He is certainly not a "favorite" in political circles but has learned how to play the game from both ends.  Showing up in such casual dress to me speaks of how "casually" he takes the peoples business.

Someone should check Richards council calendar and see just where and with whom he spent time today and the last couple of weeks. 

Does the mayor have veto power on this?

The Mobility Fee can also be used to leverage match for federal and state funds to help fund transportation projects! I wish someone would bring that up.

acme, yes!

I believe the Mayor would need to sign or veto any action taken by Council

Bishop:
reaffirms that he cannot support the bill. Three years is too long. He suggests a new mobility plan committee to address some of the fee issues. Asks that bill be deferred. Bishop praises the initial MP committee. It was a great cross section of industry,government, public working together.

Very interesting. Bishop suggests creating a new committee to research and study the mobility fee structure further. This suggestion might just defer the bill.

Crescimbini asks Skyles "do you think the construction industry is hurting?" Skyles "yes, but getting better."

Crescimbini: Deferring the bill would be kicking the can down the road. It would be like "putting a moratorium on the moratorium." Wants to see if they can hammer out a bill in the short term while they are waiting on the committee to come up with long term suggestion.

Bill is deferred. Unanimous decision. Clark said "nay" but he is not on the committee.

Bishop will be forming a committee for a long term solution. Crescembini will be working out a short term solution.

The moratorium could very well be lost in the shuffle. 

Meeting over.

Bye everyone. This is TheCat and This is Jacksonville! (working out catch phrases).

I hope Mr. Bishop and Mr. Crescimbini tap Ennis for some insight on these plans, as well as so many others who know what should go into a mobility plan.  Well done everyone!

The plan needs to stay as is for now....there are some edits that can be made to the fee that would avoid having to amend the comp plan

Thanks for the coverage, everyone. Very enlightening.

I saw someone with jax daily record, but i think he left before a lot of it.  I had to leave early too, so I didn't notice.

News4Jax was following it.  Saw a blurb on the news. 

A statement from the mayor was also read into the record and it much less than supportive of another moratorium.

Quote from: thelakelander on March 11, 2013, 05:39:52 PM
I love Councilwoman Boyer. We need to clone her to replace a few council seats.

Yes.

Quote from: TheCat on March 11, 2013, 05:32:25 PM
Gulliford:

Reminds everyone that fees are marginal costs to builders. It does not dictate whether or not something will be built.

This.

I cannot express how wonderful Lori Boyers was tonight. She smiled and then took aim.  It was worth the journey there to watch.

She needs to stay put.  Email her and congratulate her on her leadership, if you are an email-warrior.

Lori was fantastic and Doug Skiles is a great front man on this issue.

Doug Skiles did a fantastic job tonight.  He has a way of putting the information so that all can understand.  And with something like this, that is not an easy task.  Even the council was paying attention when he spoke.

Doug for mayor!!

There was one statistic that was provided to me over the weekend that really stood out, and I wish I could have explained it better, but that darn timer was counting down faster than I could talk.  So I didn't get to crack as many jokes as I wanted either.  There is so much dripping political irony out there.

I will see if I can explain:

In the residential real estate market, we are finally at a point where the inventory is at 5-6 months.  This is considered an "even" market.  Until this year, we were in a "buyers" market, which means that home values are depreciating.  Why on earth would people who build and sell homes want to return to a depreciating market?  They need to get a new set of advisors!  If anything, they should want more controls to limit the supply of inventory and keep us in a "sellers" market with appreciating values.  I didn't go to business school, but even I understand the basic laws of economics.

The banks appear to understand this concept well.  Which is why they are not releasing the "shadow inventory" at rates more than the market can absorb safely.  The "shadow inventory" are those properties that have been foreclosed.  They are smart enough to know that if they sell too many at once, we will go back to a depreciating market and they will recover less of their money when they do sell.

This entire moratorium issue is primarily driven by the landowners.  I disagree with whoever said the fees will get passed on to the public.  In reality, they will be mostly absorbed by the landowners because the market sets the price of nearly all goods and services (at a larger scale than Jacksonville).  Slurpees cost just as much here as they do in Charlotte.  The price of land, however, is more locally controlled.  Developers (who aren't always the original landowner) will factor all of the development costs into what they are willing to pay for the land.  The old saying in real estate development is that you make your money in the deal up front, based on what you pay for the land.  I'm sure Simms3 will weigh in on this and correct me if I am wrong.

One last comment.  I was about to go crazy when they kept asking Curtis Hart to come up and opine if he was willing to compromise by going to 1 year.  Did they notice how eager he was to say yes?  Well, this is because that is all they ever expected to get.  I was never asked what the opposition felt about a compromise until the very end and it was supposed to be a word answer.  Personally, I feel that anything involving a complete reduction in mobility fees is not a compromise and I would not support it.  I would be in favor of sitting down and looking at how the credits are calculated, and might be in favor of a percentage reduction in the fee, depending on the terms.  Hopefully a workshop will give us a chance to work out these details.

And yes, Lori Boyer, is the smartest person I know.  Thank God for what she does for this city!

Super job Doug with all your facts and figures.  I can well appreciate your frustration during a meeting of this nature but by all accounts, you not only held your own, but got your points across.  Thank you, well done sir!

I thought my head was going to pop when they started talking about 7-Eleven needed to be subsidized or else they would take Jacksonville off their global expansion list. Great job, Doug.  Tonight turned out better than I was originally anticipating.

I have to say, Bishop was impressive today. 

Well at least we know what some in our council think of our city:  not even good enough to get a chain that is in every other city- or at least using it as a pathetic excuse.

Quote from: stephendare on March 11, 2013, 06:46:24 PM

Quote from: TheCat on March 11, 2013, 06:39:26 PM
Crescimbini asks Skyles "do you think the construction industry is hurting?" Skyles "yes, but getting better."

Crescimbini: Deferring the bill would be kicking the can down the road. It would be like "putting a moratorium on the moratorium." Wants to see if they can hammer out a bill in the short term while they are waiting on the committee to come up with long term suggestion.

Bill is deferred. Unanimous decision. Clark said "nay" but he is not on the committee.

Bishop will be forming a committee for a long term solution. Crescembini will be working out a short term solution.

The moratorium could very well be lost in the shuffle. 

Meeting over.

Bye everyone. This is TheCat and This is Jacksonville! (working out catch phrases).

Stellar job, Ennis, Arash, Bill Hoff and JCPaint.  Thanks for keeping us all informed.  Were there no other media present?

TU, Daily Record, News 4 Jax, NPR/WJCT and The Resident

QuoteA plan to suspend a transportation fee Jacksonville charges developers was postponed Monday by three City Council committees while backers and critics looked for room for compromise.

The council had been expected to vote Tuesday on legislation to waive the charges, called mobility fees, for three years to help the still-struggling construction industry.

full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-03-11/story/jacksonville-council-panels-defer-choice-mobility-fee

I was frustrated listening to Lumb talk about unemployment in the construction industry and pulling out 2007 figures.  This was at the cusp of the boom before the heavy lay-offs began and when anyone with a truck from Atlanta came to town to build something.  Of course the employment in the construction industry is down.  It was unsustainably high.  What I would like to see is a comparison from 2003 to 2013. That would be more reflective.

Lumb's theory is that we would grow our way out of financial problems. 

Another Jacksonville resident once sold the same thing, Charles Ponzi. 

At least Ponzi could make you feel good about buying swampland. Lumb's position tonight seemed like he had already made up his mind for a full blown moratorium.  Maybe it was me, but he seemed like he was looking for anything he could to downplay every issue that made a full blown moratorium legislation seem like the financial risk to taxpayers that it clearly is.

Clark's answer was that we would just bust out the credit card to fund transportation b/c that's what we've always done.  Apparently that has worked out well and the City's budget is in great shape. 

These are the suggestions from people that call themselves 'fiscal conservatives'

I must have a different understanding of the English language and basic math. 

Quote from: fieldafm on March 11, 2013, 09:20:34 PM
Lumb's theory is that we would grow our way out of financial problems.

Back in my land development days, I was doing land planning work for several D.R. Horton single-family and multifamily communities throughout Northeast Florida.  Around 2008, when the market was clearly going up in flames, they mentioned they were going to build their way out of it.  That didn't turn out to well for them either.

Lumb was driving me crazy he seemed like the lobbyist. Clark just seems like he has backed himself into a corner it's his bill and he doesn't want to admit how bad  it is.

Quote from: JeffreyS on March 11, 2013, 09:34:06 PM
Clark just seems like he has backed himself into a corner it's his bill and he doesn't want to admit how bad  it is.

It's not his fault.  He knows absolutely nothing about it.  And he doesn't care to.  You can tell by his hysterics on tonight, "don't pass this and we're dead...DEAD."

Anyone have a copy of the statement the Mayor submitted?

I noticed panic in Clark too -- and then the remark about Riverside.  geez. 

Quote from: JeffreyS on March 11, 2013, 09:40:59 PM
Anyone have a copy of the statement the Mayor submitted?

I'd like to read that too.  I thought he was saying he was in support of the initial moratorium, but was not in support of this

Ennis, I don't know what we would do without you!   We all need to take out MJ ads so you can quit your day job.

Quote from: sheclown on March 11, 2013, 09:44:47 PM

Quote from: JeffreyS on March 11, 2013, 09:40:59 PM
Anyone have a copy of the statement the Mayor submitted?

I'd like to read that too.  I thought he was saying he was in support of the initial moratorium, but was not in support of this

That is the way I took it too. It certainly wasn't a strong your all wasting your time talking moratorium statement though.

From how it sounded to me, it appeared the Mayor isn't in favor of an extended moratorium but he's willing to hear what the council has to say before making a firm decision either way.

Quote from: sheclown on March 11, 2013, 09:46:36 PM
Ennis, I don't know what we would do without you!   We all need to take out MJ ads so you can quit your day job.

I'm just doing my small part in attempting to protect the taxpayer and Jacksonville's best long term interests. I can't camp out at city hall on the clock like the lobbyist but I can take advantage of the number of hits this site and its facebook account gets.     Nevertheless, the community has really come out on this one.  Hopefully, a resolution that works in the best interest of everyone ends up as the final result of everyone's efforts.

Quote from: thelakelander on March 11, 2013, 09:55:25 PM
From how it sounded to me, it appeared the Mayor isn't in favor of an extended moratorium but he's willing to hear what the council has to say before making a firm decision either way.

Imagine that.

