Friday, November 28, 2014
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
 

Suburban Jacksonville: Durbin Crossing

Metro Jacksonville takes a drive through one of the largest and most complex DRI's ever approved in Northeast Florida: Durbin Crossing

Published March 13, 2012 in Neighborhoods      50 Comments    Open printer friendly version of this article Print Article


feature

About Durbin Crossing



Durbin Crossing is a 2,086-acre development by Southstar Development Partners in Northern St. Johns County.  When completed, the development will feature 1,550 single-family homes, 947 multi-family units, over 200,000 square feet of retail/office use, regional parks, and an elementary school.

Quote
Surrounded by singular natural beauty, this extraordinary new community offers you the chance to experience living space that goes beyond the walls of your home to encompass over 2,000 unspoiled acres of thoughtfully-planned neighborhoods, exciting recreational amenities, abundant preservation land and planned town center convenience. Joined as much by sidewalks and bike lanes as by streets, Durbin Crossing is rich in the things families love most, from splash-happy pools, to action-packed playgrounds and playing fields.
It’s a place where your family can feel at home with nature-and each other.
http://www.durbincrossing.com/index.html







Quote
Rarely has sanctuary been so convenient. Located off Racetrack Road between I-95 and State Road 13, Durbin Crossing is perfectly positioned to make your family and work life easier to manage. Living here, you’re within minutes of downtown Jacksonville, the beaches, and St. Augustine. You’ll enjoy the best of the St. Johns County lifestyle with its high-performing schools, vibrant athletic associations and booming retail and entertainment scene. Yet, Durbin Crossing’s wonderful natural setting gives each trip home the feeling of getting away from it all. There are 1,036 acres set aside for parks, wetlands and forest preserve making it an unrivaled refuge from the bustle of city life. So, don’t be surprised if the sunrises in Durbin Crossing seem to take a little longer or if the sunsets linger on for a golden while. After all, you’ll now have more time to enjoy them.
http://www.durbincrossing.com/location.html










Quote
Durbin Crossing combines the best of the natural, the practical and just plain fun. Durbin Crossing’s peaceful setting provides a relaxed living environment, designed to bring family and friends together in natural ways. While a planned Village Center located in the heart of the community will allow you to run errands, shop or meet friends for coffee, without going out of your way. Durbin Crossing gives you your choice of two fully-appointed clubhouses, featuring resort-style pools with a kid-pleasing water feature and slide, as well as playscapes, a grown-up fitness center, athletic fields, tennis and basketball courts, catering kitchens and more. You’ll also experience a sense of security and a comfort level that only a community planned for families can provide.
http://www.durbincrossing.com/amenities.html







Quote
SouthStar collaborated with St. Johns County to provide land and construction of regional parks, schools, fire stations, affordable housing product and new transportation corridors. Southstar assisted St. Johns County with the Northwest Sector Plan for 80,000 acres by designing and constructing a new regional road network to address Interstate 95 and County arterial roadway deficiencies. St. Johns County School Board and Southstar partnered to create a funding source to build a needed K-8th grade school within the Durbin Crossing Project.
http://www.southstardevelopment.net/cases/?section=cStudies










Durbin Crossing is located just south of Race Track Road, between Interstate 95 and Julington Creek Plantation in Northern St. Johns County.


Article by Ennis Davis.







50 Comments

TheProfessor

March 13, 2012, 03:16:02 AM
Looks horrid!

ben says

March 13, 2012, 03:46:07 AM
+1.

jaxlore

March 13, 2012, 08:50:10 AM
+2

Dapperdan

March 13, 2012, 08:55:13 AM
What do people have against making grid patterned roads? I am tired of cul de sacs and  neighborhoods that all empty out on one single road. I love the grid patterns of neighborhoods like Riverside and Murray Hill. Is this a  thing of the past?

Clem1029

March 13, 2012, 08:58:31 AM
Almost bought a house in there...loved the neighborhood and location, but the CDD fees were way too high for my tastes, and if you have to sell the house, you're still competing with new homes due to a 5-10 year build-out there (same is pretty much true for Nocatee).

