Live Blog: Revised Mobility Fee Moratorium

[JeffreyS]

Press him and he'll probably claim rising permit activity is a result of the mobility fee moratorium.

This most likely explains the push for the vote on the moratorium -- didn't want the March figures to come out and show how healthy the industry really is.

Yes, before the new Reductionatorium was placed in Jax we could clearly see the Recovery Nationwide.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/16/news/economy/home-building/index.html?iid=HP_LN

The annual pace of housing starts topped 1 million for the first time in nearly five years in March, another sign of the rebound in the sector.

The pace of housing starts came in at an annual rate of 1.04 million in the month, up 7% from February and 47% from a year earlier. It marked the first time since June 2008 that the pace of building crossed the 1 million benchmark.

Even with the recent gains in the sector, the reading was much stronger than forecasts.

After years of depressed activity, home building and real estate have turned around in recent months, helped by a combination of near record low mortgage rates, lower unemployment and a drop in foreclosures that has lifted home prices.

As a result, sales of both previously owned homes and new homes are both up. The rebound in building, sales and home values has helped to lift overall economic growth

Related: Housing is back! Best moves for homebuyers

But there have been some concerns about growing problems in the sector, as rising prices for raw materials and some shortages of construction workers have put a crimp in some builders' results.

[JeffreyS]

Not That I think anything like this will happen but I am wondering about the procedure. If the Mayor was to veto the bill that passed with a veto proof 18-0 margin.  Is the veto just meaningless or does it have to go back to the Council to be overturned?

[fieldafm]

The Mayor can't veto a vote with that margin.  He can (and mostly does) allow it to become legislation without his signature. 

[JeffreyS]

Thanks.

[fieldafm]

This most likely explains the push for the vote on the moratorium -- didn't want the March figures to come out and show how healthy the industry really is.

Council members were presented all kinds of data (even easy to understand graphs) which indicated a recovering market from people within the real estate industry.

It's clear that most Council members rely on theortical beliefs rather than empirical evidence.  Even in public session, Lumb for instance conveniently left out a timeframe dataset which would prove his opinions as invalid (he looked at constructin data up until 2009, conveniently leaving out 2010 to the present which indicates clear cut positive momentum based on market drive demand/supply... you know, how the free market is supposed to work). 

[fieldafm]

Well, I guess I technically skipped a step... essentially two thirds majority overules any veto.

The mayor may veto any ordinance or resolution adopted by the council except ordinances and resolutions relating to:
(a) Consolidation of the urban services districts.
(b) Appointments to the zoning board and the building codes adjustment board.
(c) Zoning exceptions and variances.
(d) The auditor, the secretary of the council, or other employees of the council.
(e) Internal affairs of the council.
(f) Investigations by the council or any duly appointed committee thereof.
(g) Quasi-judicial decisions made by the council.
Any ordinance or resolution adopted by the council over which the mayor has a veto power shall be presented to the mayor for his consideration and recommendations. If he approves the ordinance or resolution he shall sign it and it shall become effective according to the terms thereof. If he disapproves he shall return the ordinance or resolution to the council without his signature, accompanied by a message indicating the reasons for his disapproval and recommendations. Any resolution or ordinance so disapproved by the mayor shall become effective only if, subsequent to its return, it shall be adopted by two-thirds of all the members of the council present at any meeting; except that if the mayor vetoes any item in the consolidated budget appropriation, only a majority vote of the members of the council shall be required to adopt the same as law over the mayor's veto. Any resolution or ordinance shall become effective on the date provided therein unless it be disapproved by the mayor and returned to the council at or prior to the next regular meeting of the council occurring 10 days or more after the date when the ordinance or resolution was delivered to the mayor's office for consideration. The mayor may disapprove the sum of money appropriated by any one or more items, or parts of items, in any ordinance appropriating money for the use of the consolidated government or any independent agency, in any manner provided herein. The one or more items or parts of items disapproved or reduced shall be void to the extent that they have been disapproved or reduced, unless they shall be restored to the ordinance and become effective by the vote of a majority of the members of the council

[fieldafm]

The Mayor, when given FOUR chances to give an opinion on the matter, either sat silent or gave non answers.

What signs indicate he will take a stand now (or ever)?

[dougskiles]

Well, I guess I technically skipped a step... essentially two thirds majority overules any veto.

