City Council prepares to Halt Mobility Fee

[thelakelander]

Jacksonville

I look at this situation this way.  You have an individual (Jacksonville) who is a heroin addict (addicted to unsustainable sprawl growth).  This individual has been placed into a painful process called rehab (recession, over-building, etc.).  If that person can successfully get through rehab by changing their ways (leaving the addiction behind), they have a chance to live a productive life (win economically with an economy based on quality-of-life over growth) going forward.  Instead of attempting to change (the mobility plan stimulates change), the council just sent that addict in rehab some blue magic and a few needles (mobility fee moratorium).  Looking short term, one could argue that getting high every now and then will help the addict deal with the pain of the rehab process.  In reality, long term, you just make it easier for the addict to OD.

[dougskiles]

Doug. I stayed through the entire meeting and within five minutes of you leaving they called your name out.

Because you attached the bill number to your card, they waited until there was a motion on that particular bill to call you.

Ahhh shame on me.  Thanks for jumping in, you probably explained the position better than I would have, though.  Was there any discussion amongst the council members?

Hearing people talk about how $800k isn't worth the trouble to collect makes me realize how little of this plan people truly understand.  I see the greatest impact not in the fees collected but in how it promotes smarter growth.

Thanks for staying and speaking to the issue.  As stated earlier, I will begin the followup process with the council members.

[JeffreyS]

Yes and as a general rule city councils see ad valorem tax revenue as goal of what they are doing.  Not QOL or revenue vs expenses budgeting, just look how much new revenue I brought in. 

[SunKing]

Someone will need to explain to me exactly how the mobility plan promotes smart growth.
The Mobility Fee is actually LESS EXPENSIVE to developers than the old Fair Share.  So now instead of $800k look for about 2/3 of that on average.  But guess what?  You will never see your $533k go to a bike lane Downtown because the money that any developer would presumably pay could be offset by making road improvements specific to its own development.

Look I live in Avondale and I would love to take a streetcar to FivePoints or Downtown every day.  Yes sprawl = bad, I get it.  But saying you want a developer's impact fees to pay for it is like taxing the drug dealer to pay for rehab for the junkie (to borrow an earlier comparison).  Does taxing cigarettes prevent lung cancer?

We live in a city encompassing what 850 square miles?  You want smart growth?  Draw circles around the city cores, inside a cores is urban, outside is rural.  That is how you address a problem.

A lot of smart people on this website and I appreciate smart dialogue but think this mobility fee is a red herring to the real issue that is being discussed.  Focus resources on the real issue.

[ChriswUfGator]

Doug. I stayed through the entire meeting and within five minutes of you leaving they called your name out.

Because you attached the bill number to your card, they waited until there was a motion on that particular bill to call you.

Ahhh shame on me.  Thanks for jumping in, you probably explained the position better than I would have, though.  Was there any discussion amongst the council members?

Hearing people talk about how $800k isn't worth the trouble to collect makes me realize how little of this plan people truly understand.  I see the greatest impact not in the fees collected but in how it promotes smarter growth.

Thanks for staying and speaking to the issue.  As stated earlier, I will begin the followup process with the council members.

$800k isn't worth collecting, unless it's parking fines. Which cost more to collect than what they bring in.

But for some odd reason, people just loooooove those.

[JeffreyS]

Someone will need to explain to me exactly how the mobility plan promotes smart growth.
The Mobility Fee is actually LESS EXPENSIVE to developers than the old Fair Share.  So now instead of $800k look for about 2/3 of that on average.  But guess what?  You will never see your $533k go to a bike lane Downtown because the money that any developer would presumably pay could be offset by making road improvements specific to its own development.

Look I live in Avondale and I would love to take a streetcar to FivePoints or Downtown every day.  Yes sprawl = bad, I get it.  But saying you want a developer's impact fees to pay for it is like taxing the drug dealer to pay for rehab for the junkie (to borrow an earlier comparison).  Does taxing cigarettes prevent lung cancer?

