Recent posts

#11

Downtown / Re: Fleet Landing Riverside se...

Last post by Ken_FSU - Yesterday at 10:25:53 PM

JAX is a lot more desperate that Orlando, Charlotte, Nashville.

While I agree holistically, I have a hard time believing that a prime riverfront property, in Jacksonville's hottest urban neighborhood, anchored by a Whole Foods and YMCA, requires more subsidy than a surface parking lot in Charlotte or Orlando.

#12

Downtown / Re: Fleet Landing Riverside se...

Last post by thelakelander - Yesterday at 10:09:27 PM

^What do you think would be the largest con that organization and clarity would place on the longtime way of doing things? When you throw logic out the door and view various issues from that perspective, things become crystal clear.

#13

Science and Technology / Re: Wordle?

Last post by jaxlongtimer - Yesterday at 09:58:20 PM

Wordle 1,950 4/6

⬜⬜⬜🟨⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Connections
Puzzle #1228
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟨🟨🟨🟨
🟦🟦🟦🟦
🟪🟪🟪🟪

Strands #962
"On a higher level"
🟡🔵🔵🔵
🔵🔵

Pips #430 Easy 🟢
0:27
Pips #430 Medium 🟡
5:20
Pips #430 Hard 🔴 Hard in less than half of Medium?!  Questioning that clock again.
2:02

🙂 Daily Quordle 1731 - Total = 22
5️⃣7️⃣
6️⃣4️⃣
m-w.com/games/quordle/

#14

Downtown / Re: Fleet Landing Riverside se...

Last post by jaxlongtimer - Yesterday at 09:45:48 PM

JAX is a lot more desperate that Orlando, Charlotte, Nashville. That said, I agree the level of incentives is probably not required in whole or part to make the numbers work. 

Desperation breeds desperation.  Not having a realistic, thoughtful and disciplined Downtown masterplan followed by appropriate execution leads to ping pong development.  Such development results in a string of ones, not force multipliers that would eliminate the need to be desperate.

Regardless of party or administration, I just cannot understand our City's failure to implement a masterplan that ties together planning, zoning, design standards, street facings, streetscapes, wayfaring, mass transit, security, cleanliness, green spaces, other amenities, etc.  I just don't see how this is so hard to do, it is not rocket science.  Thousands of small towns to big cities around the world do this everyday.  Total frustration!

#15

Downtown / Re: Fleet Landing Riverside se...

Last post by vicupstate - Yesterday at 09:09:15 PM

JAX is a lot more desperate that Orlando, Charlotte, Nashville. That said, I agree the level of incentives is probably not required in whole or part to make the numbers work. 

#16

Politics / Re: November 2026 Elections

Last post by vicupstate - Yesterday at 09:00:13 PM

I support, theoretically, a path to zero-property-tax for long-term property owners. The issue of people never owning their homes outright is a valid criticism.

I am so sick of this silly canard.

I guess since I don't own my home if I have to pay property taxes, then I don't own my home when it has a mortgage either. If the mortgage company owns part (or very often a majority) of my home, shouldn't THEY pay their share of the property taxes? 

I guess since I have to pay Federal (and in my case, state) income taxes then I don't own my paycheck either. I am not gainfully employed by that logic, at least not full-time.

If I don't pay my property taxes I could lose my home but I would not lose the ability to earn money and buy a new one.   

If I don't pay income taxes I can go to prison where I will 100% lose the ability to ever pay the taxes or improve my financial condition until I am released.

See how silly this argument is?

How long someone has lived in their home is irrelevant to property taxes. Property taxes pay for a policeman or fireman to come to your home if needed. It also pays for your garbage to be picked up and the lifeguard to work at the pool you swim laps at. It pays for animal control, the jail, the health department and all the other services that you receive. How does length of living in one location affect that in ANY way?  It does not.

I personally have never heard of ANYONE losing their home [their RESIDENCE, not an investment property] for not paying taxes on it. Having the process start, yes, but taken all the way to loss of property, no. Maybe if happens more than I know of, but I suspect it is extremely rare. What few case there may be likely involve a property that isn't worth much more than the taxes owed.       

In the interest of brevity, I did not offer nuance to my position, especially considering my commentary was more related to candidates' positions.

I'd be happy to engage in more specifics in good faith, but it doesn't appear that you're really looking for an actual conversation based on the tone of your post. If I'm wrong about that, I'll be happy to reply.

I don't think the logic of your argument holds up under scrutiny. I have provided my proof of such. If I am missing something I would be more than willing to listen to any further logic you care to provide.   

#17

Downtown / Re: Jacksonville is Losing its...

