What the Mobility Fee can do for Downtown Jacksonville

[Metro Jacksonville]

What the Mobility Fee can do for Downtown Jacksonville



According to the recently released JAX 2025 survey, a better downtown is at the top of the wish list of its 14,016 respondents.  However, Councilman Richard Clark's proposed three year moratorium of the mobility fee could stunt the redevelopment of downtown Jacksonville and leave the average taxpayer carrying the financial burden it leaves behind.

Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-feb-what-the-mobility-fee-can-do-for-downtown-jacksonville

[vicupstate]

The biggest irony is that instead of supporting the infill and redevelopment of the city proper, the moratorium would encourage sprawl which will eventually lead to the majority of development to occur in outlying counties.

[ricker]

What happens to us when our city dies?

As the masses continue to largely watch silently and motionless as significantly remarkable quantities of single and multifamily dwellings within the neighborhoods and entire blocks of once in-demand commercial corridors grow stagnantly vacant in the communities surrounding our once bustling downtown, are we all satisfied? 

Knowing that life is not a popularity contest, as end-users of the spaces we are taxed to use, are we pleased with where we rank regarding needs met for the “choice user” of non-existent mobility services?

Are we not faced with a question directly related to quality of life for all affected?

Who is affected by the choices made during the web of administrations governing our homefronts?

Should we have any drive to care about the pedestrian biased need for human scale built environs along our motorways if we choose to live far outside the municipalities’ city centers?

While our contiguous counties may argue for or against the very success of, and speedy connectivity to the inner river-front core of our fledgling “Downtown”, many may optimistically speculate that the recovery is well underway and that we should at all costs break the bank bending over to incentivize fresh new development throughout any sector and district of the county and state.

What happens to the once glorious structures which still stand yet unoccupied?

Do we continue to pretend that we have forgotten them?

If so, what real and permanent good does this do for us?

How can we reconcile the glaring and obvious divide existing between the very real mistakes sometimes accidentally made in the past by a few well meaning souls short on wisdom-rich in imagination, while the ramifications of such behavior will only continue to reward those who may not seek the best for the whole?

While some legendary leaders of our past made it their goal to befriend certain entities in their upward food chain, we are living now in a time where we must seek leadership in people who reveal their motives and whose consorts are known.

Much like reconstructive surgery following removal of a malignant tumor, we must continue fighting a cancer, organically from within, and rebuild safely from the inside out if we are to realistically have even only the most deeply rooted hope for a permanent and ongoing rebirth and restoration which verily must guide us all into an embrace of the reality we have walked ourselves into.

If it is a renaissance we strive for, with glowing neighborhoods and a citizenry abounding with joyful employment, education, and stability, most simply stated, obviously we first must begin taking notice of the signals which poise our county for a path toward third world status.

Do we feel pride in our breath when we read of the offing of any of our street pole lamps?

Are we aware that our paved road system lends itself to high marks when compared to many other cities and counties where growth has also been sporadic and at times unpredictable?

Do we therefore find it unreasonable that Jacksonville historically and continuously ranks among the top of the list of the worst and most dangerous places for commuters who walk and bike to their destinations of choice?

[peestandingup]

The biggest irony is that instead of supporting the infill and redevelopment of the city proper, the moratorium would encourage sprawl which will eventually lead to the majority of development to occur in outlying counties.

Not to mention development that would ultimately die, as this type of quick & easy model of outward growth has its days numbered. Gas prices are soaring, brick & mortar retail is dying, budgets are shrinking & Gen Xers/Yers simply don't want it.

Every day that goes by, Jax becomes less & less unprepared for the future.

[Overstreet]

The mobility fee sounds like another impact fee. I've known projects that were shelved in Tallahassee because of their traffic impact fee. It  raised the cost per sf too high for the market.

[bill]

Impact fees=Taxes

But its OK around here we like to tax the successful and give to the unsuccessful(DT) it is the democratic way.

[thelakelander]

No "impact" fee = more taxes and a reduced quality-of-life for everyone else. At some point you have to pay the piper.  I'm just of the opinion if I add something that has a negative impact on the fiscal viability of an existing public holding, I should cover that cost instead of passing it on to Bill, Overstreet, and Peestandingup. 

[thelakelander]

Impact fees=Taxes

But its OK around here we like to tax the successful and give to the unsuccessful(DT) it is the democratic way.

My focus is downtown today.  In the past, I've covered the impact on other areas, such as Arlington.  Also, I have a second article set to run this Friday that will show how much money has been lost by every district in town. 

Answer this question for me. If you build an apartment complex and it tears up the little road next door, how do you justify reaching into the elderly lady's pockets next door, to fund the widening?  What you're advocating is the polar opposite of fiscal conservatism.  If you're shooting for a communist society, I could understand but that would also mean you'd be splitting your development profits with the rest of the community.

