Tea Party Advocate Wrong On Everbank Deal

[copperfiend]

Where was the outrage from tea partiers when the city gave 4 million dollars to Citibank to move from Baymeadows to Old St Augustine Road?

To be fair, that deal went down in 2003, long before the Tea Party. Additionally, Citibank was also set on leaving the Baymeadows site, and there was worry they'd leave town completely if the St. Augustine Road complex didn't work out.

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/030703/met_11937161.shtml

The point remains, though, that there's no reason to assume EverBank would have stayed in (at least one of) its current Southside buildings when its subleasing agreement ends. Why not offer incentives for a location somewhere we want to develop?

Still, I don't doubt that if the Citibank deal happened today, some of these same people would oppose it.

My point was the people that call themselves "tea partiers" were still around prior to the so-called tea party movement. Most of them are nothing but the good ol' boy network of this town. The issue is clearly downtown and has little to do with the drop in the bucket being given to Everbank, partially by the state anyway.

[wsansewjs]

Monavie sales-chickens.

OH MY GOD. I fell off my chair at work laughing my ass off reading that bit.

-Josh

[bill]

Dare, do not know why I bother but here goes. That number is for space that is readily available and what most companies/businesses would consider leasing. There are other vacant buildings that need so much work and TI dollars that are not feasible. Even though you will have some inane comment, this is my industry and I know the numbers. 

[Gravity]

Please tell me that you are aware that the suburbs do not generate enough tax money to support themselves, by and large?

Are we talking about property tax? And support what: roads, schools, hospitals, etc...? Developers share the cost of construction by and large.

I am not arguing with you, because i have never seen real statistics on these... but just by looking around town, knowing relative property values and transaction volumes ( if we are including the percentage of sales tax we might get) i would wager that a Mandarin more than likely generates more tax revenue than any equally populated piece of the "urban core"

But i think, where you may have an argument in other cities where there was a larger urban community in the ww2 era that migrated outwards, Jacksonville was always smaller, more rural,  satellite communities that grew together over time. Population increases contributed to the sprawl ( which contributes to tax revenues) and I do agree, poor planning and zoning did have a place in the causes. But so did bad schools ( still a problem) bad crime, and variety of other social aspects: cheap gas and land... not necessarily things you can control.

But to say that we can solve this by urbanizing, i think we miss a larger perspective. The first of which is the point I always make is that a lot of the "urban core" is not currently a desirable place to live or do business ( depending on your business) or to attract viable prospects of either. A lot of work has been made in Springfield, but that is only recently. This, downtown and riverside is not large enough to support an urban center of the size of a city that we are projected to be. Much more progress will have to be made in the surrounding areas, including zoning issues and perhaps even ripping out a "historic" piece here and there, but then you are up against the same battles we are currently talking about.

We need more long term solutions, progress is being made, but in the same modular way the problems took hold. Relaxing development regulation does not have to mean the same thing as destroying the environment or compromising historic values but some sacrifices will have to be made. This type of fight against the status quo is everywhere... to demonize a specific group because they disagree with you, well... that is no way to make progress.

Will this corporate deal really help? I think, Stephen, you might find the same arguments about downtown not supporting itself. Especially with the expenses that come out of the City purse. But it is the type of Corporate welfare everyone gripes at the Tea Party for defacto supporting... and here they stand against it, and they are still painted as being wrong, bad and against their own principles.

I would be interested in seeing actual stats to support your premise, as it might change my mind about some of the arguments you present, but until then i am just not buying it, not in jacksonville anyways.

[Tacachale]

Neither people promoting downtown development, nor people promoting development in Southside, are "evil", and there's nothing wrong with promoting one's own interests. But really, the relocation part of this deal will cost $2.75 million in taxpayer money. Long term, and probably short term, the infrastructure costs to taxpayers of more development in Southside would be well over that amount. Spending less money to advance development in area that already has infrastructure, versus more money to build new infrastructure, is in everybody's interest.

Additionally, I just don't buy that this deal will put the hurt on Southside. Elsewhere I quoted the Business Journal as saying that other than this, every major deal the city has made in the last 8 months has been in Southside.

[Gravity]

Roads and highways are just freaking expensive-- but thats only a part of the cost that you have to make up for when you build in an undeveloped area.

Roads, and even schools, are built in a large part by developers. I know from working with several developer in Duval surrounding counties, getting permits, licenses and all the assorted fees ( a majority of the other revenue of the city, which existing development produces a very small amount.) after a certain size and scope you either kick in development costs, or do the work yourself. Also regulated public service providers also provide for expenses in the same manner for keeping up these areas that house their capital as well.  So there isn't quite the direct correlation you are implying there.   

