Meeting starts @ 4 PM.
You can watch it live on the link below:
http://media.coj.net/COJCouncil
Bill Summary:
(http://i.imgur.com/YkIO85Nl.jpg)
Full Bill:
(http://i.imgur.com/jJe83RE.png)
Article in the TU by Steve Patterson.
QuoteJacksonville council panels to hear new version of contested 'mobility' fee waiver
Posted: April 6, 2013 - 11:43pm | Updated: April 6, 2013 - 11:47pm
JView this story on the All-Access Members site
By Steve Patterson
Stalled legislation that would waive some developer fees to help Jacksonville’s construction industry is resurfacing after critics and backers accepted compromises suggested by a City Council member.
Three council committees are scheduled to meet jointly Monday to debate a new version of a bill (2013-94) that had divided people involved in development and groups who want bicycle and pedestrian facilities the fees help pay for.
Councilman Richard Clark had originally proposed a three-year waiver of the city’s “mobility fee,†which charges fees from developers based on how each project is expected to affect roads and other transportation systems in their part of town.
Councilman John Crescimbeni said Friday he plans to offer a substitute version of that bill, which was tabled in March after strong lobbying by backers of the fee system. If it’s approved by the three committees, the new version could be voted on by the full council Tuesday.
Crescimbeni’s version of the bill shrinks the waiver period to 18 months and then sets new limits meant to motivate developers to start projects soon.
After a three-month “ramp-up†period when the waiver wouldn’t be in effect â€" that would let companies get ready, Crescimbeni said â€" the city would waive 75 percent of the normal fee for projects permitted in the next six months.
If the project was permitted after that six months, the waiver would cover only 50 percent of the fee, then after another six months the waiver would drop to just 25 percent.
That scaled-down offer represented a compromise that Crescimbeni said advocates on both sides told him they could live with.
“From where I sit, I think they walk away with something they wanted and didn’t have to surrender to something they didn’t,†he said.
Advocates seemed to appreciate that.
“I think John has come up with a very good idea that both sides can agree. … None of us got exactly what we wanted, but we got something,†said Curtis Hart, a developer and lobbyist who was part of talks Crescimbeni held to hear out both sides. “I’m hoping it just passes. Since you’ve got a consensus of those for and those against, the council will, I hope, just take up the bill and pass it out.â€
Under the substitute version, the fees that aren’t waived would be steered first to accounts that finance bicycle- and pedestrian-oriented projects listed in a city work plan. If those are fully funded, the rest of the fees collected would go to other transportation projects.
The city set up the fee system in 2011 and quickly waived it in hopes a recession-scarred building industry would regain some strength.
The first 12-month waiver period expired in October.
The city waived $3.2 million worth of fees in that year, but couldn’t be sure what it had truly given up. The fee system includes credits that would have lowered some developer costs, but weren’t calculated since they weren’t going to matter.
To get the waiver, Crescimbeni’s bill would require developers to complete a more complicated fee calculation.
Clark said he hasn’t seen Crescimbeni’s legislation and can’t comment on it but feels he was right to offer the original bill.
“I have every intention of moving on and supporting the construction industry 100 percent,†he said.
Steve Patterson: (904) 359-4263
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-04-06/story/jacksonville-council-panels-hear-new-version-contested-mobility-fee#ixzz2Pu2Pqqnx
Key message from the FTU article regarding the moratorium.
QuoteCrescimbeni’s version of the bill shrinks the waiver period to 18 months and then sets new limits meant to motivate developers to start projects soon.
After a three-month “ramp-up†period when the waiver wouldn’t be in effect â€" that would let companies get ready, Crescimbeni said â€" the city would waive 75 percent of the normal fee for projects permitted in the next six months.
If the project was permitted after that six months, the waiver would cover only 50 percent of the fee, then after another six months the waiver would drop to just 25 percent.
Meeting is on.
One of the developers...whose name I continually forget says he loves the bill. Doug Skiles says something like "it's a regrettable but acceptable bill"
Someone who represents the bicyclists says "I don't like it but I'll accept it."
Crescimbeni explains the bill which Stephendare also broke down below.
Boyer is speaking:
I think she is scaring the developers by suggesting that they City will have more power over the developers because they are not paying impact fees so they, the city, will be able to say you can have this approval if you do X, Y, and Z. So, it's not that the city takes up payment but they requires certain road/bike/ped build outs. The attorney wants more time to think about it. I may have missed her point...anyone else catch it?
Saying the obvious, but it appears this thing needs more time for everyone to look at instead of pushing it through so quick. What's the rush? 7-Eleven isn't going anywhere.
LOL, Clark. What for-profit business entity chooses to pay extra impact fees for the hell of it when they don't legally have too? Also sounds like Councilman Clark wants to refund whatever fees have already been collected.
Gulliford, wants to make sure that we are able to properly administer this legislation since the city is somewhat notorious for passing legislation and not, well, administrating the programs. Gulliford has called a rep from the Mayor's office and the Head of the planning department, Calvin L. Burney, Sr.what they think of the bill. Mayor's office "we're happy to be here." Calvin, we need to look at it a little deeper.
Gulliford wants to know if the bill will break down if it does not have their support.
Clark speaking:
There is an issue of fairness for the people who developed during the moratorium gap. The fee is not going to help rail. And pike/ped has never had advocacy. Bike and Ped are not that expensive and we can start accomplishing them now. As opposed to rail which we might accomplish in 50 years.
