QuoteIssue no more permits for outlying developments.
New housing must grow from the inside outwards, not the other way around. Concentric taxation zones would be a more drastic way to handle it. There is no reason why Real Estate Developers should decide the growth and therefore the entire budget needs of the city without any rhyme or reason.
Lets just say Jacksonville refused to issue permits for outlying developments. Whats to stop sprawl type developments from taking place in Clay, St. Johns, Baker, etc. What would you do to deal with that type of situation? Also, don't forget that all sprawl is not "bad" sprawl. At one point in time, Springfield and Riverside were early forms of sprawl.
Quote from: stephendare on April 20, 2008, 11:40:47 PM
QuoteLets just say Jacksonville refused to issue permits for outlying developments. Whats to stop sprawl type developments from taking place in Clay, St. Johns, Baker, etc. What would you do to deal with that type of situation? Also, don't forget that all sprawl is not "bad" sprawl. At one point in time, Springfield and Riverside were early forms of sprawl.
No roads built to them unless paid for by the developer. Same with all sewage and electrical service along with a multi year maintenance fee based on the distance from the city center and projected time frames for developent of that tax ring. ie, if you build so far out that it would take the city 10 more years to naturally develop out that far, then you would have to pay 10 years of maintenance fees up front. Those closer would pay less.
This could work if the infrastructure were not already in place in adjacent counties or municipalities. The roads, like Blanding, CR 210 and AIA are already there. The same goes for water and sewer service. How could this work without having a pact with neighboring communities to not take advantage of development that would increase their tax base and reduce their reliance on Jacksonville as the core city?
Okay, but doesn't that drive more development into neighboring counties? If the city doesn't offer more to keep dense development competitive with suburban development (price-wise), you'll have the Detroit effect.
The cities you named were already densely built out decades ago and were significantly larger than Jax, then and especially now. Even their inner ring suburbs tend to be denser than Jacksonville's urban core. Compared head-to-head with Jacksonville, its apples to oranges. Is there an example of a city with similar recent development patterns as Jacksonville that has recently implemented this plan? It would be interesting to see the good and bad results of such a decision.
Btw, we've kind of hijacked this thread with a subject that would be a pretty good topic on its own. If you want to discuss this in further detail, go ahead and create a new thread.
Quote from: stephendare on April 21, 2008, 08:51:47 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on April 21, 2008, 08:44:32 AM
The cities you named were already densely built out decades ago and were significantly larger than Jax, then and especially now. Even their inner ring suburbs tend to be denser than Jacksonville's urban core. Compared head-to-head with Jacksonville, its apples to oranges. Is there an example of a city with similar recent development patterns as Jacksonville that has recently implemented this plan? It would be interesting to see the good and bad results of such a decision.
Seattle and San Francisco decided on this strategy relatively recently.
Seattle didnt start implementing these ideas until the 80s.
Neither city ever looked back.
The major difference is Jacksonville is not built out. Both Seattle and San Francisco, as well as many of their inner ring suburban cities have been built out for decades. The type of sprawl occuring within Jacksonville today can't and hasn't happened in these cities for a while now. Such a move may work better for these communities because the proximity to virgin land for low density development is relatively far away from their boundaries, compared to what we face locally.
Thus, its a real challenge for this type of development, that feeds off the core city to take place. Locally, its litterally a jump across the imaginary county border line (ex. Nocatee, Oakleaf, Julington Creek, etc.)
Can you name some
non-built out second tier cities in metropolitan areas, under 2 million residents that have done the same recently? They may serve as a better comparison for the issue of "virgin land proximity" we face.
Quote from: stephendare on April 21, 2008, 09:10:26 AM
The point is, competing through excellence is a much better strategy than competing through cheapness. The roads that we have built which enable sprawl would only lead to higher tax zones in the undeveloped areas, eliminating the incentive.
Ponte Vedra has not developed, nor do they wish to develop an economic centre to their tax free community---referring to one example of the bedroom communities.
Orange Park would like to, as would Middle burg, but they do not have the resources to play leapfrog and compete with our infrastructure and facilities. At least not now. Give us another decade on the municipal bankruptcy express and they will.
Besides, it totally isnt a bad strategy to be a great city surrounded by an economic buffer zone of small prosperous towns.
Just a few questions:
1. How would you encourage the market to accept paying for higher priced homes in the inner city as opposed to buying cheaper larger houses in Clay or St. Johns and commuting to the Southside?
2. Lets say we create development boundaries. What are those boundaries, in your opinion?
The answer to question one is people want to live in Duval but the schools are awful and we need to move our children to Clay or St. Johns. Fix that and people like me will raise our children in the city.
Quote from: stephendare on April 21, 2008, 09:15:48 AM
Seattle.
Portland.
And dont be fooled by the Bay Area, Lake.
San Francisco cut that shit off in the late 70s, early 80s. Check out the "City" of South San Francisco.
