How Does Consolidation Compare?

[thelakelander]

Critics of Consolidation often argue that it failed to deliver on its promises for Downtown Jacksonville and the Urban Core. These arguments often miss the context of the pressures Jacksonville and other cities were facing at the time, which would have only gotten worse without decisive action. When compared to the various other solutions that Florida cities pursued to counter these problems, Jacksonville's bold solution stacks up well.

Full article: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/how-does-consolidation-compare/

[jaxnyc79]

I certainly don't believe Consolidation caused Jacksonville's urban deterioration, and was credibly the right response to the region's woes at the time of passage; however, I think it reasonable to evaluate whether aspects of Consolidation have been a hindrance to urban core revitalization and attention.

[Charles Hunter]

Excellent look at consolidation and the effect on downtown.  The fault is not in the structure of the government, but in the lack of concern for downtown from those in the government.

I agree that it is time to look at some of the aspects of Consolidation.  Do we have too many City Councilors? Not enough?  Should we replace the elected sheriff with an appointed Police Chief?  And many more.

[fieldafm]

I certainly don't believe Consolidation caused Jacksonville's urban deterioration, and was credibly the right response to the region's woes at the time of passage; however, I think it reasonable to evaluate whether aspects of Consolidation have been a hindrance to urban core revitalization and attention.

That was completed a few years ago:
http://www.coj.net/city-council/docs/reports/consolidation-task-force/task-force-final-report.aspx

[Tacachale]

I certainly don't believe Consolidation caused Jacksonville's urban deterioration, and was credibly the right response to the region's woes at the time of passage; however, I think it reasonable to evaluate whether aspects of Consolidation have been a hindrance to urban core revitalization and attention.

That was completed a few years ago:
http://www.coj.net/city-council/docs/reports/consolidation-task-force/task-force-final-report.aspx

To my mind, the main downside of Consolidation in Jacksonville's case is that it has blurred the identity of the Urban Core. This has disguised the fact that the Urban Core has lost something like 100,000 people since the 1950s, despite the city and metro growing rapidly, and made it more difficult for the urban neighborhoods to come together to advocate for items of mutual interest. But that's something that could be changed within a consolidated government. At least as far as Downtown specifically goes, it's something that pretty much every other consolidated city has gotten right.

There are also more minor things about the consolidated government that could be improved, as suggested in the Consolidation Task Force report - making some offices appointed, removing term limits, etc.

[Tacachale]

Excellent look at consolidation and the effect on downtown.  The fault is not in the structure of the government, but in the lack of concern for downtown from those in the government.

I agree that it is time to look at some of the aspects of Consolidation.  Do we have too many City Councilors? Not enough?  Should we replace the elected sheriff with an appointed Police Chief?  And many more.

Thanks! I think that's exactly it. The far bigger problem than consolidation is that we don't consistently have administrations that focus on Downtown and the Urban Core. When we do, we see marked improvement, but without follow through from successors, we pretty much go back to square one.

[thelakelander]

In everyone's opinion, what city is actually getting it right in the urban core? Whether it's Jax, Miami, Orlando or Denver, all still struggle to mitigate the negative impacts of gentrification and displacement or stimulate inclusive economic opportunity and advancement of long disenfranchised groups. These urban issues continue to be national struggles that have little to do with whether a city is consolidated or not.

[Tacachale]

In everyone's opinion, what city is actually getting it right in the urban core? Whether it's Jax, Miami, Orlando or Denver, all still struggle to mitigate the negative impacts of gentrification and displacement or stimulate inclusive economic opportunity and advancement of long disenfranchised groups. These urban issues continue to be national struggles that have little to do with whether a city is consolidated or not.

I think it depends on what you're talking about. In terms of government efficiency, Miami may be the worst in the state. In addition to their two-tier government and 34 municipalities, the City of Miami has a City Manager that's not as effective as most City Manager positions, because it still reports to the Mayor. It has neither the strengths of a strong mayor government nor a council-manager government. However, in terms of achieving downtown development and vibrancy, it holds up pretty well, especially for Florida. However, gentrification is getting bad down there.

I don't know of any North American city that has successfully cracked the gentrification problem. Unfortunately those with the most vibrant urban environments (New York, DC, San Francisco) often have the worst problems with gentrification.

Frankly, I think Jacksonville's embrace of low-income and workforce housing positions us better than some in terms of fighting gentrification. If we keep it up, that is. It's hard to see the folks moving into (and gentrifying) Brooklyn, Riverside and Springfield embracing low-income housing.

[jaxnyc79]

In everyone's opinion, what city is actually getting it right in the urban core? Whether it's Jax, Miami, Orlando or Denver, all still struggle to mitigate the negative impacts of gentrification and displacement or stimulate inclusive economic opportunity and advancement of long disenfranchised groups. These urban issues continue to be national struggles that have little to do with whether a city is consolidated or not.