Clark is off-base on the rail funding comment. The mobility fee only generates a local match (25%) for commuter rail. That 25% is then used to leverage federal and state dollars to complete the rest. Killing your chance to generate the 25% locally kills your chance to get the remaining 75% from other sources. So Councilman Clark is correct that a rail project like commuter rail may take 40 or 50 years to complete with continued moratoriums. Having a mobility fee helps you get at least one line operational within a 10 year period.......which was the point of putting them in the mobility plan structure in the first place.
Clark, 'None of this will help rail.'
Boyer, CAN THEY VOLUNTEER TO PAY THE FEE... ?
Boyer to Greg Anderson:
Further explaining her initial point... In the past developers would pay a fee and they were no longer responsible for traffic concurrency/standard problems because they paid the fee. Now, if they don't have a system in which they can pay approvers can decide that a certain project does not meet certain traffic standards and decide to not pass it.
Anderson wants to extend the 3 month ramp up.
While we're at it, can we just invest in a money tree? It's just as realistic as believe subsidizing new development at all costs will result in a financial plus for the city...short or long term.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cOenVV7Pl7U/UCKDWktv2LI/AAAAAAAADi0/MbMJbPnDNcA/s1600/money-tree-351.jpg)
Wyman said neither the builders nor Doug Skies liked the three month ramp up.
UNSPOKEN: But the flip side will be the builders will go after more in their favor in another meeting.
Love wants a 9 month ramp up.
Clark says 9 months if 'fair' for the poor undernourished builders.
What difference does it make? They are correct that no one is going to pay in the first three months if they can wait it out and pocket the extra cash. Why do you think it's taken so long for that 7-Eleven in Five Points to get underway?
This is a bigger cluster $^!(@# then tying to understand Obama Care.
I thought the whole point was to get jobs now. I Guess if that was really the point they wouldn't be ignoring the construction jobs numbers of been out of sight the first quarter.
Doug speaking, 'I agreed to an 18 month, but I won't support a 21 month moratorium. If you want 9 months, lets take it off the back side of the agreement.'
So, Love, Anderson and Clark push for a 9 month ramp up.
Skiles and "Topnell?" are asked how they feel about a 9 month ramp-up.
Topnell says, If the purpose is to create incentive why are we trying to incentivize projects that are in development.
Skiles says "I don't want to see a 21 month moratorium. If you do want to start the moratorium immediately then take the additional months off of the back end so it's no longer than 18 months."
DOUG, 'Take the ramp up completely out of the program.'
Lumb calls Herzberg (Sleiman's guy) to speak. He says, don't take it off the back end. This is not a moratorium. This is a fee reduction bill.
Lovely. Herzberg's line broken down in layman's terms. I'm not going to kill you by nuking you. Instead, I'm going to shoot you 10 times with a semi-automatic. Sounds like a compromise to me.
Gilliford, I am going to vote against this change. Another 3 months? we'll get push back from that. I think the ramp up idea is good.
Gulliford:
I'm going to vote against the amendment to extend the ramp up. He says if we have an agreement we should not try to reengineer the bill.
Clark says "90 days is an eternity for someone working in the construction industry." Again, you are just trying to feed your family. I think the amendment should be passed.
Clark, 'Councilman Love's heart is in the right place, I want the amendment to pass, there's more to Jacksonville then these guys (a sweep of his hand toward the crowd) guys in here.
Translate that: We're the kings and princes' sit down, shut up and hang on.
Crescimbeni voted against the amendment others voted for it. 'My commitment to the group won't allow me to vote for it.'
It failed to pass in finance.
Who knew the council were such Socialists? Lumb "everything always works out in the long run the problem is you need to eat in the short run." The amendment does not pass because it fails in Finance. Crescimbeni refuses to lengthen the reductionorium because of his obligation to the people he met with to create this bill. He's willing to elongate the ramp up if they were willing to take it off of the back end.
Yeah, Clark makes it seem like the people who oppose the moratorium are all rich, better than though, bicyclists. Pushes for imagery of starving construction workers who just need a job. Think Feed the Children commercials. Send us your money. It's for the kids... ;)
CLARK, 'are we voting on this by committee?'
Guilliford, 'Suggests shifting the 3 months to the back end'.
Motion on substitute bill, finance voted on approved substitute amendment.
Rules approved amended bill.
Anderson saying we'll now have two committees on Tuesday. Shuman is explaining rules for Tuesday.
Substitute bill passed as amended.
So which version is the Council seeking to sneak through tomorrow?
After Stephen's post, I'm not sure. I thought it was the original compromise bill?
Quote from: stephendare on April 08, 2013, 06:10:58 PM
The right thing to do would be to scrap the entire moratorium bullshit.
That would be something indeed.
Reality is either way, you're looking at 21 months. There's really no reason to move forward with a project over the next three months if you can afford to wait until the moratorium kicks in, in 90 days. Like Doug mentioned at the meeting, I'd rather see them start immediately and knock off 3 months on the back end.
Oh, and yes, the right thing to do would be scrap the entire concept. Unfortunately, this is Jax and that doesn't appear to be a realistic expectation or option at this point.
After the meeting I was talking to Wyman and Curtis Hart. Both agreed to either go back to the original deal (18 mo that starts in 3) or support an amendment to the Love amendment that starts immediately but is shortened to 18 months.
Aside from the miracle "denial" of the entire thing, I am hoping for the 18 months that starts immediately. Let's get this thing over with as quickly as possible.
Yes why use the "jobs bill" to suppress 3 months of jobs.
I wonder if the Mayor will support this he seemed to be against a full Moratorium.