Dapperdan

March 13, 2012, 09:01:26 AM
I live in Oakleaf and CDD plus HOA fees can get high, and for some reason, in recession times, they like to rasie them every year. Definitely not for everyone.

cline

March 13, 2012, 09:19:00 AM
What do people have against making grid patterned roads? I am tired of cul de sacs and  neighborhoods that all empty out on one single road. I love the grid patterns of neighborhoods like Riverside and Murray Hill. Is this a  thing of the past?

A lot of people with children prefer living on cul-de-sacs due to perceived safety benefits.

Is this the DRI that was in foreclosure or was that Twin Creeks?

peestandingup

March 13, 2012, 10:12:29 AM
Oh well, whatever blows their skirts up. But personally it looks like what my nightmares are made of.

"the development will feature 1,550 single-family homes, 947 multi-family units, over 200,000 square feet of retail/office use, regional parks, and an elementary school."

The sad part is that assuming each of those units has 2-3 people living in them, thats WAY more population than the entire downtown has. :-[

TREE4309

March 13, 2012, 11:28:16 AM
Nothing wrong with grid patterned streets, but these big developments have a lot of wetlands to deal with as well as requirements to leave certain green and treed spaces intact, which would be ridiculously expensive (if not impossible) to mitigate during development, so street patterns are designed around most of those areas.

cline

March 13, 2012, 11:38:57 AM

The sad part is that assuming each of those units has 2-3 people living in them, thats WAY more population than the entire downtown has. :-[

Is that surprising?  This is the result of land use policies formulated by puppets for developers and Builder's Associations.  The bed has already been made.

But at least we have the mobility plan...wait, no we don't.

hypnotoad

March 13, 2012, 11:48:57 AM
Blech!  Those houses are revolting.  Cookie-cutter, box-style, houses with no craftsmanship or architectural interest.... um, no thanks!  And HOA fees?  Gimme a break. 

aubureck

March 13, 2012, 12:09:26 PM
This is the type of development that my husband wants to live in.  I used to think it was what I wanted as well; however, the longer I work downtown and in the urban cores the more I realize the benefits of being near the heart of everything.  Now, if I could only get him on the same page...

RockStar

March 13, 2012, 12:24:42 PM
No offense to anyone who lives somewhere like that, but you'd find me hanging from a beam in the garage.

copperfiend

March 13, 2012, 12:40:22 PM
For a lot of people in this country, neighborhoods like this are the "American Dream" for them. They want to live on a cul-de-sac. They want to live in a neighborhood with an HOA and soccer fields. But drive through any of these types of recent planned communities and they are littered with empty lots and foreclosed houses.

I-10east

March 13, 2012, 12:55:35 PM
Blah blah blah 'Awful suburbia' blah blah blah 'It should be more urban' blah blah blah 'Look at what Atlanta did' blah blah blah.......

Gravity

March 13, 2012, 12:57:14 PM
I thought you all were lobbying for higher population density, or does that only work when its called downtown?

This is an effective use of the space, IMHO, and also leaves plenty of nature to be enjoyed. You can bike to the retail areas and there is plenty of berth for other means of transportation should Jax ever get off its arse and install some sensible public transit. Meanwhile, people with jobs are looking for more comfort, less crime and homeless magnets.

I-10east

March 13, 2012, 12:58:44 PM
^^^+1

Non-RedNeck Westsider

March 13, 2012, 01:04:22 PM
No offense to anyone who lives somewhere like that, but you'd find me hanging from a beam in the garage.

Nah.  There's no beams in these homes - or any other architectural features other than drywall and Home Depot trim. 

You sir, would be found handing from a pre-manufactured truss shipped from Palatka.  It would still do the job, just not nearly as romantic.

thelakelander

March 13, 2012, 01:47:01 PM
I thought you all were lobbying for higher population density, or does that only work when its called downtown?

This is an effective use of the space, IMHO, and also leaves plenty of nature to be enjoyed.

