Author Topic: Live Blogging from City Council: Mobility Fee Moratorium  (Read 13695 times)

Jumpinjack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
Re: Live Blogging from City Council: Mobility Fee Moratorium
« Reply #120 on: February 27, 2013, 08:34:54 AM »
Do Clay and Nassau counties have any kind of transportation fees, concurrency? Are they being swamped with construction permits?

strider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1935
Re: Live Blogging from City Council: Mobility Fee Moratorium
« Reply #121 on: February 27, 2013, 08:42:15 AM »
I watched the meeting on line and while there were many who were against the moratorium, the most points were made by those in support of the ordinance.   Of course, having Council Lumb ask questions of Toi was a huge plus to those for the moratorium.  The overall impression I got was that it is already decided.  Of course  the council will pass this jobs bill.

It seems to me that while it is important to talk about the cyclists, it is a mistake to make it in the forefront of the debate.  It makes it look like this relatively small group is taking our tax dollars for themselves while the developers are offering jobs. I know better but you need to look at it from the perspective of the average person out there. If the media decides to spin it that way, it gives the council the way out to pass the moratorium regardless of the facts.

Offering to compromise is not the answer.  Right now, why should they?  Council will only want to come up with a compromise if they think they can't get away with passing the bill and right now, they certainly could. Just look at Council Lumb.  Are we really to believe he doesn't have the true facts right now?  Does he need to get them from Lake?  Or does he have them but doesn't care about them and is going to do what he thinks is best for himself?  Wasn't it already posted that he reads MetroJacksonville and are not the very facts we want him to have already posted on the forum? Does he not read for himself or at least have an assistant that will do the research for him?

Trying to convince Lumb or any other councilman who is currently for the moratorium of the facts is not what will work.  What does is making it too painful for both the individual councilmen and/ or the city not to leave the Mobility Fee alone. We are fighting against money and power, not facts.

Get people mobilized for the coming meetings.  Don't bother with Lumb, find the ones that are against the moratorium or at least on the  fence and talk to them.  Try to get them to help do the mobilization needed.  See if they can help identify people wiling to put in the dollars needed to fight this.  Find out if there is hope for a lawsuit against the city for ignoring the mobility plan and costing us tax payers for the coming and permanent freeze on fees on much of the future development this city will see.

Be aware that the people behind this moratorium are already paying expensive people to fight you on this. It will cost us to win this battle.  It will end up being a full time job for some.  I know as we (Sheclown and I) have done it on something much smaller and less important to the public and yet, it cost thousands and thousand to win. Just like it cost thousands and thousands for the opposition to lose.

In the end, fights like this are not about the facts, though the facts are certainly important and need to be stated and restated, it is, in the end, about the money.  We need to ask ourselves just how important the future of this city is to us, how far are you willing to go for that future?
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 08:59:50 AM by strider »
"My father says that almost the whole world is asleep. Everybody you know. Everybody you see. Everybody you talk to. He says that only a few people are awake and they live in a state of constant total amazement." Patrica, Joe VS the Volcano.

JeffreyS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5654
  • Demand Evidence and Think Critically.
Re: Live Blogging from City Council: Mobility Fee Moratorium
« Reply #122 on: February 27, 2013, 09:25:15 AM »
Don't be so sure Strider. I admit it is a tough battle but this is the Council that passed the Mobility Fee.
"YOU are the people willing to overlook the fact that Trump is an unqualified, ignorant sociopath because DURRRR HILLARY IS BAD TOO DURRRR." Drew Margary

tufsu1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10839
Re: Live Blogging from City Council: Mobility Fee Moratorium
« Reply #123 on: February 27, 2013, 09:29:09 AM »
Do Clay and Nassau counties have any kind of transportation fees, concurrency? Are they being swamped with construction permits?


no...and no

fsujax

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3591
  • Teapartysaurus!
Re: Live Blogging from City Council: Mobility Fee Moratorium
« Reply #124 on: February 27, 2013, 09:32:25 AM »
Nothing like a good fight. We just have to be armed with accurate facts and figures. I wonder if other cities like Charlotte, Austin, Nashville, etc. have suspended their impact fees, fair share, etc.? anyone know?

Same fight going on in Naples, Fl. Citizens against the moratorium.

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/feb/11/commissioners-flooded-with-emails-opposed-to-fee/

« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 09:37:31 AM by fsujax »

Jumpinjack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
Re: Live Blogging from City Council: Mobility Fee Moratorium
« Reply #125 on: February 27, 2013, 10:09:50 AM »
Everyone, please remind Council members that the 3 years fee waiver in the bill hides the part about permitted projects getting a permanent waiver. Someone will pay for transportation impacts - if this waiver of a fee goes on for 3 years or forever, it will be residents, businesses, employees, school kids, and just ordinary people who didn't gain anything from this moratorium.