Quote from: dougskiles on April 08, 2013, 06:31:53 PM
After the meeting I was talking to Wyman and Curtis Hart. Both agreed to either go back to the original deal (18 mo that starts in 3) or support an amendment to the Love amendment that starts immediately but is shortened to 18 months.
Aside from the miracle "denial" of the entire thing, I am hoping for the 18 months that starts immediately. Let's get this thing over with as quickly as possible.
That would be good. I don't really see what the developers get out of adding so much time to the front end. If anything, it means they have to sit around and wait if they want to take advantage of the reduction.
Quote from: stephendare on April 08, 2013, 06:10:58 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on April 08, 2013, 06:06:43 PM
So which version is the Council seeking to sneak through tomorrow?
Tomorrow there are two bills that will have to be reconciled.
Crescimbini's Finance Committee has voted on 18 months, but TEU and Rules voted for two more years of free development for the real estate investors, thanks again to Jim Love.
The Council will have to decide what to do.
The right thing to do would be to scrap the entire moratorium bullshit.
This is what should happen. I swear this is one of those days when up is not up but rather down.
What mayor? Did we have a mayor? I didn't even notice! ;)
His staff person Michelle Barth spoke to Council and repeated that the mayor was interested in hearing the debate and exchange of ideas. Say what? I almost burst out laughing.
One interesting thing that came out in the meeting tonight was that there was not just one meeting, but multiple meetings - at least according to what was said by the others involved.
Tonight was shameful for Jacksonville. All the old and incorrect talking points were there - it's for the jobs and the developments and the developers are now talking how great the bike lanes are going to be. Doesn't that scare you?
And Clark basically asking that any fees collected to date be refunded. Or how about Boyer talking about the major projects in her district going forward even with the fee? Doesn't that make anyone wonder why they were there to talk about a moratorium to promote development?
And this great compromise - it got us an additional 3 more months of waivers at 75%. It is a toss up which bill will be picked to be heard first and the one heard first is liable to be the one passed. No public comments in that agenda meeting is there?
And will it stop there? It was mentioned that the mobilty fee was unfair in how it is calculated. Is 21 months enough time for them to figure out how to gut the Mobilty Plan?
Quote from: strider on April 08, 2013, 07:49:01 PM
One interesting thing that came out in the meeting tonight was that there was not just one meeting, but multiple meetings - at least according to what was said by the others involved.
Tonight was shameful for Jacksonville. All the old and incorrect talking points were there - it's for the jobs and the developments and the developers are now talking how great the bike lanes are going to be. Doesn't that scare you?
And Clark basically asking that any fees collected to date be refunded. Or how about Boyer talking about the major projects in her district going forward even with the fee? Doesn't that make anyone wonder why they were there to talk about a moratorium to promote development?
And this great compromise - it got us an additional 3 more months of waivers at 75%. It is a toss up which bill will be picked to be heard first and the one heard first is liable to be the one passed. No public comments in that agenda meeting is there?
And will it stop there? It was mentioned that the mobilty fee was unfair in how it is calculated. Is 21 months enough time for them to figure out how to gut the Mobilty Plan?
Strider, this is the tenacity with which politicians protect special interests. It happens consistently in Jacksonville and has for ages. The longer and more convoluted the discussions become as well as continued shortly noticed meetings are often a way to keep an issue cooking until the heat behind the opposition cools down. Business as usual in City Hall and yes it is frightening and sad at the same time. The whole situation is becoming farcical in the face of the true and valid concerns of citizens. Remember all of this at election time.
Quote from: strider on April 08, 2013, 07:49:01 PMAnd will it stop there? It was mentioned that the mobilty fee was unfair in how it is calculated. Is 21 months enough time for them to figure out how to gut the Mobilty Plan?
There's an election before then. Perhaps the counter is finding a way to successfully get better representation elected to serve the average taxpayer in city hall?
Quote from: thelakelander on April 08, 2013, 09:00:11 PM
Quote from: strider on April 08, 2013, 07:49:01 PMAnd will it stop there? It was mentioned that the mobilty fee was unfair in how it is calculated. Is 21 months enough time for them to figure out how to gut the Mobilty Plan?
There's an election before then. Perhaps the counter is finding away to successfully get better representation elected to serve the average taxpayer in city hall?
That is the counter Ennis and next time around voters need to take a deeper look into the backgrounds and connections of any and all folks running for office. It's not enough to say that so and so is nice, friendly or caring. A record of service and experience needs to be the basis of consideration of candidates as well as voting history and connections for those running for re-election.
And who is that going to be? Who here in Jacksonville can live on the part time salary a city council member gets? Many of the vocal, very smart and well informed potential candidates have a big weakness. Their livelihoods, not just theirs but more importantly, their family's, are dependent upon the very political powers we need to stop in their tracks. How do we do that if the potential candidates are all vulnerable to attack on that front?
Politics is very nasty in Jacksonville, as many here have found out through the years. Who will be willing to risk everything to maybe get elected and maybe make progress?
Quote from: strider on April 10, 2013, 07:02:58 PM
Many of the vocal, very smart and well informed potential candidates have a big weakness. Their livelihoods, not just theirs but more importantly, their family's, are dependent upon the very political powers we need to stop in their tracks. How do we do that if the potential candidates are all vulnerable to attack on that front?
Politics is very nasty in Jacksonville, as many here have found out through the years. Who will be willing to risk everything to maybe get elected and maybe make progress?
