Carling, 11 East Bleeding Money: developer asks city for more help

[urbanlibertarian]

What about another project like Parks at the Cathedral, ie. new construction workforce housing?  The Parks has arguably been more successful than the highrise type of downtown residences.

[thelakelander]

The Parks got incentives as well.

[CS Foltz]

Gentlemen......I can see where "Incentives" are going to be necessary with a project that is outside of a bank's purview or cookie cutter developments, but there has to be a limit based upon either square footage or the building relevance or just plain where it sits. COJ does not have unlimited funding to draw on, the taxpayers deserve conservation and common sense useage of their funds! Maybe an Economic Bond that can be bought or sold OTC, something that can used to fund investor involvement. Taxpayers can not be the only funding source or the fund-er of last resort! City Hall is not being imaginative, creative or think outside of the box! JEDC is not doing their job, but they sure do get their salary don't they? Their money comes from the taxpayers also! Incentives should be a tool, not a sole source provider!

[tufsu1]

What about another project like Parks at the Cathedral, ie. new construction workforce housing?  The Parks has arguably been more successful than the highrise type of downtown residences.

agreed...this project put 51 units (eyes) on the street...and has changed 4 street blocks!

[thelakelander]

I wouldn't mind seeing more projects like the Parks in the Cathedral District, LaVilla and Brooklyn.  Those areas are ripe for townhouse/rowhouse style development.

[CS Foltz]

Not really familiar with that project........so I have to ask, City or Bank Funded?

[tufsu1]

both CS...Bank of America financed it through their well publicized urban redevlopment pogram...the City provided tax breaks for homeowners and rebuilt infrastructure (streets, pipes, sidewalks), and the adjacent Episcopal Church also helped out by giving some of the land

[CS Foltz]

tusu1.........to me, that is the perfect picture of both City and Banking improvements. A mix of both rather than a full blown City financed escapade! Best of both worlds and that is what is needed! Neither one or the other allout but a collaboration!

[Noone]

how many years of the parking division would have been funded by 21 million, I wonder?

If you simply took the single project that has had to be incentivised as a result of these jackals, its right at about 25 years of the income produced by all of their collections and tickets.

We have sacrificed downtown in favor of the Meter Maids.

A couple of weeks ago I went Downtown and when I go I park on Ashley St. near  First Baptist and the Fire pension bldg. because there are two hour meters and less enforcement. I also drive through these areas on a regular basis. A day or two later I noticed the meters were gone. Whats going on? A few days later I notice more weters gone. I come over the Hart Bridge and notice some missing on Duval St. gone. A week later I call the parking meter division and asked them what is going on with the parking meters. They were unaware that a problem existed. WOW!

The next day I notice that they are fixing and replacing the two our meters with one hour meters. I get out and they inform me that the meters were being stolen. This was also happening on Church st. Were not talking one or two but dozens of meters. I'm in shock that they were unaware that the people who  work and monitor  that part of town were unaware that a problem existed.

Is anyone who lives Downtown aware of this crime wave?

I asked if they have filed police reports. Said they had.  All these businesses with outside surveilance cameras must have seen something. I talked with a security guard at a bank on Ashley st. and he said his surveilance cameras are on the other side of the street. All the meters were gone except one or two. For Downtown residents and businesses I'd be concerned. We have these taxpayer subsidized parking garages that are guaranteed an 8% return. Point is that the next time numbers come in I would say that you really have to question the validity of any revenue increases or decreases.

Stephan, How have the smart meters worked out? 

[Noone]

Stephen, Sorry for the spelling error.
Also to the issue of more money. I'd say No. If the council says yes then you have to have better enforcement of clawbacks in place to recoup the taxpayer investment. If the buildings are sold is there something in place to say that the taxpayer (banker) will recoup that investment.

[CS Foltz]

Noone......as far as I am concerned, they can put those meters where the sun won't shine! There is no reason for meters other than just one more way to siphon funds out of the taxpayers pocket! If the City were truly interested in revitalizing downtown they would delete all meters and charge something when someone parks for longer than a 8 hr period............that should be long enough time to conduct whatever business one has to conduct downtown. Because of the meters, I don't go downtown unless absolutely required! I also agree, rates at any parking garage are too high and don't need to be increased!

[tufsu1]

CS...your anti-tax arguments are getting old...what ideas do you have for revitaziling downtown and moving the region forward that don't require increased public investment?

[stjr]

CS...your anti-tax arguments are getting old...what ideas do you have for revitaziling downtown and moving the region forward that don't require increased public investment?

I can't say we should eliminate public investment but we could and should take the current level of investment,  before consideration of adding to it, and deploy it a lot smarter than what our track record to date has been.

Additionally, there are many things that the City could accomplish through consistent and smart policies imposed on the private sector, such as good zoning, architectural reviews, traffic planning, land use, historic preservation, and requirements for friendly street level interfaces (i.e. setback standards, retail frontage, landscaping, signage, etc.), none of which would cost the taxpayers anything but would go a long way, if properly applied, toward revitalizing Downtown.

"Improvement districts" in which incremental increases in tax revenues from improvements made within a district would be another way to cost effectively improve Downtown.  Let's face it, if a parking lot or a 40 story tower resides on an existing Downtown block, the financial demands on the City aren't all that different, yet the tower pays dozens to a hundred times the taxes.  The City could afford to reinvest some of that "found" money in continuing to improve the area without sacrificing much elsewhere.

[Charles Hunter]

Isn't there already a downtown tax district?  Isn't that where Downtown Vision gets it's money?  How much does this tax bring in?  Of course, if you give tax waivers to encourage DT development, you are killing the funding source for DT improvements. 

[urbanlibertarian]

stjr wrote: "Additionally, there are many things that the City could accomplish through consistent and smart policies imposed on the private sector, such as good zoning, architectural reviews, traffic planning, land use, historic preservation, and requirements for friendly street level interfaces (i.e. setback standards, retail frontage, landscaping, signage, etc.), none of which would cost the taxpayers anything but would go a long way, if properly applied, toward revitalizing Downtown."


If additional regulation were to promote business activity in general instead of favoring certain businesses and hurting others that would be a fluke.  COJ needs to make it cheaper and easier to do business DT (and throughout the city for that matter).  Zoning, arch. reviews, planning should be dramatically simplified or eliminated.  Tax relief should be secondary to that, IMHO.