Councilman Joost: Why I Oppose Extending the Gas Tax
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2977381653_WB5PBqj-M.jpg)
Jacksonville City Councilman Stephen Joost explains to the Metro Jacksonville community why he opposes extending the gas tax.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2014-mar-councilman-joost-why-i-oppose-extending-the-gas-tax
Hey Councilman Joost,
Thanks for the editorial, but telling us about the problem does not solve the problem. Next editorial you compose, why not offer the READER, ME, some alternatives. What alternative to the gas tax do you propose? A sales tax that everyone pays for roads or some sort of property tax, sure to make property owners happy they have to subsidize the roads? The gas tax works because 99% of the gasoline or fuel purchased at the pump goes onto the roadway systems. Otherwise, you are left with a convenience store tax or toll road. Anyone want the Tolls again?
Come up with solutions and prove to us you are a leader for the coming years in Jacksonville. We already have enough problems!
mtraininjax
Rumor is that if Brown is re-elected Joost will replace Chris Hand as Chief of Staff. Most downtown are viewing this editorial as him just carrying the message for the Mayor.
What mtraininjax said. Granted, the per-gallon gas tax is unsustainable over the long term ... but What. Is. Your. Alternative. For. Today?! Stop the current funding source, under the simplistic No Tax mantra, and let our infrastructure go to Hell? Oh, wait, that was in the Mayor's budget - or not in the budget - to do routine roadway maintenance, the City Council had to increase the Mayor's $0 budget to $4 million.
Quote from: Badfinger on March 27, 2014, 08:05:10 AM
Rumor is that if Brown is re-elected Joost will replace Chris Hand as Chief of Staff. Most downtown are viewing this editorial as him just carrying the message for the Mayor.
I really don't see that happening, at all.
To MTrain's point, haven't seen many Council persons offer an actual solution yet.
There is evidence that the gas tax isn't properly indexed against construction cost growth, and that by indexing the gas tax to inflation.. you can conceivably cover a very large portion of the funding short falls.
I recently heard an ex-City Council member talking about the need for our property tax revenues needing to be more predictable and that an indexing scheme would provide that predictability... which certainly has merit.
Oregon charges per vehicle miles traveled. However, that requires some type of tracking system in your vehicle... which is certainly a major privacy concern.
Whatever the solution is, it should be some type of user fee-based scheme... and perhaps we need to have a variety of different funding sources (the same reason why a business wouldn't want to rely only on a single product). There is clear evidence that we don't pay anywhere near enough of our own driving costs now and attaching funding to some sort of sales tax or property tax scheme doesn't properly pass the cost on to actual users.
Would certainly be interested in participating in an actual discussion on the issue. Maybe Joost can take the lead and convene a more official public conversation on the topic.
Virginia did away with its statewide 17.5 cents-per-gallon tax at the gas pump entirely, in favor of a new wholesale tax of 3.5 percent on gasoline and 6 percent on diesel, along with an increase in the state's general sales tax. In the heavily populated Washington suburbs and Tidewater area, motorists pay an extra 2.1 percent sales tax on gas purchases. Drivers of electric vehicles pay a $64 annual fee.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/congress_eyes_virginias_model_for_funding_transportation_projects-228557-1.html?pg=1
Quote from: fieldafm on March 27, 2014, 08:31:15 AM
Quote from: Badfinger on March 27, 2014, 08:05:10 AM
Rumor is that if Brown is re-elected Joost will replace Chris Hand as Chief of Staff. Most downtown are viewing this editorial as him just carrying the message for the Mayor.
I really don't see that happening, at all.
Pretty big "if" too.
The gas tax was poorly conceived when it was made (or well-conceived by the auto lobby). A set dollar amount per gallon on a commodity that fluctuates so wildly. Today, it is comically small to the point that it doesn't have the slightest effect on demand. It could be indexed to inflation (starting at a higher % than it is at now) without causing significant hardship while encouraging a positive change in driving habits, and it should.