You ask some very important questions here Strider and your statements about local politics are unfortunately all too true. There is no easy answer. I think it goes beyond candidates jobs or families jobs which is indeed relevant to some, and has much more to do with the ability to raise enough funding to run a viable campaign. Grassroots is the fallback position in this situation and while romantic to think about, is very rarely a game winner. In tandem with that is the old standard of it's not what you know but who you know. If you are a "player" either political or through influence you will get the funding much more easily than the guy or gal on the street who is ready to sacrifice for positive and honest political change by holding office. Name recognition is also important and I am going to honestly point out that ones race is also paramount when it comes to some seats on council. Can the public clean house next election cycle? That is hard to say, but what the public and voters can do is turn up the heat on sitting legislators and office holders, watch their every move and hold them to a higher standard. Public pressure will make a difference and sometimes stir up a hornets nest of emotions on the part of office holders as we saw displayed during last nights council meeting. The average person can an will make a difference if and only if folks come together outside of politics and demand honest and competent representation for the average citizen. The special interests are not the ones with a problem getting representation via elected officials because they fund campaigns and provide other goodies. The people are the ones who are suffering and their vote is their power. I wish more folks understood that truth.
Especially given the lack of kickbacks they would not get that our council now gets.
Quote from: strider on April 10, 2013, 07:02:58 PM
And who is that going to be? Who here in Jacksonville can live on the part time salary a city council member gets? Many of the vocal, very smart and well informed potential candidates have a big weakness. Their livelihoods, not just theirs but more importantly, their family's, are dependent upon the very political powers we need to stop in their tracks. How do we do that if the potential candidates are all vulnerable to attack on that front?
Politics is very nasty in Jacksonville, as many here have found out through the years. Who will be willing to risk everything to maybe get elected and maybe make progress?
For the level they are at, Jax City Council members are very well paid. 40K+ for part time work is more than most in Jax make for full time work.
The bigger problem is that campaigns are expensive, and you have to ask your friends for the money. Of course, you can just take the developer contributions, which is the root of the problem. If you really expect to affect the caliber of the council membership, you will have to be a source of financial contributions and not just vote for them and lick stamps.
Quote from: strider on April 10, 2013, 07:02:58 PM
And who is that going to be? Who here in Jacksonville can live on the part time salary a city council member gets? Many of the vocal, very smart and well informed potential candidates have a big weakness. Their livelihoods, not just theirs but more importantly, their family's, are dependent upon the very political powers we need to stop in their tracks. How do we do that if the potential candidates are all vulnerable to attack on that front?
Politics is very nasty in Jacksonville, as many here have found out through the years. Who will be willing to risk everything to maybe get elected and maybe make progress?
Some very insightful points. It won't be one election cycle I am afraid. I for one thought we were a bit closer than honest reflection makes me admit. I now wonder when the Council passed the Mobility Fee was it just a ruse perhaps it's structure makes it easier to circumvent than prior impact fees. Mayor Brown has pushed some good focus to the urban core but he should have used the bully pulpit against this idea of tax payer funded stimulus new cheap sprawl development that costs more to have than it ever gives back.
btw Strider you know who I think is the sell out of our trust Councilwoman Lori Boyer.
Quote from: JeffreyS on April 10, 2013, 07:59:43 PM
btw Strider you know who I think is the sell out of our trust Councilwoman Lori Boyer.
That would be?
So, the average citizen needs do more to help fund campaigns so the developers get a "run for their money" so to speak? How much does it cost to run a city council campaign?
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 10, 2013, 08:36:12 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on April 10, 2013, 07:59:43 PM
btw Strider you know who I think is the sell out of our trust Councilwoman Lori Boyer.
That would be?
I should have written it.
btw Strider you know who I think is the sell out of our trust? Councilwoman Lori Boyer!
However I am feeling like that may be harsh now.
Quote from: sheclown on April 10, 2013, 08:47:03 PM
So, the average citizen needs do more to help fund campaigns so the developers get a "run for their money" so to speak? How much does it cost to run a city council campaign?
It depends whether or not the seat is a single district or at large. I will do some research into the last round of campaigns. I know some of the at large seats last go round exceeded 100k at the high end. For a regular seat with good citizen backing to do the leg work anywhere from around 15k to 75k at the high end. This is just a broad estimate. Some seats have been won for much less but generally not by unknowns. Looking at the dollar amounts is important but also the community connections the person has. For instance someone connected to a strong church can count on a lot of boots on the ground. That sort of thing.
I also know of some specific candidates that are already being groomed for 2015. Next election cycle will be impacted by the upsets the FOP went through. Their influence will be iffy. Will candidates want their backing or not this time around? Hard to say how that will turn out? On the other hand I can tell you that the JFRD are doing some serious work when it comes to collecting funds and grooming candidates for the next election. They are not happy campers and they will be a major influence on council seats next election. They are as Shad Khan says "All In".
Quote from: JeffreyS on April 10, 2013, 08:54:12 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 10, 2013, 08:36:12 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on April 10, 2013, 07:59:43 PM
btw Strider you know who I think is the sell out of our trust Councilwoman Lori Boyer.
That would be?
I should have written it.
btw Strider you know who I think is the sell out of our trust? Councilwoman Lori Boyer!
However I am feeling like that may be harsh now.
Harsh or realistic? This is the thing about local politics. Politics changes people and that change can manifest from one day to another depending upon what is at stake.
If it were not for Councilwoman Boyer, we probably would have ended up with a full blown 3-year moratorium.