Quote from: sheclown on March 11, 2013, 09:17:37 PM
I was frustrated listening to Lumb talk about unemployment in the construction industry and pulling out 2007 figures.  This was at the cusp of the boom before the heavy lay-offs began and when anyone with a truck from Atlanta came to town to build something.  Of course the employment in the construction industry is down.  It was unsustainably high.  What I would like to see is a comparison from 2003 to 2013. That would be more reflective.

When CM Lumb was reading the list of job rates, didn't he give numbers for the other industries up until 2013?  And then stopped at 2010 for construction?  What stands out even more is if the construction industry is as down as he claims, why would we want so much of our local economy dependent on construction jobs?  Why not spend money training a workforce to do something that is in greater demand?

^I find the idea that our local economy must rely on construction very troubling.  Jacksonville can do a lot better than subsidizing Family Dollar, Dollar General and 7-11 to spur job growth. As cities age and fill in, growth tends to slow down.  At some point, you have to start investing in your quality of life and diversifying your economic base.  We really need to figure out what we want to be in the future, identify growing 21st century industries and invest in ourselves to attract the jobs and companies they'll breed.

^Exactly

Quote
Jacksonville council panels defer choice on mobility fee

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-03-11/story/jacksonville-council-panels-defer-choice-mobility-fee#ixzz2NI366MBN

A plan to suspend a transportation fee Jacksonville charges developers was postponed Monday by three City Council committees while backers and critics looked for room for compromise.

The council had been expected to vote Tuesday on legislation to waive the charges, called mobility fees, for three years to help the still-struggling construction industry.

But the committees agreed Monday to defer any decision on Councilman Rickard Clark’s legislation, which seemed during committee debates to lack the support needed to pass.

Separately, council President Bill Bishop said he would re-establish a task force that helped develop the current fee system and have members review what changes might be needed.

He said that review might take most of a year and might be ongoing well after some decision is reached on Clark’s legislation.

The fee was set up in 2011, then suspended for a year in the hope that lowering government fees would boost construction. That moratorium ended in October, though builders could still use some provisions of it through April.

City planning director Calvin Burney told the committees about $5 million in fees have been waived, though Clark noted that figure might have been lowered because of a system of "credits" that weren't calculated during the waiver period.

Supporters spoke of the legislation as a jobs bill that might help some commercial developers put construction crews back to work if they didn’t have to factor the additional cost of mobility fees into construction projects.

Curtis Hart, a developer and lobbyist, told members of the committees -- Rules, Finance and Transportation, Energy and Utilities â€" about a tractor-supply business that he said only became viable because the waiver wiped out $135,000 of charges.

“That $135,000 made the entire project. We would not have done the project had it not been for the waiver,” Hart told committee members.

But several members said that exempting developers from the costs won’t spare the city from the cost of the roadwork, sidewalks and other infrastructure needed to serve those new projects. Instead, they said, it will put the bill back on taxpayers.

“I totally supported the first waiver. I supported it for a year. … I have major problems with the way this one is written,” Councilwoman Lori Boyer said.

“I have a real problem with shifting the cost of this infrastructure need to everybody else … There just won’t be adequate funding available.”

steve.patterson@jacksonville.com, (904) 359-4263

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-03-11/story/jacksonville-council-panels-defer-choice-mobility-fee#ixzz2NI30I5df

As the tide started moving against the moratorium proponents on Monday afternoon, they quickly retreated to the jobs and economy arguments, which are their weakest and least demonstrable data. This isn't the only issue that Council has seen where jobs were at the core of the discussion. The difference this time is that the Associated General Contractors, the trades unions, the electricians and framers and plumbers, the people who most benefit from construction-related job creation, were absent from the room. The only people there on Monday to promote construction job creation were paid lobbyists, and way in the back of the room, their clients, who are not construction people at all but land speculators and entitlements merchants.

A concerted effort by the community, MJ, Doug Skiles and the people who show up meeting after meeting, has prevailed in getting Council to defy the Sprawl Lobby. Helped immensely,BTW, by the very impressive and thought provoking CM Lori Boyer, who simply refuses to be swayed by rhetoric and continues to lead from the front, as we expect our representatives to do on every issue, all the time.

Well said!

Quote from: xplanner on March 12, 2013, 03:01:49 AM
As the tide started moving against the moratorium proponents on Monday afternoon, they quickly retreated to the jobs and economy arguments, which are their weakest and least demonstrable data. This isn't the only issue that Council has seen where jobs were at the core of the discussion. The difference this time is that the Associated General Contractors, the trades unions, the electricians and framers and plumbers, the people who most benefit from construction-related job creation, were absent from the room. The only people there on Monday to promote construction job creation were paid lobbyists, and way in the back of the room, their clients, who are not construction people at all but land speculators and entitlements merchants.

A concerted effort by the community, MJ, Doug Skiles and the people who show up meeting after meeting, has prevailed in getting Council to defy the Sprawl Lobby. Helped immensely,BTW, by the very impressive and thought provoking CM Lori Boyer, who simply refuses to be swayed by rhetoric and continues to lead from the front, as we expect our representatives to do on every issue, all the time.

indeed!

Quote from: dougskiles on March 11, 2013, 10:20:00 PM

Quote from: sheclown on March 11, 2013, 09:17:37 PM
I was frustrated listening to Lumb talk about unemployment in the construction industry and pulling out 2007 figures.  This was at the cusp of the boom before the heavy lay-offs began and when anyone with a truck from Atlanta came to town to build something.  Of course the employment in the construction industry is down.  It was unsustainably high.  What I would like to see is a comparison from 2003 to 2013. That would be more reflective.

When CM Lumb was reading the list of job rates, didn't he give numbers for the other industries up until 2013?  And then stopped at 2010 for construction?  What stands out even more is if the construction industry is as down as he claims, why would we want so much of our local economy dependent on construction jobs?  Why not spend money training a workforce to do something that is in greater demand?

Absolutely.  If we need a jobs bill, let's have one that profits the workers. 

Quote from: TheCat on March 11, 2013, 04:50:21 PM
Clark is speaking, bill sponsor:

* he's had so many people contact him. One real estate agent said, "this is exactly what we need."
* he will choose the guy who hammers nails over the guy who rides a bike.
* it's about getting government out of the way.

That comment makes me rage so hard.

The problem with Clark's quoted statement is this should not be an "either/or" situation.  "Either/or" situations tend to develop when we start placing our opinions above statistical data.  To date, there's been nothing proving the taxpayer's ROI on last year's moratorium. 7-Eleven and Family Dollar were coming anyway and the guy with hammers and nails is still building projects in and around SJTC, where new development continues to pay higher impact fees to the Skinner family.

With that said, above and beyond anything, Clark and every single should choose to protect the taxpayer's investments first. A full blown moratorium of any kind, does the exact opposite, based on all the data we have readily available.

Quote from: Josh on March 12, 2013, 08:22:31 AM

Quote from: TheCat on March 11, 2013, 04:50:21 PM
Clark is speaking, bill sponsor:

* he's had so many people contact him. One real estate agent said, "this is exactly what we need."
* he will choose the guy who hammers nails over the guy who rides a bike.
* it's about getting government out of the way.

That comment makes me rage so hard.

That comment is beyond dumb. It's also microcosm for what is wrong in this city.

I think the action that angered me the most last night was the lobbyists soliciting 7-Eleven for a letter against the moratorium and selling them on the idea of putting a hold on their project to try to twist the city Council's arm on this one.  I don't believe this type of behavior should be rewarded and perhaps the  council should even act punitively towards the lobbyist.

So, could we start collecting a fee until a deal is reached?  It seems like analysis could go on over a year.  Is the one year moratorium over?  It would be nice to see some time collecting the fee to prove it does not make a difference. 

From my understanding, they will also develop some sort of short term solution. That could mean anything from another one year moratorium (which I think proponents were shooting for in the first place) to reduced mobility fees.

Quote from: jcjohnpaint on March 12, 2013, 10:13:31 AM
So, could we start collecting a fee until a deal is reached?  It seems like analysis could go on over a year.  Is the one year moratorium over?  It would be nice to see some time collecting the fee to prove it does not make a difference. 

The problem is it will make a difference if businesses know some sort of adjustment or moratorium is just around the corner.

Quote from: thelakelander on March 12, 2013, 10:18:15 AM
From my understanding, they will also develop some sort of short term solution. That could mean anything from another one year moratorium (which I think proponents were shooting for in the first place) to reduced mobility fees.

If they're looking for a short term solution and we (the large amorphous anti-moratorium crowd) wish to work with them, the best solution would be a case by case review of fees.  With the developer having to explain their reason for fee waiver with facts about trip generation or credits, not hyperbole about jobs or investment returns.

To be honest, I think the credit adjustment system should offer higher reductions for better development.  That would actually achieve the goals of the 2030 Mobility Plan and offer an easier avenue for those who want to see their fees reduced.  For those who want to contribute to the worst types of sprawl, no one is stopping them.  They'll just have to pay a higher fee since it creates additional negative impacts on public infrastructure.

Quote from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Feb report.
http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf (http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf)

QuoteConstruction employment increased by 48,000 in February, bringing the current 3-month change to 111,000. This increase represents an acceleration over the 43,000 jobs that were added in the 3 months ending in November 2012.
The February job gain in construction is the largest 1-month increase since March 2007 when 80,000 jobs were added. Since reaching an employment trough in January 2011, the industry has added 349,000 jobs

This is the industry we should be subsidizing now?

Quote from: xplanner on March 12, 2013, 03:01:49 AM
As the tide started moving against the moratorium proponents on Monday afternoon, they quickly retreated to the jobs and economy arguments, which are their weakest and least demonstrable data. This isn't the only issue that Council has seen where jobs were at the core of the discussion. The difference this time is that the Associated General Contractors, the trades unions, the electricians and framers and plumbers, the people who most benefit from construction-related job creation, were absent from the room. The only people there on Monday to promote construction job creation were paid lobbyists, and way in the back of the room, their clients, who are not construction people at all but land speculators and entitlements merchants.

A concerted effort by the community, MJ, Doug Skiles and the people who show up meeting after meeting, has prevailed in getting Council to defy the Sprawl Lobby. Helped immensely,BTW, by the very impressive and thought provoking CM Lori Boyer, who simply refuses to be swayed by rhetoric and continues to lead from the front, as we expect our representatives to do on every issue, all the time.

Exactly!  Bazinga!  ;)

This line is what I hope many of the posters and readers will absorb and understand xplanner.  You could not have been more accurate in your words which follow:

Quote
The only people there on Monday to promote construction job creation were paid lobbyists, and way in the back of the room, their clients, who are not construction people at all but land speculators and entitlements merchants.

I was way in the back of the room, but I'm not a land spectulator.  Just a lowly citizen of Jacksonville.

