For and Against: The Mobility Fee Moratorium (2013-094)
In what is shaping up to be a battle of David and Goliath, Metro Jacksonville continues to stand up to big business interests to illustrate how a three year moratorium (2013-094) on the mobility fee places Jacksonville's taxpayers in a bad financial position. Today, we respond to pro moratorium talking points sheet being used behind closed doors to convince City Council to subsidize all forms of new development without any system of checks and balances at the expense of their constituents.
1. FOR MORATORIUM: Mobility fees go to the Mobility Fund, not to the General Fund or to the School District, and can only be spent on items in the Mobility Plan, so the first waiver didn’t take away money for libraries, parks, schools, etc., and a second waiver would not either.
AGAINST MORATORIUM: Correct. Mobility fees are intended to fund the negative transportation impacts and eventual “multimodal” capacity enhancements needed by new construction over a 20-year horizon period. Without the mobility fee, the burden of that infrastructure will be placed squarely on the backs of the everyday taxpayer. This scenario should be avoided at all costs if it can’t be proven without a doubt that the subsidy being asked of taxpayers, results in a fiscally viable ending.
2. FOR MORATORIUM: The proposed waiver is not a moratorium; it is voluntary; and a developer can pay the mobility fee if desired. Same with the first waiver period.
AGAINST MORATORIUM: The proposed three year waiver is redundant. The mobility fee is voluntary right now because it already includes an option through the mobility fee credit adjustment system and project site selection process that can reduce a project’s mobility fee or eliminate it altogether.
Mobility Fee Credit Adjustment System (Location-based land use & transportation strategy page 13, credit adjustment system page 31): https://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/community-planning-division/2030-mobility-plan-final-may-2011-as-adopted.aspx
3. FOR MORATORIUM: The money in the Mobility Fund can’t be spent on just any road, sidewalk, etc.; it can only be spent on the specified improvements in the Mobility Plan. Examples include widening Philips to 6 lanes AND adding a bus rapid transit line AND a light rail line. In fact, under the Mobility Plan 33% of all fees collected will be spent on 6-laning just three roads in the County.
AGAINST MORATORIUM: Mobility fees are intended to fund specified improvements in the Mobility Plan as an effort. These improvements will assist in guiding growth in a direction to where it is fiscally sustainable for Jacksonville taxpayers.
In Mobility Zones 1 and 8, the mobility fee will eventually fund the 25% local match required for a proposed commuter rail line between Downtown Jacksonville and St. Augustine. In the short term, mobility fees in those zones would fund the reconstruction of Philips Highway between Butler Boulevard and Baymeadows Road. This project would upgrade the rural roadway with pedestrian and bicycle facilities, creating an environment for transit oriented development for inner city bus lines and regional commuter rail. See the community's vision for the Philips Highway corridor below.
With that said, 33% of all fees collected in the first set of priority projects would be spent on reconstructing Philips Highway, Normandy and Southside Boulevards to include transit, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and facilitate better automobile movement. However, these facilities will be funded by projects within their specific mobility zones and can be altered just as easy as placing a three year moratorium on the entire plan and fee.
Example: A Vision for Philips Highway - City of Jacksonville Southeast Vision Plan
The intersection of Philips Highway and JTB, reimagined as a mixed-use node centered around mass transit.
City of Jacksonville Southeast Vision Plan
Pro moratorium spreadsheet presented to the Downtown Investment Authority indicating $82 million in job cost spurred by $3.1 million worth of waived mobility fees.
4. FOR MORATORIUM: According to CMSO data, development worth $82.174 million in job costs was permitted during the first waiver period, an average rate of $6.847 million per month. In contrast, since the first waiver period ended in October, 2012, only two projects (blue) worth $452,500 in job cost have paid mobility fees totaling $66,000.
AGAINST MORATORIUM: As of mid February 2013, 18 projects have moved forward. 16 (most are eligible for mobility fee waivers) have been omitted from this list by moratorium proponents for some reason. According to CMSO data, the last day for an eligible Mobility Fee Certificate holder to apply for the fee waiver is April 19, 2013. (Note: The eligibility period for a mobility fee certificate holder is 6-months from its issuance date). Until this fee waiver process ends, it’s disingenuous to taxpayers to attempt to utilize two recent non-eligible projects as a trend of ineffectiveness.
18 applications between 9/21/2012 and 2/14/2013. Most projects have not had to pay mobility fees because they either take advantage of the mobility plan's location criteria or are still eligible to be granted mobility fee waivers from last year's moratorium experiment.
5. FOR MORATORIUM: The $82.174 million does not include the money injected into the local economy on site work and payroll for design and construction. It also does not include the documentary stamp tax revenue to the local government from deeds and mortgages associated with the development.
