Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2017-04-08/jaxport-discussed-asking-city-93-million-167-million-deepen-port
Quote from: thelakelander on April 09, 2017, 08:46:41 PM
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2017-04-08/jaxport-discussed-asking-city-93-million-167-million-deepen-port
Did you see that the Riverkeeper is filing a suit to prevent the drilling. This is going to be interesting.
Yes. COJ also doesn't have that type of cash laying around so funds would have to come at the expense of other services. This will be interesting.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 09, 2017, 09:37:27 PM
Yes. COJ also doesn't have that type of cash laying around so funds would have to come at the expense of other services. This will be interesting.
Indeed.
Isn't this the type of project the city would pay for with bonds?
I guess this issue is coming to a head. I have a hard time seeing where they get this sort of money unless the Sales Tax is raised.
When the city gives financial packages to private companies they usually give less than $10,000 per head and average salary is usually $50k+. The port better show how this will create almost 19,0000 long term high paying jobs, or this is a waste of money.
The numbers the port released a few years ago saying like 40,000 direct and indirect jobs was a crock.
It's good to get some firm(er) numbers on local contribution. It should go a long way to establishing what the real local impact is going to be.
If the final costs are really closer to the lower end, it seems like a no-brainer. The economic impact to the region should greatly exceed that in a few years. That may still be the case on the higher end as well, but as the cost increases the question we need to ask ourselves is whether this is the most impactful use of that high amount of money.
Exactly how does this make money for the city, beyond what is already occurring? Dock workers alone? If more containers come in, that just go on an 18 wheeler or on a train out of town, What benefit does that provide? The trucker buys gas and nabs on his way out, I get. But what else?
^Are you really asking who would benefit from increased business at one of the city's largest economic drivers?
If we do this deepening would it allow larger cruise ships to dock in Mayport?
You don't have to deepen the river for larger cruise ships. Nevertheless, Mayport doesn't want a cruise terminal.
Quote from: jaxjaguar on April 11, 2017, 12:25:52 PM
If we do this deepening would it allow larger cruise ships to dock in Mayport?
The Dames Point bridge is the current limiting factor in berthing larger cruise ships. Some cruise ships have less than 6 feet of clearance at low tide.
Quote from: remc86007 on April 11, 2017, 03:25:58 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on April 11, 2017, 12:52:16 PM
Mayport doesn't want a cruise terminal.
Why?
They like their small, sleepy fishing village mentality. Massive ships, loud tourists and all the accommodations just doesn't fit their narrative.
Lack of space doesn't help either.
I like Mayport's small, sleepy, fishing village mentality too.
I personally think Mayport's quaint fishing village line is a joke. The only thing going out there is Safe Harbor, the rest is pretty dumpy. There might be 20 commercial boats based there at best. Until they give that dream up nothing will change out there.
That said if Jaxport was serious about a new cruise terminal they could figure something out east of the bridge.
With the shuttering of St.Johns River Power Park by JEA/FPL early next year, the perfect spot for the cruise terminal is ready and waiting. The Power Parks coal terminal is located on the south side of Blount Island. With JEA no longer utilizing the berth, it would seem that this would be a perfect spot to relocate the terminal; east of the N.B. Broward bridge, with more than ample turning radius.
Quote from: Elwood on April 11, 2017, 09:04:01 PM
With the shuttering of St.Johns River Power Park by JEA/FPL early next year, the perfect spot for the cruise terminal is ready and waiting. The Power Parks coal terminal is located on the south side of Blount Island. With JEA no longer utilizing the berth, it would seem that this would be a perfect spot to relocate the terminal; east of the N.B. Broward bridge, with more than ample turning radius.
That location is smaller than the current location so I'm not sure it would work either.
I've been considering Heritage River Road next to Sister Creek Boat Ramp.
Quote from: Tacachale on April 11, 2017, 11:21:59 AM
^Are you really asking who would benefit from increased business at one of the city's largest economic drivers?
Yes. I am. Do you have an answer?
Quote from: vicupstate on April 12, 2017, 10:42:30 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on April 11, 2017, 11:21:59 AM
^Are you really asking who would benefit from increased business at one of the city's largest economic drivers?
Yes. I am. Do you have an answer?
I suppose the main thing would be creating thousands of jobs, not only including well-paying blue collar jobs at the port itself, but indirect jobs in trucking, rail, logistics, management, and short and long term construction. All of those things further have an induced impact on the local economy as people and businesses spend their money here.
Quote from: Tacachale on April 12, 2017, 12:50:44 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on April 12, 2017, 10:42:30 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on April 11, 2017, 11:21:59 AM
^Are you really asking who would benefit from increased business at one of the city's largest economic drivers?
Yes. I am. Do you have an answer?
I suppose the main thing would be creating thousands of jobs, not only including well-paying blue collar jobs at the port itself, but indirect jobs in trucking, rail, logistics, management, and short and long term construction. All of those things further have an induced impact on the local economy as people and businesses spend their money here.
Let me elaborate my point further. JAX taxpayers are footing the bill to a significant extent on this. How many crane operators, stevedores, etc. are at the port? I honestly don't have a clue. Is it hundreds, thousands? Whatever it is, is it going to dramatically increase by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on dredging?
Take the Port of Charleston for comparison. The biggest single user of the Port is BWM, which has a plant 200 miles inland. Clearly they require the use of a port, but OTHER than the Port workers themselves, I don't see the impact for
Charleston itself. The containers get put on a train or a truck and they exit. Obviously the plant is very beneficial to the area it is in, but that isn't Charleston, so why would Charleston pay the port's capital expenses? The answer is it doesn't. The city/county has never paid for any Port related expenses that I know of, and certainly isn't paying a dime for their dredging project. The benefit and the expense is carried by the broader basis of the entire state.