Adding four times the density would be a more effective use of space while generating higher property tax revenue.  Here are some images from a new suburban neighborhood in North Augusta, SC that I took this past weekend.  More density on less land, leaving more land to enjoy nature.  Suburban development isn't all bad if it pays for itself.











BridgeTroll

March 13, 2012, 02:20:42 PM
Blech!  Those houses are revolting.  Cookie-cutter, box-style, houses with no craftsmanship or architectural interest.... um, no thanks!  And HOA fees?  Gimme a break.

The other side is... extremely energy efficient, Modern, easily maintained, spacious, lots of storage.  It can be kind of nice to have a pool or two to go to... or a clubhouse you can use for parties.  I realize it is not for everyone but there are advantages... 8)

thelakelander

March 13, 2012, 02:31:14 PM
The best advantage is that it's subsidized by other areas of town.  Bigger house, more yard, and the poor residents across town are forced to help pay to widen and maintain the new roads, schools, police/fire, etc. needed to support unsustainable development.  Then when the city is just about bankrupt, they'll close libraries, fire stations, schools, parks, and defund special events and cultural entities in more sustainable areas before addressing the real bull in the china shop.

blizz01

March 13, 2012, 02:55:56 PM
Why bother posting these Suburban write-ups if EVERYONE knows what the trailing/subsequent thread(s) will yield?  We get it already.  People in the core would kill themselves & people in the burbs are content. 

Gravity

March 13, 2012, 03:00:27 PM

Adding four times the density would be a more effective use of space while generating higher property tax revenue.  Here are some images from a new suburban neighborhood in North Augusta, SC that I took this past weekend.  More density on less land, leaving more land to enjoy nature.  Suburban development isn't all bad if it pays for itself.


I guarantee you this area in SC has drastically less property taxes then across the river in downtown Augusta, which is more barren than our own downtown. And unless there is some joint development agreement, that tax money is not going back and forth to GA and is only subsidized by the few people still working in the Hotel or the Wachovia tower who bring their income back across state lines. If anything, they are subsidizing either with their state income taxes.

You are not going to convince me that our own downtown generates more property tax revenue either, in² per in², not effectively with all those city buildings, churches and utilities. Unless you count office space, which isnt really going to do much for residential solutions and is an apples to oranges comparison anyways.

The same rent Highrise McGillicutty wants to charge to cover those extra property taxes for a relatively cramped 2 bedroom can get you one of these McMansions with a yard, free parking, cheaper electric bills, playground, small waterpark, better schools, cleaner streets, an actual grocery store and you only have to drive an extra 10 minutes to get to Mossfire. All those activities generate tax revenue for the city. 

All those people paying those other fees and taxes have got to live somewhere, and some people do not like being close enough to hear and smell their neighbors or random people walking by.

The best advantage is that it's subsidized by other areas of town. 

I am really not sure how "the poor residents across town" are paying for anything. The developer pays for the infrastructure PLUS permitting PLUS fees for any additional 'trips' the development is projected to cost. Taxes are assessed at every level of development. Poor people across town have their rent and electricity paid for them( sometimes cell phones too).

I find that statement lacking in real world economics and ignorant of the actual role government has assumed, even on a city level. You might have an argument about Fire and Police, but look at usage. Who is subsidizing the courthouse? Who subsidized the new library? I will compare usage of the downtown library to Pablo creek any day, And even more on the weekends.

cline

March 13, 2012, 03:21:41 PM
Quote

The developer pays for the infrastructure PLUS permitting PLUS fees for any additional 'trips' the development is projected to cost.


You honestly think those "fees" come anywhere close to covering the actual costs of infrastructure?  That's hilarious.

thelakelander

March 13, 2012, 03:35:49 PM

Adding four times the density would be a more effective use of space while generating higher property tax revenue.  Here are some images from a new suburban neighborhood in North Augusta, SC that I took this past weekend.  More density on less land, leaving more land to enjoy nature.  Suburban development isn't all bad if it pays for itself.