Or let's just toll all roads and let people see how cheap their roads really are compared to those silly, expensive mass transit projects.
Whatever it is, it should be a use fee. A gas tax is just the easiest and cheapest to implement. Tolling could easily work without adding toll booths and changing the flow of traffic, but it would cost much more to implement and maintain. The gas tax isn't perfect, but it is certainly an efficient vehicle for taxing use. It's main drawback is that it doesn't differentiate enough between uses (a filled dump truck causes more wear in a day than most of our cars do in a year). The other drawback, that it overtaxes gas-guzzlers, well that's not really a drawback is it?
But it's nice to see Joost trying to kill a tax without offering any alternative whatsoever to fill the gap. Gotta kill those taxes, because taxes are bad. Services? Infrastructure? Eh, we'll worry about that after we get re-elected.
Jax politicians that want to get re-elected would rather not propose a new tax or tax increase themselves. They will want someone else propose it and then grudgingly go along with it.
He makes very good points, but without alternatives, what can we realistically do? Whatever we do, some type of usage fee like the gas tax needs to be in place so we can get revenue out of the people who use the infrastructure, especially considering that so many of them live outside the county and aren't paying into in other ways.
To field's point about a miles travelled fee requiring a tracking device, and the privacy issues from that; not necessarily. You could report your odometer reading when you renew your vehicle registration. The DMV would calculate miles driven and assess the fee. There would need to be significant fines for tampering or misreporting, including "broken odometers". Tying it to registration could also allow different Per Mile fees based on vehicle type, to address the dump truck vs Smart Car wear and tear on roads.
What GPS based gives you is the ability to not tax a Florida resident for the miles driven when they drive to California, not using Florida roads.
Quote
Virginia did away with its statewide 17.5 cents-per-gallon tax at the gas pump entirely, in favor of a new wholesale tax of 3.5 percent on gasoline and 6 percent on diesel, along with an increase in the state's general sales tax. In the heavily populated Washington suburbs and Tidewater area, motorists pay an extra 2.1 percent sales tax on gas purchases. Drivers of electric vehicles pay a $64 annual fee.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/congress_eyes_virginias_model_for_funding_transportation_projects-228557-1.html?pg=1
Just my opinion, but I think VA's sales tax and Prius tax will ultimately prove to be mistakes. VA did the right thing in regards to having a variety of funding sources... I just question some of those sources.
QuoteYou could report your odometer reading when you renew your vehicle registration. The DMV would calculate miles driven and assess the fee.
I just think that's a scheme ripe for fraud. Odometer manipulation is fairly easy, and a lot more commonplace than you think.
Vehicle mileage tracking devices are probably closer to reality than I am personally comfortable with, or than we all realize. The insurance industry is trying to make these devices much more widespread.. and with OBD-II cars, its fairly simple technology to extract from your car's ECU now.
QuoteIt's main drawback is that it doesn't differentiate enough between uses (a filled dump truck causes more wear in a day than most of our cars do in a year).
Vehicle tonnage taxes have also been talked about elsewhere. That's probably a tough sell politically considering the sway transportation companies have on lawmakers.
The roadway construction industry is very aware of the situation. Recently, during NE Florida Engineering Week, a presentation was given regarding this issue of the future of the gas tax and roadway construction and maintenance funding:
http://dartagnan.co/pdf/florida_eweek_2014.pdf (http://dartagnan.co/pdf/florida_eweek_2014.pdf)
I understand and agree with Boost in principle. But the fact that he hasn't offered any solutions or ideas is ridiculous and irritating. I strongly disagree with his approach. Just because we havent determined alternative funding sources does not mean that we stop the funding altogether. This is a clear example of a lack of leadership. Its a similar issue to the Keystone Pipeline. The idea is to directly curb all efforts in order to change society's bad habits. In my opinion, this is the worst approach to change. Cold turkey creates political divide, doesn't allow time for the market and society to adjust adequately, and in general, doesnt provide the intended consequences. Please also refer to the Affordable Care Act.