Thinking strategically as we move ahead, there is a danger that the proponents and their Council supporters could be embarrassed by a thorough analysis of the job creation hype...that an expert in development economics might conclude that Waffle Houses, etc, don't create any more short term economic impact than constructing a small custom home, ie, some site work, about $200,000 in materials and another $200,000 in burdened construction labor. The full-time jobs created are mostly minimum wage at best, or wages+ tips. If/when that knowledge is made public, the CM's can be made to look used by the lobby.

So a few CM's are going to want/need some high ground to retreat to. There needs to be some legitimate concession (other than waiving Mobility Fees) to allow the proponents to save face and do something good (the win-win proposition that is often talked about and rarely achieved in politics).

Furthermore, my observation is that for every hour spent on this debate, more people are "getting it" as relates to the Mobility Fee. It was apparently not universally understood when it was being developed or adopted, but the constant Q&A has been very good in getting the media, the CM's and the public educated on the costs of roadway infrastructure and how a policy of sprawl is bad municipal finance.

There needs to be 100% clarity on the variables that go into the fee calculation...that developers have options to reduce any of those variables that generate the fee. Most important is to take away the Wow-factor of the total worst-case fee. Some of the CM's  still don't get that a convenience store with gas pumps generates as much traffic congestion as a small subdivision. The "ITE Trip Generation Factor" is the root cause of that misunderstanding. We need to call it a Local Congestion Factor or something more descriptive and down to earth. Maybe the Mobility Fee needs to be called a Congestion Mitigation Fee, to be more accurate and palatable.

It's not the pass-by traffic in front of the Waffle House that causes the problem...it's the future turning movements the restaurant creates that ultimately generates congestion and a demand (by the Waffle House in many cases) for a traffic signal/ intersection improvement that costs upwards of $150K, and which further exacerbates roadway deficiencies.

And, speaking of roadway capacity, CM's seem to want to treat "excess capacity" like new found money..."give it to someone, quick..." They need to be further educated on what capacity really is, and how it fluctuates over time with the economy, gas prices and new development. And how maybe, just possibly, folks who use that road today would like to enjoy some of that pre-paid excess capacity.

This next Task Force is going to have to educate more people on how the Mobility Fee REALLY works and demonstrate how industry can profit in the world of legitimate developer fees.


I was heartened to see that some lowly, noisy, citizens were back there, keeping the rest of the crowd in check.

Quote from: thelakelander on March 11, 2013, 09:30:27 PM
Back in my land development days, I was doing land planning work for several D.R. Horton single-family and multifamily communities throughout Northeast Florida.  Around 2008, when the market was clearly going up in flames, they mentioned they were going to build their way out of it.  That didn't turn out to well for them either.

Damn Ennis, I guess that explains my house!

Quote from: sheclown on March 11, 2013, 09:44:47 PM

Quote from: JeffreyS on March 11, 2013, 09:40:59 PM
Anyone have a copy of the statement the Mayor submitted?

I'd like to read that too.  I thought he was saying he was in support of the initial moratorium, but was not in support of this

This is my last note from the mayor:

QuoteThank you for taking the time to make some well-researched points on the mobility issue. I will keep your thoughts in mind as I continue to absorb pros and cons. You are very right that transit plays a big role in cities and I support having the best system possible (with the big question always being what’s the best, most cost-effective way to get there?).

Please feel free to write in the future, and have a great weekend.

Best,
Alvin Brown

I don't think he supports the moratorium because he DOES support many of the funded projects within the MP.

I think no matter what happens next, any period of moratorium at all, with the prospect that it will permanently terminate thereafter, will cause some developers and builders to "jump" into a premature commitment of land and resources required to achieve grandfathering for their property. Clearly the future cost to taxpayers for road improvements will be kicked down the road by that action and response.

Ultimately, I would like to see a companion Jobs Incentive Bill, with a schedule of job creation credits offered on a site by site, project by project basis, as a credit towards the Mobility Fee, but certainly not a full elimination of the fee for any period of time. Everyone should have to pay something, especially if they are locating on a constrained road.

But even that credit would have to have a period-certain with an expiration date. In that model, the size of the site and the amount of enclosed space to be constructed or remodeled could be used to create a job production factor that the developer would have to commit to undertaking within a certain timeframe. He would also have to commit to using local suppliers and local constructors, since we shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing jobs in some pre-fab factory in Little Rock, or paying the hourly wages of work crews from Alabama who show up in town for a few weeks to erect a pre-fab building (like a Waffle House, 7-11, Family Dollar, Zaxby's, etc.) In short, treat this form of job creation just like we do in any other incentive package, on a case by case basis. The developers will complain that this is more bureaucracy and an expensive time-consuming layer of government that strings-out their deal. If so, they have options:

1.Find a site user that has a lower impact on the roads;

2.Take their deal to a new site and land-bank the expensive site until the roads get better...possibly with a local tax-credit for the period the property is in that land-bank;

3.Pay the full fee for the deal they want to happen right now.

Finally, as to net job creation, I think we need to take the analysis down to the level of "how many local jobs or businesses does this new project displace?" No one has brought up the fact that a number of Mom and Pop independents have closed the doors of their diners and breakfast houses as these new eateries come on line. No one has addressed the employees that Waffle House and 7-11 have recruited away from independent local competitors without ever creating a new job.

^Another option would be to further incentivize better development by adjusting the credit adjustment system.  The original URBEMIS model that the mobility fee's credit adjustment system is based off, provides more credit for positive growth than our current set up does (I believe 15% off is as high as you can get off the mobility fee).  We also don't give any credit for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Mobility-Plan-Study/i-L44M94V/0/L/URBEMIS-L.jpg)
http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/transportation/documents/TripGenerationAnalysisUsingURBEMIS.pdf

What this means if you build this:

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Nashville-2012/i-c6QC9xz/0/M/SDC15849-M.jpg)

or this:

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/San-Diego-2011/i-T7phpGT/0/M/P1490141-M.jpg)

instead of this:

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Southside-Construction-2-2013/i-C685Krt/0/M/P1610451-M.jpg)

or this:

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Clay-County-Oakleaf-Plantation/i-tP26Pf9/0/M/P1210791-M.jpg)

You'll completed eliminate or significantly reduce your mobility fee.

Isn't Lumb supposed to be a Tea Party ultra conservative guy? How does his base feel about him trying to raise taxes on the public by shifting developers fees to us? Whoever his opponent is in the next council race needs to hammer him on that.

Wasn't there an article on MJ that addressed how building more dense is more profitable for developers?  I couldn't seem to find it, but remember from about a year ago. 

Quote from: jcjohnpaint on March 12, 2013, 06:34:38 PM
Wasn't there an article on MJ that addressed how building more dense is more profitable for developers?  I couldn't seem to find it, but remember from about a year ago.

Yes, but only as the market will support it.  There is a sweet spot they all try to hit with the maximum density and the maximum profit per unit.  Not unlike any other business.  More production doesn't always mean greater overall profit if there isn't a demand for your product.

So the question I have been looking for an answer to is - why would they want to be ahead of the demand and lower the profit potential?

^I thought Councilwoman Boyer hit the nail on the head when she mentioned it seemed like this bill was more for land speculators than anything else. A 7-Eleven can go in several locations all over town if it really wants to avoid a mobility fee. The guy installing drywall, will install drywall where ever the project is. However, 7-Eleven going in an existing half empty strip center or redeveloping/upgrading an existing gas station doesn't do the land speculator who purchased during the height of the boom any good.  A full moratorium, allows the speculator to pocket all of the mobility fee waiver money, while securing a deal with an entity that could literally go anywhere in the city. It's not fair to the taxpayers to subsidize speculative decisions to help buffer profit margins on holdings that have lost value over the last few years.  We've all suffered great loss over the last few years. All a full moratorium does is attempt to help a small segment of the local market at the expense of the rest of the community.

Quote from: thelakelander on March 12, 2013, 03:41:01 PM
^Another option would be to further incentivize better development by adjusting the credit adjustment system.  The original URBEMIS model that the mobility fee's credit adjustment system is based off, provides more credit for positive growth than our current set up does (I believe 15% off is as high as you can get off the mobility fee).  We also don't give any credit for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies.

I've been alerted to the reason it was mentioned at the DIA meeting that 15% is about as high as we can get with the credit adjustments in most locations in town.  We simply don't have the built environment, density, high frequency transit corridors, bike/ped corridors, etc. that justifies higher credit reductions at a greater scale.  Also TDM strategies were not included because it was believed they may be too hard to enforce after a development is completed.

Quote from: stephendare on March 12, 2013, 05:53:52 PM
Its too bad that Councilman Lumb and Clark have proven that they are the secret blackmail weapons to be wielded as tools by a couple of developers.

Call me good natured but I'd like to believe that Lumb truly believes a moratorium is best for taxpayers.  However,  such a belief would hopefully be backed by sound data and documentation. At the very least, taxpayers deserve this. As for CM Clark, I have no idea what made him state he'd pick on segment of the population he represents over the other.  I simply assume it was a bad attempt to save his bill from going up in flames after CW Boyer ripped it to shreds.

CM Boyer made the statement that if land speculators are underwater in their properties, they are in the same position as a great many homeowners in this city.  There is little help for these families, why should there be help for the speculators?  And in fact, she fills out the thought a bit, these families will now have to foot the bill for the infrastructure required to develop these properties.

So, think of the roofer Clark speaks passionately about.  There may be some more roofs to shingle (unless out of town workers come in to do this as very often happens), but his taxes will have to be raised to pay for the additional services that the sprawl will require. 

And then go on to think of the kindergarten teacher.  Do we care about her?  She doesn't benefit from this plan one bit, but she will pay for it.  And she loses out on many quality of life projects.  And she can't safely ride her bike.

It was a great point by The CW. I guess great is a bit of a self-serving way to characterize it as it was the crux of the comments I was going to make it public had been allowed to speak.

I am beginning to believe it is not the fee itself that the development community objects to so much as it is the reward for infill and transit oriented development.  They are heavily invested in raw land far away from any infrastructure and don't want that land to be lower value than parcels that are closer in.

Maybe it's the raw land owners, not really the builders who are behind the moratorium.

Quote from: Dog Walker on March 13, 2013, 09:06:46 AM
I am beginning to believe it is not the fee itself that the development community objects to so much as it is the reward for infill and transit oriented development.  They are heavily invested in raw land far away from any infrastructure and don't want that land to be lower value than parcels that are closer in.

Maybe it's the raw land owners, not really the builders who are behind the moratorium.

I agree

Quote from: Dog Walker on March 13, 2013, 09:06:46 AM
I am beginning to believe it is not the fee itself that the development community objects to so much as it is the reward for infill and transit oriented development.  They are heavily invested in raw land far away from any infrastructure and don't want that land to be lower value than parcels that are closer in.