Conservative council members who are quick to say that they want to rein in taxes are playing a shell game with voters. If you are one of these elected leaders and reading this, tell me -Why are you sticking us with the bill?

« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 10:12:07 AM by Jumpinjack »

Debbie Thompson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1022
Re: Live Blogging from City Council: Mobility Fee Moratorium
« Reply #126 on: February 27, 2013, 10:29:41 AM »
While I'm grateful for the cyclists who showed up in force both times, I'm with Strider.  I said it here earlier.  Having too many people talk about cycling makes it seem like the bill is all about bicycles.  I hope those of you who had other things to add and who could not make it last night are emailing.  :-)

Doug, I used some of your talking points last night.  I also reminded them they had passed this plan that reduced the fees under the old plan, and then immediately suspended it, and didn't even put back the old plan instead.   I used Ock's math with the $108 million tax increase, and gave them a copy of the handout he brought.  I told them if they passed this bill, they would be approving a HUGE tax increase on Jacksonville taxpayers to the tune of $525 per year for an average family of four.

Somone else reminded them of the thousands of constituents who oppose the bill and who sent their representative with their opposition...The NE Florida Bike Club, Ready2Ride Bike Tours, CPACS from Beaches, Arlington, Urban Core, Southside, Murray Hill Historic Preservation, RAP, SPAR, PSOS, and the Sierra Club.  I probably left some out.

Someone else mentioned the indefinite nature of the waivers under this bill, unlike the current "temporary" moratorium.

These fees have for years traditionally been paid by builders and developers.  The builders are paying NOTHING right now and the taxpayers are getting stuck with the bill.  The builders (of course) want this to continue indefinitely.  You can bet they'll be back in three years if this passes.  The economy is improving, and there will be more jobs, regardless. But they will say it's because of the moratorium, not the improving economy.

I'm not certain they were even listening at that point. They opened the public comments for Daniel Davis at the very beginning who told them opponents of 2013-94 "were just noise" and then closed it again for three or four hours making the rest of us wait until amost 9:00 to speak.

Bridges

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 802
Re: Live Blogging from City Council: Mobility Fee Moratorium
« Reply #127 on: February 27, 2013, 10:38:49 AM »
I think we can get ourselves turned around a lot when we argue for the Mobility Plan. 

Back when the mobility plan was talked about and passed, we decided as a community and council that the, at the time, fair-share agreement was unfair to developers and burdening our city with unsustainable sprawl.  So the Mobility Plan was visioned to reign in the sprawl and encourage smarter development that took the community as a whole into account.  In order to encourage that development, we came up with the new Mobility Fee.  Through the fee and its credit offsets we could direct the type of development we wanted.  The aim was to create that, but it didn't stop all development.  There's no rules prohibiting development, only that there are incentives for developing a certain way. 

In that sense, the Fee IS the Plan.  That gets lost on a lot of the council.  They still view the fee in the same way as the old fair-share.  When it is more of a means to an ends.  The end being the plan as a whole. 
So I said to him: Arthur, Artie come on, why does the salesman have to die? Change the title; The life of a salesman. That's what people want to see.

Bridges

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 802
Re: Live Blogging from City Council: Mobility Fee Moratorium
« Reply #128 on: February 27, 2013, 10:55:47 AM »
I'm not certain they were even listening at that point. They opened the public comments for Daniel Davis at the very beginning who told them opponents of 2013-94 "were just noise" and then closed it again for three or four hours making the rest of us wait until amost 9:00 to speak.

IMO, the big battle will be in the committees.  That is where this will be won and lost.  The builders and lobbyist will have their presentations. 

Rules
Next Monday. 3/4
Agenda Meeting at 9:30am
Meeting at 10:00 am
Council Chamber
First Floor, City Hall
117 W. Duval Street

Members
- Clay E. Yarborough - Chair Clay@coj.net
- Raymond E. Holt - Vice Chair Holt@coj.net
- Lori N. Boyer LBoyer@coj.net
- John R. Crescimbeni JRC@coj.net
- Warren A. Jones WAJones@coj.net
- Jim Love JimLove@coj.ne
- Robin Lumb RLumb@coj.net
Copy Paste Emails
Clay@coj.net, JimLove@coj.net, LBoyer@coj.net, Holt@coj.net, RLumb@coj.net, JRC@coj.net, WAJones@coj.net

Transportation, Energy & Utilities Committee (TEU)
Next Monday. 3/4
Agenda Meeting at 1:30pm
Meeting at 2:00 p.m.
Council Chamber
First Floor, City Hall
117 W. Duval Street