You may be identifying more than one urban core objective here.
There's turning downtown into a thriving multi-use neighborhood, spanning office, retail, and residential, with visible evidence of this flourishing in the form of widespread foot traffic even outside of office hours.
There's multi-use development projects without the need for city financial sponsorship to catalyze them.
And then there's affordability for a range of income segments.

I'd be fine with any 2 of the three. 

[thelakelander]

The tough urban core objectives that pre-date consolidation were the ones I was thinking about moreso than fixing downtown. One of the big issues during the consolidation discussion was disinvestment in the urban core (including inner city areas outside of Downtown). When the city consolidated with the county, Downtown was still vibrant and remained so through the 1970s. The urban retail sector really fell apart locally during the 1980s when flagship department stores started relocating to super regional malls like the Avenues and Regency, across the state and country.  While downtown has its problems, I don't believe they are related to consolidation.

[Adam White]

The tough urban core objectives that pre-date consolidation were the ones I was thinking about moreso than fixing downtown. One of the big issues during the consolidation discussion was disinvestment in the urban core (including inner city areas outside of Downtown). When the city consolidated with the county, Downtown was still vibrant and remained so through the 1970s. The urban retail sector really fell apart locally during the 1980s when flagship department stores started relocating to super regional malls like the Avenues and Regency, across the state and country.  While downtown has its problems, I don't believe they are related to consolidation.

Yeah, I moved to Jax in 1979 and we used to go shopping downtown. Although it was clearly in decline (certainly apparent in retrospect), it was relatively busy.

[Tacachale]

The tough urban core objectives that pre-date consolidation were the ones I was thinking about moreso than fixing downtown. One of the big issues during the consolidation discussion was disinvestment in the urban core (including inner city areas outside of Downtown). When the city consolidated with the county, Downtown was still vibrant and remained so through the 1970s. The urban retail sector really fell apart locally during the 1980s when flagship department stores started relocating to super regional malls like the Avenues and Regency, across the state and country.  While downtown has its problems, I don't believe they are related to consolidation.

I don't think any city is getting gentrification right. Some have healthier urban cores, but a lot of that is gentrification. Jax has done some things right (the embrace of workforce housing, investments and economic development in distressed neighborhoods), but it hasn't consistently stuck with any of them. Unfortunately, looking at some of our peers, investment in struggling neighborhoods can even become a precursor to gentrification.

[thelakelander]

Displacement, the lack of investment in the core neighborhoods, lack of solutions to resolve infrastructure issues and economic enhancement in neighborhoods of marginalized populations were major issues for inner city residents at the time on consolidation. The desire for black political power for many at the time, was seen as a way to help address systematic racism and economic inclusion. Somehow, we've focused more lately on if consolidation was good for downtown. Downtown was actually pretty vibrant at the time and remained so until a series of national issues took it down, as well as many other central business districts across the country. In general, consolidation should have provide more access to capital to invest in legacy projects positively impacting all areas of the city. In fact, it still does. However, what the size and shape of a city is does not resolve these issues. What Jax needs for both is the ability to make these issues a true continued priority and a move away from systematic policies, procedures and redevelopment strategies that negatively impact distressed areas and marginalized residents the worst.

[jaxnyc79]

Displacement, the lack of investment in the core neighborhoods, lack of solutions to resolve infrastructure issues and economic enhancement in neighborhoods of marginalized populations were major issues for inner city residents at the time on consolidation. The desire for black political power for many at the time, was seen as a way to help address systematic racism and economic inclusion. Somehow, we've focused more lately on if consolidation was good for downtown. Downtown was actually pretty vibrant at the time and remained so until a series of national issues took it down, as well as many other central business districts across the country. In general, consolidation should have provide more access to capital to invest in legacy projects positively impacting all areas of the city. In fact, it still does. However, what the size and shape of a city is does not resolve these issues. What Jax needs for both is the ability to make these issues a true continued priority and a move away from systematic policies, procedures and redevelopment strategies that negatively impact distressed areas and marginalized residents the worst.

From a distance, it seems as though consolidation was more a means by which officials could get organized in their attempts to secure federal and state funding for suburban sprawl and white flight.  At 860+ square miles, Jax took a geared-up approach to its sprawl ambitions.  I imagine Consolidation's designers talked about the possibility of using an expanded city's gains to invest in the core, but they were very likely dissembling their real aims.

[thelakelander]

Nashville consolidated before Jax did. Today, it's considered to be a 21st century boomtown with a pretty vibrant downtown. What did they do (between the 1960s and now) that led to a different outcome?