Maybe it's the raw land owners, not really the builders who are behind the moratorium.

Wouldn't this be the same crowd that is pushing for the Outer Beltway?

Connecting the dot's is a good thing.  :)

I like that thought Stephen.

Good point about agriculture Stephen.  Integration of this asset into local thinking would be a positive thing at more than one level.

Well said. 
Keep in mind that agriculture is suspect to development.  I recall when orange groves were common in Orange County CA.  Now there are only backyard trees, and a 5 acre historical ranch museum in Tustin.

Incentivize outskirts development into farmland , I really like that.

I sit here chuckling as the conversation drifts to agriculture and the linkage to our rural fringe land speculators that CW Boyer nailed to the barn door this week. And yes this is mostly about them, not bona fide developers.

There is a funny (ironic???) analogy between the proposed Mobility Waiver Bill and the Federal Farm Bill, which includes Agricultural Price Supports. Under price supports, taxpayers nationwide are asked (actually mandated) to pay Midwest farmers to NOT grow certain crops, in the interest of keeping prices high for the crops that they do grow.

In a similar vein, Jacksonvillians are being asked (mandated) to pay for correcting existing and future road deficiencies so that the sellers of land adjoining those deficient roads can reap the full "market value" of their speculative land deals. 

As you research agricultural price supports, you will often see reference to the economic concept of "deadweight loss". Deadweight loss is simply defined as the aggregate social cost of policy-driven oversupply of a commodity, over and above the monetary costs society is already paying in taxes to create that oversupply. Like piling more failing roads on top of existing failing roads.

So this next time around, let's call the Mobility Waiver what it really is...The Land Speculation Price Support Bill. Or better yet, the Deadweight Loss Sharing Bill.

I am seeing a unique door to walk through.  Given the justified uproar over GMO food sources, I can see a niche for Jacksonville to incentivize the growing on non GMO foods.

I agree with you xplanner, but see an opportunity going forward for this sizable consolidated community. 

Why can't we be forward thinking and in some ways break new ground? :)

So much for the threat about 7-Eleven not expanding if we don't implement a moratorium....

Quote7-Eleven is going to put a convenience store at Riverside Avenue and Barrs Street, across from St. Vincent's Medical Center. It will be in the corner space in the Prado Walk shopping center, last occupied by the International Grill.

A spokeswoman said opening is expected in mid-May.

The $427,000 permit for the 3,137-square-foot buildout was issued Tuesday. F&G Construction has the contract.

LabCorp is the only other tenant in Prado Walk.

Since it returned to the Jacksonville area last year after a 22-year hiatus, the world's largest convenience store chain has opened nine stores in Duval County, two in Clay County and one in St. Johns County. Several more are in the pipeline, the spokeswoman said, but she can't release exact locations yet.

full article: http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/472000/roger-bull/2013-03-13/7-eleven-open-riverside-avenue

Quote from: thelakelander on March 13, 2013, 03:35:00 PM
So much for the threat about 7-Eleven not expanding if we don't implement a moratorium....

Quote7-Eleven is going to put a convenience store at Riverside Avenue and Barrs Street, across from St. Vincent's Medical Center. It will be in the corner space in the Prado Walk shopping center, last occupied by the International Grill.

A spokeswoman said opening is expected in mid-May.

The $427,000 permit for the 3,137-square-foot buildout was issued Tuesday. F&G Construction has the contract.

LabCorp is the only other tenant in Prado Walk.

Since it returned to the Jacksonville area last year after a 22-year hiatus, the world's largest convenience store chain has opened nine stores in Duval County, two in Clay County and one in St. Johns County. Several more are in the pipeline, the spokeswoman said, but she can't release exact locations yet.

full article: http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/472000/roger-bull/2013-03-13/7-eleven-open-riverside-avenue

You just knew that was a crock when he had the "letter".  You could hear the groans in the council chamber when he mentioned it.  I'm sure Curtis Hart could get a letter from anyone tied to a developer in town.

I kept thinking about Big Lebowski, "You want a toe?  I can get you a toe, believe me.  I can get you a toe by 3 o'clock"

Quote from: thelakelander on March 13, 2013, 03:35:00 PM
So much for the threat about 7-Eleven not expanding if we don't implement a moratorium....

Quote7-Eleven is going to put a convenience store at Riverside Avenue and Barrs Street, across from St. Vincent's Medical Center. It will be in the corner space in the Prado Walk shopping center, last occupied by the International Grill.

A spokeswoman said opening is expected in mid-May.

The $427,000 permit for the 3,137-square-foot buildout was issued Tuesday. F&G Construction has the contract.

LabCorp is the only other tenant in Prado Walk.

Since it returned to the Jacksonville area last year after a 22-year hiatus, the world's largest convenience store chain has opened nine stores in Duval County, two in Clay County and one in St. Johns County. Several more are in the pipeline, the spokeswoman said, but she can't release exact locations yet.

full article: http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/472000/roger-bull/2013-03-13/7-eleven-open-riverside-avenue

You can find a list of the stores here:

http://franchise.7-eleven.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/7-Eleven_Store-List_March_FLORIDA.pdf (http://franchise.7-eleven.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/7-Eleven_Store-List_March_FLORIDA.pdf)

I don't have time to chase these down, but it would be interesting to call the local building departments and find out how many of these new stores in the past 12 months paid an impact fee.

I saw the guys hanging sheet rock in there and it looked like some painters in there as well today. Oh thank heaven.

Despite what these landowners are afraid of, potentially, it's not as if infill will "detract" from sprawl in a material way.  In most Sunbelt cities with lots of available raw land, lower incomes, lower COL, ease of development, population growth, etc, infill will only be about 10-20% of all new residential development (these are the numbers for like Charlotte...in Jax it will be like 1-3% of all new development).  It's not like Charlotte is not expanding outward, still, despite all of the new stuff always being built near the core.  Charlotte also has a much more robust CBD with more and higher paying jobs and a much younger, more educated culture, so developers can actually better justify building more expensive infill (close to job center, i.e. Uptown, and larger highly paid base in the under 30 set).

In Jacksonville, we can push infill, but the jobs have to come, too.  Infill won't happen without the jobs, the demand, etc.  In a town like Jax, there will *always* be demand for cheap tract housing and apartments in the burbs (and then your strip retail) simply due to the population growth and the attraction of lower middle/middle class families.

Here in SF the legislative controversy is almost always regarding height limits and density regulations.  It's the densest city in America outside of NYC so every parcel is intensely developed already.  In fact, there is a bill to be voted on soon through the Planning Commission to raise height limits along the Embarcadero waterfront to around 120 ft, which will allow one developer to start its project which will block my view.  Very heated here, so no matter where you go there will be areas of contention involving development.  In Jax they want to protect raw land values on the fringes.  In SF they want to increase height limits so they can justify their half acre parcel purchases and build even higher (bc land prices here are so insane).

^I haven't been following things as much as I should lately... did you move to SF?

QuoteIn Jacksonville, we can push infill, but the jobs have to come, too.  Infill won't happen without the jobs, the demand, etc.

I don't know what the recent numbers are but there's been a big push to increase jobs in downtown over the last year or two.  Most of us know about the Everbank deal but there have been several smaller companies relocating to the CBD as well. The most recent announcement came this week from RockTenn. It's not 2,500 but 70 here and there adds up, as long as you keep the existing jobs from leaving.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,17752.0.html

Quote from: dougskiles on March 13, 2013, 05:01:02 PM
^I haven't been following things as much as I should lately... did you move to SF?

Yes

Quote from: thelakelander on March 13, 2013, 06:10:58 PM

QuoteIn Jacksonville, we can push infill, but the jobs have to come, too.  Infill won't happen without the jobs, the demand, etc.

I don't know what the recent numbers are but there's been a big push to increase jobs in downtown over the last year or two.  Most of us know about the Everbank deal but there have been several smaller companies relocating to the CBD as well. The most recent announcement came this week from RockTenn. It's not 2,500 but 70 here and there adds up, as long as you keep the existing jobs from leaving.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,17752.0.html

An overall thriving Jacksonville economy can bring jobs, especially high paying jobs, to downtown.  Even if the city builds up an industry, brings some more relos to the SS that aren't totally back office, etc etc that will stimulate downtown office users.

Jacksonville just doesn't have the need for or a large "population" of downtown office users, which are usually service providers who exist due to the local economy.  The big 50 law firms will come, the top 10 design firms will come, the big 4 + Grant Thornton + Cohn Reznick accountants will come/expand, the consultants a la McKinsey/CapGemini/Accenture/Boston will come, the big marketing/PR agencies will come, etc if business in general comes to Jacksonville.  IT jobs will not translate into an expansion of DT users.  Big corporate relos and expansions will.  A big manufacturing industry will.  A big logistics/distribution/global trade network will.

I think it was a mistake paying Everbank to leave the SS for downtown...the city should try for organic growth instead, really target specific industries and tackle them.  Austin, Raleigh, Charlotte and Nashville have all found their niche and are all now indispensable national economies.  Chip manufacturing in the suburbs of Austin has translated into a thriving VC business, legal industry (patents, tech), etc which has translated into a thriving downtown.

What's your take on downtown St. Petersburg?  It's never really had a large office population in it's downtown and it plays fourth fiddle to downtown Tampa, Westshore and Gateway.  Nevertheless, it continues to pack in residential infill.

Many people simply prefer living downtown, no matter where they work.

Quote from: simms3 on March 13, 2013, 07:01:06 PM

Quote from: dougskiles on March 13, 2013, 05:01:02 PM
^I haven't been following things as much as I should lately... did you move to SF?

Yes

Quote from: thelakelander on March 13, 2013, 06:10:58 PM

QuoteIn Jacksonville, we can push infill, but the jobs have to come, too.  Infill won't happen without the jobs, the demand, etc.

I don't know what the recent numbers are but there's been a big push to increase jobs in downtown over the last year or two.  Most of us know about the Everbank deal but there have been several smaller companies relocating to the CBD as well. The most recent announcement came this week from RockTenn. It's not 2,500 but 70 here and there adds up, as long as you keep the existing jobs from leaving.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,17752.0.html

An overall thriving Jacksonville economy can bring jobs, especially high paying jobs, to downtown.  Even if the city builds up an industry, brings some more relos to the SS that aren't totally back office, etc etc that will stimulate downtown office users.

