Eliminating Sprawl: Is it possible?

[thelakelander]

We live in a city with development patterns that spiral out of control from the core like a kicked ant hill.  The infrastructure has already been extended.  We'll create huge mess by attempting to charge infill development projects that tap into existing roads, water and sewer lines that have already been developed because of leap frog investment.  This is why its better to make sure new developments embrace Smart Growth policies.  Between Smart Growth and Inner City tax abatement, we'll go a long way in solving the problem discussed in this thread WITHOUT raising anyone's taxes.

[thelakelander]

Its not the same thing and you know it.  Your whole argument has been about INCREASING taxes to for the majority of the community to stimulate and redirect development to the urban core.

All new development must be taxed appropriately to pay for the extension of the cities infrastructure.  No new or higher taxes would be assessed to anyone who has already built or purchased their home.

The Higher tax rates would only apply to new builds and developments.

My apologies if I obscured this.

So basically, if I attempt to build my house on an undeveloped plot of land that sits between two existing subdivisions in suburban Jacksonville (basically anything outside of the old city limits), I'll have to pay additional fees that my neighbors did not?

With leap frog development being allowed in this county for decades already, the city would be leveled with lawsuits by developers and residents who seek to add infill development in existing low density suburban areas.

[fightingosprey07]

Let's not forget that Philadelphia's urban core is significantly more vibrant that Jacksonville's. Convincing people to live in downtown philly is probably not nearly as hard of a sell as it is here in jacksonville. I don't think any tax break would convince people to move downtown until it becomes a little more vibrant.

[thelakelander]

thats an empty promise.

It cant be done through abatements or it would already have worked.

Its working right now in Philadelphia.

Learning from Philadelphia: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/64/118/

When you are straight with people about the reason for charging or taxing them, you empower them to make decisions based on reality.   If people get it that further away means a whole lot more money, and that its more expensive the further out you go, then they wont even bother with the purchasing or planning of the project unless they can truly afford it.

You can be straight, but when people are losing their jobs and their homes are being foreclosed, increasing taxes don't make sense, if it can be avoided.

Citizens can then see the value of their taxes at work.  They see that they are not being unfairly charged so that others can have cheap land, and that they are not being required to foot other people's bills who never even bothered to ask or put it up for a vote.

Having a straightforward and truthful conversation with people is never the wrong way to go.

Having a truthful converstation is fine, but it does not mean I (for example) would be willing to open my checkbook and dish out more cash than what's already falling out of my wallet.

For years, Downtown paid the expenses of the School Board.  All the money was there, all the real tax base came from there, yet there were almost no school children.   Same with the financing of most of the roads.

They certainly didnt come from Florida Homestead Exemption homeowners.

There were a lot of things that we have done wrong throughout history.  However, there are other options out there worth exploring that don't involve increasing taxes.

And now, people incredibly resent tax 'incentives' to downtown businesses.  They call it corporate welfare and piss and moan when the neighborhoods like San Marco, Springfield, Durkeeville, and Five Points get development monies because they shouldn't be 'subsidized'.

Do a quick google search and you'll find that most of the projects associated with "corporate welfare" are not downtown.  They're spread all over town, especially on the Southside.

Bull.  And its an irony that is totally lost on most people because they never even realized they were sucking the core city dry.  The money only went one way for 60 years.  From the core to the suburbs.

Now, paying  for your own way is somehow considered punishment?

GET REAL.

It would be interesting to see what area in town pays the most in terms of taxes right now.  It would not suprise me if its not the core.

[Steve]

Its the same thing.

One group pays a higher rate than the other.

No, it's not.  Let's take a city called Plesantville:

I live in the suburbs are are paying $100 in taxes.  You live in the city and pay $100 in taxes.

Under your plan, I would be paying $150, where you would still pay $100.  This is raising taxes fur the suburbs.

Under the Phily plan, I would still pay $100, where you would pay $50.  The difference is that I still pay the same taxes I did yesterday.  Given the fact that the money of the city is on the southside, somehow I think that the southsiders would go for the Phily plan more than your plan.  Remember, Jacksonville is very much a NIMBY city.  Most people in Jacksonville's take on downtown is "when it develops, I will go down there, but don't bother me until it does"

[Steve]

Now, paying  for your own way is somehow considered punishment?

