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

[strider]

Maybe it was a bit harsh.  And yes, I believe they did more for this fight than I did.  No question.  Doesn't change the fact they asked us to pick up the fight. I just think it is important that they are then also the last men standing for this fight. Instead, they are the first to say this is the best we can do.  So, yes, I am critical of that.  Perhaps I am wrong here.  If so, I will admitt it. 

The only option right now is to go tonight and see if we will be given time to do anything about this at all.  Voted on tonight, council approve tomorrow and that means no time to do anything else but watch. Only a few that may have direct access can do anything at this point.

[JeffreyS]

I think the point you are missing is that they are reporting what the best achievable outcome was at this time. I don't believe they are saying this is deal live with it. I received good responses from the council to the message I sent yesterday. We can continue to fight this fight if the new moratorium is implemented then let's work to get it cut short or have new ground up construction not be included in the moratorium. We keep fighting until good development policy is in place.

[dougskiles]

If anyone wants to talk to me about this issue in person, please send me a PM and I would be happy to call and explain my perspective on this.  While I find online forums very useful as a means of discussion, there does come a point where I feel direct communication is the more appropriate avenue.

[Koula]

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? 

I haven't read the bill myself yet, but I attended Thursday's BPAC meeting and asked Councilman Gulliford about that very loophole; apparently something to this effect is written into the new bill:

If your project is under $1M, and you pull a permit to build during these 21 months, you have 1 year from the date of your permit to finish your project and get your Certificate of Occupancy from the city. If you don't finish the project completely and get your CO within that year, you get fined and will pay back the discount Mobility Fees you received before your CO is granted. If your project is a $3M project or more, you have 3 years to complete it and get your CO. No more savvy builders applying for permits to wrangle themselves out of the fee, then waiting 7 years to build.

While I'm not thrilled with this new bill, it seems that more council members are aware that their constituents want smart urban planning with mass transit, walkability/bikeability. I've only been involved with these issues for about 3 years, but it seems like the folks with the power to make decisions are starting to wake up to bike/ped/transit issues. Perhaps I'm just being too optimistic.

[Jumpinjack]

Does anyone know if public comment will be accepted at the joint committee meeting this afternoon at 4:00?

[Ocklawaha]

Does anyone know if public comment will be accepted at the joint committee meeting this afternoon at 4:00?

Be there at 4 pm, they can't keep us out.

[PeeJayEss]

While I'm not thrilled with this new bill, it seems that more council members are aware that their constituents want smart urban planning with mass transit, walkability/bikeability. I've only been involved with these issues for about 3 years, but it seems like the folks with the power to make decisions are starting to wake up to bike/ped/transit issues. Perhaps I'm just being too optimistic.

There should be a provision in there where they can't ever discuss reducing the fees again after the 18 months is over, otherwise, we'll be in the same position then as we are now. This is a win for the anti-Jax (or pro themselves with an indifference toward the future of Jax, to put it politically) developers. Its better than the original bill, but that's not saying much. The original bill was a farce. The bike/ped funding appears to be pandering to get the biking organizations (that turned out in force) to approve. Call it a bribe.

[Jumpinjack]

^ Yes.

[sheclown]

^Just about every community has developers that funnel money into campaign contributions.  However, for whatever reason, it doesn't always equate to place fighting tooth and nail to keep itself in the Dark ages. The bad thing about this particular situation is that without the grass roots opposition that showed up at city hall a couple of weeks ago, a full blown moratorium of some sort would have been approved. It just would have been something like a year, instead of three. Sometimes I think this is our grand answer to facing economic related changes many have already figured out..

good point

[sheclown]

strider i completely agree with you on the general fight.

But I think that its also time that more of us stepped up to the plate and disseminated the burden and blunt force.  Doug and Mike Saylor have been involved from the beginning, and its not their fault that they were used by the other side for their own purposes.  In fact, from a scottish viewpoint, its kind of funny in a strategy kind of way.

I think its high time that several of us called steve patterson however.  He seems to be the point man on this issue at the Times Union, and he has clearly been given the business from the 'other side'.

What kind of legal option are you thinking of?

Should we all get together?

yes  --  at tomorrow nights city council meeting

[thelakelander]

Maybe it was a bit harsh.  And yes, I believe they did more for this fight than I did.  No question.  Doesn't change the fact they asked us to pick up the fight. I just think it is important that they are then also the last men standing for this fight. Instead, they are the first to say this is the best we can do.  So, yes, I am critical of that.  Perhaps I am wrong here.  If so, I will admitt it. 

The only option right now is to go tonight and see if we will be given time to do anything about this at all.  Voted on tonight, council approve tomorrow and that means no time to do anything else but watch. Only a few that may have direct access can do anything at this point.

I don't think you can pin this one the three pro mobility fee advocates who had the opportunity to be a part of Crescimbeni's private meeting.  Myself, not being there, I have no idea on what they were bombarded with, what had already been cooked up before the meeting and what the actual political reality of the situation was that they were confronted with. Heck, has a bill even been drawn up at this point for the public to see?

Personally, the speed of things have caught me off guard.  From the last joint committee meeting, we all knew (or was under the impression) that Crescimbeni was going to put together a committee to discuss a short term resolution while Bishop was going to form a committee to look at things long term.  I'm not sure anyone (at least pro mobility fee advocates) knew the committee would be one closed meeting with limited participation and that the results of that closed meeting would be immediately voted on by a joint council committee.

I found out about the meeting results late Friday.  However, all throughout this process, there have been several people from both sides sending emails and individually meeting with various council members. I'm not sure anyone has the time to post the results of every single time someone meets with a public official to discuss whatever is on their mind.  Nevertheless, like you, I didn't really realize that there would be no more discussion and that this thing could have a final vote by council as early as tomorrow.  I didn't know that until reading this thread while at San Marco Books yesterday. To me, this is an example of why most Jax citizens have become so apathetic and distrusting of local politics.  This is probably more frustrating to your generation than mine.  Unfortunately for Jax, we're so mobile today, we simply pick up and move when we feel things are completely hopeless.

The only option right now is to go tonight and see if we will be given time to do anything about this at all.

I don't think anyone quit.  Logically, the next step is to go to the meeting in five minutes (those of use who can switch their schedules around at the last moment), see how things play out and then chart a course of action after then because even if this 18 month thing gets approved, there's still a lot more work to be done.

[strider]

According to others at tonights meeting, there were multiple meetings, not just one.  A mention of this couldn't be made?  Or how about Dougskiles doing a good job of distancing himself from those that supported him?


Frankly, everybody quit.  The only difference is some of us had no choice because we were sort of left at the altar.

[JeffreyS]

No one has quit. Doug in the end was trying to make the best of a bad list of choices. Should he have held his breath and pouted.  He at every turn said we did not need any moratorium , waiver or this reduction schedule. Mitigating damage is not the same as causing damage and it is disgusting to hear you spin it as such.

[tufsu1]

No one has quit. Doug in the end was trying to make the best of a bad list of choices. Should he have held his breath and pouted.  He at every turn said we did not need any moratorium , waiver or this reduction schedule. Mitigating damage is not the same as causing damage and it is disgusting to hear you spin it as such.

thank you, thank you, thank you!!!

[Tacachale]

No one has quit. Doug in the end was trying to make the best of a bad list of choices. Should he have held his breath and pouted.  He at every turn said we did not need any moratorium , waiver or this reduction schedule. Mitigating damage is not the same as causing damage and it is disgusting to hear you spin it as such.

Well said. Thank you Jeffrey.