We live in a city encompassing what 850 square miles?  You want smart growth?  Draw circles around the city cores, inside a cores is urban, outside is rural.  That is how you address a problem.

A lot of smart people on this website and I appreciate smart dialogue but think this mobility fee is a red herring to the real issue that is being discussed.  Focus resources on the real issue.

The idea is that the mobility fee is higher out in sprawlburg and less expensive in the dense areas where new infrastructure won't be needed to support it.  There are also additional credits to be earned if the construction provides density (multi-use, multi-family) or is Transit Oriented.  The fees would then help promote more sustainable growth and a percentage of the fees goes directly to transit.

[thelakelander]

Someone will need to explain to me exactly how the mobility plan promotes smart growth.

Wow.  It promotes smart growth by integrating transportation investment and sustainable land use policies.  The mobility fee structure provides a financial incentive for more sustainable quality development in the urban core and the burbs.  Here is a good overview article that includes links with access to greater detail on the plan:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-sep-2030-mobility-plan-the-cutting-edge-of-planning

The Mobility Fee is actually LESS EXPENSIVE to developers than the old Fair Share.  So now instead of $800k look for about 2/3 of that on average.  But guess what?  You will never see your $533k go to a bike lane Downtown because the money that any developer would presumably pay could be offset by making road improvements specific to its own development.

Actually, the plan divides the city up into mobility zones.  Mobility fees would be spent in the same Mobility Zone as the development.  This is something that fair share did not do.  Thus, a downtown development would pay into an urban core mobility zone.  So in essence, that downtown developer would not have to construct a new street.  Although that development's fee would be significantly lower, things like mass transit, bike and ped improvements don't cost nearly as much as road construction either.  So, yes an improvement like bike lanes could be done with little money in an area of town that this particular development would be impacted by.


Mobility Zone Map

Look I live in Avondale and I would love to take a streetcar to FivePoints or Downtown every day.  Yes sprawl = bad, I get it.  But saying you want a developer's impact fees to pay for it is like taxing the drug dealer to pay for rehab for the junkie (to borrow an earlier comparison).  Does taxing cigarettes prevent lung cancer?

You want a developer to pay for their negative impact to public infrastructure.  If they don't, you do in the form of additional taxes.  It's really as simple as that.

We live in a city encompassing what 850 square miles?  You want smart growth?  Draw circles around the city cores, inside a cores is urban, outside is rural.  That is how you address a problem.

Read the executive summary in this link:

http://www.coj.net/Departments/Planning-and-Development/Community-Planning-Division/Mobility-Plan.aspx

You find that this is a well thought out plan that answers all the questions/concerns you've raised and more.

A lot of smart people on this website and I appreciate smart dialogue but think this mobility fee is a red herring to the real issue that is being discussed.  Focus resources on the real issue.

The real issue is becoming a financially sustainable and economically viable community.  To get there, we'll have to change from a ponzi scheme oriented growth-based unsustainable economic structure.  The mobility plan and fee is the best thing we have at this point to make that transition.

[thelakelander]

What a measly $800,000 will pay for:

4.26 miles of 5' wide sidewalks ($187,465 per mile)

3.56 miles of 6' wide sidewalks ($224,958 per mile)

2.39 miles of 12' wide multi-use trails ($334,731 per mile)



This is a map of Jacksonville's sidewalk network on its major streets.  Green = existing sidewalk, Blue = committed sidewalk (most likely a part of a planned road improvement project) and Red = no facilities.

Part of the plan is to strengthen the connectivity of Jacksonville's sidewalk and bike network.  $800,000 could go a long way to filling in a several gaps within the overall network.  With all of this said, this is locally generated money.  There's no reason it can't be used for various matching grants and P3 deals to make more significant improvements.  So that measly $800,000 could easily become $1.6 million in some cases.  In short, being a city with no money, every little penny counts if there is a good ROI on a particular issue.