Considering that much of Jacksonville's southside did not live in ther area in 1985, absoutely.

[thelakelander]

Let's not forget that Philadelphia's urban core is significantly more vibrant that Jacksonville's. Convincing people to live in downtown philly is probably not nearly as hard of a sell as it is here in jacksonville. I don't think any tax break would convince people to move downtown until it becomes a little more vibrant.

I used to visit Philly during my urban planning studies in college during the 1990s before this tax abatement program was implemented.  Its a completely different world there now.  The vibrancy level today is light years ahead of what it was over a decade ago.  Tax abatement was the major reason.  

People are already moving to Jacksonville's urban core.  Springfield, for example, has fared much better during this economic downturn in the local real estate market than its suburban counterparts.  With increasing gas prices, implement a tax abatement program in areas such as Brooklyn, East Jax, Durkeeville, Sugar Hill, Brentwood, etc. and I think you'll be suprised with the number of residents who would seriously consider repopulating these areas.

[Steve]

Then how do you pay the real cost, which is actually 350?oh... you dont!

You don't in any plan - in an age where governments cut revenue with no plan to cut expenditures, it really doesn't matter how you slice it, you won't balance the books. (it shouldn't be that way but it is).

The fact is that you can't penalize the money end of the city in an effort to revitalize another part of the city.  The money folks will never go for that.

[fightingosprey07]

 With increasing gas prices, implement a tax abatement program in areas such as Brooklyn, East Jax, Durkeeville, Sugar Hill, Brentwood, etc. and I think you'll be suprised with the number of residents who would seriously consider repopulating these areas.

It's already much cheaper to live there than in the suburbs, aren't the real estate prices there much lower?

[Steve]

It's already much cheaper to live there than in the suburbs, aren't the real estate prices there much lower?

Much lower

[thelakelander]

In some areas....yes, in other inner city areas no.  However, the ideal of abatement creates a redevelopment rush, as opposed to sparsely dispersed infill.

[Steve]

you still eventually have to pay the cost.

Which Springfield discovered when they did their main street project.

True, but the point is that if you want to revitalize downtown, you're going to have to do it without bothering the burbs.

I'm with you on fair share costs, but once the house is built, then it's built.

[thelakelander]

So in other words,  Where the land prices are lower, people are willing to come in and refurbish?

They dont just skip town?   hmmmmm.........

Its not so much about land prices, as it is with only embracing the concept of increasing taxes to solve past mistakes.  

When skipping town is literally hoping across an imaginary county line (ex. Ponte Vedra). Sure you'll have a segment that skips.  You'll also have another pissed off segment that will sue and probably win, sending more city money to the shredder in the process.

Btw, going back to fightingosprey07, property values are lower in certain areas of town for a reason.  Perhaps because of higher crime, blight, poor schools or poorly maintained parks.  Like Philly found out, sometimes you have to be creative and give the initial urban pioneers a strong reason to come back and rebuild in these forgotten areas of town (downtown, the Cathedral District, LaVilla, etc.) included of course.  You won't find many stronger incentives than immediate significant savings in people's checkbooks and bank accounts.

[thelakelander]

As a new suburban dweller, you get new streets, a modern school, and well maintained drainage for your hundred, but for my 6000 dollars, none of the streets are in good repair, the drainage is so clogged it floods if someone leaves a sprinkler on and the local high school has bricks falling on the heads of students whenever someone rings a bell too loudly.

Question.  I missed where you specified your urban development boundary.  What's the general area (North, South, East, West)?  For example, would Arlington be considered a suburb?  How about Lake Shore or Normandy?

[thelakelander]

Lake.   Where are you getting this idea that concentric tax zones exist for any other purpose than to pay for the infrastructure of new development as it happens??

And why should everyone else pay for it EXCEPT the landowner or the developer?

Where are your proposed concentric tax zones?  Would your concentric tax zones apply to low density areas with existing leap frog development and infrastructure already extended in place, or would they be areas where infrastructure does not exist and is not planned?  Feel free to provide graphic examples or maps for better clarification.