Metro Jacksonville

As many of our long time readers know, I had the opportunity to work as a part of the team that created the award winning 2030 Mobility Plan and Mobility Fee. 

(For more background information: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-sep-2030-mobility-plan-the-cutting-edge-of-planning)

Since it's original approval, instead of allowing it a chance to do what it was supposed to do, every year, council and the development community have tried to alter its original purpose.

Unfortunately, out of that team that worked to put the details of the plan together, just about everyone has moved on to other communities across the country, so critical background knowledge and understanding has been lost.

Today, I received an email stating there's a new bill under consideration that allows developers to not have to give money towards a project identified in the mobility plan but let's them propose something else, which can then be approved by council.  Bill Bishop is the sponsor.

I'm still processing information but as of right now, but I'm somewhat skeptical of allowing developers to propose their own projects and getting the green light if approved by council. Here are my initial feelings and concerns about the latest attempt to alter the plan that everyone agreed on in 2011:


To be honest, I'm skeptical. One of my fears is that this will really hurt the mode our city's leaders ignore the most......transit. If this happens, the Northside and Urban Core will be negatively impacted the most because this is the only real funding source that can have a significant impact on improving multimodal connectivity and redevelopment opportunities in this continuously overlooked and underfunded areas.

Being involved with the creation of the plan, a major benefit of the priority project list is that money would be funneled into funding "legacy" projects (ex. streetcar, commuter rail, context sensitive streets, multiuse paths that actually connect people to where they want to go, etc.). Things, we've always claim that we can't afford to do. Need an example? Just look to FDOT's push back and promotion of a misinterpreted and unapplicable law as reasoning of why they can spend $136 million widening the Fuller Warren and not including a barrier separated multiuse path connecting Brooklyn/Five Points and the Southbank/San Marco.

Furthermore, the Mobility Plan's selected transportation investments were also tied with supportive land use policies that when combined, ultimately would transform Jacksonville's sprawling sparsely population landscape into a more environmental, economic and financially sustainable form.

Another important part of the priority project list was that mobility money intended for the urban core would not be spent on additional widening of roadways in the urban core.  There, the focus would be placed on bike, ped and transit. 

Probably, the most important aspect of the mobility plan and fee as originally intended was the removal of local politics from actual long range mobility needs and implementation of community-based mobility and land use visioning efforts.

There was a rational nexus behind the whole plan and projects selected.  My concern right now is that this bill basically takes that rational nexus away. Also, with that rational nexus gone, we never generate the funds to construct intended community enhancing legacy projects because funding is now nickeled and dimed to who knows what by every guy who comes up with his own self serving idea.

However, maybe my thoughts are off-base and perhaps this bill is an improvement? Whatever the case, this thing is moving fast. There will be a public hearing at next council meeting on the Tuesday, January 28, 2014.

My question for everyone is do you believe (or not) that this bill as written, creates a loophole that lets Jax politics back in the game?


(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Mobility-Plan-2014/i-WmBbvt5/0/X2/2013-761_Page_1-X2.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Mobility-Plan-2014/i-CTV6WVP/0/X2/2013-761_Page_2-X2.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Mobility-Plan-2014/i-tPq66PR/0/X2/2013-761_Page_3-X2.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Mobility-Plan-2014/i-TDB72JT/0/X2/2013-761_Page_4-X2.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Mobility-Plan-2014/i-k9tt3vK/0/X2/2013-761_Page_5-X2.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Roads-and-Bridges/Mobility-Plan-2014/i-QpNpsnQ/0/X2/2013-761_Page_6-X2.jpg)

Voted "No" only because there isn't a "Hell No" option.
"Professionally accepted standards and criteria"?  There are a range of answers you can get using "professionally accepted standards and criteria".  And Lake is right, won't ever get a streetcar or other transit, or pedestrian, or bicycle options.

Just some good ol boys
wouldn't change if they could
kickin the ass of their constituents
and stealin more than we even thought they would.

YeeHaw

I guess the council would hate to make good rules and follow them because where is the corruption in that.

That's bullshit.

Let's face it, the money people do not worry about changing anything unless they can change it to benefit themselves. And we know that the money people hate the fees, mobility or otherwise.  Then, of course, who does Council listen to, us taxpayers or the few money people?

What's sort of funny - sad is that yesterday while I was downtown pulling a permit, a guy at the zoning desk was commenting on how much work they are doing in St John's county.  A comment was made about how little their fees seems to hurt them and yet Jacksonville bows down to the developers and gives away money.  Frankly, things are doing just fine as they are, changing anything will do nothing but put more money in someone else's pocket and take it out of ours - again.

But everyone remember what happened last time they attacked the mobility fee.  Is anyone strong enough to fight this change? Will ANY of the council members listen to us this time?

The issue here is that the proposed change isn't weighed against the merits of the overall plan. This is proposed as a wholesale change that only favors those who are doing the building, not those who can benefit from the fee.

Instead of a great citywide plan which implements fairness in funding, it demoted the funding to a purpose that serves only whom the developer serves.

Poor civic leadership going on here. A prime example of why nothing can get done beyond the vision of the next year or the next election. 

Should be voted down. This offers no benefits to its citizens.

would we let a developer determine how a school should be built? Of course not. The money goes to DCPS and they decide best practice.

If anyone does want to fight this, the first thing is to put in a public records request now in the name of MetroJacksonville ( as Press) for any and all e-mails and other correspondence about this change to and from all council members and the mayors office.  If nothing else, it says we are watching and about to start talking.

These crooked f*ckers won't stop this sh*t until the mobility plan is dead, buried, and forgotten, or at least crippled and defanged until it's nothing but a paper tiger and powerless to effect any positive change--like actually getting a working 21st century transit system in Jacksonville.  I swear, they're like zombies or Frankenstein's monster or some other undead creature of the night--they really need to be run out of town with torches and pitchforks!

Letting developers (like king-of-the-strip-mall Sleiman) propose their OWN projects just sounds WAY too much like letting the fox guard the hen house for my liking.  Where's the accountability to the PUBLIC good? 
A: There won't be any accountability, and these developer-proposed "projects" (rubber-stamped by our own enabling city council members looking for donations from these guys for their next election) will just be used as a public teat for further private enrichment...and around and around we go.

It's beyond despicable really, it's sickening.

The developers and the politicians they own don't want this plan to go.  People might actually like it!  This is why I love Democracy.  I get to vote against these spineless worms :P

Councilman Bishop, I demand you explain yourself immediately on MetroJacksonville.com. 

No time to waste.  Have to email council as fast as possible.  They fed the developers once, then fed them again, now they're back for more.

