Amendment 4

[ChriswUfGator]

Everyone has a right to try and make profit.

But no one has the right to use hundreds of millions of free tax dollars to do it.  The land wouldnt have its present value if not for the tax payer financed roads, highways, public safety and infrastructure investment.

They had great farmland, and that farmland, given responsible husbandry increases in value. 

As farmland.

+1,000,001

[thelakelander]

How is Amendment 4 is going to stop highway construction?

[simms3]

Everyone has a right to try and make profit.

But no one has the right to use hundreds of millions of free tax dollars to do it.  The land wouldnt have its present value if not for the tax payer financed roads, highways, public safety and infrastructure investment.

They had great farmland, and that farmland, given responsible husbandry increases in value. 

As farmland.

Are you referring to JTB?  The Skinners own land south of JTB, some of which is now developed, most of which is still nursery/forestry/swampland.  I thought JTB was to provide another route for beach residents to the city as well as relieve traffic on congested Beach and Atlantic.  JTB wasn't built "for" the Skinners so they could eventually sell the land for more.  I'm not buying your argument.  If you can prove landowners are bribing officials to get certain projects done, then by all means, I want that to end, too!  If you can provide proof landowners are arranging under the table deals, by all means.  Also, the Skinners who have sold some of their land around 9A and Baymeadows did not benefit from taxpayer funded roadways.  The developers did, and it was the planners, FDOT, SAFETEA-LU funding, our MPO, and other officials who signed off on these roadway facilities, and many developers have actually paid substantial impact fees and mitigation costs in recent years (with a few notable developments being blocked), though I'm sure we can all agree that more should be done.

The Davis land is south of the Skinner land, but I don't know all the specifics of either's, I just know many of the Skinners and have been out to their nursery numerous times.  They are good people, not being "greedy" in any bit.  Paul Harden is simply doing his job and has earned a stellar reputation in this town.  If I needed something done or legal work and had the money, I would hire a partner from his firm, too.

I'm not trying to side with anyone, but I am siding against Amendment 4.  It's all fluff.  It sounds good, but will do more harm than help.

[Dog Walker]

The building of JTB was actually to help Hodges, mostly, along with the well known folk who wanted to develop Ponte Vedre (In St. John's County!)  It wasn't built to meet demand or relieve congestion and was widely derided as "road to nowhere" when it was first built.  If you build them, they will fill them!

Amendment 4 is going to cause real uproar and difficult changes.  It will create inequities and have consequences we cannot predict now.  But it will restore some consistency and sanity to our land use planning as was intended in the first place.

Nothing can be as bad as what we have now; corrupt, short-sighted, unpredictable, invisible to citizens.

-30-

[buckethead]

ignore
 
citizen

jobs.  

Good point. Not only does it ignore the fact that it will likely reduce the number of jobs in the construction and land development sectors, it also ignores property rights.

There won't likely be a true sampling of an informed populace making the actual votes, but a few with vested interests as well as others with time on their hands.

Not to mention the lunatic fringe. (not a reference to that horrible song from the eighties... Here's a better one) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1oyfG6t2ew

Did you even read what you quoted? That's not what stjr said... Now it is.

And I don't care about construction jobs. People are sick of unbridled sprawl-producing development.

Clearly you don't feed, clothe and house your family with money earned from a construction job.

Nice concern for your fellow citizen.

nimby

[buckethead]

So what.

Better than cramming another sprawl-inducing development down a the throats communities that don't want it

I would suggest people do want the new developments, as evidenced by the fact that they sell.

[ChriswUfGator]

So what.

Better than cramming another sprawl-inducing development down a the throats communities that don't want it

I would suggest people do want the new developments, as evidenced by the fact that they sell.

They sell because they are cheaply priced, owing to the developers shifting much of their infrastructure burden to the taxpayers. If these developments weren't built people would just buy houses elsewhere, which would actually be healthier for the economy. Not sure what your point is.

[simms3]

Actually the developers pay pretty hefty impact fees, though I think they can be increased.  I hate hate hate sprawl at least as much as anyone here, but trying to forgo emotional arguments here I think Amendment 4 will not solve the problems it is claiming it will, but WILL kill jobs, and WILL hinder population growth (which ends up being a good thing for the tax base at the very least).  How do you know people will just buy houses elsewhere?  Lots of those suburban home dwellers come from densely packed northern cities and are actually looking for a suburban tract home near a playground with a yard.  They aren't looking to move from a northern urban environment to a southern urban environment, unfortunately, and if Amendment 4 passes they'll just choose to move to another sunbelt state.

If Amendment 4 passes, sure we might not see any or much more sprawl around 210, etc, but we also might not see any or much more urban infill development if densities, setbacks, parking requirements, or any other aspect of the development are different from what is currently zoned (which is always the case).  Both types of development will hit a roadblock with this type of development.  I would rather see sprawl AND urban infill happening than none of it at all.  I don't think you can have much of one without some of the other.  Part of the appeal, ironically, of Jax and FL is the sprawl.  Maybe we can curb that, but if we eliminate it completely, we'll be cutting off a huge portion of our immigration from other cities.  My generation, the 20-35 year olds, want urban.  The baby boomers are fairly split, with many who move to Jax being of the sprawl variety (actually preferring that, and companies know that).  At this point, we just need to curb sprawl and regulate how a PUD is built (prevent dendritic streets, levy larger impact fees, regulate what and where "open land" constitutes, etc).

Most citizens have no background in planning, transportation, or anything of the sort.  Engineers already have a hard time explaining impacts of various new road facilities or PUDs (which most people outside of this board don't even know what a PUD stands for or any legal regulations of PUDs).  This isn't necessarily ignorance, but do we want to place decisions in the hands of people who have no idea about land planning, zoning, transportation planning, how our MPO and our local governments work, anything about the developers, or any side of the matter?  I sure don't.

[thelakelander]

Amendment 4 isn't going to stop sprawl.  Most of this state's comp plans encourage it and the majority of the land people think is zoned for agricultural uses has already been approved for development (especially local areas like the Westside and Northern St. Johns County).  Those large land use changes are the ones tufsu1 mentioned where no one even shows up at the meetings (for or against).  However, we'll pack city hall to protest a car wash, Walmart or infill apartment complex.  If anything, Amendment 4 will enable future sprawl (because comp plans already allow for it while discouraging infill and density) and limit the potential of modifying sprawl encouraging comp plans in a manner where more sustainable and pedestrian friendly development is allowed.

[tufsu1]

How is Amendment 4 is going to stop highway construction?

It won't....although, sadly, it may make it harder to get rail...while Duval has now put it in the comp. plan, I do not think the folks in Clay, Nassau, amd St. Johns have....without the outlying counties, commuter rail doesn't happen

[thelakelander]

True. Commuter rail would have to happen within Duval County's borders, since we would be responsible for footing the bill.

[tufsu1]

Florida Tax Watch has looked at the financial impact to taxpayers for Amendment 4

http://www.floridataxwatch.org/resources/pdf/10052010FiscalImpactAmendment4.pdf

[JeffreyS]

Florida Tax Watch has looked at the financial impact to taxpayers for Amendment 4

http://www.floridataxwatch.org/resources/pdf/10052010FiscalImpactAmendment4.pdf

Good link I read through most of it but then decided the flaws they point out should be obvious to anyone who thinks about the amendment for thirty seconds.

[ChriswUfGator]

And what's the cost of unbridled sprawl to the taxpayers?

[Live_Oak]

Amendment 4 won't stop sprawl for sure.  No one knows what Amendment 4 will do or cost.  I don't see how people can vote for it with such confidence.