The City of Berkely, and the rapid development of Marin County and Sausalito.
Those areas were all demanding San Francisco become their city center and taxation infrastructure.
San Francisco said Thanks but no thanks.
Two decades earlier they had watched Los Angeles adopt the opposite policy and the ensuing disaster.
It will be difficult to find an exact paralell to jax, because it is a City/County entity, but the principles are the same.
These other cities mentioned all deliberately opted on densification and QOL improvements over sprawl.
Here's where I believe we differ, which could lead to a different set of results.
1. All of these cities are physically limited geographically.
2. All of these cities already had relatively high density levels within their muncipal boundaries.
3. All of these places have suburbs that are denser than Jacksonville's urban core.
4. All already had downtown cores that were dense centers of vibrant activity on their own to continue to build on.
I'm not saying an urban development boundary is not the answer. I'm just saying we can't completely take a theory that worked in communities that developed under different circumstances locally and expect the same results. We have an extra set of issues we'll have to overcome.
Btw, San Francisco is a City/County entity, however the county only has 46.7 square miles of land area.
Quote from: stephendare on April 21, 2008, 09:23:39 AM
they would be less expensive in the inner city. Exponentially more expensive out in the undeveloped Southside, almost completely unaffordable at the county borders.
The prospective market would have to look at the benefits of redeveloping the phillips highway area adjacent to a vibrant, world class downtown, or hauling their project out to a neighboring county with difficult access to the services and amenities provided at a lower or similar cost in the inner rings of Jacksonville.
Problems:
1. We don't have a vibrant downtown.
2. We don't have a world class urban core.
3. In most cases, redevelopment costs more than building new.
4. The Southside is already developed.
5. The county borders to the south are already developed.
6. Access into the neighborhing counties is not difficult.
Quote from: JeffreyS on April 21, 2008, 09:24:06 AM
The answer to question one is people want to live in Duval but the schools are awful and we need to move our children to Clay or St. Johns. Fix that and people like me will raise our children in the city.
This is definately a problem, but its a catch 22. No matter how much money we throw at the schools, in inner city neighborhoods (because Duval's schools are pretty good outside of the hoods), as long as educated families live outside failing school's boundaries, they will not greatly improve.
I also think that the West Coast (particularly from San Jose North) is like a different country in mindset. They are very liberal, environmentally friendly people. These people woudl probably actually use JTA, even on the days when it was an hour late.
On the other hand, we have a very suburban oriented mindset in Jacksonville. There are those that prefer to live in the burbs, and that is their right. I'm just not one of those people.
QuoteThe answer to question one is people want to live in Duval but the schools are awful and we need to move our children to Clay or St. Johns. Fix that and people like me will raise our children in the city.
Unfortunately, like thelakelander, I believe this is a chicken-egg problem. Based on books and articles I've read along with personal experience, I'm of the opinion that 90% of what makes a school good or bad is the parents of the students who attend it. Most everything else stems from this one factor. Smart, hard working adults generally produce smart, hard working students. Smart, hard working students study hard, pay attention in class, actually learn what they're being taught, earn good grades, get into good colleges, earn high scores on standardized tests, and put pressure on their classmates to work equally as hard. Smart, hard working students also attract the best teachers in the region (and don't attack them during class), contributing to even further improvement in the quality of the school. Smart, hard working parents constantly monitor their kids' progress and supplement their teachers' efforts by attending parent-teacher conferences and providing additional educational opportunities outside of the classroom.
In other words, Duval County schools could be "good" if smart, hard working adults lived in the school district, but these same adults don't want to because of the perception that Duval County schools are "bad", hence the chicken-egg problem. Most professional adults I know send their kids to Bolles, Episcopal, or BK if they can afford to, or move to Clay or St. Johns Counties if they can't. The few that do stay in the county and send their kids to public schools send them to Stanton or Paxon, further diluting the quality of student in the overall public school population (with the possible exceptions of Fletcher and Mandarin). I have read editorials advocating the end of Stanton and Paxon's magnet programs for this very reason (putting the smart kids back in the general public school population), but I believe doing so would only accelerate the flight into St. Johns County due to perception referenced above.
Quote from: stephendare on April 21, 2008, 09:54:50 AM
These problems are caused by the fact that we are spending all of our money on roads and infrastructure to the new developments in the suburbs.
Quote
1. We don't have a vibrant downtown.
2. We don't have a world class urban core.
Thats easy. Fix it. We could have a vibrant downtown if we started valuing a higher quality of life. Many of us already do. And we really dont have that far to go. Check out "The City" thread.
Excluding the amount of money that we don't have that will be needed to put things in place, after 20-30 years (that's what it will probably take, if the right moves are made now), then implement the urban development growth boundary?
QuoteQuote3. In most cases, redevelopment costs more than building new.
Concentric Tax Zones would fix that.
Is it smart to assume residents and council members would approve taxing the districts they live in more to encourage people to move to other areas of town?