Arlington is an example of a short stretch of highway where pedestrian/bike improvements would be significant to a community divided by an expressway.

[Bridges]

I wrote Crescimbeni back.  I thanked him for his reply and stated that we didn't see eye to eye on the purpose of the Mobility Plan.  I outlined several issues, mainly that his idea that the mobility fee was just another name for fair share.  I also said that his argument for non-existent fees as a reason to put a moratorium on the plan was self-defeating.  I asked if we can expect the same argument in 12 months if no development, or if there is a small uptick in development will we see that as an excuse for a continued moratorium?

His response:

I think you are right: we don't see "eye to eye" on this issue.

As a follow-up, please know that the City Council unanimously approved 2011-617 last night, and the ordinance will automatically sunset (end) after twelve (12) months from its effective date.  If there is no significant evidence of  job creation and ad valorem valuation increase, I will be the first to vote against any attempt to reintroduce or extend the moratorium.

[Doctor_K]

Soo.. does that mean the mobility fee plan passed?  Or was completely shot down?

[thelakelander]

http://I outlined several issues, mainly that his idea that the mobility fee was just another name for fair share.

This shows that he doesn't have a decent understanding of what he just voted to severely limit.  I expect the majority of council may have the same issue.  We're going to have to do a better job of educating our representatives because there are others who have a direct conduit into city hall to promote their positions.  If there is no counter argument presented by a credible source, then it should be no surprise why things turn out the way they do in Jax.

[thelakelander]

Soo.. does that mean the mobility fee plan passed?  Or was completely shot down?

The plan passed a while back.  They just voted to not implement it for a full year.  By not charging mobility fees, they are of the position that the money saved by developers will help new growth get underway.  What such a position doesn't answer is the overall market.  If you have an over-built supply of product and your customers aren't buying, there's little incentive to produce more.

[Steve_Lovett]

Jacksonville

I look at this situation this way.  You have an individual (Jacksonville) who is a heroin addict (addicted to unsustainable sprawl growth).  This individual has been placed into a painful process called rehab (recession, over-building, etc.).  If that person can successfully get through rehab by changing their ways (leaving the addiction behind), they have a chance to live a productive life (win economically with an economy based on quality-of-life over growth) going forward.  Instead of attempting to change (the mobility plan stimulates change), the council just sent that addict in rehab some blue magic and a few needles (mobility fee moratorium).  Looking short term, one could argue that getting high every now and then will help the addict deal with the pain of the rehab process.  In reality, long term, you just make it easier for the addict to OD.

Great analogy.

[Ocklawaha]

Having watched the collective intelligentsia of this city over the last 50 years, I tend to think you can bank on the 'fair share', 'impact', or 'mobility fees' being a thing of the past. Last night the City Council made a unanimous decision to choose cheap, over quality of life. In the name of the possibility of development, we have decided a city with horrible transit, bad roads, no commuter rail, no light rail, no streetcars, no Skyway, no sidewalks, no bike trails, etc. will cause a developers land rush. I've said it many times before, and some still don't get it, returning to Jacksonville from Medellin and Bogota is like a descent into 1960.

So if your a big blue chip corporation looking to relocate and build a new office tower in downtown, we offer nothing, we'll plan nothing, and we will achieve nothing in terms of true urban infrastructure. If your dream of a metropolitan panacea is one without vision, services or progress, we're your town.  And hey you'll be able to get all 100% of our nothing, for a few dollars less then it will cost you to locate in Orlando, Miami, or Atlanta.Tough decision eh?  All is not lost though, we'll still fine you for putting up a sign, and ticket you for parking downtown. The 'Land Before Time,' is alive and well in Jacksonville, sounds like a slam dunk to me.

OCKLAWAHA

[JeffreyS]

We are going to have to dig in.  The hogs around here are used to being fed no questions asked.  They don't expect this in St. Johns county but here they want the trough kept full or squealing is epic.