For and Against: The Mobility Fee Moratorium (2013-094)

[thelakelander]

^Financially, a full blown moratorium does not make sense from all the data and statistical information out there.  However, there is some validity to possibly adjusting the credit reductions for better growth.  I much rather see that, then a full blown moratorium that basically subsidizes nationwide expansions of 7-11, Waffle House, and Family Dollar. Our overall annual city budget hovers around $2 billion.  How on earth can it make sense in anyone's view that a company which enjoyed $77 billion in sales globally last year can't open in podunk little Jacksonville because we require them to cover their negative impact.  I know some of us consider Jax as this huge city but in reality it really isn't.

You can be assured that Wendy's has a line item covering their impact fees in their project proformas. You can also be assured that Combo #1 will cost you the same in Jax, Miami, Tampa, and Orlando, despite the differences each place may charge in impact fees.

[Cheshire Cat]

Well done Ennis!  Thank you for taking your time and energy in this way.

[Cheshire Cat]

When you can't fight the facts what does one do?  Well apparently Daniel Davis and the N.E. Florida Builders organization have decided to go for "Gimmick's".  Cool huh?  If you can't prove your case for a continued moratorium with valid facts and documentation go for blocks of wood.  Even in the face of clear evidence that a moratorium does not work and the last one failed,  you have your friends send "blocks of wood with stickers on them saying yes on 94" to all the members of City Council!  Certainly impressive as the blocks must be delivered with regular mail to all council members.  To up the anti you then go on the evening news broadcast and promote the false notions that this is a"jobs bill". The "jobs creation line" seems to be the latest meme when one want's to get the attention of legislators and have them blindly side with you.  lol   Never mind that the last moratorium failed, never mind there is no proof of job creation and this is not a jobs bill. Certainly do not point out that current facts show both building and the economy are making the positive turn around in Jacksonville and this bill isn't needed.

Gimmick's cannot replace facts and I have an idea what council can do with those blocks the builders are sending them and no it's not what you think.  lol  My suggestion is that they use those blocks of wood as doorstops to their chambers because you can be darn sure that the public and opponents of this bill are not going to sit back and let a gimmick override that facts in this case and the facts do no match the spin, in spite of all the money thrown behind lobbyists and attempts to push this bill through.  So hold open the doors city hall, the people are on their way. 

http://www.news4jax.com/Mobility-Fee-Debate/-/475982/19245412/-/7g4gaz/-/index.html

And on the same broadcast we get news of improvements nationally and in Jax and this while no moratorium is in place. I truly hope everyone is paying attention to the facts and not the fantasy's.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/Job-Market-Continues-Growth/-/475880/19244738/-/wre0aoz/-/index.html

[sheclown]

The only group supporting this bill is the group who can financially benefit from it.

On the other hand, the many groups who oppose this bill, do so out of a desire to improve the city they love.

[Cheshire Cat]

Indeed. Also notice that New4Jax presented this a bicyclists against builders.  That piece of inaccurate information needs to be made clear.  This is not just about bike paths, it is about our city as a whole losing out on much needed funding via an unneeded moratorium bill.

[Debbie Thompson]

What time would that 4:00 meeting be over? I can make it about 6:00 .

[Cheshire Cat]

Hard to say Debbie.  It may last awhile but you never know. 

[strider]

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-04-06/story/jacksonville-council-panels-hear-new-version-contested-mobility-fee

By Steve Patterson
Stalled legislation that would waive some developer fees to help Jacksonville’s construction industry is resurfacing after critics and backers accepted compromises suggested by a City Council member.

Three council committees are scheduled to meet jointly Monday to debate a new version of a bill (2013-94) that had divided people involved in development and groups who want bicycle and pedestrian facilities the fees help pay for.

Councilman Richard Clark had originally proposed a three-year waiver of the city’s “mobility fee,” which charges fees from developers based on how each project is expected to affect roads and other transportation systems in their part of town.

Councilman John Crescimbeni said Friday he plans to offer a substitute version of that bill, which was tabled in March after strong lobbying by backers of the fee system. If it’s approved by the three committees, the new version could be voted on by the full council Tuesday.

Crescimbeni’s version of the bill shrinks the waiver period to 18 months and then sets new limits meant to motivate developers to start projects soon.

After a three-month “ramp-up” period when the waiver wouldn’t be in effect â€" that would let companies get ready, Crescimbeni said â€" the city would waive 75 percent of the normal fee for projects permitted in the next six months.
If the project was permitted after that six months, the waiver would cover only 50 percent of the fee, then after another six months the waiver would drop to just 25 percent.

That scaled-down offer represented a compromise that Crescimbeni said advocates on both sides told him they could live with.

“From where I sit, I think they walk away with something they wanted and didn’t have to surrender to something they didn’t,” he said.

Advocates seemed to appreciate that.

