Lisa King: Mixed-Use Renovation of Downtown Buildings
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Politics/Council-Races-2015/Lisa-King/i-F9bgjGz/0/O/lisaking.jpg)
If Lisa King is elected to the City Council, one of the things that she says that she will support is mixed use development of the existing historic structures instead of letting them be torn down and creating dead, expensive to renovate spaces.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-may-lisa-king-mixed-use-renovation-of-downtown-buildings
Her proposals make sense and sound reasonable.
On top of that, Lisa King apparently has experience in this area, so she should know what she is talking about.
Quote from: Gunnar on May 12, 2015, 04:24:59 AM
Her proposals make sense and sound reasonable.
On top of that, Lisa King apparently has experience in this area, so she should know what she is talking about.
Indeed. What are her chances?
Spoken like a true politician, always wanting to use tax dollars for what the private sector should be doing. If downtown is so vital, blah, blah, blah, why don't some of us ever go there? It's vital for those who want to use tax dollars to help their developer friends who have more than enough of their own money to develop whatever they feel like.
The government never "claws back" anything and it never will. Public/private partnership is just another word for crony capitalism. That is, the government determines which company gets some free taxpayer money to help their project.
Quote from: Redbaron616 on May 12, 2015, 08:05:54 PM
Spoken like a true politician, always wanting to use tax dollars for what the private sector should be doing. If downtown is so vital, blah, blah, blah, why don't some of us ever go there? It's vital for those who want to use tax dollars to help their developer friends who have more than enough of their own money to develop whatever they feel like.
The government never "claws back" anything and it never will. Public/private partnership is just another word for crony capitalism. That is, the government determines which company gets some free taxpayer money to help their project.
Clawbacks have been done in JAX and elsewhere. The Humana deal being one. I will say, they aren't done as often as they should be.
Downtown is the heart of any city, and it is ABSOLUTELY a primary parameter of comparison between cities. Ask anyone in economic development and they will tell you that. While most cities had downtrodden cores 20 years ago, nearly all have turned that around. JAX is a dramatic laggard in this regard.
Quote from: Redbaron616 on May 12, 2015, 08:05:54 PM
Spoken like a true politician, always wanting to use tax dollars for what the private sector should be doing. If downtown is so vital, blah, blah, blah, why don't some of us ever go there? It's vital for those who want to use tax dollars to help their developer friends who have more than enough of their own money to develop whatever they feel like.
The government never "claws back" anything and it never will. Public/private partnership is just another word for crony capitalism. That is, the government determines which company gets some free taxpayer money to help their project.
While I am soften amazed that companies / developers seem to be demanding hand-outs ("corporate welfare") to do anything wrt investments, if done properly (and I think this is what Lisa King says) on specific cases it may be useful.
If e.g. the city wants investment in an area where the cost-benefit is not there for investors, the city could provide incentives to make investments attractive / profitable.
This, however needs to be done right, i.e. the city should do proper contracts, a cost-benefit calculation for the city's ROI... and not just blindly throw money at investors. Also, it is paramount that the city know on a larger scale what *they* want out of the deal as part of a larger strategic plan.
Also, I don't think that you necessarily need to pay investors up front but instead help them by cutting red tape, having a dedicated contact person to handle the dealings with different city / govt departments (think of it as a business concierge that you can go to who takes care of everything), streamline the process, give developers a property tax break, improve the infrastructure around the new development..... As a proper investor (i.e. not a gambler that is just in it for a quick buck) , this is what I would appreciate.
Depending on what incentives are given, the city attracts different types of investors - up to the city to know what they want.
But yes, public/private partnerships often turn out poorly for the public since profits are privatized and losses carried by the public.
Quote from: Gunnar on May 13, 2015, 04:42:35 AM
Quote from: Redbaron616 on May 12, 2015, 08:05:54 PM
Spoken like a true politician, always wanting to use tax dollars for what the private sector should be doing. If downtown is so vital, blah, blah, blah, why don't some of us ever go there? It's vital for those who want to use tax dollars to help their developer friends who have more than enough of their own money to develop whatever they feel like.
The government never "claws back" anything and it never will. Public/private partnership is just another word for crony capitalism. That is, the government determines which company gets some free taxpayer money to help their project.
While I am soften amazed that companies / developers seem to be demanding hand-outs ("corporate welfare") to do anything wrt investments, if done properly (and I think this is what Lisa King says) on specific cases it may be useful.
If e.g. the city wants investment in an area where the cost-benefit is not there for investors, the city could provide incentives to make investments attractive / profitable.
This, however needs to be done right, i.e. the city should do proper contracts, a cost-benefit calculation for the city's ROI... and not just blindly throw money at investors. Also, it is paramount that the city know on a larger scale what *they* want out of the deal as part of a larger strategic plan.
Also, I don't think that you necessarily need to pay investors up front but instead help them by cutting red tape, having a dedicated contact person to handle the dealings with different city / govt departments (think of it as a business concierge that you can go to who takes care of everything), streamline the process, give developers a property tax break, improve the infrastructure around the new development..... As a proper investor (i.e. not a gambler that is just in it for a quick buck) , this is what I would appreciate.
Depending on what incentives are given, the city attracts different types of investors - up to the city to know what they want.
But yes, public/private partnerships often turn out poorly for the public since profits are privatized and losses carried by the public.
+100