Jacksonville just doesn't have the need for or a large "population" of downtown office users, which are usually service providers who exist due to the local economy.  The big 50 law firms will come, the top 10 design firms will come, the big 4 + Grant Thornton + Cohn Reznick accountants will come/expand, the consultants a la McKinsey/CapGemini/Accenture/Boston will come, the big marketing/PR agencies will come, etc if business in general comes to Jacksonville.  IT jobs will not translate into an expansion of DT users.  Big corporate relos and expansions will.  A big manufacturing industry will.  A big logistics/distribution/global trade network will.

I think it was a mistake paying Everbank to leave the SS for downtown...the city should try for organic growth instead, really target specific industries and tackle them.  Austin, Raleigh, Charlotte and Nashville have all found their niche and are all now indispensable national economies.  Chip manufacturing in the suburbs of Austin has translated into a thriving VC business, legal industry (patents, tech), etc which has translated into a thriving downtown.

Simms, I agree up to a point. I agree the growth has to be organic but that will only take you so far.

Jacksonville has one great asset the rest of Florida doesn't. It has the broadest set of fundamentals supporting its overall GDP. It isn't dependent on one large economic factor to drive its tax base.  That means if one industry begins to die, it won't kill the whole area economy. Balanced growth make for long term stability in the city core and surrounding areas. That is something I can live with and promote.

I know many are looking for the big arrow that will be all things to the city, but I agree with you that a large downtown population is needed to reach momentum.

I think you'd find the resident profile in DT St. Petersburg to be pretty old.  Not many rentals.  I think typically people who live near a downtown tend to work in that downtown...not a lot of "reverse commuting" going on in that sense.  Plus the commute over Tampa Bay is atrocious...as much as I love a vibrant atmosphere, if I worked in DT Tampa, Westshore, even up in Clearwater, I would not want to live all the way down in DT St. Pete!!

I mean in all honesty, aside from St. Pete, Ft. Lauderdale, and Brickell, can anyone name another residential dominated central "business" district?  It's really a FL thing to have far more condo highrises than office towers in the downtown area.

Plus Bill, I'd have to add my own point to yours...throughout history young people have lived in downtowns.  My parents lived in New York when they were young, single and working.  Many people have done their time as a young person in Manhattan, Chicago, Boston, SF, etc.  Downtown living does not appeal to most families anywhere.  Look at the demographic profile of SF...lowest amount of under 18 and over 65 of any city...not many families at all in the entire city.  It's all single or coupled working people!

In FL the situation is less "downtown living" with the hustle and bustle that comes with that territory (the mad rush for the trains, the honking cabs, the throngs of homeless, the tourists, etc) as it is luxury resort style high rise condo living with waterfront views and shops/restaurants to stroll.  It's closer to a retirement haven in DT St. Pete than an actual downtown, and I believe that retirees make up a large segment of the DT population.

You need young highly paid college grads working downtown for law firms, design studios, corporate offices, banks, consulting firms, global engineering firms, etc to make for a 24 hour downtown.  Having an empty nester culture works, too, but living in Jacksonville why would you move "downtown" when the kids move out to college when you can move to the beach?  That's what most people do.

Quote from: spuwho on March 13, 2013, 10:23:27 PM

Quote from: simms3 on March 13, 2013, 07:01:06 PM

Quote from: dougskiles on March 13, 2013, 05:01:02 PM
^I haven't been following things as much as I should lately... did you move to SF?

Yes

Quote from: thelakelander on March 13, 2013, 06:10:58 PM

QuoteIn Jacksonville, we can push infill, but the jobs have to come, too.  Infill won't happen without the jobs, the demand, etc.

I don't know what the recent numbers are but there's been a big push to increase jobs in downtown over the last year or two.  Most of us know about the Everbank deal but there have been several smaller companies relocating to the CBD as well. The most recent announcement came this week from RockTenn. It's not 2,500 but 70 here and there adds up, as long as you keep the existing jobs from leaving.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,17752.0.html

An overall thriving Jacksonville economy can bring jobs, especially high paying jobs, to downtown.  Even if the city builds up an industry, brings some more relos to the SS that aren't totally back office, etc etc that will stimulate downtown office users.

Jacksonville just doesn't have the need for or a large "population" of downtown office users, which are usually service providers who exist due to the local economy.  The big 50 law firms will come, the top 10 design firms will come, the big 4 + Grant Thornton + Cohn Reznick accountants will come/expand, the consultants a la McKinsey/CapGemini/Accenture/Boston will come, the big marketing/PR agencies will come, etc if business in general comes to Jacksonville.  IT jobs will not translate into an expansion of DT users.  Big corporate relos and expansions will.  A big manufacturing industry will.  A big logistics/distribution/global trade network will.

I think it was a mistake paying Everbank to leave the SS for downtown...the city should try for organic growth instead, really target specific industries and tackle them.  Austin, Raleigh, Charlotte and Nashville have all found their niche and are all now indispensable national economies.  Chip manufacturing in the suburbs of Austin has translated into a thriving VC business, legal industry (patents, tech), etc which has translated into a thriving downtown.

Simms, I agree up to a point. I agree the growth has to be organic but that will only take you so far.

Jacksonville has one great asset the rest of Florida doesn't. It has the broadest set of fundamentals supporting its overall GDP. It isn't dependent on one large economic factor to drive its tax base.  That means if one industry begins to die, it won't kill the whole area economy. Balanced growth make for long term stability in the city core and surrounding areas. That is something I can live with and promote.

I know many are looking for the big arrow that will be all things to the city, but I agree with you that a large downtown population is needed to reach momentum.

I think it's easy to say a "diverse economy" is better, and of course having a diverse economy is good, but really excelling in 1-2 very particular areas in addition to having that diverse economy seems to give cities a real competitive edge.  It can make a secondary/tertiary market act like a primary market for some for some industries, which then means the capital markets tend to open up a bit more.

It's not like Austin is entirely dependent on chip manufacturing and software development.  It has UT and serves as the capital of the 2nd largest state in the country (read stable government employment), and has developed a booming hospitality/service and tourism industry.  But Austin is also the 2nd most important software hub in the country, pulling in one of the largest amount of VC in the country.  It's on everyone's radar.

Charlotte is an indispensable banking hub...it's not just BofA and Wells Fargo, it is every investment bank that's HQ'd in NYC with their only other/secondary office located in Charlotte.  If banking dies, however, Charlotte won't.  It has a large "corporate" base of F500s not even associated with the financial industry.  It's also a regional hub of all business for the Carolinas, moreso than Raleigh-Durham, and having Charlotte-Douglas airport and all the other big city amenities Charlotte has helps.

Houston is the energy capital of the world...but it also has Texas Medical Center and the port.  Sure oil prices can really affect the economy there, but that city is not going to die anytime soon, if ever.

If Detroit is an example...I would be willing to bet public corruption and bad weather did more to destroy that city than auto manufacturing leaving.  Look at Pittsburgh and Minneapolis, especially the latter.  Also - New Orleans, which has warm weather.  Would be what Houston is today if not for public corruption driving out all the energy companies.

If there is anything to be learned, it's that excelling in 1-2 "now" industries or in 1-2 areas where your city has a real strong natural advantage, with enough diversity to be flexible/adapt in tough times or times of change and strong ethical city leadership, is what sets great cities apart from dying cities.

QuoteI think you'd find the resident profile in DT St. Petersburg to be pretty old.  Not many rentals.  I think typically people who live near a downtown tend to work in that downtown...not a lot of "reverse commuting" going on in that sense.

I'm not sure where the numbers stand today but DT St. Pete has visually gotten much younger over the last decade or so.  There's also lots of rentals, although these projects tend to be much smaller than the condo projects from the real estate boom.  For me, there was a much larger number of young people on the streets during my stay in December than I ever remember when growing up in Central Florida. Back in those days, that city was considered to be "God's waiting room."

QuoteI mean in all honesty, aside from St. Pete, Ft. Lauderdale, and Brickell, can anyone name another residential dominated central "business" district?  It's really a FL thing to have far more condo highrises than office towers in the downtown area.

Most of Florida's second tier and smaller cities probably meet this bill. Delray Beach, West Palm Beach, Hollywood, Winter Park, Sarasota, etc. However, there are a few decent sized communities out there that have been pretty successful recently in adding urban housing that have less downtown workers than Jax does currently. One that comes to mind is Norfolk.  It only has 30,000 downtown employees.  With that said, if it were up to me, I'd spend more time focusing on improving the quality-of-life in Jacksonville's overall urban core.  Ultimately, DT Jax will only be as successful as the communities surrounding it.

Simms,

I think your generalizations are too sweeping. I know personally know plenty of people that work in the suburbs but wouldn't enjoy living there. Thus they don't. Also, most people do not move to the beach once they become emptynesters.

Perhaps it's semantics, or your 'Downtown' definition is different.

^^^Then why don't they live DT already?  In my opinion DT apartments are CHEAP relative even to peerish cities of Charlotte, Nashville, Austin.  There are vacancies.  Look, if the demand for downtown apartments/condos were there, we'd see buildings going up.  Fact is, there are plenty of people who have done their homework and concluded that there is no demand for downtown living in Jacksonville (even at the height of the boom, investors trying to do downtown living went out of business because they got burned!).  Chalk it up to whatever you want, but I think there needs to be a strong population of young professionals working downtown for there to be demand to live downtown.

And having 2 parents and all of their friends who moved to the beach rather than Peninsula (where we actually now know 3-4 couples who are empty nesters, but also have places at the beach), I'd say in Jax where there is a fabulous set of beaches there is almost no reason to "empty nest" to DT.  If you are 60, retired, and looking for a new cool urban spot to live...you're going to get a condo in a larger city, not in Jax.  Fact.

It is not the same cost.  It is about 500 more and you lose a room compared to the SS (given the same amenities).  For someone that works in the SS, why would you drive more, pay more, and loose space.  Although that is the price you have to pay to live in the city, but divide is a little too extreme.  I guess that also get into how cheap things are built in the SS.  I don't know if you would want that fabric in an inner city. 

^That was my issue when I moved to town. The urban core simply didn't offer the vibrant atmosphere I was looking for that would justify paying more.  That was 2003. It's ten years later, nothing much has really changed and now my kids are to the age where schools matter.

There's also the issue of lack of residential downtown. What's there now stays about 90% full. More people would move there if there were more options. Unfortunately the last administration stopped putting an emphasis on supporting new projects. Even still, many people are moving to the neighborhoods right around downtown like San Marco and Riverside where housing is available. I'm sure there are plenty of examples on this forum of people who live in the urban core even if they work on the Southside or elsewhere.

There's a huge cost gap in Jacksonville (and really anywhere) between urban living and suburban living, which requires well paid young professionals, which Jax doesn't have an abundance of.  But what I was saying was that DT Jax living compared to DT Charlotte living or DT Nashville living or certainly DT Austin living is cheap.

