Council and developers want to change the mobility plan again?

[thelakelander]

Here's a link to a power point of the mobility plan and fee, which highlights where the concept comes from:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-dec-2030-mobility-plan-presentation

This slide captures the intent of the Mobility Plan and Fee:



At the end of the day, perhaps no one really cares if these objectives are achieved or not but we can at least be honest in our assessment of if the amendment helps or hurts the goals listed.

[thelakelander]

Comprehensive projects like public transit will also suffer as it seems likely developers won't be proposing their fee money go to stuff like that.

The tying of transit investment and supporting land use policies are very critical components of the mobility plan. Without it, the entire thing fails. All we've done is created a cheaper version of the old fair share/concurrency system.

[thelakelander]

And judging by the way they've rushed through or attempted to rush through changes to the mobility plan, I highly doubt they would be strong in soliciting public input.  And speaking of public support, it's already faded.  In fact, councilwoman Boyer cited waning public outcry as part of the reason she voted for the gradual fee in March last year.  There was only one person at this last council meeting talking about the new ordinance.  The public won't have the time or stamina to battle every development that will come before council.  And there will be a lot, a whole swath of land just opened up off 9B.

To be honest, can you blame the public?  It's a full time job to keep track of all the wheeling and dealing at city hall. It's one thing to be paid to be there. It's another to take off work, cancel family activities, etc. to show up in opposition for stuff that has been cooked months in advance of a public hearing.  One clear thing, you really learn is why Jax is the way it is and why we struggle to live up to our potential.

The bikers were fantastic last time, but this time they were waived off with a hand when Redman asked about it in TEU.  If the bikers were following, they'd know that the first thing to get chopped will be the Phillips highway street redo.  It is the project receiving the most attack right now.

They'll have the ability to drive 15 miles out to the new interchange on 9B and ride on mobility fee funded roads out there that will have bike lanes. They may not help build a connected network of bike facilities but that's a goal of the plan no one really cares about.

[Tacachale]

Comprehensive projects like public transit will also suffer as it seems likely developers won't be proposing their fee money go to stuff like that.

The tying of transit investment and supporting land use policies are very critical components of the mobility plan. Without it, the entire thing fails. All we've done is created a cheaper version of the old fair share/concurrency system.

Yes, I agree that transit will be the biggest thing to suffer from these changes. I just don't think that the element of this proposal that allows flexibility is a disaster.

And judging by the way they've rushed through or attempted to rush through changes to the mobility plan, I highly doubt they would be strong in soliciting public input.  And speaking of public support, it's already faded.  In fact, councilwoman Boyer cited waning public outcry as part of the reason she voted for the gradual fee in March last year.  There was only one person at this last council meeting talking about the new ordinance.  The public won't have the time or stamina to battle every development that will come before council.  And there will be a lot, a whole swath of land just opened up off 9B.

To be honest, can you blame the public?  It's a full time job to keep track of all the wheeling and dealing at city hall. It's one thing to be paid to be there. It's another to take off work, cancel family activities, etc. to show up in opposition for stuff that has been cooked months in advance of a public hearing.  One clear thing, you really learn is why Jax is the way it is and why we struggle to live up to our potential.

This is an interesting question. However, we're talking about a public that gives a mayor like Alvin Brown a reported 70% approval rating.

The bikers were fantastic last time, but this time they were waived off with a hand when Redman asked about it in TEU.  If the bikers were following, they'd know that the first thing to get chopped will be the Phillips highway street redo.  It is the project receiving the most attack right now.

They'll have the ability to drive 15 miles out to the new interchange on 9B and ride on mobility fee funded roads out there that will have bike lanes. They may not help build a connected network of bike facilities but that's a goal of the plan no one really cares about.
[/quote]

Yes, I also agree that long-range planning could suffer from changes like this.

[thelakelander]

^The biggest benefits of the plan are the things that potentially suffer the most through the amendment change. If anything, some sort of safety guards need to be added to the amendment enabling it to allow flexibility without killing or making the plan's priority projects construction timelines completely unattainable and unpredictable.

[Charles Hunter]

The flexibility that tachacale isn't concerned about is exactly what will kill the intent of the Mobility Plan and the non-auto projects.  If the developers are given a choice to get credit for a road they would build anyway, or get more turn lanes into their development - or, contribute to a fund that will build a streetcar or other transit - which do you think they will choose?  The strength of having an agreed to list of projects is that it takes the politics (mostly) out of the equation.  As said before, our Council doesn't have the spine to stand up to developers promising "JOBS!" ... and campaign contributions or other payments.

[vicupstate]

Icarus, Bridges and Charles Hunter have this thing pegged correctly. 

Tacachale, no disrespect, but I really think you need to take off the rose-colored glasses.  It is quite easy to see what is going on here.