AGAINST MORATORIUM: By providing the private sector with a legal public handout, it is hollow-hearted to make the assumption that all projects that applied for mobility fee waivers would not have moved forward if a moratorium were not in place. For example, two of the largest mobility fee waivers were granted to 7-Eleven, Inc. Bringing in $16.7 billion in annual revenues (2009), prior to the consideration and approval of the first moratorium, 7-Eleven Inc. announced their intentions to open as many as 80 stores in North Florida by 2015. The reason for this was not a mobility fee moratorium. It was the expiration of a 20-year non-compete agreement with the Gate Petroleum that required the company to stay out of the Jacksonville market. This is development and job creation that would have happened regardless of the mobility fee moratorium experiment and should not be promoted as anything otherwise.
source: 7-Eleven re-enters Northeast Florida: 20-year non-compete deal with Gate expires https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/print-edition/2011/10/14/7-eleven-re-enters-northeast-florida.html?page=all
6. FOR MORATORIUM: $3.185 million in mobility fees were waived during the first waiver period, but the $82.174 million in improvements that were permitted will generate $824,640 in General Fund revenue (calculated at 2012 millage rate for the General Services District and Urban Service District 1 of 10.0353 mills per $1,000 of value). This means the $3.185 million in fees waived will be recouped from the increased property tax revenues in less than four years.
AGAINST MORATORIUM: This $82 million figure is fundamentally flawed. As the graphic (top of page) indicates, 40% of the projects (green) used to get that number never would have had to pay a mobility fee, so why would their job costs be used in a case for waiving a fee they never had to pay?
Nevertheless, in February 2013, that $3.19 million in waived fees had increased to $4.77 million as remaining mobility fee waiver eligible projects move forward (which directly impacts the “after” waiver number mentioned in point 4). However, as the response to point 5 highlights, there is strong reason to believe that many of the projects receiving waivers over the last year would have moved forward even if a mobility fee were in place. Especially since 36% of the $4.8 million waived went to 7-Eleven (see #5). As of March 1, 2013, the $4.8 million in mobility fees waived had increased to $5 million.
East 3rd Street in Long Beach, CA is an example of a context sensitive street. All mobility fee funded road projects would include bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
7. FOR MORATORIUM: Mobility fee payments are one time payments, but the increased property tax revenues produced by the projects approved during the waiver will continue in perpetuity.
AGAINST MORATORIUM: When will it be the right time to not have citizens shoulder the impacts of new development? This isn’t an either or situation and should not be viewed as one. It has never been proven that the mobility fee kills projects where market demand truly exists for them.
The mobility fee’s structure already includes a method the development community can utilize to eliminate or reduce their “trip generation” fee. The whole point of the 2030 Mobility Plan is to provide Jacksonville with a path to alter its overall development pattern into one that is fiscally sustainable and safer for its taxpayers. The fee is simply the funding mechanism to incentivize that change. For those who chose to not work within the goals of the award winning community developed policy, they have the option to pay a mobility fee that helps cover the cost to taxpayers for their negative impact on surrounding infrastructure. In return, those funds generated will be reinvested into the surrounding community to mitigate transportation impacts in a manner that aligns with the community’s already adopted visioning plans. A three year moratorium effectively embraces an unsustainable growth pattern the general community continues to express a desire to move from.
Source: Mobility Fee Credit Adjustment System (Location-based land use & transportation strategy page 13, credit adjustment system page 31):
https://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/community-planning-division/2030-mobility-plan-final-may-2011-as-adopted.aspx
COJ Adopted Visioning Plans:
https://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/community-planning-division/plans-and-studies/vision-plans.aspx
JAX 2025 Community Survey Results:
https://www.jax2025.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/JAX2025-Survey-Results.pdf
8. FOR MORATORIUM: According to the City’s Road Links Status Report, there has been essentially no net increase in traffic since January, 2010.
AGAINST MORATORIUM: In general traffic counts have been flat or down statewide since 2006. This is in large part a result of the economy. According to an analysis by FIU’s Research Institute on Social & Economic Policy, the state has lost 715,200 jobs in the Great Recession. In addition, economic and social trends indicate a demographic shift in mode share with usage of transit, bicycle, pedestrian facilities (something Jacksonville is sorely lacking in) increasing. As the economy recovers, traffic counts will increase from existing development. With the addition of new traffic coming from new development over “four” years of waiving mobility fees, someone will be forced to pick up the tab for mitigating new development. When will it be the right time to not have citizens shoulder the impacts?
9. FOR MORATORIUM: The adopted Mobility Plan calls for only 11% of the Mobility Fund to be spent on sidewalks and bike lanes, spread across all Mobility Zones, and spent no faster than it is collected in each zone for this purpose.