QuoteQuote4. The Southside is already developed.
But its slapped together, low density suburban development. Take away the smoke and mirrors, and all the big lit corporate signs on those shoddy little strip malls and its nothing to worry about.
Whatever, we want to call it, its still developed and a strong economic engine for the City of Jacksonville. Its not going anywhere.
QuoteQuote
5. The county borders to the south are already developed.
And all they got was an orange park mall t shirt and a trip to ghost lights road.
Don't forget the retail base, employment centers, accessible highways and great schools.
QuoteQuote
6. Access into the neighborhing counties is not difficult.
Access to tuberculosis isnt that difficult either. Its all about presenting people with contrasting choices.
I agree, but making the alternative choice a realistic choice with the implementation of an urban development growth boundary is a major task in itself. Take a trip to Detroit and see what happens when a municipality can't pull its act together when its suburbs decide to stop leaching and pull all forms of development their way.
Quote from: stephendare on April 21, 2008, 10:17:27 AM
I think you are vastly overestimating the difficulty in creating core vibrancy lake.
The only obstacles are beaurocracy and leadership.
No doubt, but things don't happen overnight. For example, the Portlands, Savannahs and Charlestons we see today are a result of moves they made 30 years ago. The Uptown Charlotte seen today is a result of moves made during the late 80s and early 90s. Orlando's downtown success comes from moves made during the 1990s. These things still take time, once you do get beaurocracy and leadership in place.
QuoteWe are spending the amount of money we need to 'fix' downtown on ever single overpass we have built.
Its not about Downtown vs. the Southside or Downtown vs. bridges and highways. For the most part the funding for these things come from different sources. Anyway, we have to get outside of this concept that 'fixing' always involves throwing serious money at problems or raising taxes. In the grand scheme of things it does not take much money to maintain lights, signage, landscaping, parks or strictly follow a downtown master plan. Sell the under-utilized city owned lots downtown and there will be more than enough money needed to take care of downtown's existing problems. The extra income from property back on the tax rolls will take care of recurring expenses.
I partially blame the 1985 Florida Growth Management Act. The idea was to promote vibrant urban cores throughout the state, but the whole plan was predicated on state infrastructure funding for downtown areas. I think its safe to say that we all know what happened with that.
As for the schools, Jacksonville has great magnet schools. I went to Douglas Anderson and my sister went to Paxon, both good schools. I think that the non-magnets suck equally. For instance, I was zoned to go to Sandalwood, and my parents live in a nice (if you are into sprawl) East Arlington neighborhood.
Quote from: stephendare on April 21, 2008, 10:43:05 AM
We are going broke trying to maintain this fantasy that developers have the right to just build anywhere they like and the city will hook their asses up.
This is why the 'city' and the 'developers' should not be one and the same.
Quote from: EP on April 21, 2008, 11:20:26 AM
I partially blame the 1985 Florida Growth Management Act. The idea was to promote vibrant urban cores throughout the state, but the whole plan was predicated on state infrastructure funding for downtown areas. I think its safe to say that we all know what happened with that.
This is a great point. The Growth Management Act strongly promotes sprawl in several ways.
Most importantly, it requires that infrastructure be built before new development can be approved. High density development in the suburbs near a downtown is virtually impossible, since no one can afford to add the extra auto-oriented infrastructure. However, low density developments out in the middle of nowhere can piggyback off pre-existing rural road capacity. Consequently, the "Growth Management Act" functionally mandates low density growth as the developer's path of least resistance.
Another important point is that growth must be zoned in accordance to a comprehensive plan. So planners (perhaps because they are lazy, perhaps because they fear NIMBYs) simply plan for ever-increasing circles of low-density residential, mixed with retail and commercial along existing road capacity. The result is, of course, nothing but subdivisions and strip malls.
Quote from: JeffreyS on April 21, 2008, 09:24:06 AM
The answer to question one is people want to live in Duval but the schools are awful and we need to move our children to Clay or St. Johns. Fix that and people like me will raise our children in the city.
Having actual neighborhood schools would help to encourage the surrounding community to take ownership of its public schools. The bottom line is people want their kids to go to school with the people with whom they choose to live. Eliminate all strange district boundaries and busing and you will see an increase in Duval County enrollment and a reduction in flight from Duval County to surrounding counties (which is now unfortunately a well known phenomenon). The bottom line is if you keep playing political games with people's kids, they will simply move away. And not everyone can afford the private school option either.
Also, we need to recognize that large numbers of people want to live in suburbia. The trick is to make suburbia more efficient, dense, interconnected and tied into mass transit. Look at new developments as recreating traditional neighborhoods but just farther out and tied into commuter rail, for example, and accomplish this with better zoning. There is a huge amount of land on the westside for example within a stone's thrown of the railroad. New but traditional communities could be built there with traditional town centers with retail and train stations and Riverside/Avondale/Springfield housing developments surrounding them (but not fake urban junk like Nocatee). This would be an amazing development IMO.