How many
ADDITIONAL jobs will this dredging create in
JAX, and what do they pay? Could $100-167 mm be used differently to get more jobs or better jobs with the money?
Could $100-150 million, properly leveraged, turn JAX into a Mecca of some cutting edge technology or dominant in an entirely different industry? It is a question worth asking.
Also, just as Savannah found out, the costs can escalate significantly. So $167 mm might not even be the final cost.
Quote from: vicupstate on April 12, 2017, 02:01:07 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on April 12, 2017, 12:50:44 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on April 12, 2017, 10:42:30 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on April 11, 2017, 11:21:59 AM
^Are you really asking who would benefit from increased business at one of the city's largest economic drivers?
Yes. I am. Do you have an answer?
I suppose the main thing would be creating thousands of jobs, not only including well-paying blue collar jobs at the port itself, but indirect jobs in trucking, rail, logistics, management, and short and long term construction. All of those things further have an induced impact on the local economy as people and businesses spend their money here.
Let me elaborate my point further. JAX taxpayers are footing the bill to a significant extent on this. How many crane operators, stevedores, etc. are at the port? I honestly don't have a clue. Is it hundreds, thousands? Whatever it is, is it going to dramatically increase by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on dredging?
Take the Port of Charleston for comparison. The biggest single user of the Port is BWM, which has a plant 200 miles inland. Clearly they require the use of a port, but OTHER than the Port workers themselves, I don't see the impact for Charleston itself. The containers get put on a train or a truck and they exit. Obviously the plant is very beneficial to the area it is in, but that isn't Charleston, so why would Charleston pay the port's capital expenses? The answer is it doesn't. The city/county has never paid for any Port related expenses that I know of, and certainly isn't paying a dime for their dredging project. The benefit and the expense is carried by the broader basis of the entire state.
How many ADDITIONAL jobs will this dredging create in JAX, and what do they pay? Could $100-167 mm be used differently to get more jobs or better jobs with the money?
Could $100-150 million, properly leveraged, turn JAX into a Mecca of some cutting edge technology or dominant in an entirely different industry? It is a question worth asking.
Also, just as Savannah found out, the costs can escalate significantly. So $167 mm might not even be the final cost.
Last study I saw put the number of direct and indirect jobs in Jacksonville ports about 25k. Those are all jobs with local impact (ie, not factory workers 200 miles away). Including induced impact the number grows to something like 65k according to JAXPORT, but this is debated based on what is considered an induced impact. IIRC, salaries averaged in the mid-$40k range, which is higher than state average, especially for blue collar work. The dredging is expected to bring in thousands more jobs due to the bigger ships that could call here; of course many doubt the exact numbers that would actually be created. JAXPORT gives very liberal projections because it fits their narrative, but on the other hand, anti-port advocates characteristically understate the port's economic impact because it fits
their narrative. Going somewhere in the middle, it's reasonable to think several thousand new direct and indirect jobs would be created by this expansion. You also have to weigh the investment against losing jobs that currently exist, which is what will happen if we just sit on our hands like some advocate.
The major difference in funding for the Jacksonville port and Charleston (and Savannah) is that Charleston and Savannah are the only major ports in their states, so they get all the state pork they want. Florida pays a big chunk of Jaxport's expenses, including the dredging, but local contribution is necessary because we're also competing with 14 other ports in the state. That, combined with weak local leadership, is the real reason Jaxport has fallen behind as Savannah and Charleston have grown. In this project, the feds will pay half and the state will pay the bulk of the rest, with the $93-167 (or whatever it is) local contribution filling the gap.
The real question you're asking is whether the $93-167 million estimate is the most impactful use of local money. This is a tricky question that both port advocates and the anti-port crowd tend to ignore. If it really stays on the lower end, I'd say yes, it would be hard to find another area that would have the same long-term economic impact as the port. The higher it gets, the more pressing the question becomes. We could do a lot with $167 million that would have a transformative impact, whether it's by adding jobs another way, or other sorts of impact.
Quote from: Jim on April 11, 2017, 03:29:06 PM
Quote from: remc86007 on April 11, 2017, 03:25:58 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on April 11, 2017, 12:52:16 PM
Mayport doesn't want a cruise terminal.
Why?
They like their small, sleepy fishing village mentality. Massive ships, loud tourists and all the accommodations just doesn't fit their narrative.
Lack of space doesn't help either.
There is no mentality. It is a run down sh*t hole mentality with cheap housing and a few boats. There are maybe a 1,000 people that live there as well, maybe, in a metro of nearly 1.5 million, but they are dictating things to the city. Who was it on City Council that killed this in 2008?
Quote from: FlaBoy on April 12, 2017, 03:20:35 PM
Quote from: Jim on April 11, 2017, 03:29:06 PM
Quote from: remc86007 on April 11, 2017, 03:25:58 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on April 11, 2017, 12:52:16 PM
Mayport doesn't want a cruise terminal.
Why?
They like their small, sleepy fishing village mentality. Massive ships, loud tourists and all the accommodations just doesn't fit their narrative.
Lack of space doesn't help either.
There is no mentality. It is a run down sh*t hole mentality with cheap housing and a few boats. There are maybe a 1,000 people that live there as well, maybe, in a metro of nearly 1.5 million, but they are dictating things to the city. Who was it on City Council that killed this in 2008?
No way 1000 people live out there, I doubt it's even half that.