Here is a quick bit of data for you.

The City of Jacksonville has among the lowest taxes in the country.
50% of the city budget is spent on public safety---meaning police and fire.

but only 30% of the revenue comes from property taxes.  Where does that additional revenue come from in the suburbs?

I would once again have to point out that 30% of new development in place like mandarin, intercoastal and surrounding counties would be substantially more money than the 30% of an equally populated piece of the urbanized areas. So right now this is being redistributed to favor the more urbanized areas, not the other way around. And, in all honesty, if you look at where the Police and fire and other publicly funded services are performed and utilized this distribution might be skewed even further. 

When you build new development you have to construct new plumbing, new drainage, new roads.  For the roads you have to install lighting and signage, and then you have to maintain them every year.  The medians have to be maintained with lawn service guys.  New cops have to be hired.  Those cops need cars, uniforms, computers, supervisors and weapons.  A new firestation has to be built.  Schools have to be constructed and staffed.  Libraries and parks have to be installed.

Do you honestly think that property taxes from the new houses pay for that expense?  They don't.  It has to be shifted over from already built out areas, and then it takes decades of property owners paying their taxes regularly just to pay off the initial infrastructure expenses.  Who is paying for the maintenance of all that infrastructure in the meantime?

Once again, after working in construction and development, dealing with the city on permitting, fees, licesning and regulation, this argument falls apart. Most drainage, plumbing and even hardware for easements are covered in the permitting costs, or built outright as part of the project. It might not have always been that way, but for at least the last 20 years it is. You might convince me in an argument about maintaining infrastructure, but once again... there is a reason people moved that far away and those people get taxed accordingly.

I will be glad to provide you with the data you are asking for, much of it is already available here on this site, if you look around.

I like your site, I enjoy reading the updates and I appreciate the information you provide. I think you do a great job that is severely lacking traditional news sources in this city, and hope you keep up the great work. I respect what you, and others are trying to do and I hope for this City that it is successful. But i think you are missing some big picture items.  Jacksonville needs rethinking, we need an identity. We need similar solutions as other cities, but we need to make things work here. The pockets of preservation societies and development groups are doing good, but need to work together.

But I was responding to your statement that the suburbs were created by collective action working in the self interests of the collected individuals.

That comment was aimed at a cheap shot at the Tea Party, and blatant generalizations which the opponents claim they represent. You at least have to admit that the majority of the vocal supporters of  downtown development will personally benefit from investment in this area. I do not personally think there is anything wrong with profiting from investments, but if the capital comes from the public purse at your persuasion something isn't kosher.

They werent.  Suburbia was created over a period of about 40 years by liberal Progressive Era city planning notions in order to demassify the urban areas.  It was believed that overcrowding, rather than bad design was the major cause of death, disease, crime and poverty.  They created zoning laws which basically made it impossible to build family homes in the urban cores and forced new development to move outward on non dense land tracts that were zoned for single family use.

Havent you ever wondered why things are zoned the way they are?

No, people with means will escape regulation and find a place where they can follow their own rules. If this is a bad thing, well... we would all still be living in 13 colonies, or even back in Europe. Regulation is needed, but somehow the "unintended consequences" always come around to bite good intentions in the arse. Big picture... it is what I am preaching.

Keep up the good work.

[thelakelander]

Regarding the tax base of the urban core and a place like Mandarin, are you all only evaluating things from a residential/commercial viewpoint?  I ask because the urban core is heavily industrial and littered with railyards, large manufacturing plants, port facilities and private shipping terminals, the majority of which, also pay property taxes as well as provide higher paying jobs than retail, service and back office uses tend to do.

[fieldafm]

Once again, after working in construction and development, dealing with the city on permitting, fees, licesning and regulation, this argument falls apart. Most drainage, plumbing and even hardware for easements are covered in the permitting costs, or built outright as part of the project. It might not have always been that way, but for at least the last 20 years it is. You might convince me in an argument about maintaining infrastructure, but once again... there is a reason people moved that far away and those people get taxed accordingly.

Those fees offset the costs... not totally cover them.

[Gravity]

I am by no means saying i know everything, I was simply pointing out that it is not so cut and dry. The argument that the development business is benefiting as freeloaders off of the city and tax revenues is a very silly notion. Limited fees? By your own argument, where does that other 70% of revenue come from? Where would this city be without development?