I guarantee you this area in SC has drastically less property taxes then across the river in downtown Augusta, which is more barren than our own downtown. And unless there is some joint development agreement, that tax money is not going back and forth to GA and is only subsidized by the few people still working in the Hotel or the Wachovia tower who bring their income back across state lines. If anything, they are subsidizing either with their state income taxes.

You are not going to convince me that our own downtown generates more property tax revenue either, in² per in², not effectively with all those city buildings, churches and utilities. Unless you count office space, which isnt really going to do much for residential solutions and is an apples to oranges comparison anyways.

The same rent Highrise McGillicutty wants to charge to cover those extra property taxes for a relatively cramped 2 bedroom can get you one of these McMansions with a yard, free parking, cheaper electric bills, playground, small waterpark, better schools, cleaner streets, an actual grocery store and you only have to drive an extra 10 minutes to get to Mossfire. All those activities generate tax revenue for the city. 

All those people paying those other fees and taxes have got to live somewhere, and some people do not like being close enough to hear and smell their neighbors or random people walking by.

I'm actually not trying to convince you of anything regarding property taxes in GA or SC.  I'm saying a higher density development would leave more natural open space while generating equal or higher property taxes in a site like Durbin Creek or downtown Jacksonville.

Quote
The best advantage is that it's subsidized by other areas of town. 

I am really not sure how "the poor residents across town" are paying for anything. The developer pays for the infrastructure PLUS permitting PLUS fees for any additional 'trips' the development is projected to cost. Taxes are assessed at every level of development. Poor people across town have their rent and electricity paid for them( sometimes cell phones too).

I find that statement lacking in real world economics and ignorant of the actual role government has assumed, even on a city level. You might have an argument about Fire and Police, but look at usage. Who is subsidizing the courthouse? Who subsidized the new library? I will compare usage of the downtown library to Pablo creek any day, And even more on the weekends.
[/quote]

You could build lots of courthouses with the money spent on streets like SR 9B, SR9A, and the Outer Beltway.  It's also not lacking in real world economics to under stand that a denser compact mixed-use neighborhood with a few industries like a Swisher or Anchor Glass sprinkled in generates a decent amount of revenue compared to the amount of subsidies on infrastructure needed to support it.  Throw in the compact commercial districts like downtown and significant manufacturing areas like Northwest Jax and the Westside and the divide grows.  I'm not making an argument claiming that all suburban development is bad or picking an urban core vs burbs fight.  I'm saying there's room for improvement to make these places more sustainable than the way they are currently being developed.

finehoe

March 13, 2012, 03:45:26 PM
Wait...aren't these the same pictures MJ used here:  http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2012-feb-suburban-jacksonville-julington-creek-plantation ?

Gravity

March 13, 2012, 03:58:04 PM

You honestly think those "fees" come anywhere close to covering the actual costs of infrastructure?  That's hilarious.

The fees and taxes are ON TOP of construction costs... yes, the developer is usually required to build the roads, infrastructure and in some cases schools. So it gets built AND the city gets revenue. Maintenance in some areas may be an issue, but that is usually after people have moved in and paid for in other ways too.

I'm actually not trying to convince you of anything regarding property taxes in GA or SC.  I'm saying a higher density development would leave more natural open space while generating equal or higher property taxes in a site like Durbin Creek or downtown Jacksonville.


Show me anywhere near downtown that there is an accessible area like the Durbin preserve where you can actually enjoy any kind of natural open spaces. Augusta might have some state parks in the region, but nothing closer than what Jacksonville offers. And you are talking about an order of magnitude or two of difference with regards to population.

You could build lots of courthouses with the money spent on streets like SR 9B, SR9A, and the Outer Beltway.  It's also not lacking in real world economics to under stand that a denser compact mixed-use neighborhood with a few industries like a Swisher or Anchor Glass sprinkled in generates a decent amount of revenue compared to the amount of subsidies on infrastructure needed to support it.  Throw in the compact commercial districts like downtown and significant manufacturing areas like Northwest Jax and the Westside and the divide grows.  I'm not making an argument claiming that all suburban development is bad or picking an urban core vs burbs fight.  I'm saying there's room for improvement to make these places more sustainable than the way they are currently being developed.