The powers that be have 'waited you out' and 'stroked the necessary checks' to kill this plan.  Unless opposition 'grows and shows' very quickly, you will be rendered ineffective in controlling the future of this issue.  Jacksonville is still following a 1980's and '90's strategy for growth and development.  That will be cemented into place for  the forseeable future with these changes. With a victory in this battle, the pro-sprawl forces will be embolden to seek total victory in this 'war' very soon.

[Bridges]

^Yes, for legacy projects in the plan, such as commuter rail, streetcar or the multimodal context sensitive redo of Philips Highway, predictability of knowing where and when the project will be built is a major driver of market rate economic development in cities across the country. It was anticipated that the mobility plan and fee structure would bring this type of economic stability to economically stagnant parts of Jacksonville as well.  What was not anticipated was our inability to allow the award winning product an opportunity to actually perform as designed.

I think this is a point to drive home with council.  They seem receptive to the idea of economic predictability and the pitfalls of opening up this box. 

Also, if we can re-emphasis the goals of the mobility plan that Lake posted earlier that helps. 

I don't think we should roll over just yet.  LUZ and TEU will meet again at the beginning of the week next week.  Contact them and respectfully state your case. 

TEU: Chair is Jim Love
JimLove@coj.net, RBrown@coj.net, GAnderson@coj.net, JRC@coj.net, KimDaniels@coj.net, Joost@coj.net, MattS@coj.net

LUZ: Chair is Lori Boyer
LBoyer@coj.net, MattS@coj.net, WBishop@coj.net, Holt@coj.net, RLumb@coj.net, JimLove@coj.net, Redman@coj.net

[Jumpinjack]

^ Received call from CW Boyer's office. She will be allowing public comment on the Mobility amendment during the early portion of the LUZ meeting on Tuesday. Please try to be there.

It would be good if CM Love would do the same for Transportation committee on Monday.

[Bridges]

Nice!  Love wrote me back, saying he would bring up the concerns with the committee.

[Bridges]

TEU will take it up today at 2 pm.  Not sure if they allow public comment or not, but LUZ tomorrow evening will.

[tufsu1]

TEU voted to defer the issue for at least a month.  The City's Planning Department submitted an analysis of the proposed legislation and recommended several changes

[Jumpinjack]

Council hammering out a new position? The developers seeking subsidies will be represented. It's not easy but please try to attend this meeting of four council members to discuss the mobility plan amendments.

Council Member Public Meeting - Mobility Fees
February 25, 2014
9:00 a.m.
City Hall
117 W. Duval St., Suite 425

Conference Room A
Please contact Suzanne Warren, ECA, District 2, for additional information at 630-1392.

Notice is hereby given that Council Member Bill Bishop, Council Member Robin Lumb, Council Member Greg Anderson and Council Member Lori Boyer, will meet on Tuesday, February 25, 2014, at 9:00 a.m., in Conference Room A, City Council Offices, 117 West Duval Street, Suite 425, City Hall at St. James Building, to discuss proposed legislation 2013-761.

2013-761    AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 655 (CONCURRENCY AND MOBILITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM), PART 5 (MOBILITY FEE), ORDINANCE CODE, SECTION 655.507 (TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CONSTRUCTED BY A LANDOWNER OR DEVELOPER) AND SECTION 655.508 (MOBILITY FEE CONTRACT), TO ALLOW A LANDOWNER OR DEVELOPER TO CONSTRUCT AND DEDICATE A TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT THAT WILL MAINTAIN OR IMPROVE ADOPTED CITY-WIDE AND MOBILITY ZONE MINIMUM MOBILITY SCORES AND ALLOW A LANDOWNER OR DEVELOPER TO RECEIVE MOBILITY FEE CREDITS OF EQUAL VALUE EVEN IF THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN THE 2030 MOBILITY PLAN OR IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE JACKSONVILLE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

All interested parties are encouraged to attend.

[thelakelander]

The development and road project behind the latest mobility fee debate:

Estuary LLC plans 569-lot Cypress Bluff residential project on 342 acres near Florida 9B

Vacant land around the Interstate 295 East Beltway and the new Florida 9B connector is in line for high-profile development.

Estuary LLC, a company led by members of the Davis family, seeks approvals there for a 569-lot residential project called Cypress Bluff.

The Davis family is a major landowner in South Jacksonville and the founder of Winn-Dixie Stores Inc.

Cypress Bluff is designed on almost 342 acres east of Florida 9B and less than a mile south of the 9B intersection with I-295.

The St. Johns River Water Management District is reviewing an application for the project.

Environmental Services Inc. is the consultant and England, Thims & Miller Inc. is the civil engineer.

The first phase of the development includes about 3,000 linear feet of collector roadway and associated utilities.

The "E-Town Parkway" consists of 0.6 mile of a four-lane divided roadway with a two-lane roundabout.

Full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=542322

[Bridges]

I hate that these "public" input meetings are always at times that are inconvenient for the majority of the public.  I hate not being able to have a voice at a lot of these meetings.