The VMT is the future. FDOT will likely be leading the charge for the state. Meanwhile, COJ must continue to fund public infrastructure for the benefit of the City. Why not put a shorter time period for the gas tax? Why not connect it to a specific index? Raise hotel taxes to offset? Sales tax? Something, Joost, something.
Quote from: fieldafm on March 27, 2014, 10:34:23 AM
Just my opinion, but I think VA's sales tax and Prius tax will ultimately prove to be mistakes.
Apparently they agree with you on the hybrid tax; it's been repealed:
QuoteGov. Terry McAuliffe has added his signature to legislation to repeal the state's $64 annual fee on hybrid vehicles.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Va-governor-signs-repeal-of-hybrid-vehicle-tax-247274451.html
Field: How is the VMT tax administered in OR? How was the privacy issue dealt with?
The registration idea/how many miles have you driven sounds good on the surface, but doesn't account for Clay, St. Johns and Nassau residents that drive Duval roads every day. Two Clay County residents both live in Orange Park, and drive 20,000 miles that year. One drives to a job in Jacksonville every day. The other one drives most of the 20,000 miles in Clay County, but makes two vehicle trips to New York state to visit mom (say 5000 miles). How do you determine which county gets the revenue?
GPS could help, but that's where the privacy concerns come in. Red flags all over. No one has any business knowing where I'm driving.
Just a quick read makes me think that the issue is as simple as extending the gas tax with a new index rate/ increase every year and doing it for only five to ten years so that we can find a better way. Or improve how it is indexed so that costs are being covered. While there are other means of taxing the use of cars and trucks, like annual fees, mileage based, ETC, one also has to look at the ratio of the cost of implementing and monitoring a new system compared to what you get. Even if the collection potential is higher with a different system, is the cost associated with collecting it higher so that you end up at the same place? The gas tax is in place, and so has that as a benefit.
Like mentioned, gas tax seems like the easiest and perhaps the cheapest way to collect a road "user" fee and frankly, it is pretty fair for the vast majority of the time. Cars like the Volt and Prius should have a fee attached anyway due to the carbon footprint issue and frankly, look at the purchase/ future repair price, maybe they sort of do anyway. Diesel, which heavy trucks use, can be more heavily taxed (it might be anyway) and if there is a big switch to natural gas, then that certainly can be taxed per pound with the same results as taxing gas by the gallon.
Hmm,maybe no better solution has been offered because there isn't one?
Update on Oregon:
"The 2013 Oregon Legislatures passed Senate Bill 810, the first legislation in the United States to establish a road usage charge system for transportation funding. SB 810 authorizes the Oregon Department of Transportation to set up a mileage collection system for 5,000 volunteer motorists beginning July 1, 2015. ODOT may assess a charge of 1.5 cents per mile for up to 5,000 volunteer cars and light commercial vehicles and issue a gas tax refund to those participants. This will not be another pilot program but rather the start of an alternate method of generating fuel tax from specific vehicles to pay for Oregon highways."
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/RUFPP/Pages/ruc_overview.aspx (http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/RUFPP/Pages/ruc_overview.aspx)
Will the extension also include a similar tax on the natural gas being used as fuel now? Also similar tax for electric charging stations? Not prevalent now but will be by time it would expire and needs to be included now.
Tolls collected through automation on arterial roads and highways. Other roads maintained with sales tax revenue.
Make acquiring one of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-ZPass part of the automobile registration process, and then just have collection points spread all over the county.
^ that would be a SunPass here in Florida
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on March 27, 2014, 12:35:54 PM
The registration idea/how many miles have you driven sounds good on the surface, but doesn't account for Clay, St. Johns and Nassau residents that drive Duval roads every day. Two Clay County residents both live in Orange Park, and drive 20,000 miles that year. One drives to a job in Jacksonville every day. The other one drives most of the 20,000 miles in Clay County, but makes two vehicle trips to New York state to visit mom (say 5000 miles). How do you determine which county gets the revenue?