“I think John has come up with a very good idea that both sides can agree. … None of us got exactly what we wanted, but we got something,” said Curtis Hart, a developer and lobbyist who was part of talks Crescimbeni held to hear out both sides. “I’m hoping it just passes. Since you’ve got a consensus of those for and those against, the council will, I hope, just take up the bill and pass it out.”

Under the substitute version, the fees that aren’t waived would be steered first to accounts that finance bicycle- and pedestrian-oriented projects listed in a city work plan. If those are fully funded, the rest of the fees collected would go to other transportation projects.

The city set up the fee system in 2011 and quickly waived it in hopes a recession-scarred building industry would regain some strength.

The first 12-month waiver period expired in October.

The city waived $3.2 million worth of fees in that year, but couldn’t be sure what it had truly given up. The fee system includes credits that would have lowered some developer costs, but weren’t calculated since they weren’t going to matter.

To get the waiver, Crescimbeni’s bill would require developers to complete a more complicated fee calculation.
Clark said he hasn’t seen Crescimbeni’s legislation and can’t comment on it but feels he was right to offer the original bill.

“I have every intention of moving on and supporting the construction industry 100 percent,” he said.

Anyone here been involved with this? It claims to have involved both sides of the debate. I strongly suggest that the bill be given a very close review as the original gave things away forever, who's to say this one won't as well?  And it seems likely to be pushed through so the "noise" can't be heard.

Frankly, anything like this, any kind of "compromise" at this point is a loss for Jacksonville as a whole and a nod to the power and money of those who think of us regular old taxpayers as nothing but noise.

[fieldafm]

This was as good a deal as we were going to get after 9 months of hard work, unfortunately. 

[sheclown]

So this pops up on Monday and will be voted on by Tuesday?  This is what this is saying?

How can that be?

[sheclown]

Concerned citizens paid babysitters and provided dinners to their families in styrofoam containers to attend city council meetings.  Legions of clerks and accountants shot out emails from their desks during breaks.  Small business owners closed shop early to attend and have their voice heard on this matter AND NOW YOU SAY THAT YOU WILL DO THIS WITHOUT ANY CHANCE FOR THE PUBLIC TO HAVE A SAY?

[Dog Walker]

At least it puts the mechanisms of the mobility fee plan in place and seems to do away with the open-ended nature of the first moratorium.

[sheclown]

this is exactly why you have an apathetic citizenry.  Items sneak in at the last minute when the average Joes don't have time enough to plan.

SHAME ON YOU.

[strider]

This is nothing but selling out those of us who took off work or shut businesses down early to go to the meetings and support the mobility fee.  Take a look at the videos of those meetings.  How many of the people speaking for the moratorium were not paid in one way or the other to do so?  How many supporting the mobility fee were being paid to do it?  None, in fact we were actually paying for the right to speak on it's behalf.

If this was such a wonderful thing, Fieldafm, you would have been plastering it all over this site. This is a slap in our faces and supporting the fact that us caring taxpayers are nothing but NOISE.  I, for one resent that.  Meanwhile, how about posting the “new” bill here now so we can see what is being done to us? You must have it if you are saying it is as good of a deal as we can get. And even then, how on earth do you figure that in any way?  We have a fee that was voted on and passed unanimously and yet the best we can get is to have it ignored?

And Dogwalker, how do you know it does away with the open ended nature of the first (proposed?) moratorium?  Have you also seen the new bill?  Did you have time to read and understand it?  By the way, we do not need a compromise to put the mechanisms of the mobilty fee in place; it is legally already in place.

Yes, I know the normal definition of a compromise â€" the best compromise is one that both sides walk away from the table unhappy.  But is it even a compromise if all on both sides are not aware of it?  Is it a compromise if it is being rammed through without giving those it effects the chance to understand it and comment on it?

Besides, are there not some things that should never be compromised on?  Isn't the future of Jacksonville one of them?

I do not trust our leadership not to follow the money.  And in this case, all the money is going the wrong way.  All the arguments have been made and still, the award winning mobility fee is going to be ignored. The future of Jacksonville is being ignored.  I guess, after all this, I should not be surprised that the “Noise” is being ignored as well.

If this is really a best deal compromise, then our leadership needs to not vote on it Tuesday but rather give us the time to read and comment.  Rushing it is what proves it to be not in the best interests of this city. And proves that everyone involved with the compromise knows that.

[fieldafm]

If this was such a wonderful thing, Fieldafm, you would have been plastering it all over this site.

Let's not throw stones.  Frankly, it would be best if you took a deep breath and reconsider taking your anger out on me.  I sacrificed a tremendous amount arguing against the moratorium.  I don't think any moratorium in any form should take place, instead I think the trip credit system should be modified and the VMT adjusted within certain mobility zones.  So, no I am not happy with what looks like the end result will be... But two months ago things looked about as bleak as they could have been.  To get to this point, while not perfect, is quite an accomplishment considering the current lineup of city council representatives.  The best thing that can happen, would be for the majority of them to be replaced next election.