In regards to the highways SR 9B, SR9A, now 295 were, respectively, state funded and now federal funds. Which comes from income and sales taxes, not property taxes for the most part. This was subsidized by tax generated activities everywhere.

You throw in the revenue from the industry property taxes ( and sales taxes, consumers subsidize that) and the argument is weighted. Factories in the middle of residential areas open up many more problems you arent even beginning to take into account.

I agree there are vast rooms for improvement, but the subsidy argument is a fallacy at best. The ends do not justify the means.

cline

March 13, 2012, 04:02:22 PM
Quote
Show me anywhere near downtown that there is an accessible area like the Durbin preserve where you can actually enjoy any kind of natural open spaces.

So because Durbin clear cut thousands of acres of land for houses and fragmented numerous habitats by building roads that it is somehow now the beacon of natural areas?  That's rich.

Quote
The fees and taxes are ON TOP of construction costs... yes, the developer is usually required to build the roads, infrastructure and in some cases schools. So it gets built AND the city gets revenue. Maintenance in some areas may be an issue, but that is usually after people have moved in and paid for in other ways too.

Correct.  Most do pay for the roads in their developments and they connect them to state and county roads.  And who do you think incurs the costs of widening those state and county roads when they become over capacity?  Will these developers pay to build an interchange at CR210 and I-95?    No, we all will.

thelakelander

March 13, 2012, 04:05:42 PM
They also won't pay for the teachers, fire fighter, police salaries, pensions, equipment (cars, trucks, etc.) needed to operate these facilities.  It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this development model doesn't work.  After doing this for +50 years, public agencies should be swimming in cash if it were truly cost effective.  Instead, we've created one huge ponzi scheme where the taxpayer ends up with the short end of the stick.

Gravity

March 13, 2012, 04:09:44 PM
Correct.  Most do pay for the roads in their developments and they connect them to state and county roads.  And you do you think incurs the costs of widening those state and county roads when they become over capacity?  Will these developers pay to build an interchange at CR210 and I-95?  No, we all will.

Who paid for the wider roads in riverside and the interchange on 95 there?

What about those $1000/ea lamp posts ?

CR210 funds will not come from Jacksonville property taxes, and probably not from anyone's property taxes. It is in St. Johns county and road construction is usually funded by gasoline taxes and vehicle fees and registrations.

Who built all those new schools and water run offs all along that road? NOT the city.

cline

March 13, 2012, 04:14:53 PM
What "wider roads in Riverside" would you be referring to? 

Gravity

March 13, 2012, 04:16:22 PM
What "wider roads in Riverside" would you be referring to?

Have you heard of Riverside Ave?

cline

March 13, 2012, 04:20:50 PM
You referring to Brooklyn?

Tacachale

March 13, 2012, 04:25:40 PM
What "wider roads in Riverside" would you be referring to?

Have you heard of Riverside Ave?
Yes, point taken, but that's in an area that has already been populated since the 1880s. It has much more infrastructure already in place than brand new developments. Part of the problem is we're not reworking existing infrastructure, we just keep building new and abandoning it when the coat dulls.

Gravity

March 13, 2012, 04:49:22 PM
Yes, point taken, but that's in an area that has already been populated since the 1880s. It has much more infrastructure already in place than brand new developments. Part of the problem is we're not reworking existing infrastructure, we just keep building new and abandoning it when the coat dulls.

I agree with this 100%. But the problems are far more significant than just faded paint.

fieldafm

March 13, 2012, 04:51:33 PM
Quote
I find that statement lacking in real world economics and ignorant of the actual role government has assumed, even on a city level.

You really need to study the actual numbers then.

In general, costs for government services range from about a buck and a half to a buck 90 for every one dollar in tax revenue generated in low density residential developments.  If your business sold something for $1 that cost you $1.80, you'd go broke pretty quick. 