GPS could help, but that's where the privacy concerns come in. Red flags all over. No one has any business knowing where I'm driving.
What are your privacy concerns? Google/Amazon/etc. already knows where you surf and what you search. The banking and credit world knows where you spend your money. The government knows what you do, where you live, where you go to school, where you vote, if you vote, and just about every other facet of life. Do you own an Iphone? How about Android? Do you specifically turn off the GPS feature on your phone? Do you leave your phone on? And speaking of your car, do you have a navigational unit in your car? How about Facebook? You might be shocked to know that it really wouldn't be hard to determine your driving habits if someone really wanted to know. In fact, I'd be surprised to know if government/big brother/etc. didn't already know where I drive.
I'm more concerned about "big brother" (whom ever that is) knowing my spending habits more than my driving habits. But then again, I use Google, click on hyperlinks, use a credit card to shop online, and almost NEVER use cash.
I think the paranoia is VERY misdirected when it comes to GPS and DRIVING A CAR.
I'm surprised nobody has brought up the question of who is going to build these roads. Because JTA hasn't had any money to build roads recently, they have been more focused on transit (or so it appears). I would like to see them stay that way.
I wouldn't be against spending some form of revenue (sales tax, VMT, etc) on rebuilding our ridiculously overdesigned urban street corridors (make them context sensitive streets). But, I would prefer for that work to be done by the City's public works department. Lately, the City has shown themselves to be more reasonable in listening to the goals of the community than JTA has in the past.
Quote from: dougskiles on March 27, 2014, 04:01:55 PM
I'm surprised nobody has brought up the question of who is going to build these roads. Because JTA hasn't had any money to build roads recently, they have been more focused on transit (or so it appears). I would like to see them stay that way.
Kind of hard to agree with this when the majority of their annual budget this year and every year has been to roads building/maintenance/design and not their buses/Skyway operations.
But I agree, they need to be two separate agencies in order to actually improve anything.
The point of passing the LOGT now is to starting bonding out while rates are still low. IF you wait until 2016 when the tax sunsets rates most likely will be higher and the funding for those construction projects will not go nearly as far.
The other thing is that we keep wanting JTA to do a better job with transit. And that must happen. Better bus service (more frequent service with longer hours); commuter rail; more equitable fair structure; and more.
Some of these things are in the works. JTA is pursuing CNG technology to run its buses. The entire bus system is undergoing a major re-do. So things are changing. But without a dedicated funding source like the gas tax - transit services here will take a major blow and thousands of people will be without transportation. That's not good for anyone. Businesses will suffer when their employees can't get to work. Students won't be able to get to school. It will be a mess.
Then there's the construction projects that the city wants finished. That funding must come from somewhere. The BJP is gone. Sales tax revenues didn't allow completion of some of those projects.
The gas tax is certainly not the ideal situation. Like others that said - better fuel economy means less gas sold and less gas tax dollars. But there is also no solid replacement source for those dollars. The Mayor hasn't given any answers and neither did Councilman Joost. It's easy to say no. Harder to say no, here's a better way. Haven't heard that yet.
Quote from: dougskiles on March 27, 2014, 04:01:55 PM
I'm surprised nobody has brought up the question of who is going to build these roads. Because JTA hasn't had any money to build roads recently, they have been more focused on transit (or so it appears). I would like to see them stay that way.
I wouldn't be against spending some form of revenue (sales tax, VMT, etc) on rebuilding our ridiculously overdesigned urban street corridors (make them context sensitive streets). But, I would prefer for that work to be done by the City's public works department. Lately, the City has shown themselves to be more reasonable in listening to the goals of the community than JTA has in the past.
Don't think this should be an either or. The JTA has the ability to do both and should as the needs warrant. That flexibility can be helpful. I mean the did start as the Jacksonville Expressway Authority after all. The didn't add transit until COJ begged them to do back in the 1970s when all the private companies starting failing.
If you take a look a the BJP projects - all of the JTA projects were on time and at budget. We know with the courthouse debacle - that cannot be said about COJ.