Members
- Greg Anderson - Chair GAnderson@coj.net
- Jim Love - Vice Chair JimLove@coj.net
- Reginald L. Brown RBrown@coj.net
- Raymond E. Holt Holt@coj.net
- Robin Lumb RLumb@coj.net
- Matt Schellenberg  MattS@coj.net
Copy Paste Emails
GAnderson@coj.net, JimLove@coj.net, RBrown@coj.net, Holt@coj.net, RLumb@coj.net, MattS@coj.net

Finance
Next Tuesday. 3/5
Agenda Meeting at 9:30am
Meeting at 10:00 am
Council Chamber
First Floor, City Hall
117 W. Duval Street

Members
- John R. Crescimbeni - Chair JRC@coj.net
- Greg Anderson - Vice Chair GAnderson@coj.net
- Lori N. Boyer LBoyer@coj.net
- Dr. Johnny A. Gaffney Gaffney@coj.net
- Bill Gulliford Gulliford@coj.net
- Stephen C. Joost Joost@coj.net
- Clay E. Yarborough  Clay@coj.net
Copy Paste Emails
Clay@coj.net, GAnderson@coj.net, LBoyer@coj.net, Gaffney@coj.net, Gulliford@coj.net, JRC@coj.net, Joost@coj.net
So I said to him: Arthur, Artie come on, why does the salesman have to die? Change the title; The life of a salesman. That's what people want to see.

Cheshire Cat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3725
  • Diane Melendez is Cheshire Cat
Re: Live Blogging from City Council: Mobility Fee Moratorium
« Reply #129 on: February 27, 2013, 12:52:21 PM »
Don't be so sure Strider. I admit it is a tough battle but this is the Council that passed the Mobility Fee.

Jeffrey do you have a list of those on council who originally passed the Mobility Fee?  Who specifically voted yes and who opposed.  This can be very useful information.  If they passed it to begin with, what has the moratorium on it done to change their original views?  What are the facts that show this dang thing worked?  Take the discussion directly to those people.

Ennis has great numbers and documentation and the facts do matter to the public and to those on council who are sitting the fence on this issue. His discussion about throwing money behind Waffle house, 7/11 speaks well to the argument and is tantamount to waste of tax dollars when we can least afford it.  Councilman Joost made an important statement during the meeting to the fact that the moratorium did not work the first time. So what has changed?  Nothing has.  It would be helpful for those opposing Clark's bill to be able to point to just how big of a failure the moratorium was along with the fact that Clark and those supporting the bill have yet to be able prove at any level that having the moratorium did anything beyond help some builder/developers out and create further sprawl.  What was the return anyway?  Where are the validated numbers of jobs created last time?  What was the real economic impact? How much money was lost, was and will be paid out by the city (taxpayers) via the last moratorium and this potential new one?  In this debate, do not forget "the taxpayer" portion of this argument.  Taxpayers are tired of footing the bill for others.  Has anyone spoken to the "concerned taxpayers group", are they aware?  Some principals at city hall are fixing to launch another round of attacks on the pension costs with the threat of closing parks and libraries again.  Why, because they want to inflame the taxpayers.  Part of this argument should be how the heck can the council shut off street lights, public services such as grass cutting and at the same time put a moratorium on a revenue source that in essence is supposed to counteract costs to taxpayers?

The argument should indeed be one of facts, documents and emotion where it counts. In this case I am very sure that taxpayers will not cotton to the idea of the continued burden of development on their backs when there is no proof doing so has worked.   

Another very important aspect for all opposed to Clark's bill is this. Copy all local media on every correspondence to council on this issue and do not forget to include T.V. media as well.  You can do this people.

*if someone has an updated media list, now might be the time to share it*  Mine isn't current.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 01:26:30 PM by Cheshire Cat »
Diane Melendez
We're all mad here!

thelakelander

  • Metro Jacksonville
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27063
    • Modern Cities
Re: Live Blogging from City Council: Mobility Fee Moratorium
« Reply #130 on: February 27, 2013, 03:07:01 PM »
I've been away from the computer for most of the day.  I just wanted to share an email (I have a ton of emails to still go through) that was sent to me this morning on this issue.  I'm glad people are doing their homework!

Quote
Okay, here is what I know today that I didn't know yesterday.
 
The Property Appraiser's Office provided me a summary of an inquiry they were requested to generate last week by someone else. It is the number of vacant residential parcels in all of Duval County:
 
·         Lots 2 to 20 acres (typically RR and AGR)..............1,699

·         Lots between 1 and 2 acres.......................................1,433

·         Lots 1 acre or less (typically subdivision lots)...........17,572

Total, inventory of entitled residential lots            20,714

 The annual absorption of lots, (ie: issued building permits for new construction) between 2002 and 2006 was 6,659. After the bubble burst, from 2007 through 2012, the annual absorption of vacant lots was 2,090. For the past four years the annual absorption of that inventory was 1408.