Various land uses do in fact have wide ranging cost effects on goverment services.  It has been factually proven that these costs do indeed increase in low density dispersed development patterns, and subsequently decrease with more compact, mixed, multi-modal development.  Costs are lowest for infill redevelopment in areas that already have adequate infrastructure capacity b/c more compact development tends to reduce per capita infrastructure and transportation costs.


Quote
The developer pays for the infrastructure PLUS permitting PLUS fees for any additional 'trips' the development is projected to cost.

With all due respect, that simply is not true.

Current development fees, utility rates and taxes fail to accurately reflect the location-related cost differences of living in a dense area versus a non-dense area.  This in turn encourages consumers to choose more sprawling locations than is optimal for the city's fiscal health.

Urban scale developments and higher density in a given area actually strengthens markets by bringing together buyers and sellers in an information-rich setting.  Remember when buyers have more information, they have the advantage over sellers.  Sellers want to give you as little information as possible as this greatly effects the price in which they can sell you something.  Would you buy a can of soda if it was marketed as having 21 packs of sugar in each can, and subsequently having 42 packs of sugar per day increases your chance of fatal heart disease tenfold?

Developers have done a great job marketing over the past few years.  They have managed to hide the true costs of development while bemoaning the 'huge cost of government' as being a hinderence to more growth.

Don't agree?  Then you should do a public records request and find out the actual cost difference of the waived Mobility fees for a few specific developments that are breaking ground now in town, compare that to what would have been paid under the old concurrency model... then divide both those numbers by the cost of the project to get an idea of the percentages these costs play into the financial viability of a particular project.  You'll find that the Mobility fee DRASTICALLY reduced the cost of the project while encouraging specific smart growth patterns. 

Then you should start looking at the property tax revenue around one of these given developments, compare that to the cost of government services per household... then complete the picture by looking at the current capital improvement budget for capital improvement projects that are being funded or will need future funding over the next three years within that given area (some of these projects have estimates that go out as far as 5-10 years).  It's an eye opening exercise, I can assure you.

Households in less dense areas generally do not pay sufficient incremental taxes to cover the total incremental costs consumed for public services.

My income depends on growth.  So, I am hellbent on having more growth.  I am also a finance and economics person.  Once you study the numbers (and I have annoyed many a lady friend by ignoring them opting instead to pour through these figures into the early morning on many, many nights)... you'll quickly realize that for our city to sustain a level of fudiciary responsibility to it's taxpayers, the pattern of this growth needs to change.  I want to retire someday and leave a better world for my future children and grandchildren. 

I for one am 100% for a place like the Southside to grow with a population that is double what it has now.  Double the number of people within easy distance of a central business district, and the economic benefits of the central business district are increased nearly threefold.  That is why the Southside needs to grow however in a more sustainaible way.  That means implementing strategies (particularly zoning changes and allowing the Mobility fee moratorium to sunset) that encourage smart growth patterns.  The Southside needs more Tapestry Parks.

Smart growth reduces the costs of providing public infrastructure and services.  Once accesibility is improved, you subsequently reduce per capita vehical travel.. which reduces both the direct costs(road building, garbage services, increasing utility useage and capital expenditures) and indirect costs(stormwater management costs, increased ambient temperatures due to heat island effects, etc). 


fieldafm

March 13, 2012, 04:53:40 PM
Btw, did you know that the fire department has said it needs $600 million over the next 10 years just to build new stations to service growth in areas that generally have low density?

Just think about that number for a moment. 

fieldafm

March 13, 2012, 05:01:49 PM
Quote
road construction is usually funded by gasoline taxes and vehicle fees and registrations

... you forgot to add: and in most cases, significant bonds.  That's debt the government takes out to pay for something.  I learned the harsh reality when I was younger that credit cards are not the same as cash. 

Gravity

March 13, 2012, 05:12:51 PM
Btw, did you know that the fire department has said it needs $600 million over the next 10 years just to build new stations to service growth in areas that generally have low density?