My observation has been that transit suffered greatly when they were in heavy road building mode. I don't doubt that they did a good job with the BJP projects. If they are going to continue as a road building agency, then perhaps it is time to create a separate transit agency.
As long as they are a road building agency their focus will be chasing road dollars, at the expense of possible transit funding.
Quote from: exnewsman on March 27, 2014, 04:43:17 PM
If you take a look a the BJP projects - all of the JTA projects were on time and at budget. We know with the courthouse debacle - that cannot be said about COJ.
JTA blew their chance at $100 million in BJP funds for rapid transit by taking to long to utilize the money. That cash ended up helping cover the cost of the courthouse. That was a major black eye in my book.
Quote from: dougskiles on March 27, 2014, 04:55:08 PM
My observation has been that transit suffered greatly when they were in heavy road building mode. I don't doubt that they did a good job with the BJP projects. If they are going to continue as a road building agency, then perhaps it is time to create a separate transit agency.
As long as they are a road building agency their focus will be chasing road dollars, at the expense of possible transit funding.
Also a different administration too. Nat Ford has more of a transit background and it seems that he gets the need to make the improvements in the transit system. Unless there is another BJP that comes along, I don't see the JTA working on 30+ road/bridge projects. There just won't be funding for that. There needs to be a better balance of roads and transit. Don't think you can drop either one and be successful. The two must work together.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 27, 2014, 05:31:34 PM
Quote from: exnewsman on March 27, 2014, 04:43:17 PM
If you take a look a the BJP projects - all of the JTA projects were on time and at budget. We know with the courthouse debacle - that cannot be said about COJ.
JTA blew their chance at $100 million in BJP funds for rapid transit by taking to long to utilize the money. That cash ended up helping cover the cost of the courthouse. That was a major black eye in my book.
Lake - I do agree that the delays opened the door for COJ to come along and redistribute those funds. But it still shouldn't have happened. Any more than it should have cost taxpayers $390M for a new courthouse.
Quote from: exnewsman on March 27, 2014, 06:42:20 PM
Quote from: dougskiles on March 27, 2014, 04:55:08 PM
My observation has been that transit suffered greatly when they were in heavy road building mode. I don't doubt that they did a good job with the BJP projects. If they are going to continue as a road building agency, then perhaps it is time to create a separate transit agency.
As long as they are a road building agency their focus will be chasing road dollars, at the expense of possible transit funding.
Also a different administration too. Nat Ford has more of a transit background and it seems that he gets the need to make the improvements in the transit system. Unless there is another BJP that comes along, I don't see the JTA working on 30+ road/bridge projects. There just won't be funding for that. There needs to be a better balance of roads and transit. Don't think you can drop either one and be successful. The two must work together.
If you're talking about a balance between roads and transit, then we wouldn't spend another dime on a road project for the next 30 years while transit plays catchup.
6 cents per gallon on auto gas/diesel
10 cents per gallon on commercial diesel (yes they can tell)
1.25% sales tax
5 cents per kwh for charging stations
2 cents per therm for auto LNG
raise plate renewals by GVWR $30 for autos/residential trucks, by $100 per plate for commercial under 10,000, by $200 commercial over 10,000
15% of aggregate revenue must supply transit capital funding (which will be matched 80% by federal funding)
5% of aggregate revenue must support the fare box
Acceptance of this is dependent on COJ imposing a UPL (Urban Planning Line) to increase area density and provide long term fare box support. And then impose a moratorium on development outside the UPL for a minimum of 10 years. After 10 years they can reassess the capital funding percentage model.
While I agree with Joost that long term road funding using gas taxes is a dead end in the long term, there are still cars and trucks using them and they must still be maintained.
Transit is important, but it can't develop in a vacuum when the city fathers keep allowing the development borders to stretch out further. Hence the UPL to control sprawl until the new transit system is planned, ready and executed.
Has anyone seen Councilman Joost's follow-up? Or is this just a big steamy one-time pile?