BTW, Amelia Park on Amelia Island is the best example of this in Northeast Florida.
Quote from: RiversideGator on April 21, 2008, 03:50:12 PM
Also, we need to recognize that large numbers of people want to live in suburbia. The trick is to make suburbia more efficient, dense, interconnected and tied into mass transit. Look at new developments as recreating traditional neighborhoods but just farther out and tied into commuter rail, for example, and accomplish this with better zoning. There is a huge amount of land on the westside for example within a stone's thrown of the railroad. New but traditional communities could be built there with traditional town centers with retail and train stations and Riverside/Avondale/Springfield housing developments surrounding them (but not fake urban junk like Nocatee). This would be an amazing development IMO.
BTW, Amelia Park on Amelia Island is the best example of this in Northeast Florida.
This is the basic definition of Smart Growth. I believe planning in this manner is much more realistic for the First Coast then flat out outlawing suburban development away from the urban core.
Quotesuburban development doesnt rely on extreme remoteness, Lake. Its a style that includes low density, cul de sacs and apparently lots of mulch.
Suburban development comes in many styles and forms. As stated earlier, Riverside and Springfield were two early forms of suburban development in Jacksonville's history, that were slightly less dense than earlier residential communities like Brooklyn, LaVilla and East Jacksonville. As Jax has continued to spread out, the suburbs have progressed to have lower densities with areas like Arlington to now Mandarin and points farther south. Neverhtheless, we can have suburban development that pays for itself and that is designed to improve traffic flow, mass transit opportunities and density levels as opposed to cutting it off outright.
QuoteAdditionally, those that can afford to purchase a house whose cheap land value is balanced by impact fees and concentric taxation will do so.
There's no need to tax those who chose to leave the inner city with their feet because of the problems that have been created by decades of poor local leadership. Instead of taxing suburbanites to rebuild the inner core, we should look at methods of offering incentives for those who choose to move and re-invest in less pristine areas of the community.
QuoteBut there is no rational reason to force everyone else to pay for the infrastructure costs that will never be recovered from their property taxes at the current rate.
Correct. This is one of the reasons why incorporating Smart Growth planning and zoning policies into suburban development is important.
QuoteNo one should be taxed for downtown, they should be taxed to support their own foolhardy choices in building without infrastructure handy. In any case, the inner core should stop getting their asses taxed off without being able to reap any of the suburban benefits.
I just don't agree with leveling additional taxes on common everyday residents who are already taxed enough for the past mistakes of local leadership and planning experts. I do agree, that the inner core should not be taxed without recieving benefits, but punishing another segment of the local population is not the way to implement a good solution.
I just see a way to encourage new development without increasing taxes on people for what could now be called infill development (ex. something similar to Avenue's Walk). This would be to suspend property taxes in certain areas of town for an extended number of years to level the playing field in areas that have been stagnant pockets for economic development.
QuoteThe past mistake was not taxing these residents enough to sustain their infrastructure. Its not a punishment, its the actual cost of living there. I think you might be thinking that ALL residents living in the concentric zones should be taxed under the new system.
The past mistake was getting away from the development of gridded streets and mixed use dense zoning and instead favoring curvy parkways, wide setbacks, increasing parking requirements and making the pedestrian an afterthought. The common resident isn't the cause for this. Bad planning is. We can correct this by requiring new developments to incorporate solid planning principles that are a part of a long range vision plan for the First Coast that enhances our region's quality of life.
QuoteBut a new tax should only be imposed on new development. Ex Post Facto is not only unfair, its not how we do things.
New development within what boundaries? The 295 Beltway? Do we level additional taxes for new industrial and commercial users at Cecil? Its tough enough to recruit well paying companies to town now. Leveling additional taxes on them only drives more to competing cities.
Quote from: stephendare on April 21, 2008, 05:53:44 PM
QuoteNew development within what boundaries? The 295 Beltway? Do we level additional taxes for new industrial and commercial users at Cecil? Its tough enough to recruit well paying companies to town now. Leveling additional taxes on them only drives more to competing cities.
Tax rebates and incentives have been in place for decades. They are at best, partially successful.
I'm not familiar with any property tax abatement programs being in place in Jacksonville to encourage people to move to certain areas of town. There is a very successful tax abatement program going on Philadelphia right now that could serve as an example of something that may work here.
QuoteTax Breaks Drive a Philadelphia Boom
By LISA CHAMBERLAIN
Published: January 8, 2006
AFTER years of losing population, the downtown region, known as Center City, is booming, with developments going up and old buildings being transformed into lofts and condominiums.
The construction, fueled by tax breaks, has succeeded in halting the city's 40-year population decline. Center City, which has the nation's third largest downtown residential population, behind New York and Chicago, is experiencing its fifth straight year of increased housing starts, both new and rehabilitated units. Center City's population grew to 88,000 by the end of 2005 from 78,000 in 2000. Even more striking, the number of households rose by 24 percent, according to figures compiled by the Center City District, a business-improvement group.