We were told that this was it the last time.  We must see "OBVIOUS" improvement.  Absolute horseshit.  I'd say I was shocked, but you could see this train "sprawled automobile development" coming from a thousand miles away. 

Clay@coj.net, WBishop@coj.net, RClark@coj.net, Redman@coj.net, LBoyer@coj.net, MattS@coj.net, Gaffney@coj.net, EDLee@coj.net, WAJones@coj.net, RBrown@coj.net, Holt@coj.net, doylec@coj.net, Gulliford@coj.net, JimLove@coj.net, KimDaniels@coj.net, JRC@coj.net, Joost@coj.net, GAnderson@coj.net, RLumb@coj.net, mayorbrown@coj.net

So much greed

Sounds like a streetcar project can be substituted with a highway 'flyover' project.... or am I missing something?   

I admit to not being as skeptical as Lakelander when first seeing this earlier today....my feeling was there may be instances where a new project or idea has been conceived since the Plan was originally developed....for example, maybe bike lanes on Pearl Street downtown would be better than on the Broad/Jefferson pair slated for BRT. 

That said, upon further review, this could open up Pandora's box and could in fact defeat the greater good that the Plan intended.

^There were safeguards built into the plan, such as it being revaluated every five years to account for minor issues like the one described above. Unfortunately, it's never been allowed to do what it was intended to do. This kills the predictability component of the entire plan and any rational nexus between the plan's priority projects and associated land use changes that were already modified in the comp plan.  Unfortunately, it appears that every council modification made since 2011 seems to further reduce the benefits of the plan that were intended for the community and long term sustainability of the city. I fear the biggest negative impact will be the urban core and the Northside where transit investment was a part of spurring market rate transit oriented development opportunities, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and creating a multimodal friendly setting that currently doesn't exist in Jacksonville.

I think I'm missing something. I don't understand what the purpose of changing it like this is? Is it a move to set up the kill move down the line? What is the urgency of this change?

Who knows for sure.  I'm sure those advocating for the change have their reasons.  I just wonder how the change benefits the community and aligns with the community supported visioning process that the mobility plan grew out of. Right now, I just don't know how you can rationally tie any guy's alternative proposal, for what his share of mobility fees should be spent on, with the core purpose of developing the plan in the first place.

Lake, I will explain how it is beneficial.  If the council creates a loophole that they can exploit on a case by case basis then they can trade those exploitations for favors and donations.  See it is simple .........corruption.... voilà.

This is in essence, the same issue we see with all the federal funds being spent in Jacksonville.  Rather than let the plan or program do what it is supposed to do, let's turn what is done with the funds over to the Developers because, you know, the Developers will always do what is best for us tax payers, right?

Unfortunately, here's the issue with trying to stop anything they want to do with the Mobility fee.  The people out here that could make the best arguments and do the most to stop it with the facts are vulnerable and so it will most likely end just like last time.  Now, however, the Developers have smelled the blood and so are not even worried about anyone stopping what they want to do.  The only hope is to find the thread that leads to bad press for the various council members in on it and fill the room with lots of angry people. Has that public records request been filed yet MJ? 

The other possibility is where are the developers vulnerable? Is there some ordinance not being enforced that could be?  Is there an ordinance a friendly council person (assuming there is one...) could introduce that would cost them more than the mobility fee?  Maybe stop a project being planned somehow?  Is there something you can do that could hurt the developers more than the Mobility fee will? With Sielman, would the landing proposals somehow make him vulnerable?  What about the land use lawyers? They play dirty, you need to as well.  Find that house and drop it on them.

I agree with Strider.

Where are the developers vulnerable?

Let's Dance.

It really smells like some kind of corruption racket between developers and city government--aren't there state or federal RICO laws against this kind of thing? 
Or is this just the new normal of public-private partnerships--the public pays and private developers take?

On the bright side though, maybe Jacksonville will finally reach that coveted #1 spot in the country for pedestrian and bicyclist deaths!

The fact that there are now only 24 votes and 24 comments feels like a community giving up. :(

Quote from: JeffreyS on January 23, 2014, 12:08:40 PM
The fact that there are now only 24 votes and 24 comments feels like a community giving up. :(

For me, I'm just trying to figure out what's going on while trying to balance the impending weight of this on my already overcommitted schedule.

Quote from: JeffreyS on January 23, 2014, 12:08:40 PM
The fact that there are now only 24 votes and 24 comments feels like a community giving up. :(

I'll be at next council, but I doubt we have anything near the support of the past few times.  Last time we had the support of virtually every neighborhood CPAC, the Chamber, Historic Preservation communities, and the bike community.  And we were still ignored. 

One of the biggest problems we've had is that there isn't a head voice for the supporting crowd.  Doug Skiles became the De Facto head, and he fought hard for it, and took some flack for the final outcome.  I don't know if he has been in discussion with them again on this point or not, but it's hard to rally people again without a solid voice to the council. 

Also, at every step the developers have said they like the plan.  In the beginning it was a better plan than the old unfair impact fees, then it was best that we waive the fee entirely, then it was great to just get a small 9 month ramp up to the full fee, now it would be best if they could just control how the fee was used.  And every time, we've been told "this is it, no more".  And then when that plan is up, here they are again. 

Speaking of the bike community.  They were out in great force last time.  I wonder what they think about letting developers decide the project to fund.  Something tells me, bike lanes and amenities won't be high on that list.

Quote from: Bridges on January 23, 2014, 12:53:16 PM
I'll be at next council, but I doubt we have anything near the support of the past few times.  Last time we had the support of virtually every neighborhood CPAC, the Chamber, Historic Preservation communities, and the bike community.  And we were still ignored. 

I hardly think the groups were ignored....if it wasn't for them, there would be a full fledged moratorium at this point

Quote from: tufsu1 on January 23, 2014, 01:19:15 PM

Quote from: Bridges on January 23, 2014, 12:53:16 PM
I'll be at next council, but I doubt we have anything near the support of the past few times.  Last time we had the support of virtually every neighborhood CPAC, the Chamber, Historic Preservation communities, and the bike community.  And we were still ignored. 

I hardly think the groups were ignored....if it wasn't for them, there would be a full fledged moratorium at this point

You're right!  How silly of me.  Because of them we got a whopping 25% of the fee, followed by what looks to be like a re-write of the plan by developers.  Can't believe I said they were ignored.

They will continue to peck at this until it is gone, or worthless, or both.

Actually, there was before and probably will be again an attempt to buy off the bike advocates.

Putting down a line of paint on a road with no connection to anything is easy - and cheap. The places where bicycists and pedestrians suffer the most casualties are the high speed multi-lane highways with no facilities for miles and miles. Or those places where shopping centers, college and school facilities  or industrial manufacturing close to working class homes and apartments promote walking across unsafe roads:  Beach Blvd, Union & State Streets, Moncrief Road.  No strip mall developer, LA Fitness center developer gives a damn about those places. 