Gulliford and Joost do a Point/Counter-point style dueling columns debate at:
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/ (http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/)
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=543017 and http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=543018
Once again, Joost makes some very good points, but without offering any realistic alternatives it's not very convincing.
Interesting story in the T-U today about people in Jacksonville still driving public dirt streets.
One has been protesting to the city since consolidation!
It does seem weird to me that in a city this big we still have dirt streets inside the metro area.
Perhaps another case for urban infill. Finish paving those streets they have been ignoring since 1968!
Odd.
The council voted 16-1 to extend the tax as is until 2036.
No debate was offered. Joost was lone vote against.
via :Jax Record
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=543022 (http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=543022)
City Council passes gas-tax extension with no debate
Tuesday, May 27, 7:14 PM EDT
By David Chapman, Staff Writer
After five months of discussion and debate, City Council passed a bill extending the 6-cent gas tax through 2036.
The 16-1 vote came after more than a dozen people, including U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown and former Mayor Jake Godbold, spoke on the issue.
But after the public comment period ended, it went straight to the ballot – no council members spoke up on the matter. That included Stephen Joost, who has been a vocal opponent and cast the lone nay vote, and council President Bill Gulliford, who introduced it in December and had been the most vocal supporter.
Afterward, Gulliford said he had pages of comments on the issue if anyone was interested, but it wasn't necessary.
Under the extension, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority will receive 5 cents of the tax, which will be applied toward transit operations and debt repayment. The remaining 1 cent would go to the city for road maintenance and bike and pedestrian infrastructure.
Authority officials have said it will bond about $100 million to start and complete a collection of road projects, with the debt repaid gradually through collection of the tax. The tax raises about $28 million a year.
Projects encompass all areas of the county on the list of road and transportation projects that was compiled in recent months between the authority and city Public Works Department.
Gulliford and other proponents have said the bill will create jobs at a time when labor and interest rates are low. Joost and opponents said extending the tax this soon wasn't necessary, given that is a dwindling revenue source as alternative fuel use and efficiencies rise. The tax is scheduled to end in 2016.
The bill now goes to another vocal opponent: Mayor Alvin Brown.
Brown for some time has said he is against extending the tax, which falls in line with his anti-tax stance.
David DeCamp, Brown's spokesman, said as with any piece of legislation, the administration will review it in full before any determination is made.
Brown could sign the legislation, let it pass into law without his signature or veto the measure. If he did the latter, the council would need 13 votes to override that veto.
Quote from: spuwho on May 27, 2014, 08:30:41 PM
Odd.
The council voted 16-1 to extend the tax as is until 2036.
No debate was offered. Joost was lone vote against.
via :Jax Record
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=543022 (http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=543022)
City Council passes gas-tax extension with no debate
Tuesday, May 27, 7:14 PM EDT
By David Chapman, Staff WriterJ
After five months of discussion and debate, City Council passed a bill extending the 6-cent gas tax through 2036.
The 16-1 vote came after more than a dozen people, including U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown and former Mayor Jake Godbold, spoke on the issue.
But after the public comment period ended, it went straight to the ballot – no council members spoke up on the matter. That included Stephen Joost, who has been a vocal opponent and cast the lone nay vote, and council President Bill Gulliford, who introduced it in December and had been the most vocal supporter.
Afterward, Gulliford said he had pages of comments on the issue if anyone was interested, but it wasn't necessary.
Under the extension, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority will receive 5 cents of the tax, which will be applied toward transit operations and debt repayment. The remaining 1 cent would go to the city for road maintenance and bike and pedestrian infrastructure.
Authority officials have said it will bond about $100 million to start and complete a collection of road projects, with the debt repaid gradually through collection of the tax. The tax raises about $28 million a year.
Projects encompass all areas of the county on the list of road and transportation projects that was compiled in recent months between the authority and city Public Works Department.