The changes are drawing people like Sheryl Bar, who had never anticipated the extent to which a change in venue would mean a change in perspective. Since moving into a condo in the city, "we feel like newlyweds again," Mrs. Bar said, referring to herself and her husband, Dr. Allen Bar, with whom she raised three daughters in a house they built in Villanova, a Philadelphia suburb.
As a surgeon at Pennsylvania Hospital, Dr. Bar can walk to work from their condo. Now they go out four or five nights a week, as opposed to four times a month when they lived in the suburbs.
"Instead of commuting to work, he's home within minutes, puts his feet up for a while, and then we go have dinner and see a movie," Mrs. Bar said. "I loved bringing up my children in Villanova, but this is so rejuvenating. It really has been transformational for us."
The same could be said for Philadelphia.
That downtown Philadelphia has been experiencing a residential boom is no big surprise. Cities across the country have benefited from the real estate development frenzy of the last few years. But the changes have been accelerated here by the use of tax breaks for residential developments. Philadelphia is one of the only places to offer a citywide 10-year tax-abatement program.
The program, which started with residential conversions in 1997 but expanded to new construction in 2000, holds the tax assessment at a property's predevelopment level for 10 years. The Bars, for instance, pay just $1,200 a year in property taxes rather than the $12,000 they would pay without the abatement on their $1.1 million 2,600-square-foot, three-bedroom, three-bath condo designed by SHoP Architects of New York City.
"In the beginning, the abatement program was 100 percent responsible for getting things going," said Paul Levy, president of Center City District, which was formed in 1990 to address the decline of downtown Philadelphia. "Now there is a discussion going on about whether or not it's still needed."
Development is continuing on an ever-grander scale. The skyline is being reshaped by Waterfront Square, the largest luxury condo project in the city's history, with two towers under construction along the Delaware River, and three more in the planning phase.
Toll Brothers, a company known for building so-called McMansions in the suburbs, is redeveloping a historic United States Navy site on the Schuylkill River, a property the company has owned since 1988. The 23-acre project, called Naval Square, will have 750 homes, both condos and town houses.
According to a report released late last year by the Center City District, from the time that tax abatements were passed, more than 8,000 converted and new units will have been added to Center City, and half of all new residents benefiting from tax abatements came from outside the city.
Those who lived in the city before the newest influx see a big change in the character of the downtown area.
In May 2005, Anthony Forte and his dog, Philly, moved from his town house in a quiet, residential neighborhood to a loft condo in the heart of Center City. Known as the Jewelers' Building, one of Philadelphia's more recognizable buildings, the 106-year-old six-story structure still has much of its original Colonial Revival detailing intact even though it sat empty for years.
"The city has been a great place for me to live, but it's become much more vibrant," Mr. Forte said. "Philly always had its residential areas that are quaint, which some people love. But now downtown is extremely diverse, with lots of residential mixed with restaurants, galleries and high-end retail. My only regret is that I got a new car, because I don't drive anymore." Like 37 percent of downtown residents, Mr. Forte walks to work, the highest percentage of any major American city, according to census data compiled by the Center City District.
Mr. Levy, the Center City District's president, said, "We didn't reinvent downtown living, but in the last five years, it's been explosive." By decade's end, the city expects to add another 7,000 units.
Now, the tax-abatement programs have become somewhat controversial. While a small percentage of wealthier residents are living in high-end properties and are paying very little in taxes, a majority of the longtime residents who suffered through the bad years are likely to see their taxes go up as property values rise.
Mildred Ruffino has lived on the city's south side for 32 years, with much of her family close by. The tax-abatement program, which has spurred housing almost exclusively downtown, is now spilling over to other neighborhoods. Mrs. Ruffino's street will soon have eight town houses where a bakery once operated.
"I realize the economic situation and what the city is trying to do to bring back residents, but it's exorbitant," said Mrs. Ruffino, who works in the accounting department of an architectural firm. "An empty bakery isn't doing anybody any good. But 10 years is a long time to be tax free."
Yet there is no question that tax abatements have had an impact on the city's real estate and development industry, said Stephen P. Mullin, a senior vice president and principal of the Econsult Corporation, an economic research firm in Philadelphia.
"You couldn't make money here in Philly building something new five years ago," Mr. Mullin said. "Obviously, low interest rates helped as well. But even with that, you needed the extra bump. Now, instead of property values declining, which they were doing for years, they're increasing, and everyone benefits from that."
Even though it is difficult to tease out the precise impact of tax abatements on the city's economic fortunes, they have certainly succeeded as a marketing tool. "Ads in the real estate section prominently feature the tax abatement," said John Kromer, senior consultant with the Fels Institute of Government at the University of Pennsylvania. "Property taxes in the suburbs have been increasing. So this is one area where the city can make an apples-to-apples comparison with the suburbs and win."