Last post by Ken_FSU - Yesterday at 08:36:24 PM

When I first moved to Jacksonville, the things that I most strongly associated with the city as unique differentiators were the Jacksonville Landing, the Skyway, the 11 AM to 11 PM river taxis, the massive Regency Square Mall, Adventure Landing, the Southbank MOSH and River City area, and concerts at Met Park and Freedbird Live. These were all things that you couldn't really find in other cities that gave Jax a bit of its own feel.

In rapid fire succession, these things have all been erased from existence, and without them, I feel like we're rapidly turning into a rather nondescript mid-sized city. We've never been good at preserving our past, but it's kind of wild to see all these things just quietly disappearing. It feels like it's getting harder and harder to describe what makes Jacksonville unique, which to me, is a really significant, self-inflicted problem. 

Been thinking about this, and I couldn't disagree more. I'm the first to say how disastrous demolishing the Landing was (I state it on the record at noticed meetings whenever it comes up) and how much losing things like water access, Adventure Landing, etc. sucks, especially for kids and young people. But at the same time, this city is more invested in itself and its unique identity today than it has been at any time in the last 200+ years. When I was growing up in the 80s and 90s, no one besides Jake Godbold and the late, great Bill Foley were even trying to describe Jacksonville as a city with its own spirit of place. I believe that The Jaxson and the kinds of books Ennis and I write only work because an interested audience is there.

People today are more invested in Jacksonville and the things that are local and unique to it -- food, art, stories, places, you name it. I was telling the Jaxson team, last year I was at a writing conference in Vermont, and me and the one other person from Jacksonville got everyone shouting "DUUUVAL!" It got to the point people would shout it whenever they saw us.

Some things change, and not always for the better. Some of those changes are wider trends. Local retail is getting Starbucked and Bezosed and LLMed all over the country, for example. But unfortunately a lot of it is the result of short-sighted local decisions. But overall I think we're in a better spot than we've ever been in. I personally haven't felt this optimistic about our future in over 20 years.

Yeah, it's a fair point. Landmarks, family attractions and external postcard identity aren't necessarily the same thing as our own internal identity.

I do question how much shared identity a consolidated 800-square mile city, with 40% of our population being new since 2006, could realistically ever have, but I fully agree that we've undergone huge positive change.

Biggest change for me, by a MILE, is the complete and total death of Jacksonville's stifling inferiority complex. Unless you lived here during that era, it's hard to put into words how deeply engrained it was. Even the Super Bowl was a drag with all the negativity. We still view ourselves as underachieving, but not as lesser than. Ironically - and I know many here will likely disagree - I think the explosion of the Town Center area played a huge part in that change in mentality. For decades, Jacksonville's measuring stick for "making it" was weirdly tied to getting a Macy's, or getting a Cheesecake Factory, or getting a Nordstrom or Neiman Marcus. I think seeing high end retailers like Tiffany, Louis Vuitton, Coach, Apple, and IKEA fighting for retail space in Jax has helped validate locals in a certain way. 

Ironically, the explosion of chains also led to this amazing period of explosive growth for local craft breweries, coffee shops, restaurants, retail, etc. Throw in an influx of young transplants and a younger local generation growing up, changing mindsets that allow for things like the HRO and Deegan's win, and it's a different, better city than it was 20 years ago.

I'm very bullish on Jacksonville's future, but I think I was more bullish during that wild Blake Bortles/One Spark era where places like Intuition, Bellwether, Black Sheep, Olio, Superfood and Brew, etc. were popping up like wildflowers, downtown had a healthy office population, James Weldon Johnson Park was exploding and driving adjacent investment like Sweet Pete's, etc.

To me, the ONLY thing standing in the way of Jacksonville's next big step forward is a unified master plan for our urban core. It's the difference between a roadmap and a prayer, and the difference between a 10-15 year success story and 50 more years of disjointed start and stop. 

#18

Downtown / Re: Fleet Landing Riverside se...

Last post by Ken_FSU - Yesterday at 07:46:36 PM

$50 million in tax rebates approved unanimously by the DIA.

What bugs me is that, unlike peer cities, we require either no proof, or the most cursory of proof, that a financial need for the incentives exist. Other Southeast cities (Tampa, Charlotte, Orlando, Nashville) put 8-10 year limits on their REV-style grants, require some form of gap analysis to prove the need, cap annual rev grants and make developers compete for them, or reserve them for transformational mixed used projects.

The DIA seems to just give a blanket green stamp to the maximum allowable rev grant (20 years at 75%), regardless of circumstance.