Gulliford and other proponents have said the bill will create jobs at a time when labor and interest rates are low. Joost and opponents said extending the tax this soon wasn't necessary, given that is a dwindling revenue source as alternative fuel use and efficiencies rise. The tax is scheduled to end in 2016.
The bill now goes to another vocal opponent: Mayor Alvin Brown.
Brown for some time has said he is against extending the tax, which falls in line with his anti-tax stance.
David DeCamp, Brown's spokesman, said as with any piece of legislation, the administration will review it in full before any determination is made.
Brown could sign the legislation, let it pass into law without his signature or veto the measure. If he did the latter, the council would need 13 votes to override that veto.
This is a pretty big loss for Joost as he was the only NO vote and he was so public in his opposition to the gas tax extension. Many questioned his motives and some even thought that he was making his arguments on behalf of Mayor Brown.
Regardless, after last night he now becomes one of if not the least relevent members of the City Council.
I would say less relevant is a little extreme.
He was only against extension in its current form. Not against taxes period.
Kudos for having the guts to vote no when everyone wanted status quo.
Me thinks Brown will let it pass by ignoring it. He knows a veto can get out voted at this point.
It's too bad the council was more worried about expedience than the future.
However since we treat the mobility plan with such disregard, there is nothing a future council couldn't do to unwind this and start over.
QuoteHowever since we treat the mobility plan with such disregard, there is nothing a future council couldn't do to unwind this and start over.
It's a little more difficult to bond out construction projects and then take away the funding source that pays for that bond debt.
Quote from: fieldafm on May 28, 2014, 08:51:59 AM
QuoteHowever since we treat the mobility plan with such disregard, there is nothing a future council couldn't do to unwind this and start over.
It's a little more difficult to bond out construction projects and then take away the funding source that pays for that bond debt.
I wasn't thinking of elimination per se. I was thinking you can refinance the bonds and use them for other purposes. Change the priority of the delivery of certain items. You can change the revenue mix from strictly a gas tax to other things.
That is what I was thinking of. Happens all the time across the country.
Extention of the gas tax and the one cent a gallon going toward bicycle and pedestrian infrustruture safety improvments is prudent and fiscally responsible and will help out city get away from being one of the most dangerous and deadly cities in the United States for pedestrians and cyclists.
Quote from: BoldBoyOfTheSouth on May 28, 2014, 11:29:53 AM
Extention of the gas tax and the one cent a gallon going toward bicycle and pedestrian infrustruture safety improvments is prudent and fiscally responsible and will help out city get away from being one of the most dangerous and deadly cities in the United States for pedestrians and cyclists.
FYI...the 1 cent goes to the City...and 20% of that goes to bike/ped improvements
Quote from: spuwho on May 28, 2014, 08:22:32 AM
I would say less relevant is a little extreme.
He was only against extension in its current form. Not against taxes period.
Kudos for having the guts to vote no when everyone wanted status quo.
Me thinks Brown will let it pass by ignoring it. He knows a veto can get out voted at this point.
It's too bad the council was more worried about expedience than the future.
However since we treat the mobility plan with such disregard, there is nothing a future council couldn't do to unwind this and start over.
Actually it is less extreme than what some of Joost's colleagues where saying privately after the vote.
Let's just say, if you spend two months on the stump, write editorials and do several television and radio appearances and persuade no one who has a vote to follow you, then yes your relevancy will be questioned.
Quote from: Badfinger on May 28, 2014, 03:01:17 PM
Quote from: spuwho on May 28, 2014, 08:22:32 AM
I would say less relevant is a little extreme.
He was only against extension in its current form. Not against taxes period.
Kudos for having the guts to vote no when everyone wanted status quo.
Me thinks Brown will let it pass by ignoring it. He knows a veto can get out voted at this point.
It's too bad the council was more worried about expedience than the future.
However since we treat the mobility plan with such disregard, there is nothing a future council couldn't do to unwind this and start over.
Actually it is less extreme than what some of Joost's colleagues where saying privately after the vote.