Quote from: JeffreyS on April 10, 2013, 07:59:43 PM
btw Strider you know who I think is the sell out of our trust Councilwoman Lori Boyer.
sorry but Lake is right...she's the best council person out there....and the only one I trust these days
I tend to follow, yet stay out of, most of the political discussion on this board, but I have to input here based on what I've read.
Look. There are many people here that have a legitimate chance to make a solid run for office. Call it internet notoriety. Call it hubris. Call is grassroots at the n'th exponent. Regardless of what you call it, there are a few here posting that actually could stand a chance at getting elected to the council. Someone who has the opportunity to both make a name for themselves and speak up for the issues that, I'd like to think, the more intelligent, forward thinking community has to offer.
Instead of worrying about a city-wide overtake of the council. Why not, as an MJ community, start strategizing by assisting those that need hellp into the districts that have the best opportunity of being taken in the next cycle?
Local campaign contributions make the news when they're in the 5.6 figures, but no one seems to recognize the importance of the 100s if not 1,000s of triple and double digit contributions, that if started now, could pay rent and utilities in a winnable district.
Would you rather fight a horse sized duck or 100 duck sized horses? ;-D
All I'm saying is quit living under the guise of grandeur and take what you can sensibly get. If that means moving 'the residence' of someone who can win a seat in a few years.... Then so be it.
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 10, 2013, 09:36:21 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on April 10, 2013, 07:59:43 PM
btw Strider you know who I think is the sell out of our trust Councilwoman Lori Boyer.
sorry but Lake is right...she's the best council person out there....and the only one I trust these days
That is why She is the only one I feel betrayed by because at least on this issue I trusted her.
I don't understand. What else could she do? Without her, things would have ended up significantly worse.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 10, 2013, 09:58:39 PM
I don't understand. What else could she do? Without her, things would have ended up significantly worse.
She could have lost 17-1.
Was her vote the lynch pin of the compromise?
Was she in the position that Doug was in terms of she somehow "signed off" on the compromise deal to avoid the full moratorium? I guess I could understand that.
I'm not inside of her head but perhaps she accepted the agreement that Doug, Mike and Steve agreed too? Besides 17-1 means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Has she made any plans to run for mayor?
Quote from: thelakelander on April 10, 2013, 10:07:09 PM
I'm not inside of her head but perhaps she accepted the agreement that Doug, Mike and Steve agreed too?
That would make sense. I hope so.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 10, 2013, 10:07:09 PMBesides 17-1 means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
You have preached long and hard about this being bad development policy, bad for the tax payer and bad for the city finances. Well officially she voted the burden on the tax payer, for bad development policy and for further straining the cities finances.
I have stated mitigating damage is not the same as causing damage and I can get on board with it if that is her position. I will ask her.
But voting records should be a major measure of how a leader performed.
Quote from: JeffreyS on April 10, 2013, 10:18:36 PM
But voting records should be a major measure of how a leader performed.
Disagree.
Voting record could be a way to distinguish yourself, but the flip side of that coin is alienation.
If you know that you spearheaded the initiative one way, but you're going to be outvoted by a huge majority, what's the point in sticking to your guns when you have a 'compromise' in place?
Keep your friends close. Keep your enemies closer.
First to be clear voting record should not be the only measure. I will stick with my contention that it is an important one and I hope she will explain this one.
Quote from: JeffreyS on April 10, 2013, 11:00:54 PM
First to be clear voting record should not be the only measure. I will stick with my contention that it is an important one and I hope she will explain this one.
I guess that you could count me in the group that believes a voting record is not nearly as important as the voting distribution.
Boyer was championing against the moratorium. How could she have served herself/her district by voting against the compromised (loosely) bill that passed, knowing how ALL of the others were going to vote on the matter.
It wasn't a case of making a difference. Only a case of non-ostrichization. (sic, but I like it!)
You make great points. Wonder how many knew how they ALL were going to vote and just went along?
Quote from: JeffreyS on April 10, 2013, 11:18:26 PM
You make great points. Wonder how many knew how they ALL were going to vote and just went along?
It's called go along to get along and it happens all the time in politics. Very often the members of council have a good understanding in advance as to who is voting how. Sometimes they tell each other outright (in spite of Sunshine law) what their vote will be or have someone tell let if out of the bag for them. At other times it is easy to surmise the position of others they share the council with because of what they have said or done during previous discussions on the subject.
Each person has a certain amount of political capital and they use it wisely. Changing course to some degree in order to vote with the majority saves political capital especially when it comes to corp issues with business players as opposed to the will and concerns of average citizens. Businesses can often support a re-election so one never alienates a business group if they can help it unless they never plan to run for another office. It comes back to who has the money and pull in a community and who doesn't.
One of the biggest mistakes people can make when it comes to politicians is to romanticize them and think that they will never be disappointed by them, especially if they have felt as though the person they have faith in sees an issue completely the way they do. Often that is not entirely the case in spite of how it seems.
Then there are the fence sitters. Those are the ones that will throw out test statements to see how they are received by fellow council members and citizens in an effort to decide which side of the fence to jump down on. We saw that last night in both the moratorium bill and the metropark bill. The entire council jumped to one side and we saw an across the board vote in favor of two controversial bills that were framed as a compromise which can often be a nice way to make everyone feel comfortable with the outcome and with their vote.
^I believe she fulfilled that obligation.
Quote from: JeffreyS on April 10, 2013, 10:04:28 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on April 10, 2013, 09:58:39 PM
I don't understand. What else could she do? Without her, things would have ended up significantly worse.
