What lost mobility fee funds could have paid for

[Metro Jacksonville]

What lost mobility fee funds could have paid for



So far the City of Jacksonville has lost $4.8 million in the form of waived mobility fees since October 2011, with no solid proof that we'll ever see our return on that "investment."  Assuming additional eligible projects move forward, that number could possibly increase to nearly $28 million. While this amount of cash may not immediately fund the construction of the Hoover Dam, it was more than enough to significantly impact the city's poor bicycle and pedestrian network and stimulate additional job creation through their implementation. Here is a brief look, by mobility zone, at sample projects that could have been funded by dollars already lost from last year's moratorium.  Is Jacksonville really in position to sacrifice more via council approving a longer mobility fee moratorium?

Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-feb-what-lost-mobility-fee-funds-could-have-paid-for

[vicupstate]

Top notch research Ennis.  My concern is that 95% of Jax residents don't consider themselves pedestrians or bicyclists and therefore don't care if those projects get funded, and in fact most probably oppose the projects themselves. 

[Bill Hoff]

Explaining the benefits sans any bicycle related items will be important. Ie, growth guidelines which produce environments that pay for themselves, rather than environments that drain tax payer dollars in a city with already stressed financials.

[JeffreyS]

Those projects would be nice but the City Council was able to help some GOB developers afford some better vacations with their projects that would have happened with or without the fee.

[thelakelander]

Top notch research Ennis.  My concern is that 95% of Jax residents don't consider themselves pedestrians or bicyclists and therefore don't care if those projects get funded, and in fact most probably oppose the projects themselves. 

Most probably don't care about bike/ped specifically but let the fee work for a few years and they'll have funding for roads and transit. Even without any of that, most people don't like the idea of themselves financially subsidizing new development at the expense of what they already own. I can't imagine someone with an underwater house or vacant commercial property paying to help the next guy make their situation worse.

[FSBA]

I see alot of broken windows and not much else

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXC9FI1nAqs

[Jason]

Fantastic article!  The impacts after just one year are are huge.  The list of posibilites after a three year moratorium would be exponentially greater.  Come on COJ, lets make sure this Mobility Plan is working in our favor.

[Jason]

Ennis, what area is the main image from?

[thelakelander]

Southside Blvd at Square Lake Blvd, just north of Avenues Mall. You have a mix of housing within walking distance of Target, Home Depot, Bank of America offices, etc. and no sidewalks or crosswalks to get across the street.

[toi]

Ennis - maybe you don't know but under the current mobility fee, no more than 11% of the funds collected (about $44M) can go towards sidewalk and bike improvements, and they can only be spent on a cash flow basis, i.e., you can't take the first million collected in a zone and spend it all on sidewalks.  I argued that you should be able to front end sidewalk and bike improvements and lost.  So this article is fundamentally flawed and misleading.  Nonetheless, you are wrong that the City turned away money.  For evidence of that, compare the amount of waived fees to the amount collected since October - around $10,000.  That is pretty striking even considering that there are projects that are proceeding forward now under the waiver.  The marketplace is responding to what it is the government wants them to do.  The fee is sending a clear message -- we don't want you here, all platitudes aside.

If sidewalk and bike improvements ought to be a funding priority for the City, and I agree that they should be, why not argue for that instead of arguing essentially that the mobility fee as currently structured is perfect, and that new developments should pay for fixing the sidewalk-less but already developed areas of our City, and oh by the way, spend most of the road dollars on six laning three road links, including one on the proposed commuter rail and BRT corridor.  Why should Goozlepipe and Guttyworks on King Street pay about $193,000 in mobility fees to build infill when the infrastructure as it is on Park and King is already there.  Just as important, is that the message we want to send to people about doing infill and density in the city?  Who is going to invest here with those sorts of fees??  Surely you agree that price matters and that there are other communities that are also nice places to live or run a business with fees lower than that.   Redevelopment in the form of reusing existing square feet (and getting a pass on mobility fees in some instances) does not move the needle enough to make efficient use of infrastructure and reduce vehicle miles traveled.     

Really doing something for bike and ped improvements requires a broader funding base and just as important, political will to want bike and ped improvements.  First sell the need for the improvements.  Be specific as to where and what it is you want.  For example, I think there is a great opportunity to improve connectivity between Riverside and downtown by improving the sidewalk between the Riverwalk and Memorial Park - make it wider and attractive, more like the riverwalk.  Then, when you have support, figure out to how to pay for the improvements.  The JTA gas tax is a logical place to start with the latter.   As you know, compared to new interchanges and such, bike and ped improvements are inexpensive.

Tom Ingram

[tufsu1]

Great research and awesome summary Ennis!

on a related note....in a misguided effort to combat Jacksonville's pedestrian safety problem, JSO has announced they will begin ticketing pedestrians who cross streets illegally (jay-walking).

As to Tom Ingram's points above, the six-laning of Philips Highway will yield a better corridor with sidewalks, bike lanes, improved medians, and better flow for BRT.....and as for the Riverside mention, projects can obtain mobility fee reductions through urban design...I'm sure the folks on King Street would have qualified for a reduced fee.

[Ocklawaha]

Why should Goozlepipe and Guttyworks on King Street pay about $193,000 in mobility fees to build infill when the infrastructure as it is on Park and King is already there.  Just as important, is that the message we want to send to people about doing infill and density in the city?  Who is going to invest here with those sorts of fees?? 

So are you suggesting that the good citizens of Jacksonville should pay for improved access to various King Street businesses while Goozlepipe and Guttyworks or any other project/developer gets a free ride on the taxpayers back? Your contention that the $193,000 would be used to 'build infill' is erroneous, the money is for mobility improvements one of which would bring a downtown - King Street streetcar line nearly to the door of said restaurant. The message we are sending with the mobility fee is twofold, one, would you like to live in a city that takes better care of it's citizens then the one listed as the 3rd most deadly? Two, it nudges development more toward urban infill projects where the fee is considerably less, thus creating the density that keeps business humming in cities much larger then Jacksonville. 

[JeffreyS]

Tom I would say the best thing about the mobility fee isn't the projects it will fund but the direction of development it will influence. Build where there is already infrastructure.

As for the Fee stating we don't want you here.  If we are talking about new sprawl development housing supply commercial supply devaluing the sprawl housing supply commercial supply we already have here then yes we don't want it.

[tufsu1]

As for the Fee stating we don't want you here.  If we are talking about new sprawl development housing supply commercial supply devaluing the sprawl housing supply commercial supply we already have here then yes we don't want it.

I wouldn't say "we don't want it"...we just want it to pay for its true impacts to our community

[fsujax]

well, fees sure aren't stopping developers from building in St Johns County!