The mayor may veto any ordinance or resolution adopted by the council except ordinances and resolutions relating to:
(a) Consolidation of the urban services districts.
(b) Appointments to the zoning board and the building codes adjustment board.
(c) Zoning exceptions and variances.
(d) The auditor, the secretary of the council, or other employees of the council.
(e) Internal affairs of the council.
(f) Investigations by the council or any duly appointed committee thereof.
(g) Quasi-judicial decisions made by the council.
Any ordinance or resolution adopted by the council over which the mayor has a veto power shall be presented to the mayor for his consideration and recommendations. If he approves the ordinance or resolution he shall sign it and it shall become effective according to the terms thereof. If he disapproves he shall return the ordinance or resolution to the council without his signature, accompanied by a message indicating the reasons for his disapproval and recommendations. Any resolution or ordinance so disapproved by the mayor shall become effective only if, subsequent to its return, it shall be adopted by two-thirds of all the members of the council present at any meeting; except that if the mayor vetoes any item in the consolidated budget appropriation, only a majority vote of the members of the council shall be required to adopt the same as law over the mayor's veto. Any resolution or ordinance shall become effective on the date provided therein unless it be disapproved by the mayor and returned to the council at or prior to the next regular meeting of the council occurring 10 days or more after the date when the ordinance or resolution was delivered to the mayor's office for consideration. The mayor may disapprove the sum of money appropriated by any one or more items, or parts of items, in any ordinance appropriating money for the use of the consolidated government or any independent agency, in any manner provided herein. The one or more items or parts of items disapproved or reduced shall be void to the extent that they have been disapproved or reduced, unless they shall be restored to the ordinance and become effective by the vote of a majority of the members of the council

Does anyone doubt that 6 or 7 councilpeople would change their votes in the face of a Mayoral veto on this issue?  Especially with the new data essentially proving that Dan Davis lied in committee?

Have you (or anyone) contacted the mayor's office about vetoing the bill?

[JeffreyS]

I will email him and I urge everyone else to do so as well.  My gut is he will sit this one out even if he leans our way on the Fee.

[John P]

This is crazy. I hope this is sent to every damn councilman. Is it too late to have council chnage their mind and withdraw the legislation?

[Cheshire Cat]

“My informal survey of all of our members makes me optimistic,” said Daniel Davis, executive director of the association. “They’re saying they’re busy. We just need to make sure that we have good, solid sustainable growth.”

It’s important, he said, that the industry doesn’t build more homes than the economy can absorb.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/business/real-estate/2013-04-15/story/northeast-florida-building-permits-continue-rise#ixzz2QcnTlRmL

Dan Davis is a sitting member of the Florida House.  I am pretty sure that there are very strict rules about intentionally lying to legislative bodies, even if it is on behalf of a private association like the Florida Builders Association.

Diane, you have a lot more insight on this process that the rest of us do.

What are the rules about lying to a City Council Committee, especially in a matter concerning tax revenues?

It sure seems unethical at the very least.  I intend to run this by some officials to find out what the ramifications may be.  Davis is running for re-election to the Florida house and this manipulation is a mark on his record regardless.  It will be a matter of the wording used in any statements he may have made during council meetings, both committees and general which will be a matter of record.  It is the context of those statements that will more clearly show what can or cannot be done.  I am guessing unless he quoted specific figures attached to specific groups that can be rebutted by his statements to media he will use old fashioned "slippery" to slide by his dishonest portrayal of the health of Florida and Jacksonville's building community. 

[dougskiles]

“My informal survey of all of our members makes me optimistic,” said Daniel Davis, executive director of the association. “They’re saying they’re busy. We just need to make sure that we have good, solid sustainable growth.”

It’s important, he said, that the industry doesn’t build more homes than the economy can absorb.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/business/real-estate/2013-04-15/story/northeast-florida-building-permits-continue-rise#ixzz2QcnTlRmL

This is amazing to me too.  That sentence in bold was the basis of my presentation to the first joint committee meeting.  Frustrating.

[sheclown]

“My informal survey of all of our members makes me optimistic,” said Daniel Davis, executive director of the association. “They’re saying they’re busy. We just need to make sure that we have good, solid sustainable growth.”

It’s important, he said, that the industry doesn’t build more homes than the economy can absorb.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/business/real-estate/2013-04-15/story/northeast-florida-building-permits-continue-rise#ixzz2QcnTlRmL

This is amazing to me too.  That sentence in bold was the basis of my presentation to the first joint committee meeting.  Frustrating.

Yeah.  I heard you use that too.  HaHa...we thought they weren't paying attention.

[Ocklawaha]

Actually the mayor could easily jump into this now that the damage is done. It's a political win-win for him to veto a bill per the wishes of the citizens even though it is purely symbolic and can do no harm to the builders. In this he would come across as defending the citizens against the evil corporations, while acknowledging a clear victory for the builders. EVERYONE WINS... except the people of Jacksonville. We get flushed along with the rest of the waste but hey, at least the mayor is swimming in the bowl with us! Uh Huh!

[TD*]

Ock, move to Tallahassee! we want you.