Quote from: Tacachale on March 14, 2013, 02:48:29 PMWhat's there now stays about 90% full.

And traditional stabilization for most class A or infill multifamily deals is 95% physical occupancy, so if that's the case, as limited as downtown rentals are, there is still a lot of vacancy.  Strong markets/submarkets are posting 3-4% vacancies now, even in areas with tons of apartments and a hefty pipeline.  You can't get rent growth if you're properties stay at 90%, even amidst no new neighboring deliveries.

Quote from: Tacachale on March 14, 2013, 02:48:29 PM
More people would move there if there were more options.

Look, there are enough developers and investors out there scouring the map for opportunities to capitalize on this multifamily boom anywhere.  If there is one product type where capital groups are willing to shell out money anywhere, it's multifamily, and Jacksonville is a top 40 market in FL...so you know people have looked (in fact as evidenced by SS construction and 220 Riverside).

The simple fact is that vacancy rates, growth rates, job growth, and other fundamentals have been poured over by outside investors and lenders multiple times each year for the past forever.  The consensus is quite obviously that there is no demand for downtown living, otherwise in this heated market where even tiny cities are seeing new construction of expensive infill you would see more activity.

Demand is when there are waiting lists for 1BRs (as in Midtown Atlanta) or when you have to be interviewed to get an apartment and 50 other people show up for an undisclosed open house (as in SF).

When you have 90% or even 95% occupancy and no rent growth and there are still concessions being offered, the proof is in the numbers that there is no demand.  If there were, the Strand, 101 East, and the Carling would all be 98-100% right now (especially at those rates!...you can't get those rates in other cities).

11 East Forsyth

127 Units

2 units available now or in next 2 weeks, if you're looking at an April move-in you'll have 4 additional options.  98% occupancy.

You can get a 16th Fl 2BR/1BA for $1,190 (970 SF, or $1.23psf)

You can get a 4th Fl 2BR/2BA for $1,176 (1,005 SF, or $1.17psf)

PH3 from $1,697 (1,224 SF, translates to $1.39psf)
PH7 from $2,147 (1,720 SF, translates to $1.25psf)

I've seen the PHs, they are pretty spectacular!

The Carling

100 Units

6 available in now or in next 2 weeks, 8 available within the month.  94% occupancy.

You can get an 8th Fl 2 BR, 1,045 SF for $1,282 (or roughly $1.23psf)

The Strand

295 apartments

17 apartments available now, an additional 16 apartments coming available for move-in within 3 weeks.  94% occupancy.  Looks like rents have gone up, as well.

The most expensive 2BR I saw was a 28th Fl unit, 1,343 SF, $2400 available in 24 days ($1.79psf)
Other than that I saw plenty of spacious 2BRs in the $1500-$1700 range

The most expensive 1BR I saw was a 20th Fl unit, 990 SF, $1,840 available May 7, $1.86psf
Other than that it seemed most 1BRs were in the $1300-$1500 range, and they are as spacious as a 2BR in larger cities

The most expensive studio I saw was 6th Fl unit available May 7 for $1300 (651 SF, $2.00psf).  My studio is 400 SF and is considered spacious here, LoL...and I pay close to $3,000 for it and there's no heat/AC, fancy finishes, etc (but then this is SF...would expect that here)


So it does appear there are limited options, and certainly DT living is more expensive than in suburbs, but if ya'll want DT living, you're going to have to realize that rents have to come up even further to justify construction and that Jax will need to find a way to build an economy that provides $65-$90K jobs for fresh college grads, LoL, and $90-$150K jobs for MBAs.

For comparison, the latest apartment tower to rise in Austin was underwritten with $2.25psf average rents across the board (studios, 1BRs, 2BRs, and the 2nd/3rd flor 3BRs, high floors, low floors, SW corner views, NE corner lack of views, etc).  This is a "budget" highrise, too.  That would mean that 28th Fl 2BR at the Strand would come up from $2,400 in Jax to $3,022 (and this being a spectacular top floor apt would be likely higher than avg PSF for building, probably go for $3500 in Austin).  Those studios would come up from $1100-$1300 to $1400-$1600.

Quote from: simms3 on March 14, 2013, 03:07:50 PM
There's a huge cost gap in Jacksonville (and really anywhere) between urban living and suburban living, which requires well paid young professionals, which Jax doesn't have an abundance of.  But what I was saying was that DT Jax living compared to DT Charlotte living or DT Nashville living or certainly DT Austin living is cheap.

There's a larger gap in vibrancy. Money wasn't the reason I chose not to live in or near DT Jax when I moved to town.  It boiled down to a lack of available housing options and an atmosphere that wasn't worth paying more. I mean, when you locate in an urban spot, you expect to pay more for less living space but the surrounding vibrancy, transit options, parks, culture, etc. is supposed to balance that out.  We're still working on the "surrounding" part here.

^That's what I'm trying to get at, although I'd add that the lack of available residential certainly impacts the surrounding vibrancy.

Simms, there's certainly demand for living in downtown Jacksonville, but it's not enough for developers to justify new projects without incentives. Something to remember is that there was very little residential in the downtown core (or the Southbank even) before about 10 or 15 years ago. Unlike a number of other cities, we're building that aspect from scratch. Starting in the 1990s the city incentivized new and adapted residential and hundreds of units were successfully added (11E, the Carling, the Strand, Churchwell Lofts, the Peninsula, Berkman, and probably several more, those all completed in the last 10 years).

Unfortunately the last administration stopped focusing on downtown and incentivizing new projects, and then the financial crisis killed the remaining ones in the pipeline. Charlotte was doing the same thing at the same time (and probably before), except they didn't stop in the middle. At this point Uptown Charlotte has achieved a level of vibrancy that creates a market for more of the kind.

In short, there's demand, but nothing is likely to happen without the city taking a proactive stance on bringing more residential development downtown. And before Lake adds the addendum, yes, there are plenty of smaller  things we can do in the intermediary to increase the vibrancy of what we've got.

We're all on the same page here...look urban living doesn't have to be downtown, but it will come downtown when jobs for young people come downtown.  Downtown usually isn't the cool place to live anywhere...but those who do live in business districts desire convenience to JOBS.  Look...either focus on bringing high paying jobs for young people downtown (because families and people over 35 *do not* live downtown unless they are mobile executives who need a "pad" close to their office), or focus on tourism.  The city has failed on both parts.

I'd call Brooklyn, LaVilla, Springfield, etc all part of downtown (springfield has a different dynamic, but nonetheless).  Most people aren't thinking "I'll live in Brooklyn right next to downtown and then commute down to Gate Parkway"...most people will choose an apartment down there if they work down there.  That's how it has always worked, that's not showing any signs of changing.  Family types will always choose a family friendly neighborhood with SFR over an apartment if they can...and lots of young people in Jax seem to be inclined to live in houses, as well, rather than apartments.  A mentality/local thing.

We hired someone from Hong Kong who went to Carnegie Mellon/London School of E and did a stint with an I-Bank in Charlotte...that's your urban renter profile in new age cities requiring "new" ground up infill for urbanity.  In Nashville substitute I-Bank for creative or PR firm.

Also...money.  Even existing apartments downtown are far more expensive than anywhere else in the city...but in reality they should be even more expensive...and so if only young people are going to be renting, these need to be *highly paid* young people.

I only draw conclusions based on actual downtown resi assets I have worked on in multiple markets...of course things might work differently in Jax.

DT Jax already has jobs that employ educated people.  I don't know what the percentage is but there is a presence. Sure, it could use more but its not as if Jax is starting from scratch. If the Norfolks, Greenvilles, and St. Petersburgs, etc. can find success in attracting more residential in and near their DTs with less jobs than Jax, then Jax should be able to do better than it's currently performing.  WHile more jobs are important and should continue to be a goal, I still believe there are a lot more factors at play that leads to why Jax has failed in areas where it should exceed.  Bad public policy and a lack of vision are two that come to mind that should be easy to incrementally address. For me, it will be interesting to see what impact 220 Riverside will have on the multifamily housing market in DT. By the same token, it will also be interesting to see what happens in the Southside when all the new multifamily developments are complete.  There, I truly question if we have the demand to meet the extra supply coming on line.

I thought this article was timely: http://bettercities.net/article/reports-sprawls-death-are-exaggerated-19844

Basically says that sprawl will continue by default until public policy is changed (ie, mobility plan).

#1 factor in promoting sprawl are the tax depreciation laws.  Back in the 50s Congress allowed building owners to accelerate depreciation for physical improvements (buildings and equipment).  Mainly it was intended to help factories.  Because land values cannot be accelerated on the depreciation schedule, guess what happened?  New commercial growth went to areas where land was cheap.  Shortly afterwards, the suburban shopping mall was born.  The rest is history.

When you have 90% or even 95% occupancy and no rent growth and there are still concessions being offered, the proof is in the numbers that there is no demand.  If there were, the Strand, 101 East, and the Carling would all be 98-100% right now (especially at those rates!...you can't get those rates in other cities).
[/quote]

And those only worked because of huge subsidies.

Simms-what do you think of 220 from a success standpoint? The developer would not quote me a psf number but gave me projected rents. Simple math puts it well above $2.00psf.

Quote from: simms3 on March 15, 2013, 12:38:11 PM
I'd call Brooklyn, LaVilla, Springfield, etc all part of downtown (springfield has a different dynamic, but nonetheless).  Most people aren't thinking "I'll live in Brooklyn right next to downtown and then commute down to Gate Parkway"...most people will choose an apartment down there if they work down there.  That's how it has always worked, that's not showing any signs of changing.

When Ennis and I were doing research for our book 'Reclaiming Jacksonville,' I stumbled across a document in the library that defined downtown's borders as Myrtle on the west, the Jacksonville Terminal and river as the south, State Street on the north, and Talleyrand on the east.  If we tossed Brooklyn and the Southbank into the mix and used such boundaries as the definition of downtown for the purpose of credits, incentives, transit, development, etc. we might create a whole different look to our urbanized zone.

^^^I highly doubt that 220 Riverside is underwritten with rents greater than $2.00psf.  Probably closer to $1.50-$1.70psf range as it would be underwritten in any other similar market.

Lake, policy needs to change in Jax for sure...but in all honesty I don't think Norfolk, St. Petersburg or Greenville are comparisons for Jacksonville.