Let's just say, if you spend two months on the stump, write editorials and do several television and radio appearances and persuade no one who has a vote to follow you, then yes your relevancy will be questioned.
In politics you need political capital. You can be absolutely right about what you want, but without any capital to offer, trade or solicit, the best of ideas can go for naught.
It is what makes politics the most maddening part of public service. The best ideas aren't always the ones that are done.
If Joost only made his case in the press and made no effort to solicit his peers to sell his approach, then he learned a hard lesson.
Quote from: Badfinger on May 28, 2014, 03:01:17 PM
Quote from: spuwho on May 28, 2014, 08:22:32 AM
I would say less relevant is a little extreme.
He was only against extension in its current form. Not against taxes period.
Kudos for having the guts to vote no when everyone wanted status quo.
Me thinks Brown will let it pass by ignoring it. He knows a veto can get out voted at this point.
It's too bad the council was more worried about expedience than the future.
However since we treat the mobility plan with such disregard, there is nothing a future council couldn't do to unwind this and start over.
Actually it is less extreme than what some of Joost's colleagues where saying privately after the vote.
Let's just say, if you spend two months on the stump, write editorials and do several television and radio appearances and persuade no one who has a vote to follow you, then yes your relevancy will be questioned.
Ok, so who are these colleagues and what were they saying?
Quote from: Tacachale on May 28, 2014, 03:29:02 PM
Quote from: Badfinger on May 28, 2014, 03:01:17 PM
Quote from: spuwho on May 28, 2014, 08:22:32 AM
I would say less relevant is a little extreme.
He was only against extension in its current form. Not against taxes period.
Kudos for having the guts to vote no when everyone wanted status quo.
Me thinks Brown will let it pass by ignoring it. He knows a veto can get out voted at this point.
It's too bad the council was more worried about expedience than the future.
However since we treat the mobility plan with such disregard, there is nothing a future council couldn't do to unwind this and start over.
Actually it is less extreme than what some of Joost's colleagues where saying privately after the vote.
Let's just say, if you spend two months on the stump, write editorials and do several television and radio appearances and persuade no one who has a vote to follow you, then yes your relevancy will be questioned.
Ok, so who are these colleagues and what were they saying?
The word "privatly" should lead you to understand that names would not be shared. However, terms like "Don Quiotesque", "natural ass whipping" and "ulterier motives" were heard after the meeting.
QuoteMayor Alvin Brown declines to veto gas-tax extension, lets it becomes law without signature
Mayor Alvin Brown has said for some time he was against a bill to extend the 6-cent gas tax another 20 years.
But instead of vetoing the legislation, he's letting it become law without his signature.
City Council passed the measure May 27, its last full council meeting. Like all council-passed measures, it went to Brown for approval. Brown returned it Friday to the city's Legislative Services Department without his signature.
full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=543156
Leadership, Alvin Brown style.
still allows the Mayor to claim "he didn't raise taxes"....of course, imo, extending an existing tax is not raising taxes.
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 11, 2014, 10:25:47 AM
still allows the Mayor to claim "he didn't raise taxes"....of course, imo, extending an existing tax is not raising taxes.
Well, it is a technicality, but if a tax has a built-in sunset then extending it is a tax increase.
It's not an "increase" if no one's paying more that what they currently are. That's the definition of "increase."
Like I said, it's a technicality, BUT if the council had done nothing the local option gas tax would have gone to zero, so by their action it will increase back to $0.06. Reasonable people can disagree.
What is up with our weak Mayor? If he was really against it he would veto it and let the council override his veto.
How did Jacksonville become such a place where a very weak man is in charge?
Does he think that his "leadership" will have the crowds and big money donors give him a Congressional seat when it becomes available? Does he think that within five years he can use his "leadership" to propel him into the Governor's Mansion? Does he think that corporate American wants/needs an ex-Mayor who's wishy/washy working for them when he leaves City Hall?
He may just go down in history as the most uninspiring, weakest man to be Mayor of Jacksonville which is quite an accomplishment.