David Grasso, president of Grasso Holdings, is convinced that even in the current climate, phasing out the program entirely would have a devastating impact on development, if for no other reason than people have come to expect it. He points to the Packard Building condominiums on South 15th Street. Because it was first intended as rentals the building was initially prevented from taking advantage of the tax-abatement program. "We tried to sell units in early 2005 without the tax abatement, and sales were very difficult," Mr. Grasso said. "So we appealed to the city and won, and sales picked up considerably."
link: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/08/realestate/08nati.html?pagewanted=all
QuoteAnd they still dont address the true cost of building way out on the periphery.
Tax abatement creates a reason for people to repopulate the urban core without having the city invest millions before the first residents move back in. The creation of a vibrant educated urban core then makes the core a valid alternative for residents that value pedestrian friendly environments over low density sprawl and cul-de-sacs.
QuoteJacksonville is a HUGE land mass. We wouldnt be driving people away from the city because the tax zones would apply to undeveloped areas based on their distance from the existing infrastructure center. Huge undeveloped lands close to downtown would be just as cheap tax wise as any of the surrounding hamlets.
The problem I see happens to be area where infrastructure has already been extended. Take Cecil Field and Argyle for instance. Both are places far from Jacksonville's infrastructure center, yet there's still large amounts of undevelopment land in between existing leap frog development. Are you proposing that new residents in infill developments in this area be charged additional taxes?
QuoteInstead we would be driving them closer to town, that is if they are picking Jacksonville based on taxes, which is not how corporations actually choose locations. By that logic, Jacksonville should have been over run by the fortune 500 decades ago.
By now we should be having trouble elbowing 200 million dollar golden parachuting bastards out of the way at starbucks
There is just no basis for this argument.
Today many corporations choose locations based on the amount of incentives and tax breaks they can get. Adding taxes will not result in more companies choosing to locate in Jacksonville.
QuoteAside from that, we have to pay for the infrastructure somehow. What we are presently doing taxes people who have already paid their way, and areas that are already established in order to subsidize these slapped together developments.
This is why it would be better to make sure new developments implement Smart Growth policies. If designed in this fashion, the cost of infrastructure expansion and upkeep will be reduced.
QuoteIt would be one thing if there was enough money to go around, but Jacksonville is a conservative town which values frugal spending and low municipal debt.
This is one of the main reasons why a plan that penalizes the majority of Jacksonville's residents will fail. Residents would never vote for a plan that is set up to make them pay extra to stay in their own neighborhoods.
QuoteWe have built the infrastructure to the subsidized homes of the suburbs at the expense of maintaining and replacing the already existing city. The hidden cost of developing Julington Creek is the decay and ruin of Hogan's Creek. Building new lines to Mandarin for water and sewage meant keeping the lead pipes that supplied water to Downtown, Durkeeville and Springfield.
Smooth Roads along Gate Parkway meant no drainage for the Northwest Quadrant, flooding in san Marco and Riverside and potholes all the way along park street.
We dont tax adequately to build AND maintain all of that new infrastructure on top of what we already have.
We tax enough, we just need progressive leaders in place to do a better job running the community with what we already take in.
QuoteInstead we steal from the established to make the profits wonderful for the real estate developers. They make their money at the lower prices that they offer in Jacksonville because the entire shell game is underwritten that someone else will build the roads, schools, and public safety for them, no matter how nonsensical that might be to the city itself.
It sounds like the local real estate development industry needs to be reformed. However, there are other options then additional taxes for suburban residents.
QuotePlus, Im sick of being told that we dont have enough money to fund a transit system while we spend billions on new roads to developments that shouldnt have every gotten permits to proceed in the first place.
I'm sick of this as well. However, this situation is not unique to Jacksonville. Its a nationwide problem. Nevertheless, we already have a decent amount of money to jump start a decent mass transit system. But if something isn't done to alter the decision making steps of those in charge, it will be wasted on something far worse than the riderless peoplemover floating around on rubber wheels over downtown.
Philly's program is a residential tax abatement program. Its a completely different animal from Federal Empowerment and Enterprise Zones.
I agree with Lake. A Philadelphia style tax abatement program for Jacksonville's core would bring in those residents who are thinking about making the move but have not yet made the decision. If downtown can offer a financial edge in the form of no or reduced property taxes (which is justifiable since downtown residents do not use as many resources as suburbanites), then I am convinced that things would really take off in terms of downtown population growth. This deserves to be tried here.
Quote from: stephendare on April 21, 2008, 10:30:42 PM
So, you boys think that people downtown should have lower tax rates than people who arent in the inner core?
But instead of admitting it, you just want to reverse engineer it so that it looks like you are giving a tax 'break' to the core, whereas the suburbs would be paying 'regular' taxes.