I figure the average strip mall developer will probably want their mobility fee money to go to improving an intersection, traffic signal or widening something adjacent to their particular piece of property. What I don't know at this point is if the other projects eligible for being selected are those included in the mobility plan that were not identified as priority projects or if Joe Blow developer can pick and choose whatever they see it.  If they can pick and choose, then the question becomes how does their solution rationally fit into the overall goals of the mobility plan, which included a lot more than just mobility and concurrency concerns.

The bike community made their voices known in the last mobility plan debate, so the council president will break them off some cash with the gas tax renewal issue. A larger concern should be the impact of anyone being able to pick and choose whatever they want to do on the urban core. I believe this may have a huge negative impact on transit projects and market rate denser land use development in particular.

If you can't predict when priority transit and road projects will come online, then you'll have a much more difficult time leveraging those transportation investments to spur infill economic development on land where the comp plan was modified to attract growth to underutilized areas of the city. 

Unfortunately, with a significant chuck of the institutional knowledge of the original purpose now working in cities like Tallahassee, Denver and DC, I'm pretty sure what I just explained is the least of the concerns of those in favor of the change.

Quote from: Jumpinjack on January 23, 2014, 01:50:08 PM
Actually, there was before and probably will be again an attempt to buy off the bike advocates.

Putting down a line of paint on a road with no connection to anything is easy - and cheap. The places where bicycists and pedestrians suffer the most casualties are the high speed multi-lane highways with no facilities for miles and miles. Or those places where shopping centers, college and school facilities  or industrial manufacturing close to working class homes and apartments promote walking across unsafe roads:  Beach Blvd, Union & State Streets, Moncrief Road.  No strip mall developer, LA Fitness center developer gives a damn about those places. 

Will the "new and improved" mobility plan include funding for complete streets if the developers are the very ones deciding which public projects actually get funded?  I somehow seem to doubt it...

I think it's a bad deal and should be opposed...I just don't understand why the city would want to relinquish any power it might currently have over developers and privatize decisions that impact public infrastructure.  To mix metaphors, it's selling the farm down the river. 

Or to put it another way, what sort of insight will a private developer that lives in suburban Clay or St. John's county (or even farther away) have regarding public infrastructure or transportation--or the lack thereof--in the urban core of Jacksonville?  Will they even care about such things, or will any non-autocentric projects benefitting the core simply fall by the wayside?

Quote from: L.P. Hovercraft on January 23, 2014, 02:35:01 PM
To mix metaphors, it's selling the farm down the river. 

Or letting the fox design the hen house.

Quote from: L.P. Hovercraft on January 23, 2014, 02:35:01 PM
I think it's a bad deal and should be opposed...I just don't understand why the city would want to relinquish any power it might currently have over developers and privatize decisions that impact public infrastructure.

The city still has power.  The biggest change is structure. With the modification, a developer has the power to make their own suggestion for how their mobility fee money should be used and council has power to approve or deny those suggestions on case-by-case basis.  In other words, a political Pandora's box is opened.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 22, 2014, 10:16:54 PM
Who knows for sure.  I'm sure those advocating for the change have their reasons.  I just wonder how the change benefits the community and aligns with the community supported visioning process that the mobility plan grew out of. Right now, I just don't know how you can rationally tie any guy's alternative proposal, for what his share of mobility fees should be spent on, with the core purpose of developing the plan in the first place.

They are slowly dismantling the safeguards to make the plan weak.  The biggest thing these corrupt politicians fear is that THE PEOPLE like the plan.  Once a watered down plan is implemented, it will not work... making our corrupt politicians look like fortune tellers.  Our time to vote can't come fast enough. 

Somehow I have a feeling the Sleiman Landing proposal is very strategic along with this bill. 

^ I doubt it. The way the bill is written, I'd suspect suburban developments where additional roadway infrastructure is needed, to get the project off the ground, are probably the culprits.

For example, say you have 500 to 1000 acres of raw poorly accessible land that you would like to develop. You're going to need new roads to get your project off the ground. My guess is anyone having to build new roads to make their project feasible is probably going to want their mobility money used for that instead of something that might actually relieve traffic off an existing constrained roadway and improve the surrounding community as a whole.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 23, 2014, 02:27:43 PM
I figure the average strip mall developer will probably want their mobility fee money to go to improving an intersection, traffic signal or widening something adjacent to their particular piece of property. What I don't know at this point is if the other projects eligible for being selected are those included in the mobility plan that were not identified as priority projects or if Joe Blow developer can pick and choose whatever they see it.  If they can pick and choose, then the question becomes how does their solution rationally fit into the overall goals of the mobility plan, which included a lot more than just mobility and concurrency concerns.

Right, which is most of what he does.  I can see him using this to try and say he can't get this project off the ground because the Mobility Fee is hurting him in other places. 

Doubt it. The mobility fee won't factor into the Landing situation.  The real driver will be the amount of public money thrown into making the numbers work.

Is bishop term limited?

Yes, Bill Bishop is term limited.

Section 5.041. Limitation of Term of Office.
No person elected for two consecutive full terms as a member of the council shall be eligible for
election as a council member in the next succeeding term. A council term ending on or prior to June 30, 1991, shall not be considered a consecutive term for purposes of this section. (Referendum of
May 21, 1991; Laws of Fla., Ch. 92-341, § 1)

^^ thanks for the info.  I don't know just seems like the biggest people lately backing the demise of the mobility plan (Clark last time around) are term limited.  Perhaps they see it as their last big opportunity to get in the pockets of the big money developers. 

Rest assured, the bike community is following this.

Where is the bill in the process?  I tried to look it up, but couldn't find where it was in committee.  I did see that it appears to have been introduced back in November 13th. 

Also:

QuoteBackground Information: The mobility fee system enacted by the City in 2011 to replace the former "fair share" system of private developer contributions to road construction and improvement provides that a private developer may only receive credit toward a mobility fee calculation for construction of a transportation improvement if that improvement is already listed on the City's adopted 2030 Mobility Plan.  This bill provides that transportation projects that are not listed on the Mobility Plan, but which nevertheless help to increase overall mobility efficiency within a mobility zone, as demonstrated by professionally accepted standards and criteria, may be used to obtain mobility fee credit upon approval by the City Council.  The amendments regarding mobility fee credit for right-of-way donation being transferrable from one landowner or developer to another within a mobility zone and the requirement that an improvement be dedicated to the City are clarifications of existing practices that are not explicitly stated in the Code.

