Chat: Mayoral Debate - Growth and the Environment

[jcjohnpaint]

Personally I still do not know where these polls are coming from that state Mike (no show) Hogan is in the lead.  All of the forums including TU seem to show support for Moran, bastardize Hogan, and show uncertainty toward the other candidates.  From what people are saying they seem to be leading toward Moran.  Last night they mentioned the campaigns run the polls?  Could these polls be skewed for promotional purpose or political strategy?  Could one candidate be in the lead and the polls show another? 

[urbaknight]

Moran, All the way!!!

[RiversideLoki]

As a far left liberal, I can say without a doubt that this is the absolute first and probably only time in my life I'll vote for a Republican. Moran just shows too much promise for this city not to vote for her in my eyes. She's a breath of fresh air and actually stands a chance at getting elected.

It's sad and says something about the state of politics in this city that the only way for progressive democrats to get anything done is to vote for a progressive republican. I feel Brown and Lee just don't have the cult of personality and/or experience it takes to get elected in this place.

I may not agree with all of her positions, but she's far and away a better option for this city than the teahadists Hogan and Mullaney running for office.

[stjr]

I think Rick needs to put more thought into his skyway moratorium point.  You don't need to shut it down for two years to figure out a plan to better utilize it or find out if you have to repay nearly $100 million for shutting it down for good.  These are things that could be discussed and figured out now before the next candidate takes office.  That way, you truly hit the ground running on day one in office.  Also, having a huge abandoned elevated transit line and closed stations all throughout your DT core can't be good for DT revitalization.

I am not a one issue voter so Moran disagreeing with me on the Skyway or Mullaney going my way on it won't be the final factor in who I vote for.  But, given that, I think Moran will find tough sledding if she proposes expanding the Skyway.  Given all the issues the City is facing at the moment, I would suggest this would be a very poor use of political capital early in her administration.  The best she could hope for is to keep it running like it is and try to get more use of what exists.  Personally, I think that, based on history and common sense, that's a losing battle as well and the Skyway will just continue to hold back rail mass transit in Jax as a result.

As to the $70 to $90 million giveback to the Feds, I still don't see evidence that would actually be enforced, either legally and/or politically.  I think it is more of a red herring by Skyway proponents to keep the Skyway going than anything else.  I also note that this amount is far less than the $$$ the Feds put in the Skyway so there must be a depreciating schedule as I have always predicted.  At some point, we would owe the Feds back nothing assuming this is a real "threat" to the City.

By the way, in the debate, it wasn't made clear, but it would be JTA, not the City, that I would think would be accountable for closing the Skyway.  JTA sacrificing its new headquarters building to close the Skyway would be a double win for the taxpayers!  

[thelakelander]

During the debate, both Moran and Abel Harding mentioned Congressman Mica as the source for that number.  Perhaps, you can contact his office and request detailed information on where they got that number from?  If so, we'd be happy to post what you can gather on the front page of this website.  Btw, she didn't endorse expanding it either.  Her sentiment was that our overall mass transit system network needs to be looked at and improved, if the goal is to encourage infill growth, transit oriented development and better utilizing our existing infrastructure assets.  With that in mind, she felt unilaterally putting the bulls eye on the skyway for immediate closure was shortsighted at best.  Especially, since we would have to pay the feds back almost $100 million.

[stjr]

During the debate, both Moran and Abel Harding mentioned Congressman Mica as the source for that number.  Perhaps, you can contact his office and request detailed information on where they got that number from?  If so, we'd be happy to post what you can gather on the front page of this website.

Lake, I am just a "lowly" MJ poster.    Maybe MJ's crack "investigative reporters" could contact Mica and write that front page article.  It would be of much interest to all sides, I am sure.  I have asked repeatedly for Skyway proponents to back up this "Federal payback" argument with specific documentation as to the language, contract, process, timetable, amounts, calculations, etc. not to mention actual precedents of payback checks written.  Over the months and years of posting this request, not one person has stepped up to the plate to do so.  Makes me wonder!

[thelakelander]

There are only so many of us and we already know how deals with the Feds on projects like this generally work.  With our time so limited, this is not a major priority, at the moment.  However, we'd be willing to upload whatever anyone else (who will take the effort to search) can find.

