City Council prepares to Halt Mobility Fee

[jcjohnpaint]

You see a very simular attitude taking shape in higher education at the time.  The student is now a customer not a student  
We need to think of the foundation (or lack of) we are creating for the future of we will be paying the price later!

[John P]

I read on this site and myspringfield how springfield people had 15 speak at a recent luz meeting about mothball policy. If springfield can get 15 to show up for a techincal modification to a policy then how many can San Marco, Riverside Avondale, Springfield, Downtown and MetroJacksonville.com get to speak against this moratorium?
riverside avondale 20
springfield 15
san marco 15
downtown 10
metrojacksonville 10

That would be 60 people and if readers are serious about opposing it then organize and get 60 people to show up to speak against it. trust me that will not be ignored.

[dougskiles]

One thing I find troubling is council's position that a moratorium will spur economic development and put people back to work.  Its spoken in these responses like its an absolute truth.

If a moratorium on development fees is a guarantee for spurring growth, then Clay and Nassau would be booming right now.

Council members seem to be ignoring this reality.  Unfortunately, if the ordinance passed unanimously in committees, which I believe it did, then this will go on the consent agenda.  The consent agenda takes place BEFORE the public comment period.

[JeffreyS]

Mr. Sutton:

Regarding your previous e-mail and the e-mail below.

1.   It’s good to know that you will weigh a number of factors â€" and not necessarily a vote on this one issue â€" in deciding who to support in the next election. As contentious as this issue has become, I’m confident that on other issues we will share a commonality of purpose.

2.   I don’t see the decline in real estate values as “the market…correcting for the sprawl type of construction”. I see the collapse of real estate as the result of the easy credit that fed a speculative boom. If it were a corrective for sprawl then the decline in prices would have been limited to the suburbs.

3.   I never thought anyone was trying to get rid of cars. My point was that to focus on only the direct costs of transportation infrastructure without considering the enormous wealth effect of private automobile ownership materially misstates the significance of the financial impact caused by development. The present economy notwithstanding, the prosperity we enjoy as a society is directly related to private automobile ownership which in turn is dependent on having adequate roads and highways. If you punish those who prefer suburban living you undermine an important economic pillar and delay recovery.

4.   With its support of Mobility Fees the building and construction industry has conceded the eventual necessity of paying Mobility Fees as a means of funding transportation projects. What I hope from those who are so single minded in their insistence on the immediate collection of Mobility Fees is that they will concede the necessity of a TEMPORARY waiver of Mobility Fees in the interest of the greater good.

5.   I believe that the logic of my original argument is compelling. If a TEMPORARY waiver causes a measurable rise in construction then we have at least done something to create jobs. If no significant increase is recorded then the waiver will do little to affect future funding for transportation projects.

I believe that what I propose is a fair and reasonable compromise. It does nothing to undermine the concept of Mobility Fees and only seeks a temporary waiver for the purpose of stimulating construction activity in the near term.

Best regards,

Robin Lumb, City Council
Group 5 At Large

There is just a belief on the council that the development world did not change. Just a simple hiccup with the banks and the sprawl boom cycle is right back on.  The banks don't matter to new development if people were still buy developers would still be building. 

[JeffreyS]

If we are protesting Tuesday morning before the vote I will be there.

[JeffreyS]

I guess the council feels like Jacksonville is so ugly that if she expects dinner she is never getting kissed.  I think this city is wonderful and I like Jacksonville for dinner.

[Charles Hunter]

5.   I believe that the logic of my original argument is compelling. If a TEMPORARY waiver causes a measurable rise in construction then we have at least done something to create jobs. If no significant increase is recorded then the waiver will do little to affect future funding for transportation projects.

The problem with this argument is, that if the waiver does cause an increase in jobs - there will be pressure to continue the waiver, else we will be "killing jobs".  If it does not increase jobs, there will be pressure to continue the waiver, after all if no jobs were created with a waiver, it will be much worse if the fee is imposed.

[Jumpinjack]

Charles, you hit the nail squarely on the head. Once a fee goes away the impossibility of getting support to reinstate it will not be there. Killingsworth put together a panel of smart and forward thinking people to agree to the mobility plan and support it with politicos. They worked through all the problems of concurrency and how to fund road needs as well as transportation needs in places where roads are built out. That scenario will not happen again.

[JeffreyS]

You are both right and the truth is the market will or will not create those jobs regardless of the Moratorium.

[Ralph W]

Boys and girls... If this moratorium works for the Mobility fee and does indeed stimulate job creation then I see no problem in declaring a moratorium on all forms of taxation, both local and federal, because it will have been proven that such forward thinking action creates the jobs our nation so desperately needs,

[thelakelander]

And if it doesn't, which is something that has been already proven time and time again?

[Ralph W]

Well, if it doesn't, just about face and ramp up taxation to 90%. If 10% is enough for JC it's enough for the rest of us. Right?

[thelakelander]

How about just leaving it as is?  Why should the general public have to pay for the negative impacts caused by unsustainable private development?

[JeffreyS]

And if it doesn't, which is something that has been already proven time and time again?

No no Lake Mr. Lumb told me it is just a little mess up by the banks.  The sprawlville boom will be back on the second we give our city away for free.

[Charles Hunter]

Lake, Lake, Lake ... why do you refuse the Kool-Ade?  Don't you know that ALL Development is Good; and MORE Development is BETTER?