Is that correct?  I thought the current bill just calculates the fee for the developer, and they have no say in the project that the money funds.  This makes it sound like the developer is at the mercy of what mobility project the money goes to. 

From my understanding, it has moved on to council.  I'll try and learn more about it today but council could probably vote on it as early as Tuesday night. 

^ I think it might be introduced at Council on Tuesday night...basically second reading...with time for public comment...but not sure a vote would happen next week

On the Agenda tonight for 3rd Readings and it looks like it should have no problem passing. 

Quote2013-761
ORD-MC Amend Chapt 655 (Concurrency & Mobility Mgmt System), Part 5 (Mobility Fee), Secs 655.507 (Transp Improvemt Projs Constructed by a Landowner or Developer) & 655.508 (Mobility Fee Contract), to allow a Landowner or Developer to Construct & Dedicate an entire Transp Improvemt Proj not Identified in the 2030 Mobility Plan as a Prioritized Transp Improvemt that will improve Existing Mobility Efficiencies for the Affected Mobility Zone(s). (Gabriel) (Introduced by CM Bishop)

Public Hearing Pursuant to Chapt 166, F.S. & CR 3.601 - 12/10/13
1. 11/26/2013 CO  Introduced: TEU,LUZ
   12/2/2013 TEU Read 2nd & Rerefer
   12/3/2013 LUZ Read 2nd & Rerefer
2. 12/10/2013 CO PH Read 2nd & Rereferred; TEU,LUZ
   1/21/2014 TEU Sub/Rerefer 4-0
   1/22/2014 LUZ Sub/Rerefer 7-0

Also, this is on the minutes too.  Introduced tonight.  Not sure what the significance of this is.

Quote2014-57
ORD Apv Proposed 2014B Series Text Amend to the Transp Element & the Capital Improvements Element of the 2030 Comp Plan to allow a Landowner or Developer to Receive a Mobility Fee Credit for the Constrn & Dedication of a Transp Improvemt Proj that is not Identified in the 2030 Mobility Plan if it Maintains or Improves the Adopted City-Wide & Mobility Zone Minimum Mobility Score; Waive Sec 650.404, Ord Code, Requiremt of Conducting Planning & Dev Dept Informational Workshop prior to Dept Written Report & Recommendation. (Gabriel) (Introduced by CM Bishop)

LUZ PH 2/19/14
Public Hearing Pursuant to Sec 163.3184, F.S. & Chapt 650, Pt 4, Ord Code - 2/11/14 & 2/25/14
1. 1/28/2014 CO  Introduced: R, LUZ,

So is there (or should there be) any opposition to this new mobility plan change or is it a fait accompli that it will pass?

Quote from: L.P. Hovercraft on January 28, 2014, 12:10:39 PM
So is there (or should there be) any opposition to this new mobility plan change or is it a fait accompli that it will pass?

Looks like it should receive little to no push back.  It's disheartening.  And it looks actually worse than I thought.

QuotePaul Harden explained his proposed substitute to the original bill, how the substitute would permit a developer to obtain mobility fee credits for building a road that is not on the City's CIP list, and how a developer could sell excess mobility fee credits from a project to another developer for use in the same mobility fee zone. Council Member Bishop agreed with the premise of the substitute and believes it will help to kick-start development activity in the city. Council Member Redman inquired about the effect of the substitute on the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Mr. Harden explained that the substitute will encourage private developers to build new roads themselves which must meet City standards for bike and pedestrian amenities, so more will likely be built that way than through the City accumulating developer contributions in a bike/pedestrian fund. Steven Tocknell representing the First Coast Chapter of the Florida Bicycle Association expressed concern about diversion of mobility fees away from the bike/ pedestrian fund.

From Transportation and Energy committee:

QuoteThe proposed substitute allows a landowner to donate land for and/or construct a mobility improvement, even if that mobility improvement is not listed in the Mobility Plan, so long as the mobility improvement maintains or improves adopted minimum city-wide and applicable mobility zone mobility scores. It also allows the landowner to receive credit equal to the cost of designing, permitting and constructing the mobility improvement and the value of the land donated for the mobility improvement.


There was a lengthy discussion on this item.  Assistant General Counsel Jason Gabriel explained why a text amendment (to the Comprehensive Plan) was required.  Council  Member Matt Schellenberg asked Attorney Paul Harden if Mr. Harden had any problem with deferring this item.  Mr. Harden indicated that he had no problem with deferring the matter for one cycle but understood that some of the parties, Mike Herzberg, were anxious to move the matter along.

Oh, well, I guess if Sleiman wants to move along with it, we should just move along with it. 
The needs of the few.

I feel that this is flying so quickly through the committees and so low on the radar that the organized opposition has been unable to respond. Looking back on the bill's history, it seems to have been generated during the holidays to boost it along the path to approval. It is important to have people show up and protest in person at the meetings.

2014-57 seems to say that you can get credit for constructing a mobility project no matter where it is which can be used to boost your project. Probably if you have several thousand acres of timberland near the St. Johns-Duval Co. line and plan to sell it off for small developments you need mobility credits. Then paving a sidewalk on Beaver Street will give you some mobility credit toward your little golf course community.  It seems to be a perversion of the entire idea behind the mobility plan. The city is still on the hook to provide city services to sprawl development at the limits of the county.

The roll out on this has been pretty weak. They were clearly counting on pushing it through before the mobility advocates saw it coming. That said I don't think it's such a bad idea in principal. The city would have been responsible for the infrastructure before, and then collected a fee to mitigate it; under this plan it basically just lets developers devote some of their fee to infrastructure they'll be using. So long as the city doesn't just write them a bunch of exemptions for bike/ped I don't think that will suffer all that much. What will probably suffer will be transit and long-range planning, as it doesn't have the advocacy base and developers are more likely to want projects they'll see the immediate benefit from.

Quote from: Tacachale on January 28, 2014, 01:44:04 PM
The city would have been responsible for the infrastructure before, and then collected a fee to mitigate it; under this plan it basically just lets developers devote some of their fee to infrastructure they'll be using. So long as the city doesn't just write them a bunch of exemptions for bike/ped I don't think that will suffer all that much.

And I think that's the problem.  It has turned something that shouldn't have been political into something that is now highly political at every decision point.  That just leaves massive wiggle room.  The city was responsible for the development, yes, but only once the fees were accrued enough to trigger the development. 

We've complained and complained about how this city never sees a plan through.  We have meetings, workshops, committees, special committees, task forces, joint committees, plans, new plans, revised plans, whole new ways, whole new visions, new mottos, new signs...and yet we can't see a single thing through cause it starts off great, then the special interests get involved. 

Got to wonder how this all sets up for a real nice "5 year review" where mobility fees may be "re-assessed" entirely.  Actually, I don't have to wonder, I know how that turns out.

