LIVE BLOG: MOBILITY FEE MORATORIUM: Rules&Finance Committee

[thelakelander]

^I thought Councilwoman Boyer hit the nail on the head when she mentioned it seemed like this bill was more for land speculators than anything else. A 7-Eleven can go in several locations all over town if it really wants to avoid a mobility fee. The guy installing drywall, will install drywall where ever the project is. However, 7-Eleven going in an existing half empty strip center or redeveloping/upgrading an existing gas station doesn't do the land speculator who purchased during the height of the boom any good.  A full moratorium, allows the speculator to pocket all of the mobility fee waiver money, while securing a deal with an entity that could literally go anywhere in the city. It's not fair to the taxpayers to subsidize speculative decisions to help buffer profit margins on holdings that have lost value over the last few years.  We've all suffered great loss over the last few years. All a full moratorium does is attempt to help a small segment of the local market at the expense of the rest of the community.

[thelakelander]

^Another option would be to further incentivize better development by adjusting the credit adjustment system.  The original URBEMIS model that the mobility fee's credit adjustment system is based off, provides more credit for positive growth than our current set up does (I believe 15% off is as high as you can get off the mobility fee).  We also don't give any credit for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies.

I've been alerted to the reason it was mentioned at the DIA meeting that 15% is about as high as we can get with the credit adjustments in most locations in town.  We simply don't have the built environment, density, high frequency transit corridors, bike/ped corridors, etc. that justifies higher credit reductions at a greater scale.  Also TDM strategies were not included because it was believed they may be too hard to enforce after a development is completed.

[thelakelander]

Its too bad that Councilman Lumb and Clark have proven that they are the secret blackmail weapons to be wielded as tools by a couple of developers.

Call me good natured but I'd like to believe that Lumb truly believes a moratorium is best for taxpayers.  However,  such a belief would hopefully be backed by sound data and documentation. At the very least, taxpayers deserve this. As for CM Clark, I have no idea what made him state he'd pick on segment of the population he represents over the other.  I simply assume it was a bad attempt to save his bill from going up in flames after CW Boyer ripped it to shreds.

[sheclown]

CM Boyer made the statement that if land speculators are underwater in their properties, they are in the same position as a great many homeowners in this city.  There is little help for these families, why should there be help for the speculators?  And in fact, she fills out the thought a bit, these families will now have to foot the bill for the infrastructure required to develop these properties.

So, think of the roofer Clark speaks passionately about.  There may be some more roofs to shingle (unless out of town workers come in to do this as very often happens), but his taxes will have to be raised to pay for the additional services that the sprawl will require. 

And then go on to think of the kindergarten teacher.  Do we care about her?  She doesn't benefit from this plan one bit, but she will pay for it.  And she loses out on many quality of life projects.  And she can't safely ride her bike.

[JeffreyS]

It was a great point by The CW. I guess great is a bit of a self-serving way to characterize it as it was the crux of the comments I was going to make it public had been allowed to speak.

[Dog Walker]

I am beginning to believe it is not the fee itself that the development community objects to so much as it is the reward for infill and transit oriented development.  They are heavily invested in raw land far away from any infrastructure and don't want that land to be lower value than parcels that are closer in.

Maybe it's the raw land owners, not really the builders who are behind the moratorium.

[sheclown]

I am beginning to believe it is not the fee itself that the development community objects to so much as it is the reward for infill and transit oriented development.  They are heavily invested in raw land far away from any infrastructure and don't want that land to be lower value than parcels that are closer in.

Maybe it's the raw land owners, not really the builders who are behind the moratorium.

I agree

[Lunican]

I am beginning to believe it is not the fee itself that the development community objects to so much as it is the reward for infill and transit oriented development.  They are heavily invested in raw land far away from any infrastructure and don't want that land to be lower value than parcels that are closer in.

Maybe it's the raw land owners, not really the builders who are behind the moratorium.

Wouldn't this be the same crowd that is pushing for the Outer Beltway?

[Cheshire Cat]

Connecting the dot's is a good thing. 

[JeffreyS]

I like that thought Stephen.

[Cheshire Cat]

Good point about agriculture Stephen.  Integration of this asset into local thinking would be a positive thing at more than one level.

[mbwright]

Well said. 
Keep in mind that agriculture is suspect to development.  I recall when orange groves were common in Orange County CA.  Now there are only backyard trees, and a 5 acre historical ranch museum in Tustin.

[JeffreyS]

Incentivize outskirts development into farmland , I really like that.

[xplanner]

I sit here chuckling as the conversation drifts to agriculture and the linkage to our rural fringe land speculators that CW Boyer nailed to the barn door this week. And yes this is mostly about them, not bona fide developers.

There is a funny (ironic???) analogy between the proposed Mobility Waiver Bill and the Federal Farm Bill, which includes Agricultural Price Supports. Under price supports, taxpayers nationwide are asked (actually mandated) to pay Midwest farmers to NOT grow certain crops, in the interest of keeping prices high for the crops that they do grow.

In a similar vein, Jacksonvillians are being asked (mandated) to pay for correcting existing and future road deficiencies so that the sellers of land adjoining those deficient roads can reap the full "market value" of their speculative land deals. 

As you research agricultural price supports, you will often see reference to the economic concept of "deadweight loss". Deadweight loss is simply defined as the aggregate social cost of policy-driven oversupply of a commodity, over and above the monetary costs society is already paying in taxes to create that oversupply. Like piling more failing roads on top of existing failing roads.

So this next time around, let's call the Mobility Waiver what it really is...The Land Speculation Price Support Bill. Or better yet, the Deadweight Loss Sharing Bill.

[Cheshire Cat]

I am seeing a unique door to walk through.  Given the justified uproar over GMO food sources, I can see a niche for Jacksonville to incentivize the growing on non GMO foods.

I agree with you xplanner, but see an opportunity going forward for this sizable consolidated community. 

Why can't we be forward thinking and in some ways break new ground?