All those expansions allow people to get downtown to work and play, to spend money, and to be taxed in doing so. So once again, the correlation is not direct. Downtown, by itself, in property taxes and sales taxes of people who strictly live there, would not, could not stand without the rest of city. Likewise the suburbs, which I never said sprung up from nowhere, could not sustain without a central city.

I like the plan Atlanta did, I think it was in the 90's. They denied any new permits outside the beltway until there was a certain amount of progress on renewing blighted areas internally.

This Everbank plan has some benefits, reusing space and infrastructure. Bringing people to work downtown. But we need to solve the problems that not only drove people out in the first place, but what is keeping them out now. These are serious problems. Anything else is just going to be a band-aid.

[Tacachale]

I am by no means saying i know everything, I was simply pointing out that it is not so cut and dry. The argument that the development business is benefiting as freeloaders off of the city and tax revenues is a very silly notion. Limited fees? By your own argument, where does that other 70% of revenue come from? Where would this city be without development?

All those expansions allow people to get downtown to work and play, to spend money, and to be taxed in doing so. So once again, the correlation is not direct. Downtown, by itself, in property taxes and sales taxes of people who strictly live there, would not, could not stand without the rest of city. Likewise the suburbs, which I never said sprung up from nowhere, could not sustain without a central city.

I like the plan Atlanta did, I think it was in the 90's. They denied any new permits outside the beltway until there was a certain amount of progress on renewing blighted areas internally.

This Everbank plan has some benefits, reusing space and infrastructure. Bringing people to work downtown. But we need to solve the problems that not only drove people out in the first place, but what is keeping them out now. These are serious problems. Anything else is just going to be a band-aid.

Of course developers aren't freeloaders (at least not all of them), and we'd get no where without them. The issue is what they're developing. Redevelopment in areas that already have infrastructure will be cheaper for the taxpayers in the long run than building and maintaining new infrastructure for new developments. Obviously not all extra-urban development like that is bad, but downtown development, especially in cities like this where the downtown has declined so much, will be about as good a use of our resources as a city can make.

You're right about the need to solve the problems that drive/keep people out of downtown. I'd argue this move is a step in that right direction.

[Lunican]

Developers aren't freeloaders, they just externalize their costs!

[ChriswUfGator]

Developers ARE freeloaders. The concurrency scheme of the past two decades hasn't come close to covering the costs associated with sprawl, amd now our governor has eliminated even those basic required contributions.

[jcjohnpaint]

I am by no means saying i know everything, I was simply pointing out that it is not so cut and dry. The argument that the development business is benefiting as freeloaders off of the city and tax revenues is a very silly notion. Limited fees? By your own argument, where does that other 70% of revenue come from? Where would this city be without development?

All those expansions allow people to get downtown to work and play, to spend money, and to be taxed in doing so. So once again, the correlation is not direct. Downtown, by itself, in property taxes and sales taxes of people who strictly live there, would not, could not stand without the rest of city. Likewise the suburbs, which I never said sprung up from nowhere, could not sustain without a central city.

I like the plan Atlanta did, I think it was in the 90's. They denied any new permits outside the beltway until there was a certain amount of progress on renewing blighted areas internally.

This Everbank plan has some benefits, reusing space and infrastructure. Bringing people to work downtown. But we need to solve the problems that not only drove people out in the first place, but what is keeping them out now. These are serious problems. Anything else is just going to be a band-aid.

exactly.  This regulation would work...at least for Atlanta- makes common sense, but here eh... it will take its time, but this everbank deal is sure a start.  The tides are changing.  But for anyone against the repopulating of the core (for the good of the tax payer and/or city)- I would really like to know their true motives.  Either dumb or greedy. 

[Tacachale]

From the FTU:

http://jacksonville.com/business/2011-06-09/story/jedc-approves-275m-subsidy-everbank-move-downtown

Interesting quotes from all sides.

Joe Andrews, a board member of Concerned Taxpayers, said downtown property owners and businesses that would gain from EverBank's relocation should bear the expense. "Get those who are going to benefit to pay the cost, and leave the rest of this alone," he said.

But advocates, including business owners and residents, said having a vibrant, growing downtown helps the entire city. EverBank's move would increase the workforce in the downtown core by 7 percent and cut the vacancy rate by 17 percent, Lorince said.

It's like they're speaking two different languages.

[RiversideLoki]

Joe Andrews

After school Joe returned to his career in construction.  He moved to Jacksonville in 1986 to work for a local construction company as a project manager.  In 1995 he retired from full time employment, but has maintained contact with the industry through various freelance activities related to construction.

See the trend?