I see the problem as it changes the use of the money collected.  Now if they build a road 20 miles from the core nothing comes back to make the core more attractive to development. So maybe the city does not spend anymore but the use the fee was intended to fund is lost without dedicated funding. I guess it would still promote more sustainable growth because you could avoid the fee by building in the mobility zones but it won't help build transit, pedestrian or bike lanes where they are needed just in the sticks where the cheap land for the developers and expensive services for the tax payers are located.

(and guess who will pay to maintain these roads that shouldn't be built but now will be.)

I'm really trying to make heads or tails of this proposal so I am going to try and summarize its impact and please tell me if I am wrong:

1. Suburban developer is now required to provide street and pedestrian access in his new community at his cost and to current code.

2. We are now going to give credit for the money he spent on the roads in his development with the added premise that now he is more likely to build said roadways to the standards already required of him. 

3. To the extent the cost of his roadway exceeds the amount he would have been required to pay in mobility fees, he can sell those additional sums to another developer as credits towards mobility fees .. or .. use it to cover his next development.

In effect, we are giving them credit for something they are already required to do. ??????????

^It seems to me that the main difference is that the developer could tie their fee money to infrastructure associated with their own development, rather than having it be collected later and used for other projects in that zone. They were already getting credits for infill, car trip reduction, etc. under the existing plan. This is why I don't think bike/ped infrastructure would suffer if the city doesn't just bend over and write a bunch of exemptions. However, it also means that more fee funding would be tied to projects individual developers want, and less will go to zone-wide projects individual developers don't, but which would nonetheless be an improvement - namely public transit and long-range planning.

I've seen an exemption like that proposed here which was used to provide multi-modal options. The developer installed bus stops and even purchased buses for the municipality.  I just don't see our developers being that magnanimous.

I totally agree that even if the developers used the moneys appropriately they would be tied to benefiting the area of their new development.  Mass transit and region wide projects would clearly be impacted as more dollars are spent on site specific improvements.

Bishop is right in that it would promote economic development, i.e. construction. The problem is that it would promote the same suburban sprawl the mobility fee was intended to counteract.

Quote from: icarus on January 28, 2014, 03:05:21 PM
Bishop is right in that it would promote economic development, i.e. construction.

This has been the excuse at every step of the way with the mobility plan.  And yet, it's not true.  St. Johns County has higher impact fees and they're booming.  This has never truly been about economic development as it has been about profit margins.

+1000 it has never held water.

Well, Paul Harden isn't paid to promote the better good but to make a profit for his clients so not entirely surprising.

I think any proposal proffered by him as to be viewed with a healthy does of skepticism.

I would call this the Swamp Land modification.

On the surface and in some specific cases, this modification would not be a bad thing. If new roadways were constructed in a grid like pattern or plug missing gaps in the existing collector/arterial network, they could relieve some existing suburban arterial roads.

However, the devil is always in the details. The way things are right now, we're opening a political Pandora's box. We've found a way to turn something that was supposed to make our future development patterns more predictable, controlled and fiscally sustainable into a mechanism that could help fund sprawl and discourage market rate growth in the core.

Where this is really a kick in the pants is with the predictability of timing the construction of legacy transit projects that would generate walkable, mixed use infill adjacent to existing and future transit stations. Since every guy can possibly spend their share of mobility funds on whatever they want, projects generated from the community visioning efforts of the last decade probably don't happen without new funding from additional resources.

Quote from: icarus on January 28, 2014, 03:05:21 PM
I've seen an exemption like that proposed here which was used to provide multi-modal options. The developer installed bus stops and even purchased buses for the municipality.  I just don't see our developers being that magnanimous.

I totally agree that even if the developers used the moneys appropriately they would be tied to benefiting the area of their new development.  Mass transit and region wide projects would clearly be impacted as more dollars are spent on site specific improvements.

Bishop is right in that it would promote economic development, i.e. construction. The problem is that it would promote the same suburban sprawl the mobility fee was intended to counteract.

Yes, I largely agree with this sentiment. I do think some of the concern can be alleviated as long as the city stands firm on the need for bike/ped infrastructure. In fact, that concern exists whether the fee is changed or not.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 28, 2014, 03:41:19 PM
On the surface and in some specific cases, this modification would not be a bad thing. If new roadways were constructed in a grid like pattern or plug missing gaps in the existing collector/arterial network, they could relieve some existing suburban arterial roads.

However, the devil is always in the details. The way things are right now, we're opening a political Pandora's box. We've found a way to turn something that was supposed to make our future development patterns more predictable, controlled and fiscally sustainable into a mechanism that could help fund sprawl and discourage market rate growth in the core.

Where this is really a kick in the pants is with the predictability of timing the construction of legacy transit projects that would generate walkable, mixed use infill adjacent to existing and future transit stations. Since every guy can possibly spend their share of mobility funds on whatever they want, projects generated from the community visioning efforts of the last decade probably don't happen without new funding from additional resources.

Absolutely. That's the major concern, and one of Jacksonville's oldest planning problems.

This gets the money possibly spent in a suburban district instead of the urban core.  It's easy to see why this would be popular with a majority of council members.

^very very true.

Not really. The same amount of money would still stay within the same mobility zones. You just can't predict where, when or what projects will be funded within each zone.

Quote from: urbanlibertarian on January 28, 2014, 03:44:40 PM
This gets the money possibly spent in a suburban district instead of the urban core.  It's easy to see why this would be popular with a majority of council members.

not true.  A development still must mitigate its impact within the specified mobility zone.  So, yes a suburban project will mitigate out there, but that was always the case.

I can predict when the mobility projects will be funded. Never.

^ I'm willing to bet that small developers (the kind we are likely to see in the urban core) will gladly pay the fee and go forward.  It is the large-scale developments that may propose to build roads instead.

Just got back from council. It was re-referred. 

Good news Bridges! Hopefully, this gives more people the chance to talk to their councilperson.

Spoke with a council aide who said it will go back to LUZ and Transp. committees next week.

Quote from: tufsu1 on January 28, 2014, 07:08:50 PM
^ I'm willing to bet that small developers (the kind we are likely to see in the urban core) will gladly pay the fee and go forward.  It is the large-scale developments that may propose to build roads instead.

It appears that the biggest thing this new ordinance hurts is sprawl reduction.  Developers will want to open up land and build on it, then count the roads they build as "vehicle reduction" on main arteries so they reduce the mobility fee, and then they want to count any transportation improvements as their mobility project.

Basically. The new ordinance actually promotes sprawl by using mobility fee money to fund it's continued expansion.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 28, 2014, 09:02:18 PM
Basically. The new ordinance actually promotes sprawl by using mobility fee money to fund it's continued expansion.