Was she in the position that Doug was in terms of she somehow "signed off" on the compromise deal to avoid the full moratorium? I guess I could understand that.
CM Boyer was NOT part of the "compromise" meetings. The first time we discussed it was last Friday when CM Crescimbeni released his intended amendment. Her expression was one of disappointment. I believe that she truly wanted to see the bill defeated. Unfortunately, she was the only one in City Council who felt that way.
I basically agree that MOST of the time being on the losing end of a 17-1 vote is not worth the cost in the long run. That said, Stephen is right in that there are certain times when a lone or minority dissent is the right thing to do, both morally and politically. It can be hard to walk that tight rope.
As for the moratorium, Boyer is NOT your enemy, she is your friend and you need to put your firepower toward those that TRULY oppose your efforts. There are 'hills to die on', but in this case I think she did the right thing.
What if Metrojacksonville raised funds for candidates who supported the mobility fee and other urban core and transit issues?
We have time. Think pub crawls.
At the very least for the urban core seats.
When Kenneth's house was in danger of collapse and demolition was threatened, the Springfield community raised $1000.00 in 24 hours to stabilize his house. Surely, the MJ community could raise enough to impact the next election.
There are many times when a judge or high level administrator asks what was the vote for or against this measure. When they hear that there was no dissent or it was mild and muted, it makes a difference in their opinion of the importance to the community.
Quote from: Jumpinjack on April 11, 2013, 07:16:13 AM
There are many times when a judge or high level administrator asks what was the vote for or against this measure. When they hear that there was no dissent or it was mild and muted, it makes a difference in their opinion of the importance to the community.
I agree. Political capital aside. There should be a HELL NO button to push.
Meanwhile, permitting for home building is up. Daniel Davis of the N.E. Florida builders comments on the growth in the following article.
http://jacksonville.com/business/2013-04-15/story/northeast-florida-building-permits-continue-rise
Quote
Northeast Florida building permits continue to rise
Posted: April 15, 2013 - 6:10pm
By Roger Bull
Building permits for single-family homes continued to be issued at rates well above the past few years.
According to the Northeast Florida Builders Association, 562 permits were issued in the four-county area in March. That’s more than 200 above March totals for the past two years and makes it the busiest March since 2007.
For the first three months of the year, 1,397 permits have been issues, compared to 838 last year and 644 in 2011.
Definitely a different tune than when he showed up at council begging for subsidies to help put starving construction workers back to work.
Isn't it though! This is what makes it nearly impossible to believe what guys like him say when promoting an issue that benefits their own interests.
Well at least we know what was so funny that the developers were laughing at after the Mobility Fee giveaway. The joke was the dopes on the City Council.
Quote from: stephendare on April 15, 2013, 09:53:51 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 15, 2013, 09:46:24 PM
Isn't it though! This is what makes it nearly impossible to believe what guys like him say when promoting an issue that benefits their own interests.
Lets just compromise on the issue, Diane. If we don't just agree that he was actually telling the truth in both cases, its always possible that he might be mean to us later, you know.
Hehehehe, that is quite true Stephen. :)
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 15, 2013, 09:31:27 PM
Meanwhile, permitting for home building is up. Daniel Davis of the N.E. Florida builders comments on the growth in the following article.
http://jacksonville.com/business/2013-04-15/story/northeast-florida-building-permits-continue-rise
Quote
Northeast Florida building permits continue to rise
Posted: April 15, 2013 - 6:10pm
By Roger Bull
Building permits for single-family homes continued to be issued at rates well above the past few years.
According to the Northeast Florida Builders Association, 562 permits were issued in the four-county area in March. That’s more than 200 above March totals for the past two years and makes it the busiest March since 2007.
For the first three months of the year, 1,397 permits have been issues, compared to 838 last year and 644 in 2011.
He was practically in tears -- and what about Clark's roofer?
Job's bill.
Press him and he'll probably claim rising permit activity is a result of the mobility fee moratorium.
“My informal survey of all of our members makes me optimistic,†said Daniel Davis, executive director of the association. “They’re saying they’re busy. We just need to make sure that we have good, solid sustainable growth.â€
It’s important, he said, that the industry doesn’t build more homes than the economy can absorb.
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/business/real-estate/2013-04-15/story/northeast-florida-building-permits-continue-rise#ixzz2QcnTlRmL
This most likely explains the push for the vote on the moratorium -- didn't want the March figures to come out and show how healthy the industry really is.
http://www.youtube.com/v/8Dj-4RYjbdY?version=3&hl=en_US
Quote from: thelakelander on April 16, 2013, 07:25:53 AM
Press him and he'll probably claim rising permit activity is a result of the mobility fee moratorium.
Except that this was not the plea he made with hangs clasped together -- PLEASE SAVE THE LITTLE GUYS WHO ARE STARVING.
And Clark's roofer who cries himself to sleep at night.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 16, 2013, 07:25:53 AM
Press him and he'll probably claim rising permit activity is a result of the mobility fee moratorium.
Quote from: sheclown on April 16, 2013, 07:29:43 AM
This most likely explains the push for the vote on the moratorium -- didn't want the March figures to come out and show how healthy the industry really is.
Yes, before the new Reductionatorium was placed in Jax we could clearly see the Recovery Nationwide.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/16/news/economy/home-building/index.html?iid=HP_LN (http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/16/news/economy/home-building/index.html?iid=HP_LN)
QuoteThe annual pace of housing starts topped 1 million for the first time in nearly five years in March, another sign of the rebound in the sector.