Given above statistical facts from the City of Jacksonville's own records, and the assumption that single-family homeowner finance realities will not significantly change for some time to come,  it is a safe bet to state that we have enough entitled inventory of single family residential lots in Duval County to handle the anticipated demand for new construction for the next ten years and possibly longer. If the market recovered to the levels of new building activity of, say, 2004, then we would have to adjust to the possibility that we would face an inventory shortage in three years. A very long-shot bet.

 These numbers do not reflect any adjustment for the rising number of empty nesters moving to multi-family living, or single family tear-down and build-backs.

I assume you knew all this already, but I had to run the exercise myself to be convinced that this moratorium really just benefits one narrow group of land development players who are looking to hedge their bets on cheap land and a (continued) free ride on roads.

"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

Cheshire Cat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3725
  • Diane Melendez is Cheshire Cat
Re: Live Blogging from City Council: Mobility Fee Moratorium
« Reply #131 on: February 27, 2013, 03:10:28 PM »
Bingo!   Facts, facts and more facts in the face of noise!  This is the exact type of information that council and the citizens need to be made aware of.   I would suspect their are similar numbers for retail as well.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 03:12:24 PM by Cheshire Cat »
Diane Melendez
We're all mad here!

fsujax

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3591
  • Teapartysaurus!
Re: Live Blogging from City Council: Mobility Fee Moratorium
« Reply #132 on: February 27, 2013, 03:12:11 PM »
I still cant get over Daniel Davis referring to those us who oppose the moratorium as "noise". Really?
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 04:07:38 PM by fsujax »

Cheshire Cat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3725
  • Diane Melendez is Cheshire Cat
Re: Live Blogging from City Council: Mobility Fee Moratorium
« Reply #133 on: February 27, 2013, 03:16:04 PM »
FSU, it's an old tactic used oh so many times to discredit the views and voices of others.  It's one of those "listen to me, cause I am the cool in the know guy as opposed to the rabble who don't know you and the facts like I do "Wink, wink!"  The comment did one thing in my view which was to make Daniel look petty and self absorbed.
Diane Melendez
We're all mad here!

dougskiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1510
Re: Live Blogging from City Council: Mobility Fee Moratorium
« Reply #134 on: February 27, 2013, 05:24:10 PM »
Jeffrey do you have a list of those on council who originally passed the Mobility Fee?  Who specifically voted yes and who opposed.  This can be very useful information.  If they passed it to begin with, what has the moratorium on it done to change their original views?  What are the facts that show this dang thing worked?  Take the discussion directly to those people.

It passed unanimously on September 13, 2011:

Quote
62.    2011-536   AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 655 (CONCURRENCY AND MOBILITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM), PART 1 (GENERAL PROVISIONS), PART 2 (JACKSONVILLE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REGULATIONS) AND PART 3 (FAIR SHARE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES); AND STRIKING PART 5 (INDUSTRIAL USES) AND ESTABLISHING A NEW PART 5 (MOBILITY FEE), ORDINANCE CODE, TO CREATE A MOBILITY SYSTEM TO REPLACE THE TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY AND FAIR SHARE ASSESSMENT CONTRACT SYSTEM, CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE 2030 MOBILITY PLAN AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA CONCURRENCY STATUTE, SECTION 163.3180, FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.; 8/9/2011 -  Introduced: TEU,LUZ; 8/23/2011 - PH Read 2nd & Rereferred; TEU, LUZ

 

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, ENERGY & UTILITIES: September 06, 2011

 

Recommend to AMEND and  APPROVE.

 

COUNCIL MEMBERS - Anderson, Daniels, Gaffney, Love, Lumb, Redman, ( 6 )

 

 

 

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LAND USE & ZONING: September 07, 2011

 

Recommend to AMEND and  APPROVE.

 

COUNCIL MEMBERS - Boyer, Brown, Carter, Holt, Love, Lumb, Redman, ( 7 )

 

REPORT OF COUNCIL: September 13, 2011

 

The Floor Leader moved the AMENDMENT(S). 

 

The motion CARRIED. 

 

Roll Call was ordered.

 

The Chair declared the File APPROVED as  AMENDED.

 

AYES - Anderson, Bishop, Boyer, Brown, Carter, Clark, Crescimbeni, Daniels, Gaffney, Gulliford, Holt, Jones, Joost, Lee, Love, Lumb, Redman, Schellenberg, Yarborough, ( 19 )