+1,000

Aren't the urban core projects exempt for the fee (or at least mostly so) and with this change the suburban projects would now only pay for suburban projects?  How then will the urban projects ever get funded?

^ no

Oh man, when is this city going to stop building further and further out and concentrate on its core assets? We're going to have rings and rings of 'edge cities' around a needy center - not good.

Quote from: vicupstate on January 29, 2014, 08:36:05 AM
Aren't the urban core projects exempt for the fee (or at least mostly so) and with this change the suburban projects would now only pay for suburban projects?  How then will the urban projects ever get funded?

The current mobility plan divides the county into zones that determine where the money is spent. The change shouldn't change much for funding projects within the zones but it has the potential to sap fee money from projects that would improve various areas, most importantly the public transit system.

Quote from: Tacachale on January 29, 2014, 12:38:42 PM

Quote from: vicupstate on January 29, 2014, 08:36:05 AM
Aren't the urban core projects exempt for the fee (or at least mostly so) and with this change the suburban projects would now only pay for suburban projects?  How then will the urban projects ever get funded?

The current mobility plan divides the county into zones that determine where the money is spent. The change shouldn't change much for funding projects within the zones but it has the potential to sap fee money from projects that would improve various areas, most importantly the public transit system.

So the fees are uniform across all zones?  Construction in the core would pay fees identical to the suburbs, and those fees would stay in the core?

No, fees aren't uniform across the board. Fees are based off VMT (vehicle miles traveled), so they are generally lower in the urban core. Also, there is no fee in the downtown zone. Btw, regardless of where you are in town, there are still certain ways you can design and develop your project to reduce your overall fee.

With that said, regardless of this amendment, fees generated will remain the same in each mobility zone. What changes is by opening the political Pandora's box, you have no idea of what will be built in your neighborhood, when and where. That will literally be up to the developer paying the fee.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 29, 2014, 06:59:04 PM
What changes is by opening the political Pandora's box, you have no idea of what will be built in your neighborhood, when and where. That will literally be up to the developer paying the fee.

Lakelander - under the proposed amendment wouldn't City Council have to approve the project substituted for the fee. Although based on past council decisions, the question might just be semantics, because they do tend to vote with developers ("progress").

^Yes. That's the political Pandora's box.  Do we really want the council deciding how the city's long term infrastructure network should be built on a case-by-case basis, depending on the lobbying ability of the proposer?  That has disaster written all over it.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 29, 2014, 06:59:04 PM
What changes is by opening the political Pandora's box, you have no idea of what will be built in your neighborhood, when and where. That will literally be up to the developer paying the fee.

I love how economic impact is always championed as the reason for these changes. But you know what markets really love? Stability and an environment of predictability.  The economic impact of a potential business or development knowing what projects were next and when their expected timeline was to happen?  In these short sighted situations the city only thinks about the immediate development.

Edit: We change long term plans so much and so fast in Jacksonville, that we've created this environment where developers basically have to lobby their wants at every step, cause the plans change.  I think the Pandora's box has been opened for a while on this type of thing. Time to shut it.

^Yes, for legacy projects in the plan, such as commuter rail, streetcar or the multimodal context sensitive redo of Philips Highway, predictability of knowing where and when the project will be built is a major driver of market rate economic development in cities across the country. It was anticipated that the mobility plan and fee structure would bring this type of economic stability to economically stagnant parts of Jacksonville as well.  What was not anticipated was our inability to allow the award winning product an opportunity to actually perform as designed.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 29, 2014, 07:26:59 PM
^Yes. That's the political Pandora's box.  Do we really want the council deciding how the city's long term infrastructure network should be built on a case-by-case basis, depending on the lobbying ability of the proposer?  That has disaster written all over it.

Well, Harden earned his money on this one. Its pure genius and guarantees him a forward flow of lobbying business. ;-)

Quote from: thelakelander on January 29, 2014, 07:43:51 PM
What was not anticipated was our inability to allow the award winning product an opportunity to actually perform as designed.

+1,000

Quote from: icarus on January 29, 2014, 07:46:17 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on January 29, 2014, 07:26:59 PM
^Yes. That's the political Pandora's box.  Do we really want the council deciding how the city's long term infrastructure network should be built on a case-by-case basis, depending on the lobbying ability of the proposer?  That has disaster written all over it.

Well, Harden earned his money on this one. Its pure genius and guarantees him a forward flow of lobbying business. ;-)

Yes, good money on this one and lots of future gigs as well, since these things will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Overall, Jax loses but that's nothing new. In 2020, we'll still be wondering how to pump life into downtown despite the billions spent.

I don't think this plan is all bad in that it gives the opportunity for flexibility to the people who will be building stuff and paying the fee. The potential for trouble is with the leadership, and whether they'd grow a spine or just hand out exemptions whenever someone asks nicely.

Comprehensive projects like public transit will also suffer as it seems likely developers won't be proposing their fee money go to stuff like that. But even there, the council will be more apt to listen if people hold them to it. Bike and pedestrian supporters have proven that gains can be made even in this hostile environment. Unfortunately I don't hear nearly as much of a clamor for public transit.

Quote from: Tacachale on January 29, 2014, 08:23:33 PM
I don't think this plan is all bad in that it gives the opportunity for flexibility to the people who will be building stuff and paying the fee. The potential for trouble is with the leadership, and whether they'd grow a spine or just hand out exemptions whenever someone asks nicely.

Comprehensive projects like public transit will also suffer as it seems likely developers won't be proposing their fee money go to stuff like that. But even there, the council will be more apt to listen if people hold them to it. Bike and pedestrian supporters have proven that gains can be made even in this hostile environment. Unfortunately I don't hear nearly as much of a clamor for public transit.

Sorry but I have to disagree.  Our leadership has time and time again shown they don't have a spine when it comes to big money and developers.  They have to earn that trust, before I hand it to them again and hope they grow one this time. 

And judging by the way they've rushed through or attempted to rush through changes to the mobility plan, I highly doubt they would be strong in soliciting public input.  And speaking of public support, it's already faded.  In fact, councilwoman Boyer cited waning public outcry as part of the reason she voted for the gradual fee in March last year.  There was only one person at this last council meeting talking about the new ordinance.  The public won't have the time or stamina to battle every development that will come before council.  And there will be a lot, a whole swath of land just opened up off 9B.

The bikers were fantastic last time, but this time they were waived off with a hand when Redman asked about it in TEU.  If the bikers were following, they'd know that the first thing to get chopped will be the Phillips highway street redo.  It is the project receiving the most attack right now. 