Just think about that number for a moment. 

If the numbers include taxes on commercial and industrial buildings I am sure its swayed in that direction. But that isnt a direct correlation and hardly a direct subsidy. If property taxes in Duval county are paying for Fire Houses in St. Johns, clearly things need to be adjusted.

A lot of the developments along this path are townhomes and apartments, similar density to what a tapestry park would offer. I agree sprawl needs to be contained. And perhaps fees have been waived in the last 3 or 4 years since I was involved in the industry. But there was time, not that long ago, when development was lifting more than their fair share. Where did all that money go?

I am aware this pattern is unsustainable, and agree with you about the Southside area. My long standing point is that the urban core, as is lauded today,  is not large enough to sustain a population curve that is being projected.
That mentality is not sustainable either. However expanding the needed zoning into the surrounding neighborhoods is going to be met with a similar fight as elsewhere, there has been a lot of investment here recently as well.
 

tufsu1

March 13, 2012, 05:45:09 PM
Show me anywhere near downtown that there is an accessible area like the Durbin preserve where you can actually enjoy any kind of natural open spaces.

and if Durbin Crossing hadn't been built (or built more densely), there'd be even more natural open space for us all to enjoy!

fieldafm

March 13, 2012, 05:46:43 PM
Quote
If property taxes in Duval county are paying for Fire Houses in St. Johns, clearly things need to be adjusted.

That $600 million is for fire stations in Duval County.  Nowhere did I mention St Johns  County tax expenditures and capital improvements in the discussion. 

Quote
But there was time, not that long ago, when development was lifting more than their fair share.
 

I disagree... not on principal, but based on the numbers.  That simply was not true then, just as much as it's not true now. 

Quote
Where did all that money go?

It was always strained... the myth has finally been exposed and it's too blatant to ignore it any longer.

I don't deal in conjecture and theory... I came to this conclusion by using a calculator.

You sound like a real smart fellow, so I challenge you to study the numbers as well and see what conclusions you come to.    It was an eye opening experience for me.

tufsu1

March 13, 2012, 05:59:55 PM
Quote
If property taxes in Duval county are paying for Fire Houses in St. Johns, clearly things need to be adjusted.

That $600 million is for fire stations in Duval County.  Nowhere did I mention St Johns  County tax expenditures and capital improvements in the discussion. 

that said, the Racetrack area is in need of a fire station....and St. Johns can't find the money for it!

Gravity

March 13, 2012, 06:37:24 PM
I have looked at expenditures. I have looked at property tax revenue maps as well. As I said, I used to be in the industry. The city budget in every area exploded in the previous 10 - 20 years, the same time this site documents the decline of the area supposedly subsidizing this.

I know how much money was spent on non-development costs just on 4 medium sized neighborhoods along Greenbriar road alone. I saw the projections for what it was going to cost to develop the Baptist south area this side of the county line of this same area. I know who was getting the kickbacks and breaks on fees and infrastructure requirements, it wasnt the low density developers. Same goes for the gate parkway areas.

I am not challenging your numbers, I am saying take a look at where you are drawing your lines. First of all, Property taxes are only, supposedly, less than 40% of the city income. But let us take a look at that, since it is so fixating.

All that downtown property generating those revenues are not residential. Any of them that are, are negligible in respect to property taxes payed. These monies are paid by the corporations that employ people. The corporations are then subsidizing the areas where their employees are living. The expenses in infrastructure are similar anywhere there will be population concentrations. These costs are not paid by the city alone.

Why did people move away from those mixed use areas? It wasn't just because there was something new and shiny out in the burbs. You want to discuss how subsidies have skewed the markets?