The pace of housing starts came in at an annual rate of 1.04 million in the month, up 7% from February and 47% from a year earlier. It marked the first time since June 2008 that the pace of building crossed the 1 million benchmark.
Even with the recent gains in the sector, the reading was much stronger than forecasts.
After years of depressed activity, home building and real estate have turned around in recent months, helped by a combination of near record low mortgage rates, lower unemployment and a drop in foreclosures that has lifted home prices.
As a result, sales of both previously owned homes and new homes are both up. The rebound in building, sales and home values has helped to lift overall economic growth
Related: Housing is back! Best moves for homebuyers
But there have been some concerns about growing problems in the sector, as rising prices for raw materials and some shortages of construction workers have put a crimp in some builders' results.
Not That I think anything like this will happen but I am wondering about the procedure. If the Mayor was to veto the bill that passed with a veto proof 18-0 margin. Is the veto just meaningless or does it have to go back to the Council to be overturned?
The Mayor can't veto a vote with that margin. He can (and mostly does) allow it to become legislation without his signature.
Thanks.
Quote from: sheclown on April 16, 2013, 07:29:43 AM
This most likely explains the push for the vote on the moratorium -- didn't want the March figures to come out and show how healthy the industry really is.
Council members were presented all kinds of data (even easy to understand graphs) which indicated a recovering market from people within the real estate industry.
It's clear that most Council members rely on theortical beliefs rather than empirical evidence. Even in public session, Lumb for instance conveniently left out a timeframe dataset which would prove his opinions as invalid (he looked at constructin data up until 2009, conveniently leaving out 2010 to the present which indicates clear cut positive momentum based on market drive demand/supply... you know, how the free market is supposed to work).
Well, I guess I technically skipped a step... essentially two thirds majority overules any veto.
QuoteThe mayor may veto any ordinance or resolution adopted by the council except ordinances and resolutions relating to:
(a) Consolidation of the urban services districts.
(b) Appointments to the zoning board and the building codes adjustment board.
(c) Zoning exceptions and variances.
(d) The auditor, the secretary of the council, or other employees of the council.
(e) Internal affairs of the council.
(f) Investigations by the council or any duly appointed committee thereof.
(g) Quasi-judicial decisions made by the council.
Any ordinance or resolution adopted by the council over which the mayor has a veto power shall be presented to the mayor for his consideration and recommendations. If he approves the ordinance or resolution he shall sign it and it shall become effective according to the terms thereof. If he disapproves he shall return the ordinance or resolution to the council without his signature, accompanied by a message indicating the reasons for his disapproval and recommendations. Any resolution or ordinance so disapproved by the mayor shall become effective only if, subsequent to its return, it shall be adopted by two-thirds of all the members of the council present at any meeting; except that if the mayor vetoes any item in the consolidated budget appropriation, only a majority vote of the members of the council shall be required to adopt the same as law over the mayor's veto. Any resolution or ordinance shall become effective on the date provided therein unless it be disapproved by the mayor and returned to the council at or prior to the next regular meeting of the council occurring 10 days or more after the date when the ordinance or resolution was delivered to the mayor's office for consideration. The mayor may disapprove the sum of money appropriated by any one or more items, or parts of items, in any ordinance appropriating money for the use of the consolidated government or any independent agency, in any manner provided herein. The one or more items or parts of items disapproved or reduced shall be void to the extent that they have been disapproved or reduced, unless they shall be restored to the ordinance and become effective by the vote of a majority of the members of the council
The Mayor, when given FOUR chances to give an opinion on the matter, either sat silent or gave non answers.
What signs indicate he will take a stand now (or ever)?
Quote from: stephendare on April 16, 2013, 11:12:26 AM
Quote from: fieldafm on April 16, 2013, 11:09:55 AM
Well, I guess I technically skipped a step... essentially two thirds majority overules any veto.
QuoteThe mayor may veto any ordinance or resolution adopted by the council except ordinances and resolutions relating to:
(a) Consolidation of the urban services districts.
(b) Appointments to the zoning board and the building codes adjustment board.
(c) Zoning exceptions and variances.
(d) The auditor, the secretary of the council, or other employees of the council.
(e) Internal affairs of the council.
(f) Investigations by the council or any duly appointed committee thereof.
(g) Quasi-judicial decisions made by the council.
Any ordinance or resolution adopted by the council over which the mayor has a veto power shall be presented to the mayor for his consideration and recommendations. If he approves the ordinance or resolution he shall sign it and it shall become effective according to the terms thereof. If he disapproves he shall return the ordinance or resolution to the council without his signature, accompanied by a message indicating the reasons for his disapproval and recommendations. Any resolution or ordinance so disapproved by the mayor shall become effective only if, subsequent to its return, it shall be adopted by two-thirds of all the members of the council present at any meeting; except that if the mayor vetoes any item in the consolidated budget appropriation, only a majority vote of the members of the council shall be required to adopt the same as law over the mayor's veto. Any resolution or ordinance shall become effective on the date provided therein unless it be disapproved by the mayor and returned to the council at or prior to the next regular meeting of the council occurring 10 days or more after the date when the ordinance or resolution was delivered to the mayor's office for consideration. The mayor may disapprove the sum of money appropriated by any one or more items, or parts of items, in any ordinance appropriating money for the use of the consolidated government or any independent agency, in any manner provided herein. The one or more items or parts of items disapproved or reduced shall be void to the extent that they have been disapproved or reduced, unless they shall be restored to the ordinance and become effective by the vote of a majority of the members of the council
Does anyone doubt that 6 or 7 councilpeople would change their votes in the face of a Mayoral veto on this issue? Especially with the new data essentially proving that Dan Davis lied in committee?