Here's a link to a power point of the mobility plan and fee, which highlights where the concept comes from:

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

This slide captures the intent of the Mobility Plan and Fee:

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1126389044_L7Qrq-M.jpg)

At the end of the day, perhaps no one really cares if these objectives are achieved or not but we can at least be honest in our assessment of if the amendment helps or hurts the goals listed.

Quote from: Tacachale on January 29, 2014, 08:23:33 PMComprehensive projects like public transit will also suffer as it seems likely developers won't be proposing their fee money go to stuff like that.

The tying of transit investment and supporting land use policies are very critical components of the mobility plan. Without it, the entire thing fails. All we've done is created a cheaper version of the old fair share/concurrency system.

Quote from: Bridges on January 29, 2014, 08:45:28 PM
And judging by the way they've rushed through or attempted to rush through changes to the mobility plan, I highly doubt they would be strong in soliciting public input.  And speaking of public support, it's already faded.  In fact, councilwoman Boyer cited waning public outcry as part of the reason she voted for the gradual fee in March last year.  There was only one person at this last council meeting talking about the new ordinance.  The public won't have the time or stamina to battle every development that will come before council.  And there will be a lot, a whole swath of land just opened up off 9B.

To be honest, can you blame the public?  It's a full time job to keep track of all the wheeling and dealing at city hall. It's one thing to be paid to be there. It's another to take off work, cancel family activities, etc. to show up in opposition for stuff that has been cooked months in advance of a public hearing.  One clear thing, you really learn is why Jax is the way it is and why we struggle to live up to our potential.

QuoteThe bikers were fantastic last time, but this time they were waived off with a hand when Redman asked about it in TEU.  If the bikers were following, they'd know that the first thing to get chopped will be the Phillips highway street redo.  It is the project receiving the most attack right now.

They'll have the ability to drive 15 miles out to the new interchange on 9B and ride on mobility fee funded roads out there that will have bike lanes. They may not help build a connected network of bike facilities but that's a goal of the plan no one really cares about.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 29, 2014, 09:12:18 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on January 29, 2014, 08:23:33 PMComprehensive projects like public transit will also suffer as it seems likely developers won't be proposing their fee money go to stuff like that.

The tying of transit investment and supporting land use policies are very critical components of the mobility plan. Without it, the entire thing fails. All we've done is created a cheaper version of the old fair share/concurrency system.

Yes, I agree that transit will be the biggest thing to suffer from these changes. I just don't think that the element of this proposal that allows flexibility is a disaster.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 29, 2014, 09:23:17 PM

Quote from: Bridges on January 29, 2014, 08:45:28 PM
And judging by the way they've rushed through or attempted to rush through changes to the mobility plan, I highly doubt they would be strong in soliciting public input.  And speaking of public support, it's already faded.  In fact, councilwoman Boyer cited waning public outcry as part of the reason she voted for the gradual fee in March last year.  There was only one person at this last council meeting talking about the new ordinance.  The public won't have the time or stamina to battle every development that will come before council.  And there will be a lot, a whole swath of land just opened up off 9B.

To be honest, can you blame the public?  It's a full time job to keep track of all the wheeling and dealing at city hall. It's one thing to be paid to be there. It's another to take off work, cancel family activities, etc. to show up in opposition for stuff that has been cooked months in advance of a public hearing.  One clear thing, you really learn is why Jax is the way it is and why we struggle to live up to our potential.

This is an interesting question. However, we're talking about a public that gives a mayor like Alvin Brown a reported 70% approval rating.

QuoteThe bikers were fantastic last time, but this time they were waived off with a hand when Redman asked about it in TEU.  If the bikers were following, they'd know that the first thing to get chopped will be the Phillips highway street redo.  It is the project receiving the most attack right now.

They'll have the ability to drive 15 miles out to the new interchange on 9B and ride on mobility fee funded roads out there that will have bike lanes. They may not help build a connected network of bike facilities but that's a goal of the plan no one really cares about.
[/quote]

Yes, I also agree that long-range planning could suffer from changes like this.

^The biggest benefits of the plan are the things that potentially suffer the most through the amendment change. If anything, some sort of safety guards need to be added to the amendment enabling it to allow flexibility without killing or making the plan's priority projects construction timelines completely unattainable and unpredictable.

The flexibility that tachacale isn't concerned about is exactly what will kill the intent of the Mobility Plan and the non-auto projects.  If the developers are given a choice to get credit for a road they would build anyway, or get more turn lanes into their development - or, contribute to a fund that will build a streetcar or other transit - which do you think they will choose?  The strength of having an agreed to list of projects is that it takes the politics (mostly) out of the equation.  As said before, our Council doesn't have the spine to stand up to developers promising "JOBS!" ... and campaign contributions or other payments.

Icarus, Bridges and Charles Hunter have this thing pegged correctly. 

Tacachale, no disrespect, but I really think you need to take off the rose-colored glasses.  It is quite easy to see what is going on here.

The powers that be have 'waited you out' and 'stroked the necessary checks' to kill this plan.  Unless opposition 'grows and shows' very quickly, you will be rendered ineffective in controlling the future of this issue.  Jacksonville is still following a 1980's and '90's strategy for growth and development.  That will be cemented into place for  the forseeable future with these changes. With a victory in this battle, the pro-sprawl forces will be embolden to seek total victory in this 'war' very soon.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 29, 2014, 07:43:51 PM
^Yes, for legacy projects in the plan, such as commuter rail, streetcar or the multimodal context sensitive redo of Philips Highway, predictability of knowing where and when the project will be built is a major driver of market rate economic development in cities across the country. It was anticipated that the mobility plan and fee structure would bring this type of economic stability to economically stagnant parts of Jacksonville as well.  What was not anticipated was our inability to allow the award winning product an opportunity to actually perform as designed.

I think this is a point to drive home with council.  They seem receptive to the idea of economic predictability and the pitfalls of opening up this box. 

Also, if we can re-emphasis the goals of the mobility plan that Lake posted earlier that helps. 

I don't think we should roll over just yet.  LUZ and TEU will meet again at the beginning of the week next week.  Contact them and respectfully state your case. 

TEU: Chair is Jim Love
JimLove@coj.net, RBrown@coj.net, GAnderson@coj.net, JRC@coj.net, KimDaniels@coj.net, Joost@coj.net, MattS@coj.net

LUZ: Chair is Lori Boyer
LBoyer@coj.net, MattS@coj.net, WBishop@coj.net, Holt@coj.net, RLumb@coj.net, JimLove@coj.net, Redman@coj.net

^ Received call from CW Boyer's office. She will be allowing public comment on the Mobility amendment during the early portion of the LUZ meeting on Tuesday. Please try to be there.

It would be good if CM Love would do the same for Transportation committee on Monday.