[ricker]

^
Agreed

Let's say you, "bill" are develepor  "B" in the following oversimplified scenario.

owner/developer A (contiguous to you) owns many acres on a two-lane road, and seeks to build a number of homes.
it is determined by the governing municipality that the shoulders must be widened, sidewalks added, additonal overhead lighting and perhaps a signalized intersection, and a central turn lane all must be added.

under the so-called "fair-share" method of assessisng impact fees,
YOU developer Bill would benefit from immediately adjacent roadway improvements.
Let's say your line of work is farming.

Developer C also contiguous to you decides they would like to sell a large portion of their land as well to a builder who wants to construct a small senior citizen condo community.
more impact fees.

later on, after the once two-lane road has become a bustling thoroughfare, you decide to retain your littoral or riparian rights, yet you now also have caught the bug to add housing/retail/etc.,
the road now has sidewalks,  a central turn lane, improved drainage, lighting, signalized intersections,
hmmmm, you pay no impact fee.
fair?

I will guess you would say so.
Well it isn't

In a time when very services we rely on such as rescue, fire, police are being strained and stretched beyond capacity and we cannot afford to fund the sprawl OR retirement accounts for these folks,

Why NOT encourage re-using EXISTING structures, and PROMOTE sustainability as a model for ALL future "growth"?

[thelakelander]

The mobility fee sounds like another impact fee. I've known projects that were shelved in Tallahassee because of their traffic impact fee. It  raised the cost per sf too high for the market.

Like what specifically?  I can't speak for what Tallahassee has done or charges and what it goes to, but I do know a lot about the mobility plan, since I helped conduct the research used to create it.  The mobility fee doesn't kill development.  Instead it guides it to be fiscally sustainable to the City of Jacksonville long term.  It basically sets a standard that not all development and growth is good for the city.  It also financially incentivizes growth and development that does not negatively impact existing infrastructure.  Case in point, we had a few LA Fitness locations open last year.  Two of those locations would have not had to pay a dime in mobility fees because they went into existing vacant spaces.  Furthermore, the mobility fee itself, still on average is 64% cheaper than the decades old fair share agreement system it replaced. 

Nevertheless, one thing that those in opposition to a mobility fee have not covered, is who pays for the negative impact of new development on existing infrastructure if there is no fee?  It would be one thing, if the public amount invested to support said development was less than the amount of income said development generates long term.  Unfortunately, to date, that's not the case, which is the reason for the mobility fee and the old fair share system in the first place.

[ricker]

It is HIGH time (ever since the park that got away thread) we get a grip and finally begin building up and not out.

residential over retail is definitely where it's at my compadres 

[bill]

Darely, Taxes are always passed on to the consumer. I was simply pointing out that it is OK to tax successful development(BAD) and subsidize DT(Good). As usual the facts are not your strong suit. Try do be civil, Hon

Ricker, You have fair share completely backwards. Be quiet.

BTW-the mobility tax is a vast improvement over the fair share tax. A good job by Doug et al.

[thelakelander]

What you've pointed out is incorrect, in terms of the design and structure of the mobility fee. 

I was simply pointing out that it is OK to tax successful development(BAD) and subsidize DT(Good).

We should strive to have all development should pay for itself, regardless of whether it's downtown, in the burbs, or in cow country.  Bad development is development you have to subsidize long term for it to exist.  An example of "bad" development is when you have to "invest" millions in public infrastructure for it to materialize that you'll never get back in return (ROI) (ex. Bass Pro on Race Track Road). So good or bad development isn't determined by general location within the city alone.  It's determined by the ROI it provides on the taxpayer's dime.

With that said, you can still develop in the burbs without being hit by a mobility fee.  All it requires is for you to spend a little time on specific site selection and site design.  Examples include redeveloping a previously developed site, filling an existing vacant space (which we have plenty of).  You can also drop the fee by designing a multimodal friendly project or creating a mix of uses on an infill site with decent existing density already around it.

The key is simply finding methods (taking advantage of the mobility fee's credit adjustment system) to lower the amount of auto trips your project adds to existing roadway infrastructure. Do that and you're help achieve on of the mobility plan's main objectives.......changing the development form and pattern of the city into a model that is more fiscally sustainable and quality-of-life enhancing for the taxpayer.

[peestandingup]

Impact fees=Taxes

But its OK around here we like to tax the successful and give to the unsuccessful(DT) it is the democratic way.

Car insurance & registration = Taxes. Road construction = Taxes. Filling up your tank = Taxes. Traffic tickets = Taxes. Maintenance = Taxes.

No choice but to drive = The opposite of freedom.

[BridgeTroll]

Just trying to understand.  Lake... you said...

you can still develop in the burbs without being hit by a mobility fee.  All it requires is for you to spend a little time on specific site selection and site design.  Examples include redeveloping a previously developed site, filling an existing vacant space (which we have plenty of).  You can also drop the fee by designing a multimodal friendly project or creating a mix of uses on an infill site with decent existing density already around it.

Yet most of these projects appear to be either infill or reuse... why did these projects require mobility fee waivers?