Um. OK. In other words, the exact same thing but dressed up to look like your doing someone a favor.
I say lets all be grown ups. Stop mincing around and let people pay for the enablement of their own poor choices.
But most residents wont approve of higher taxes for suburban areas, but they just might go for lower taxes for urban area residents.
Correct, the majority of residents in a suburban dominated city will not vote to increase their own taxes to stimulate economic development in the inner city. However, suspending tax breaks in economically depressed areas for a certain amount time, is a much better and more attractive option to encourage inner city economic development because it does not involve adding another level of taxes on residents. Its obviously having a huge effect in Philadelphia, a city that had seen 40 straight years of population decline before their tax abatement program was put into effect.
Quote from: stephendare on April 21, 2008, 10:52:31 PM
Its the same thing.
One group pays a higher rate than the other.
Its not the same thing and you know it. Your whole argument has been about
INCREASING taxes to for the majority of the community to stimulate and redirect development to the urban core.
Tax Abatement
SUSPENDS taxes in the urban core and gives every resident in town the option of moving in.
SUSPENDING and
INCREASING are two different things.
We live in a city with development patterns that spiral out of control from the core like a kicked ant hill. The infrastructure has already been extended. We'll create huge mess by attempting to charge infill development projects that tap into existing roads, water and sewer lines that have already been developed because of leap frog investment. This is why its better to make sure new developments embrace Smart Growth policies. Between Smart Growth and Inner City tax abatement, we'll go a long way in solving the problem discussed in this thread WITHOUT raising anyone's taxes.
Quote from: stephendare on April 21, 2008, 10:59:57 PM
QuoteIts not the same thing and you know it. Your whole argument has been about INCREASING taxes to for the majority of the community to stimulate and redirect development to the urban core.
All new development must be taxed appropriately to pay for the extension of the cities infrastructure. No new or higher taxes would be assessed to anyone who has already built or purchased their home.
The Higher tax rates would only apply to new builds and developments.
My apologies if I obscured this.
So basically, if I attempt to build my house on an undeveloped plot of land that sits between two existing subdivisions in suburban Jacksonville (basically anything outside of the old city limits), I'll have to pay additional fees that my neighbors did not?
With leap frog development being allowed in this county for decades already, the city would be leveled with lawsuits by developers and residents who seek to add infill development in existing low density suburban areas.
Let's not forget that Philadelphia's urban core is significantly more vibrant that Jacksonville's. Convincing people to live in downtown philly is probably not nearly as hard of a sell as it is here in jacksonville. I don't think any tax break would convince people to move downtown until it becomes a little more vibrant.
Quote from: stephendare on April 21, 2008, 11:14:08 PM
thats an empty promise.
It cant be done through abatements or it would already have worked.
Its working right now in Philadelphia.
Learning from Philadelphia: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/64/118/
QuoteWhen you are straight with people about the reason for charging or taxing them, you empower them to make decisions based on reality. If people get it that further away means a whole lot more money, and that its more expensive the further out you go, then they wont even bother with the purchasing or planning of the project unless they can truly afford it.
You can be straight, but when people are losing their jobs and their homes are being foreclosed, increasing taxes don't make sense, if it can be avoided.
QuoteCitizens can then see the value of their taxes at work. They see that they are not being unfairly charged so that others can have cheap land, and that they are not being required to foot other people's bills who never even bothered to ask or put it up for a vote.
Having a straightforward and truthful conversation with people is never the wrong way to go.
Having a truthful converstation is fine, but it does not mean I (for example) would be willing to open my checkbook and dish out more cash than what's already falling out of my wallet.
QuoteFor years, Downtown paid the expenses of the School Board. All the money was there, all the real tax base came from there, yet there were almost no school children. Same with the financing of most of the roads.
They certainly didnt come from Florida Homestead Exemption homeowners.
There were a lot of things that we have done wrong throughout history. However, there are other options out there worth exploring that don't involve increasing taxes.
QuoteAnd now, people incredibly resent tax 'incentives' to downtown businesses. They call it corporate welfare and piss and moan when the neighborhoods like San Marco, Springfield, Durkeeville, and Five Points get development monies because they shouldn't be 'subsidized'.
Do a quick google search and you'll find that most of the projects associated with "corporate welfare" are not downtown. They're spread all over town, especially on the Southside.
QuoteBull. And its an irony that is totally lost on most people because they never even realized they were sucking the core city dry. The money only went one way for 60 years. From the core to the suburbs.
QuoteNow, paying for your own way is somehow considered punishment?
GET REAL.
It would be interesting to see what area in town pays the most in terms of taxes right now. It would not suprise me if its not the core.
Quote from: stephendare on April 21, 2008, 10:52:31 PM
Its the same thing.
One group pays a higher rate than the other.
No, it's not. Let's take a city called Plesantville:
I live in the suburbs are are paying $100 in taxes. You live in the city and pay $100 in taxes.