I think, for instance, as we have pointed out that St. Pete promotes a walkable atmosphere with its pedestrian and bike mode inclusion, and it reserves the entire waterfront as greenspace to be used by anyone (which why wouldn't you then think that we should do the same here in Jax, rather than try to put condos on the Shipyards), but most of the residential in DT St. Pete is high end condo, 2-3BR units, large balconies, etc.  St. Pete is where Tampa Bay residents go to spend weekends or Thurs/Fri evenings, it's not where throngs of young profs live.  Part of the purpose of urban living is so that you have easy access to both job AND quality of life, which you don't have if you're spending forever commuting to your job.  Channelside is clearly much younger, and the new resi there reflects that.  DT St. Pete permanent resi base has more in common with Delray Beach or Clearwater than DT Charlotte or DT Tampa (we're looking at a deal in Tampa now and we also put up the Skypoint Tower as a partner).

Greenville is pretty progressive and needs to give Jax a lecture on how to do things, but it's a small town.  It's more like Chattanooga, Huntsville, Knoxville, etc, all of which have been successful in promoting tourism and growing their cute little downtown resident bases (cute being the key word).  If Jacksonville wants to shed half of its population and become a cute little town, by all means it's a different environment altogether.

Norfolk is a totally different animal in almost every way.  First of all it never demolished its entire existence, second of all it's one node out of like 5 in that region, third its employment base is almost entirely driven by the military, and finally it's downtown is not residential heavy.  Sure there are old brick apartments within a mile on all sides, but it's all relatively cheap housing for a totally different demographic than we probably want living downtown if we want a "young, vibrant, creative atmosphere".  Are there lessons to be learned from Norfolk, particularly on the tourism side and how they do their waterfront and capitalize on their role in the public (defense) sector and defense side, yes!  This is the city that is blocking military expansion in Jax after all.

I think investors lump Jax in with Charlotte, Nashville, Birmingham, Louisville, Memphis, Raleigh, Orlando, Richmond...they are all playing the markets based on what jobs are doing, hence why Charlotte and Nashville and Raleigh have taken off both in suburban development and urban development versus the others.  It just so happens that the better economies are also growing tourism (Nashville, Charlotte), which benefits downtowns in those cities.

Quote

Quote from: bill on March 15, 2013, 01:57:04 PM
When you have 90% or even 95% occupancy and no rent growth and there are still concessions being offered, the proof is in the numbers that there is no demand.  If there were, the Strand, 101 East, and the Carling would all be 98-100% right now (especially at those rates!...you can't get those rates in other cities).

And those only worked because of huge subsidies.

Simms-what do you think of 220 from a success standpoint? The developer would not quote me a psf number but gave me projected rents. Simple math puts it well above $2.00psf.

One of the most successful recent DT residential projects was the one that wasn't subsidized. I'm speaking of Metropolitan Lofts. What can we learn from this project that will help guide others in the future?

^^^GOOD POINT!!!!  Yes, though I wouldn't jump to conclusions that we know it was a complete financial success if we haven't seen the financials and know what kind of return hurdle they were going for, though one has to guess they did well.

Yea...that's a project worth looking into :)  Totally affordable rates, very limited hard/soft costs, good purchase price, adaptive reuse.  11 East and the Carling are pretty fancy construction projects...we don't need to go to those lengths for every building we convert, though I think Vestcor was going for a sale to a semi-sophisticated/experienced private group in the end, whereas some dude might own Metropolitan Lofts...we need more of these "dudes".  Institutional capital only plays in the fancy/large stuff like 220 Riverside and the Strand, which obviously the market can't support.

^Yeah, but part of the problem is there aren't all that many buildings that can be converted affordably. At least not enough to make as big impact on downtown residential numbers as we want. If we want to see change there the city really needs to commit to it over time. It worked in Charlotte.

Quote from: simms3 on March 15, 2013, 02:53:37 PM
Lake, policy needs to change in Jax for sure...but in all honesty I don't think Norfolk, St. Petersburg or Greenville are comparisons for Jacksonville.

I think, for instance, as we have pointed out that St. Pete promotes a walkable atmosphere with its pedestrian and bike mode inclusion, and it reserves the entire waterfront as greenspace to be used by anyone (which why wouldn't you then think that we should do the same here in Jax, rather than try to put condos on the Shipyards),

With the shipyards, I'm of the opinion that we should carve out the public space component of the land we want and then parcel out the remaining pieces for tax roll generating private sector infill development that can add life and activity to the public component.  I imagine that would not be ground level residential, although I see nothing wrong with a multistory project with a residential component on the upper floors.

As for St. Pete vs. the Shipyards, my reasoning is location, location, location. St. Pete's waterfront public space is located in the heart of downtown, not in an adjacent industrial zone like the Shipyards. St. Pete's waterfront anchors centralized pedestrian scale activity where the urban street grid directs people into it.  The most comparable spot in the Northbank to St. Pete's waterfront is between the Acosta and Liberty Street.  I'd focus a little more on activating the area between the river, Water Street/Independent Drive, and the Acosta/Main Street Bridges to be honest. That's one of the reasons we need to be careful of what we end up doing with the Parador garage, imo.

On the other hand, the Shipyards is roughly 0.75-1 mile east of the heart of the Northbank. Grass next to a coffee plant, jail, and elevated expressway will get no more activity than Met Park does today. If we poor millions into new public space, I'm of the opinion we need to get as much ROI and pedestrian scale activity out of it as possible. I don't be this can happen without complementing private and cultural uses being a part of the picture.


[/quote]but most of the residential in DT St. Pete is high end condo, 2-3BR units, large balconies, etc.  St. Pete is where Tampa Bay residents go to spend weekends or Thurs/Fri evenings, it's not where throngs of young profs live.[/quote]

Most of Tampa's residents don't spend weekends in DT St. Pete and most of St. Pete's residential units are small apartment buildings.  With West Shore, Ybor, the beaches, etc., there are a lot of competing places for Bay Area residents to spend off time in. DT St. Pete still has a strong local vibe. I know we tend to focus on the waterfront and recently built highrises but that place is littered with the type of urban housing DT Jax used to have. For whatever reason, they didn't tear down a lot of their affordable residential building stock and it's still used today.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/St-Petersburg-2012/i-86x4z7x/0/M/St%20Pete-M.jpg)

QuotePart of the purpose of urban living is so that you have easy access to both job AND quality of life, which you don't have if you're spending forever commuting to your job.  Channelside is clearly much younger, and the new resi there reflects that.  DT St. Pete permanent resi base has more in common with Delray Beach or Clearwater than DT Charlotte or DT Tampa (we're looking at a deal in Tampa now and we also put up the Skypoint Tower as a partner).

I think our discussion is only focusing on one component of the urban housing market.  Not everyone attracted to a pedestrian scale environment is a high salary young professional.  St. Petersburg is a great example of this.  It has a mix of poor people who live there because they can get good access to a variety of uses without a car, starving artist, empty nesters, those living in assisted living housing, college students, medical workers, young professionals, etc.  Outside of New Orleans, it's probably one of the most well rounded urban environments I've come across in the South.  Apartments, condo, duplexes, towhouses, high rise living, intown single family, new, old, historic, etc., whatever type of housing that floats your boat is available at all different price points.

QuoteGreenville is pretty progressive and needs to give Jax a lecture on how to do things, but it's a small town.  It's more like Chattanooga, Huntsville, Knoxville, etc, all of which have been successful in promoting tourism and growing their cute little downtown resident bases (cute being the key word).  If Jacksonville wants to shed half of its population and become a cute little town, by all means it's a different environment altogether.

Jacksonville should not have to shed half of it's population to urban residential to be feasible. The environment is what attracts people and that pedestrian scale environment can happen in places of all sizes.  How we get there (or really get back) is the problem we must resolve locally. What Greenville has done, especially with policies leading to a lane diet on Main Street and allow free time limited on street parking in certain areas, is worth exploring.

QuoteNorfolk is a totally different animal in almost every way.  First of all it never demolished its entire existence, second of all it's one node out of like 5 in that region, third its employment base is almost entirely driven by the military, and finally it's downtown is not residential heavy.  Sure there are old brick apartments within a mile on all sides, but it's all relatively cheap housing for a totally different demographic than we probably want living downtown if we want a "young, vibrant, creative atmosphere".  Are there lessons to be learned from Norfolk, particularly on the tourism side and how they do their waterfront and capitalize on their role in the public (defense) sector and defense side, yes!  This is the city that is blocking military expansion in Jax after all.

I think we can learn a lot from Norfolk and St. Petersburg. Primarily that you can find success in catering to multiple income groups. You don't have to be completely gentrified or overly cater to one end of the economic platform to have a vibrant street scene. In Norfolk's case, they literally ripped down half of their urban core and replaced it with projects. They did the exact same thing as Jax.  However, instead of surface parking, they got low income housing density and a large suburban shopping mall out of it.  So you have an environment where something like a CVS can stay open because you have all walks of life coming in and out the door 24/7.  Norfolk also benefits from not having expressways totally rip apart the connectivity between DT and adjacent urban neighborhoods.  For example, you can walk from their version of Riverside into their downtown without ever noticing you've switched neighborhoods.

QuoteI think investors lump Jax in with Charlotte, Nashville, Birmingham, Louisville, Memphis, Raleigh, Orlando, Richmond...they are all playing the markets based on what jobs are doing, hence why Charlotte and Nashville and Raleigh have taken off both in suburban development and urban development versus the others.  It just so happens that the better economies are also growing tourism (Nashville, Charlotte), which benefits downtowns in those cities.

No debate here from me.  I think some secondary markets still are able to generate/sustain decent street life because they didn't go demo happy in the 70s and 80s.  So their CBDs are still within pedestrian friendly walking distance of both high and low end urban density, plus old (afforable) housing stock still exists in large numbers.  Richmond is a great example of this.  It's environment isn't Rodeo Drive or trendy like Uptown Charlotte or Austin but it's not vacant either.

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-3069-p1020558.jpg)

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-3067-p1020576.jpg)

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-3045-p1020549.jpg)

Quote from: Tacachale on March 15, 2013, 05:07:04 PM
^Yeah, but part of the problem is there aren't all that many buildings that can be converted affordably. At least not enough to make as big impact on downtown residential numbers as we want. If we want to see change there the city really needs to commit to it over time. It worked in Charlotte.

Bingo.  We would be much further along if we had a large number of buildings on the peripheral still standing like these:

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6720-p1150457.JPG)

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6761-p1150461.JPG)

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6769-p1150490.JPG)

We really don't have many buildings left that can easily be converted in the Northbank, LaVilla, Brooklyn or the Cathedral District.  Instead of the average Joe Blow being able to invest and restore something small scale, we've virtually eliminated that urban pioneering market and have gotten to a point where we need a Donald Trump to come in with something large scale that can't be done without incentives. That's a major negative of demolishing so much older building stock.  I believe this is something that has assisted second tier cities like St. Petersburg, Richmond and even Savannah and Charleston over the last 15 years.  In the 1980s, no one wanted to go to these places.  They were considered old, blighted and high crime areas.  St. Pete even had a riot in the mid 1990s.  However, they've turned what the masses of that era considered negatives (old cheap run down buildings) into the attraction that has brought people back and created an atmosphere that does attract larger investment.

