Quote from: Ken_FSU on May 17, 2026, 11:43:09 AMQuote from: Jankelope on May 17, 2026, 08:11:18 AMIt is quite incredible the scrutiny for tiny amounts of affordable housing funding compared to projects like this
It's truly wild. As a city, we've committed three times more taxpayer dollars from the general fund for this single, ultra-luxury apartment complex ($38 million) than we've committed to affordable housing and homeless services for the entire year combined ($12 million).
Jacksonville has a 50,000 unit shortfall in affordable housing that our citizens openly report to be the most important issue in Jacksonville, and wildly unproven demand for $5k apartment rents on the river.
It's weird to me how elements of the city gets themselves worked into an uproar over spending money on parks or stadium improvements, but no one seems to be questioning a monstrous, near-$40 million cash hand out from taxpayers to Related.
Think of how hard those dollars could work if used for down payment assistance, beefing up an affordable housing trust like you see in cities like Atlanta, expanding beds in homeless shelters, subsidizing more workforce housing with state support, etc.
I'm sure it will be beautiful, I question if it will be full, and have no doubt that are better uses of taxpayer dollars, at a time when the city's general fund is already stretched thin. Subsidies for projects like the Gateway Publix development, stadium improvements, Laura Street Trio, parks, and even the Four Seasons all make sense to me. They're providing reasonably equitable public services, saving critically endangered historic building stock, or addressing a major gap in the market that will start generating bed tax dollars immediately. Don't see it with this one. REV grants and a $10 million completion grant? Sure. $38 million from the general fund. Woof.
QuoteAustin highlights the alternative approach. Its leaders understood that expanding the housing stock in any way, even with luxury apartment buildings, would ease pressure for renters or buyers at lower income levels. Higher-income residents move into the new construction, creating less demand for older buildings and reducing the prices to live there. Instead of constraints, Austin offered perks. If an apartment building included affordable units or its design was environmentally friendly, the city relaxed restrictions on building height and size.
Quote from: Jankelope on May 18, 2026, 11:30:47 AMThat statistic of only $12 million for affordable housing for the ENTIRE CITY is absolutely crazy when it is the biggest single issue for Jacksonville citizens.
Page created in 0.058 seconds with 11 queries.