Nice!  Love wrote me back, saying he would bring up the concerns with the committee.

TEU will take it up today at 2 pm.  Not sure if they allow public comment or not, but LUZ tomorrow evening will.

TEU voted to defer the issue for at least a month.  The City's Planning Department submitted an analysis of the proposed legislation and recommended several changes

Council hammering out a new position? The developers seeking subsidies will be represented. It's not easy but please try to attend this meeting of four council members to discuss the mobility plan amendments.

Council Member Public Meeting - Mobility Fees
February 25, 2014
9:00 a.m.
City Hall
117 W. Duval St., Suite 425

Conference Room A
Please contact Suzanne Warren, ECA, District 2, for additional information at 630-1392.

Notice is hereby given that Council Member Bill Bishop, Council Member Robin Lumb, Council Member Greg Anderson and Council Member Lori Boyer, will meet on Tuesday, February 25, 2014, at 9:00 a.m., in Conference Room A, City Council Offices, 117 West Duval Street, Suite 425, City Hall at St. James Building, to discuss proposed legislation 2013-761.

2013-761    AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 655 (CONCURRENCY AND MOBILITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM), PART 5 (MOBILITY FEE), ORDINANCE CODE, SECTION 655.507 (TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CONSTRUCTED BY A LANDOWNER OR DEVELOPER) AND SECTION 655.508 (MOBILITY FEE CONTRACT), TO ALLOW A LANDOWNER OR DEVELOPER TO CONSTRUCT AND DEDICATE A TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT THAT WILL MAINTAIN OR IMPROVE ADOPTED CITY-WIDE AND MOBILITY ZONE MINIMUM MOBILITY SCORES AND ALLOW A LANDOWNER OR DEVELOPER TO RECEIVE MOBILITY FEE CREDITS OF EQUAL VALUE EVEN IF THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN THE 2030 MOBILITY PLAN OR IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE JACKSONVILLE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

All interested parties are encouraged to attend.

The development and road project behind the latest mobility fee debate:

QuoteEstuary LLC plans 569-lot Cypress Bluff residential project on 342 acres near Florida 9B

Vacant land around the Interstate 295 East Beltway and the new Florida 9B connector is in line for high-profile development.

Estuary LLC, a company led by members of the Davis family, seeks approvals there for a 569-lot residential project called Cypress Bluff.

The Davis family is a major landowner in South Jacksonville and the founder of Winn-Dixie Stores Inc.

Cypress Bluff is designed on almost 342 acres east of Florida 9B and less than a mile south of the 9B intersection with I-295.

The St. Johns River Water Management District is reviewing an application for the project.

Environmental Services Inc. is the consultant and England, Thims & Miller Inc. is the civil engineer.

The first phase of the development includes about 3,000 linear feet of collector roadway and associated utilities.

The "E-Town Parkway" consists of 0.6 mile of a four-lane divided roadway with a two-lane roundabout.

Full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=542322

I hate that these "public" input meetings are always at times that are inconvenient for the majority of the public.  I hate not being able to have a voice at a lot of these meetings. 

Quote from: Bridges on February 25, 2014, 01:30:29 PM
I hate that these "public" input meetings are always at times that are inconvenient for the majority of the public.  I hate not being able to have a voice at a lot of these meetings.

There's a reason for that.

The meeting room was full this morning. Council members present were Bishop, chairing the meeting, Boyer, Lumb, Anderson, Gulliford, Yarborough, Redman. Others present: Burney, Robinson, Hardin, Herzberg, Hainline, Hart, planning department staff, bicycle advocates and others.

Bishop led the council members through a short explanation of how the current mobility plan works. Council members asked questions about the reason for mobility projects given priority, how the fee was used to fund projects, how council can reorder projects, etc. Boyer chimed in from time to time to explain things and so did Hardin, Hainline, and Burney.

Thoughtful questions from Anderson who wants real life examples of projects in the plan which have been completed by developers.

Several council members spoke about the waste of 300 feet of sidewalk in front of a project going nowhere.

Bishop said that only large projects will affect funding of projects in the mobility plan. Due to economic downturn many of those projects failed to happen. Plan was based on the fulfillment of those larger projects to correct mobility deficits.

Boyer working on an amendment (to the amendment? or as replacement?) with Hardin and Hertzberg. Wants to assure that projects not on list would raise the mobility score or maintain it.

No public comments. Short meeting.

QuoteSeveral council members spoke about the waste of 300 feet of sidewalk in front of a project going nowhere.

What is this in reference too? The mobility plan's bike/ped projects or how things have been typically done in Jax?

I see the 569 mega Davis development announced also.

^^oops. Sorry about that did not scroll up far enough.

Can someone start a change.org petition for,this one? 

Quote from: thelakelander on February 25, 2014, 02:32:44 PM

QuoteSeveral council members spoke about the waste of 300 feet of sidewalk in front of a project going nowhere.

What is this in reference too? The mobility plan's bike/ped projects or how things have been typically done in Jax?

typical jax

Quote from: Jumpinjack on February 25, 2014, 02:20:10 PM
Bishop said that only large projects will affect funding of projects in the mobility plan. Due to economic downturn many of those projects failed to happen. Plan was based on the fulfillment of those larger projects to correct mobility deficits.

I know Bishop was on the original plan committee, but this seems a bit...disingenuous. Sure large projects would contribute more, but smaller projects also have impacts.  During the last round of "moratorium" talks, small projects were trotted out as being the driving force behind the moratorium.  Quite a bit of discussion was had about small gas stations, or restaurants and buildings paying. 

This also is in the same line of thinking as "magic silver bullet" answers.  One of the biggest problems we have is sticking to a damn plan.  When you stick to a plan, small incremental payments add up.

EDIT: Thanks JumpinJack for the summary and being there.

Quote from: Bridges on February 26, 2014, 11:19:15 AM
I know Bishop was on the original plan committee, but this seems a bit...disingenuous. Sure large projects would contribute more, but smaller projects also have impacts.  During the last round of "moratorium" talks, small projects were trotted out as being the driving force behind the moratorium.  Quite a bit of discussion was had about small gas stations, or restaurants and buildings paying. 

I think his point is that only larger projects would be eligible to substitute their mobility fee for a specific mobility improvement.  Smaller projects would still pay the fee

Quote from: Bridges on February 26, 2014, 11:19:15 AM
I know Bishop was on the original plan committee

^CM Bishop replaced Art Graham, as the city council's representative on the taskforce when Graham stepped down in July 2010.  It's been four years since the initial taskforce was assembled to review the draft that had been developed in 2009.  If anyone is interested in reviewing or reading the meeting minutes from those days, here's a link:

http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/community-planning-division/mobility-plan-task-force.aspx