Under your plan, I would be paying $150, where you would still pay $100. This is raising taxes fur the suburbs.
Under the Phily plan, I would still pay $100, where you would pay $50. The difference is that I still pay the same taxes I did yesterday. Given the fact that the money of the city is on the southside, somehow I think that the southsiders would go for the Phily plan more than your plan. Remember, Jacksonville is very much a NIMBY city. Most people in Jacksonville's take on downtown is "when it develops, I will go down there, but don't bother me until it does"
Quote
Now, paying for your own way is somehow considered punishment?
Considering that much of Jacksonville's southside did not live in ther area in 1985, absoutely.
Quote from: fightingosprey07 on April 21, 2008, 11:22:14 PM
Let's not forget that Philadelphia's urban core is significantly more vibrant that Jacksonville's. Convincing people to live in downtown philly is probably not nearly as hard of a sell as it is here in jacksonville. I don't think any tax break would convince people to move downtown until it becomes a little more vibrant.
I used to visit Philly during my urban planning studies in college during the 1990s before this tax abatement program was implemented. Its a completely different world there now. The vibrancy level today is light years ahead of what it was over a decade ago. Tax abatement was the major reason.
People are already moving to Jacksonville's urban core. Springfield, for example, has fared much better during this economic downturn in the local real estate market than its suburban counterparts. With increasing gas prices, implement a tax abatement program in areas such as Brooklyn, East Jax, Durkeeville, Sugar Hill, Brentwood, etc. and I think you'll be suprised with the number of residents who would seriously consider repopulating these areas.
Quote from: stephendare on April 21, 2008, 11:33:02 PMThen how do you pay the real cost, which is actually 350?oh... you dont!
You don't in any plan - in an age where governments cut revenue with no plan to cut expenditures, it really doesn't matter how you slice it, you won't balance the books. (it shouldn't be that way but it is).
The fact is that you can't penalize the money end of the city in an effort to revitalize another part of the city. The money folks will never go for that.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 21, 2008, 11:30:42 PM
With increasing gas prices, implement a tax abatement program in areas such as Brooklyn, East Jax, Durkeeville, Sugar Hill, Brentwood, etc. and I think you'll be suprised with the number of residents who would seriously consider repopulating these areas.
It's already much cheaper to live there than in the suburbs, aren't the real estate prices there much lower?
Quote from: fightingosprey07 on April 21, 2008, 11:36:58 PM
It's already much cheaper to live there than in the suburbs, aren't the real estate prices there much lower?
Much lower
In some areas....yes, in other inner city areas no. However, the ideal of abatement creates a redevelopment rush, as opposed to sparsely dispersed infill.
Quote from: stephendare on April 21, 2008, 11:46:02 PM
you still eventually have to pay the cost.
Which Springfield discovered when they did their main street project.
True, but the point is that if you want to revitalize downtown, you're going to have to do it without bothering the burbs.
I'm with you on fair share costs, but once the house is built, then it's built.
Quote from: stephendare on April 21, 2008, 11:44:25 PM
So in other words, Where the land prices are lower, people are willing to come in and refurbish?
They dont just skip town? hmmmmm.........
Its not so much about land prices, as it is with only embracing the concept of increasing taxes to solve past mistakes.
When skipping town is literally hoping across an imaginary county line (ex. Ponte Vedra). Sure you'll have a segment that skips. You'll also have another pissed off segment that will sue and probably win, sending more city money to the shredder in the process.
Btw, going back to fightingosprey07, property values are lower in certain areas of town for a reason. Perhaps because of higher crime, blight, poor schools or poorly maintained parks. Like Philly found out, sometimes you have to be creative and give the initial urban pioneers a strong reason to come back and rebuild in these forgotten areas of town (downtown, the Cathedral District, LaVilla, etc.) included of course. You won't find many stronger incentives than immediate significant savings in people's checkbooks and bank accounts.
Quote from: stephendare on April 21, 2008, 11:56:56 PM
As a new suburban dweller, you get new streets, a modern school, and well maintained drainage for your hundred, but for my 6000 dollars, none of the streets are in good repair, the drainage is so clogged it floods if someone leaves a sprinkler on and the local high school has bricks falling on the heads of students whenever someone rings a bell too loudly.
Question. I missed where you specified your urban development boundary. What's the general area (North, South, East, West)? For example, would Arlington be considered a suburb? How about Lake Shore or Normandy?
Quote from: stephendare on April 22, 2008, 12:00:58 AM
Lake. Where are you getting this idea that concentric tax zones exist for any other purpose than to pay for the infrastructure of new development as it happens??
And why should everyone else pay for it EXCEPT the landowner or the developer?
Where are your proposed concentric tax zones? Would your concentric tax zones apply to low density areas with existing leap frog development and infrastructure already extended in place, or would they be areas where infrastructure does not exist and is not planned? Feel free to provide graphic examples or maps for better clarification.