Do we need to grow smarter? yes. It it always on overpriced, over-regulated urbane solution? Ask homeowners in riverside trying to upgrade.

thelakelander

March 13, 2012, 07:09:16 PM
Wow, I've missed a lot since I walked away from the computer.  Nevertheless, to pick up on your last statement, we're in agreement that we do need to grow smarter.  That's been my entire point.  It was never a fight about urban verses suburban.  There's room for all but it should be growth that pays for itself, which does not leave the general public holding the bag for eternity.  You can increase density of suburban development without it becoming overpriced or over-regulated or "urbane."  You can design suburban development in a manner that reduces auto trips and the burden of those developments on public infrastructure.  To date, we've not done that on a large scale which is why our governmental agencies are struggling financially after decades of boom times.

thelakelander

March 13, 2012, 07:19:09 PM
Correct.  Most do pay for the roads in their developments and they connect them to state and county roads.  And you do you think incurs the costs of widening those state and county roads when they become over capacity?  Will these developers pay to build an interchange at CR210 and I-95?  No, we all will.

Who paid for the wider roads in riverside and the interchange on 95 there?

I remember sitting in meetings where people in the neighborhoods surrounding these projects did not want them.  I remember the neighborhood wanting Riverside Avenue to be four lanes instead of the six that were built.  However, FDOT had other ideas and neighborhood health and quality of life was not one of their main priorities.  Funneling commuters from outside areas, increasing capacity, and auto safety at the expense of other modes of mobility were the higher priorities.  Both of these projects are examples of things that have done the heart of the city more harm than good, in an effort to facilitate a bad land development pattern.

Quote
What about those $1000/ea lamp posts ?

If they passed on the project, left all of those buildings still standing and put the road money into transit or some other publicly financed program that benefited the area, I don't think many people living in the immediate area would have complained.

Quote
CR210 funds will not come from Jacksonville property taxes, and probably not from anyone's property taxes. It is in St. Johns county and road construction is usually funded by gasoline taxes and vehicle fees and registrations.

Who built all those new schools and water run offs all along that road? NOT the city.

Its a different county but the development pattern is still detrimental the respective government agency's long term financials.  Our horrible land use development pattern isn't Jacksonville specific.  It's a national problem.

Garden guy

March 13, 2012, 07:25:49 PM
Im more worried aabout the political asskissing the got the approval  on building on wetlands.

pwhitford

March 15, 2012, 12:44:01 AM
This discussion right here, this is why I f***ing love MJ.

Know Growth

March 17, 2012, 10:17:10 AM

Bishop Estates Road Bailey Ranch surrounded. (Sarah Bailey;two term county commissioner)

Alternative future quietly came and went.

Who here can recall earlier Julington Creek area Conservation Public Land vision?
6,000 acre C.A.R.L. proposal perhaps 'extreme',as is the whittled down Julington Creek Peninsula protection lands result.
Julington Peninsula the result of highly touted City/State approach- the Peninsula conservation lands/development boundary is a convoluted gerrymander,grasping for every square foot of possible develop foot print.When faced with the project design,the Water Management District Land Management staff could not believe what they saw on the management boundary design maps.......at first they actually thought the computers hade messed up,gone wild.
-N.M.

Know Growth

March 21, 2012, 10:51:48 PM

"The death of the city is inexorably linked to the death of the countryside,and their demise has permitted the creation and the establishment of the New American Landscape.Much of the New American Landscape has been inherited from the old American landscape"

-"Egotopia" Narcissism and the New American Landscape   John Miller  Univ. Alabama Press 1997

Know Growth

May 16, 2012, 10:08:06 PM

"The death of the city is inexorably linked to the death of the countryside,and their demise has permitted the creation and the establishment of the New American Landscape.Much of the New American Landscape has been inherited from the old American landscape"

-"Egotopia" Narcissism and the New American Landscape   John Miller  Univ. Alabama Press 1997


Thread halting insight there.
View forum thread
Welcome Guest. You must be logged in to comment on this story.

What are the benefits of having a MetroJacksonville.com account?
  • Share your opinion by posting comments on stories that interest you.
  • Stay up to date on all of the latest issues affecting your neighborhood.
  • Create a network of friends working towards a better Jacksonville.
Register now
Already have an account? Login now to comment.