^^^Well we're really coming at it from different angles...I agree that not everything has to be fancy, so starving artists and poor people can live in walkable areas, as well.  I guess I'm looking at it from a financial perspective...without fancy public financing gimmicks and creative equity sources, building really affordable or low income housing is next to impossible.

So the small time capital and "hobby" capital that does 234 Oak or Metropolitan Lofts or Knight Lofts comes through about once every 2-3 years.  So obviously you can't rely on locals to fix downtown.  Now your other options are for the city to swoop in or for higher level capital.  The city is broke and inept and that shouldn't be the city's job anyway and higher level capital (like the equity sources we call on) require large scale projects in smaller cities like Jax to work.

In Miami Beach we can buy a 40,000 SF single story retail portfolio and make a larger return than buying a 400 unit apartment complex or 500,000 SF office portfolio in suburban Jax.  The same groups that will do a 250-300 unit infill deal in Atlanta or Charlotte might do a 100 unit deal in SF.

Problem is, certain boxes have to check for institutional/core capital groups.  One is JOBS.  Then one has to look at where those jobs are located, what they are paying, what the COL is, commuting patterns, local buying/living behaviors, etc.  Once again we're back to square one on my end (we can still disagree, of course, but until Mr. Haskell or Mr. Rummell or Mr. Khan start shelling out money to reuse old buildings on a regular basis, or doing little Goozlepipe type infill developments intown on the reg, you're stuck waiting for that institutional capital, which is waiting for JOBS).

I still disagree, too, that Greenville is a solid example.  Lots of stuff to learn like how to create a good park and clustering and sidewalk/pedestrian friendliness, building scale, etc.  BUT it's a different market.  It's small and NOT dynamic like Jax actually is.  It doesn't have "the beaches" or a plethora of "Main St" type neighborhoods like Jax has to compete with.  Its DT Main St is its Avondale, Beaches, San Marco, riverwalk, Memorial Park all rolled into one.  The sheer scope of Greenville also screams Main St whereas Jax is a legitimately sizable market (dare I say a high growth coastal market?).

Plus while there are studies indicating that 2-ways are better for pedestrians, etc, let me just say I cross extremely busy one-ways every day on my walking commute to work and I don't even think once about it.  I would guess that while lane diets and 2-way conversions may make a difference, surely there are much more impactful tools the city can use to improve an urban area.

I also agree Jax needs to activate its central riverfront area, but I don't trust Sleiman.  He's proven incapable of working with the deal he got himself into, and everything hinges on him, essentially.  Long term planning and indications from other cities are that the Shipyards are not indeed all that far from the central core and offer quite a bit of potential down the road.  Why not take the first steps and at least remediate and sod the land?  (I'm talking Shipyards AND JEA land)

Also, let me point out that while St. Pete has older stock available that Jax does not, to create a wide range of options and price points for a wide variety of residents who aren't necessarily there for convenience to their highrise office jobs if you catch my drift, as I think we both agree newer post-1980 construction is all geared towards FL condo owners rather than urban residents.  It's more of a clustered leisure area than a downtown area...heck Riverside could be transformed into something like St. Pete, and trends slightly that way.

And Norfolk...as you point out it's low income housing.  They do tourism well, but are we really stooping so low as to say look they can sustain a 24 hour CVS?  I think our only real option is groud up development, which Norfolk is not able to do...because the lack of office jobs and the local pay for the demographic you would fill urban housing with does not offer support data for new infill!

And the cities we all admire are a mixture of core capital (the kind that would do 220 Riverside) and "hobby" capital.  The hobby capital is like VC money, except it's not to grow someone else's idea, it's to gamble on their own ideas.

One of our MDs took a risk by buying and transforming a warehouse in an abandoned part of Atlanta where you could get stabbed in broad daylight.  His vision influenced others in the city who took similar risks, and now the area is hot...retailers opened in warehouses in the past year include Jack Spade, Billy Reid, Lululemon, Anthropologie, Free People, Steven Alan, J. Crew's new wedding boutique, etc.  Facebook has an office nearby.  Core capital would never look at owning something over there if it were not cookie cutter infill multifamily, but there's a lot of "personal interest" money in it.

It's no different from 234 Oak/Blacksheep or Knight Lofts, etc, it's just that there are very few people in Jacksonville interested in pitching their own money and the core capital has boxes to check so they literally can't deploy equity for the larger scale projects in the city.

Policy makers can help, certainly, but it's not like hobbyists in other cities received attention from the local governments...heck half of them invested in straight up ghettos with no help and horrible streetscapes and turned them around singlehandedly.

QuoteWhy not take the first steps and at least remediate and sod the land?  (I'm talking Shipyards AND JEA land)

If the city is broke and inept, remediating contaminated industrial land is more difficult than landing urban housing. The Hogans Creek/McCoys Creek situations are prime examples.

We're screwed if our only option is to rely on large scale ground up new construction.  To be honest, with Jax's situation, that's easily a 15-20 year process before you get a lively pedestrian scale atmosphere in the Northbank or Southbank. 

We'd be better off using our pennies to improving urban core mobility/connectivity, maintaining/upgrading existing parks & schools, facade/restoration grants, and modifying policy (like 10-year tax abatement or paying people to come) to allow for more small scale incremental activity. Basically, creating the atmosphere that attracts/grows market rate jobs, living, etc. and allowing that activity to spill over into and engulf downtown organically.

Quote from: thelakelander on March 15, 2013, 05:25:01 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on March 15, 2013, 05:07:04 PM
^Yeah, but part of the problem is there aren't all that many buildings that can be converted affordably. At least not enough to make as big impact on downtown residential numbers as we want. If we want to see change there the city really needs to commit to it over time. It worked in Charlotte.

Bingo.  We would be much further along if we had a large number of buildings on the peripheral still standing like these:

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6720-p1150457.JPG)

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6761-p1150461.JPG)

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6769-p1150490.JPG)

We really don't have many buildings left that can easily be converted in the Northbank, LaVilla, Brooklyn or the Cathedral District.  Instead of the average Joe Blow being able to invest and restore something small scale, we've virtually eliminated that urban pioneering market and have gotten to a point where we need a Donald Trump to come in with something large scale that can't be done without incentives. That's a major negative of demolishing so much older building stock.  I believe this is something that has assisted second tier cities like St. Petersburg, Richmond and even Savannah and Charleston over the last 15 years.  In the 1980s, no one wanted to go to these places.  They were considered old, blighted and high crime areas.  St. Pete even had a riot in the mid 1990s.  However, they've turned what the masses of that era considered negatives (old cheap run down buildings) into the attraction that has brought people back and created an atmosphere that does attract larger investment.

Yep. It's also worth pointing out that most of the residential we do (or did) have "downtown" is really periferal to the core area of downtown. Springfield, the Cathedral District, Lavilla, and the new Brooklyn project are all many blocks away from it and each other, and the Southbank is across a major river. Within the core of downtown there's very little to work with, so new projects are by and large adaptations of things that weren't originally residential, or new buildings.

^True. That's why I've always said one of the first things we need to do with DT is connect it and adjacent urban neighborhoods with various forms of mobility and allow them to feed each other.  That gives you something to start with in the short term and builds the atmosphere and environment that will attract market rate large scale infill.  Areas like Riverside and San Marco are going great and I can't tell you how many people have chosen them over downtown, simply because they offer the urban pedestrian scale environment that the downtown core does not and will not for quite sometime.  Why not find a way to feed some of their development pressures and growth to adjacent pockets such as Brooklyn, the Southbank and the Northbank. 

It's been proven again and again all over the country that fixed transit and supporting land use policy have been highly successful in helping to spur the infill many want to see.  Even in this state, we've seen systems of marginal ridership success in Miami and Tampa lead to billions of TOD investment along their corridors.  Now it's happening in Orlando, just like it did in Norfolk and Salt Lake City, along a commuter rail line that won't open until 2015.

So my question is what happens if you tie Riverside, San Marco, Springfield, etc. together with something where DT becomes a stop along the way? What do we have to lose? My guess, is we'll see similar infill and redevelopment opportunities begin to pop up.  That infill will end up occurring in a Brooklyn or Northbank instead of a Charlotte's South End or Tampa's Channel District.  In that case, the community's cost is the same as our investment in the Atlantic/Kernan overpass and significantly less than cleaning a Shipyards to turn into a park with little spin-off development opportunity.  The difference is we'll get a lot more than a mobility fee waived 7-Eleven, Academy Sports and LA Fitness.

Quote from: simms3 on March 15, 2013, 06:43:54 PM
And the cities we all admire are a mixture of core capital (the kind that would do 220 Riverside) and "hobby" capital.  The hobby capital is like VC money, except it's not to grow someone else's idea, it's to gamble on their own ideas.

It's no different from 234 Oak/Blacksheep or Knight Lofts, etc, it's just that there are very few people in Jacksonville interested in pitching their own money and the core capital has boxes to check so they literally can't deploy equity for the larger scale projects in the city....

Policy makers can help, certainly, but it's not like hobbyists in other cities received attention from the local governments...heck half of them invested in straight up ghettos with no help and horrible streetscapes and turned them around singlehandedly.

It all starts with allowing an environment that enables the private sector to do what it does best.  For Jax, that starts with an "invisible" affordable change in policy to help encourage to incremental implementation of the desired final built environment.  All the VC and hobby money in the world doesn't matter if you can't build/invest in whatever you want to do without your project being made riskier and more expensive because of poor policy.  You would simply take your money to an area where you have a better and easier chance of succeeding.  In the last five years, in the case of downtown, it's been Riverside with hobby money.  For companies and the city's investment priorities, it's been the Southside for the last 20-30.

In the meantime, Bill Bishop made some pretty strong statements against a moratorium at today's Downtown Council Chamber breakfast. 

Love to hear that Mike.

Good to hear.

Did anyone notice the headline of yesterday's FTU Money section? "Homes sales increase, but prices take a dip".  This is what everyone who owns a home will have to look forward to if we incentivize the construction of more houses when the demand doesn't support it.

Quote from: fieldafm on March 15, 2013, 10:25:23 PM
In the meantime, Bill Bishop made some pretty strong statements against a moratorium at today's Downtown Council Chamber breakfast. 

awesome!