Have you (or anyone) contacted the mayor's office about vetoing the bill?
I will email him and I urge everyone else to do so as well. My gut is he will sit this one out even if he leans our way on the Fee.
This is crazy. I hope this is sent to every damn councilman. Is it too late to have council chnage their mind and withdraw the legislation?
Quote from: stephendare on April 16, 2013, 05:17:56 PM
Quote from: sheclown on April 16, 2013, 07:27:59 AM
“My informal survey of all of our members makes me optimistic,†said Daniel Davis, executive director of the association. “They’re saying they’re busy. We just need to make sure that we have good, solid sustainable growth.â€
It’s important, he said, that the industry doesn’t build more homes than the economy can absorb.
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/business/real-estate/2013-04-15/story/northeast-florida-building-permits-continue-rise#ixzz2QcnTlRmL
Dan Davis is a sitting member of the Florida House. I am pretty sure that there are very strict rules about intentionally lying to legislative bodies, even if it is on behalf of a private association like the Florida Builders Association.
Diane, you have a lot more insight on this process that the rest of us do.
What are the rules about lying to a City Council Committee, especially in a matter concerning tax revenues?
It sure seems unethical at the very least. I intend to run this by some officials to find out what the ramifications may be. Davis is running for re-election to the Florida house and this manipulation is a mark on his record regardless. It will be a matter of the wording used in any statements he may have made during council meetings, both committees and general which will be a matter of record. It is the context of those statements that will more clearly show what can or cannot be done. I am guessing unless he quoted specific figures attached to specific groups that can be rebutted by his statements to media he will use old fashioned "slippery" to slide by his dishonest portrayal of the health of Florida and Jacksonville's building community.
Quote from: sheclown on April 16, 2013, 07:27:59 AM
“My informal survey of all of our members makes me optimistic,†said Daniel Davis, executive director of the association. “They’re saying they’re busy. We just need to make sure that we have good, solid sustainable growth.â€
It’s important, he said, that the industry doesn’t build more homes than the economy can absorb.
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/business/real-estate/2013-04-15/story/northeast-florida-building-permits-continue-rise#ixzz2QcnTlRmL
This is amazing to me too. That sentence in bold was the basis of my presentation to the first joint committee meeting. Frustrating.
Quote from: dougskiles on April 16, 2013, 07:42:24 PM
Quote from: sheclown on April 16, 2013, 07:27:59 AM
“My informal survey of all of our members makes me optimistic,†said Daniel Davis, executive director of the association. “They’re saying they’re busy. We just need to make sure that we have good, solid sustainable growth.â€
It’s important, he said, that the industry doesn’t build more homes than the economy can absorb.
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/business/real-estate/2013-04-15/story/northeast-florida-building-permits-continue-rise#ixzz2QcnTlRmL
This is amazing to me too. That sentence in bold was the basis of my presentation to the first joint committee meeting. Frustrating.
Yeah. I heard you use that too. HaHa...we thought they weren't paying attention.
Actually the mayor could easily jump into this now that the damage is done. It's a political win-win for him to veto a bill per the wishes of the citizens even though it is purely symbolic and can do no harm to the builders. In this he would come across as defending the citizens against the evil corporations, while acknowledging a clear victory for the builders. EVERYONE WINS... except the people of Jacksonville. We get flushed along with the rest of the waste but hey, at least the mayor is swimming in the bowl with us! Uh Huh!
Ock, move to Tallahassee! we want you.
Quote from: stephendare on April 16, 2013, 05:17:56 PM
Quote from: sheclown on April 16, 2013, 07:27:59 AM
“My informal survey of all of our members makes me optimistic,†said Daniel Davis, executive director of the association. “They’re saying they’re busy. We just need to make sure that we have good, solid sustainable growth.â€
It’s important, he said, that the industry doesn’t build more homes than the economy can absorb.
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/business/real-estate/2013-04-15/story/northeast-florida-building-permits-continue-rise#ixzz2QcnTlRmL
Dan Davis is a sitting member of the Florida House. I am pretty sure that there are very strict rules about intentionally lying to legislative bodies, even if it is on behalf of a private association like the Florida Builders Association.
Diane, you have a lot more insight on this process that the rest of us do.
What are the rules about lying to a City Council Committee, especially in a matter concerning tax revenues?
What I have found out about this is pretty much what I remembered about these rules but I wanted to look for updates in the rules concerning ethics for Florida House Reps. You can find them on the link I am including below. Click the most recent updated version of rules (first one on list) and then look at Section 15 items 15.1 thru 15.9, pgs 57 to 58. According to how the rules are worded it would appear that as expected Daniel Davis skirted protocol. By this I mean there is really no way to pursue a rules violation on this and expect any success. http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/publications.aspx?PublicationType=Reference&DocumentType=The%20Rules%20of%20the%20House%20of%20Representatives&SessionId=70&Session=2012
The problem is that he was not sworn in to testify on this issue, so his statements are not under oath. My feeling is that for those who remember what exactly Davis said during the various meetings or who wish to have the meeting records pulled, the most effective course of action would to be to email all the members of city council providing those misleading statements along with Davis's statements made to print media that are in stark contrast to what he said during council meetings. I would also email the Mayors office.
Stephen, thanks for posting the section 15 rules. I struggled trying to get it copied and pasted to share here. Appreciate you doing that.