In this case, against their own regulations/critera.

https://dia.jacksonville.gov/doing-business-with-us/doing-business-with-dia/residential-incentives/multi-family-housing-rev-grant

Allowable REV grant shall not exceed 50% for riverfront (adjacent to the Riverwalk or bulkhead with unobstructed river view) properties located between Riverside Avenue and the St. Johns River in Brooklyn.

This figure can only be increased if:

- A 2,500 sf rooftop restaurant on the Riverwalk is included (+10%)
- At least 8 public transient boat slips are provided (+10%)
- Retail frontage beyond the minimum 50% required to qualify for a REV grant is provided (+5%).

At a MAXIMUM, this project should only qualify for a 50% REV grant, as it meets zero of the stated criteria for additional rebates in this "Limited Grant Area."

Meanwhile, per the JBJ article tonight:

Fleet Landing has received more than 100 inquiries from families interested in Riverside before beginning any marketing, Ashby said. Its Atlantic Beach community is effectively fully occupied, with 766 families on a waiting list. Nocatee, scheduled to open in July 2027, is fully presold and has another 64 families waiting, he said.

Riverside's entrance fees are expected to carry an approximately 20% premium to Nocatee, Ashby said.

I'm all for progress, and strongly support max grants and completion grants for transformational projects with public benefits (Gateway's Publix, Lot J, the Riverfront Plaza mixed use tower), but this feels like one the developer and their wealthy client should foot the bill for, not the public. And it also feels like one where the REV grant is more likely going more to profit than need.

#19

Politics / Re: November 2026 Elections

Last post by jaxoNOLE - Yesterday at 06:29:37 PM

The real crux of Amendment 3 is the "Cat in the Hat" scenario where you move the pink (tax) blob and it just shows up somewhere else.

Government is going to get its needed revenue come hell or high water.  Exempt or reduce property taxes and you will get increased millage rates, user fees, etc. out the yazoo.  You are NOT going to save taxes/fees overall, just pay it through other ways and more bureaucracy.  Further, the burden will shift more to the very ones Amendment 3 is supposed to help, lower or fixed income persons.  People in more expensive homes, who are capped on the upside with Save Our Homes, will benefit the most from larger homesteads, but fees, etc. will be paid equally by rich and poor alike.  Houses, as I posted, will increase in value due to buyers using tax savings to pay more for a house, pushing many further away from first time ownership. 

If the revenue is recovered by increased millage rates, this will hit landlords and businesses that already pay the most property taxes and employ large numbers of us the most.  It will, thus, impact rents and paychecks along with negating part of the exemption savings on homeowners.

Very much agreed. The honest path to tax relief starts with identifying the cuts that accompany reductions in revenue, and to the extent substitute revenues are raised, they should also be identified and simultaneously disclosed. It's cowardly and lazy to revoke the revenues at a state level and leave the dirty work to localities.

#20

Politics / Re: November 2026 Elections

Last post by jaxoNOLE - Yesterday at 06:14:19 PM

I support, theoretically, a path to zero-property-tax for long-term property owners. The issue of people never owning their homes outright is a valid criticism.

I am so sick of this silly canard.

I guess since I don't own my home if I have to pay property taxes, then I don't own my home when it has a mortgage either. If the mortgage company owns part (or very often a majority) of my home, shouldn't THEY pay their share of the property taxes? 

I guess since I have to pay Federal (and in my case, state) income taxes then I don't own my paycheck either. I am not gainfully employed by that logic, at least not full-time.

If I don't pay my property taxes I could lose my home but I would not lose the ability to earn money and buy a new one.   

If I don't pay income taxes I can go to prison where I will 100% lose the ability to ever pay the taxes or improve my financial condition until I am released.

See how silly this argument is?

How long someone has lived in their home is irrelevant to property taxes. Property taxes pay for a policeman or fireman to come to your home if needed. It also pays for your garbage to be picked up and the lifeguard to work at the pool you swim laps at. It pays for animal control, the jail, the health department and all the other services that you receive. How does length of living in one location affect that in ANY way?  It does not.

I personally have never heard of ANYONE losing their home [their RESIDENCE, not an investment property] for not paying taxes on it. Having the process start, yes, but taken all the way to loss of property, no. Maybe if happens more than I know of, but I suspect it is extremely rare. What few case there may be likely involve a property that isn't worth much more than the taxes owed.       

In the interest of brevity, I did not offer nuance to my position, especially considering my commentary was more related to candidates' positions.

I'd be happy to engage in more specifics in good faith, but it doesn't appear that you're really looking for an actual conversation based on the tone of your post. If I'm wrong about that, I'll be happy to reply.