[dougskiles]

Lake, I am just a "lowly" MJ poster.    Maybe MJ's crack "investigative reporters" could contact Mica and write that front page article.  It would be of much interest to all sides, I am sure.  I have asked repeatedly for Skyway proponents to back up this "Federal payback" argument with specific documentation as to the language, contract, process, timetable, amounts, calculations, etc. not to mention actual precedents of payback checks written.  Over the months and years of posting this request, not one person has stepped up to the plate to do so.  Makes me wonder!

I am a lowly MJ poster like you stjr.  But, any time I spend evaluating the skyway will be figuring out how to make it better instead of what we would have to return to the feds.  Even if that were to be zero, there would still be a tremendous cost in demolition.

We are not at a time in history when we can just throw away the resources we have.  This is a time to get the most out of what we have.  The skyway is a critical piece in the transit puzzle - and arguably the most expensive piece of that puzzle to re-create.  Does anyone really think we are going to get a huge chunk of cash anytime soon to build an inner-city transit system?

[stjr]

I am a lowly MJ poster like you stjr.  But, any time I spend evaluating the skyway will be figuring out how to make it better instead of what we would have to return to the feds.  Even if that were to be zero, there would still be a tremendous cost in demolition.

We are not at a time in history when we can just throw away the resources we have.  This is a time to get the most out of what we have.  The skyway is a critical piece in the transit puzzle - and arguably the most expensive piece of that puzzle to re-create.  Does anyone really think we are going to get a huge chunk of cash anytime soon to build an inner-city transit system?

I only question the Federal payback when proponents bring it up as a major reason for keeping the Skyway.  I get the feeling if proponents didn't have that arrow in their quiver, they would feel far less confident in their ability to convince naysayers such as myself on why it should continue to operate.

As to getting the most out of what we have, that is exactly my point.  Every year the Skyway bleeds $5 to $7 million in cash losses and a nearly equal amount or more in depreciation of the capital investment and/or new cash expenditures for replacement or updating capital investments.  For all those millions, we get next to nothing in return.  My point is should we put this non-productive boondoggle out of its misery and truly pursue something that gives us more than a near zero return of value.

By the way, I am not phased by the demo costs.  Most of the concrete and metal has recycling value.  I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing could come down for less than a year or two's worth of losses.  Better yet, for maybe the same or less money, just convert it to an elevated bike lane/sidewalk.  Like the Federal payback play, the specter of an abandoned Skyway is just another specious "reason" to keep the Skyway by proponents.

I think the real focus should be on your last comment about not getting funding for an inner city transit system.  I would suggest a big reason for that is the ongoing image of the failed Skyway.  Until that fades to oblivion, expect continued disappointment in finding the rail funding we all want to see.  This should be the number one reason for you and others here to see it my way.   

[fieldafm]

Every year the Skyway bleeds $5 to $7 million in cash losses

Not true.  That figure INCLUDES depreciation.

BTW, mass transit is not a for-profit operation.

If you really were concerned about cutting the fat at JTA, you could start by looking at a lot of the redundant routes(downtown for instance) they run that can be consolidated.

[wsansewjs]

Every year the Skyway bleeds $5 to $7 million in cash losses

Not true.  That figure INCLUDES depreciation.

BTW, mass transit is not a for-profit operation.

If you really were concerned about cutting the fat at JTA, you could start by looking at a lot of the redundant routes(downtown for instance) they run that can be consolidated.

Mass Transit SHOULD be for-profit operation so it can build a pool of funds to support enhancement / expansion of its services.

-Josh

[thelakelander]

I'm not understanding this line of thinking?  Why should mass transit be a for profit operation but roads, airports, libraries, parks, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, public safety, and schools should not be?

[JeffreyS]

I do not even think mass transit should collect fares because it is so cancerous to the perception of it not being a public service.  The fare box is not the main benefit of having good transit in your region.

[stjr]

Every year the Skyway bleeds $5 to $7 million in cash losses

Not true.  That figure INCLUDES depreciation.

BTW, mass transit is not a for-profit operation.

Field, you are wrong on the cash flow.  I have published repeatedly the Skyway financials here for everyone's review.  Depreciation is another $5 to $7 million and total net losses are $12 to $14 million a year.  Please check your numbers before making accusations.

Once again, I am not advocating a profit.  I am only saying that we should get the most bang for our buck for the subsidies invested.  Would you rather lose $7 million a year on something a thousand people a day use or on a transit that ten thousand a day use?  That's what it comes down to.

[fsujax]

Just ask Tri-Rail about the federal payback clause! They have a first hand account, with the a nasty little letter from FTA's (Peter Rogoff) when they suggested making major cutbacks to service.