AGAINST MORATORIUM: Actually, funds for pedestrian and bicycle facilities are included in all projects funded by the mobility fee. Cost estimates were generated to make all roadway projects “context sensitive” or “complete streets.” The 11% quoted to be utilized on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure throughout all mobility zones are in addition to multimodal projects to be constructed as a part of roadway improvements. These additional projects are intended to effectively create a citywide connected bicycle and pedestrian network, which is something that doesn’t exist today, which directly leads to Jacksonville being nationally known as a deadly city for bicyclist and pedestrians.
2030 Mobility Plan Executive Summary (page E-2):
https://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/community-planning-division/2030-multimodal-transportation-study---executive-s.aspx
Jacksonville ranked third worst pedestrian city:
https://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/walking-in-Jacksonville/Q7nPXexPWEesueu9CMXy2g.cspx
According to ULI, infill projects are some of the hottest in today's real estate market.
10. FOR MORATORIUM: According to the Urban Land Institute, for 2013 Jacksonville ranks 39 out of 51 major U.S. cities in overall real estate prospects. The data from the first waiver period proves that a second waiver would have a positive and needed economic impact.
AGAINST MORATORIUM: According to the Census Bureau, Jacksonville is currently ranks as the 40th largest MSA in the country (366 MSA overall), suggesting that our ranking is on par for our size, given the economic recession and recovery process. According to the Urban Land Institute’s Emerging Trends in Real Estate for 2013, the emerging plays for real estate investment and development are:
1. Acquisitions on budding infill locations.
2. New-wave office and build to core in 24-hour markets.
3. Industrial facilities near ports and international airports.
4. Using caution investing in secondary and tertiary cities.
5. Backing off apartment development in low-barrier-to-entry markets.
6. Single-family housing funds.
7. Repurposing the surfeit of obsolescent properties.
The entire concept of the 2030 Mobility Plan and fee structure feeds into these nationwide economic trends. As Jacksonville repositions itself to align with what the marketplace is looking for, our overall real estate prospects will rise in a similar fashion to peer secondary cities such as Charlotte (17 in real estate, 33 in MSA size), Salt Lake City (21 in real estate, 48 in MSA size), and Nashville (18 in real estate, 37 in MSA size), and Oklahoma City (32 in real estate, 43 in MSA size).
US Metropolitan Areas by Population:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas
ULI 2013 Emerging Trends in Real Estate:
https://www.uli.org/emerging-trends/emerging-trends-in-real-estate-2013/
11. FOR MORATORIUM: Development Agreement 2012-703 for the Pope & Land project in Brooklyn authorized a loss of $5.15 million in revenue to the City. Development Agreement 2012-270 for the 220 Riverside project in Brooklyn authorized a loss of $4.9 million in revenue to the City.
AGAINST MORATORIUM: Why should taxpayers view Development Agreements 2012-703 and 2012-270 be viewed under a microscope but not take a similar approach with the hundreds of projects that would be subsidized under an all out moratorium, that features no checks and balances to protect public fiscal interest?
The 2030 Mobility Plan and fee creates a situation where projects, such as Pope & Land and 220 Riverside become market rate. This is done by removing the indirect subsidies given to fed an unsustainable development pattern that historically has not generated the return we tend to assume, resulting in immediate budget deficits as soon as growth ends.
Development Agreements 2012-703 and 2012-270 should be viewed under the same microscope as projects, such as service jobs created by Waffle House, Family Dollar, etc. via mobility fee waivers. In the case of the Lane Avenue 7-11, it received a $325,000 subsidy to create a store that produces an average annual payroll of $90,000. Notwithstanding 7-11’s five year area development agreement. Even jobs created by a typical LA Fitness have an average per capita wage in the range of $25,000. These are clear cases of projects that are better off for the taxpayer being evaluated on an individual basis for their true Return on Investment (ROI) than being granted a subsidies without oversight via a mobility fee moratorium.
Article by Ennis Davis. Contact Ennis at edavis@moderncities.com
AGAINST MORATORIUM: Correct. Mobility fees are intended to fund the negative transportation impacts and eventual “multimodal” capacity enhancements needed by new construction over a 20-year horizon period. Without the mobility fee, the burden of that infrastructure will be placed squarely on the backs of the everyday taxpayer. This scenario should be avoided at all costs if it can’t be proven without a doubt that the subsidy being asked of taxpayers, results in a fiscally viable ending.
2. FOR MORATORIUM: The proposed waiver is not a moratorium; it is voluntary; and a developer can pay the mobility fee if desired. Same with the first waiver period.
AGAINST MORATORIUM: The proposed three year waiver is redundant. The mobility fee is voluntary right now because it already includes an option through the mobility fee credit adjustment system and project site selection process that can reduce a project’s mobility fee or eliminate it altogether.
Mobility Fee Credit Adjustment System (Location-based land use & transportation strategy page 13, credit adjustment system page 31): https://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/community-planning-division/2030-mobility-plan-final-may-2011-as-adopted.aspx
3. FOR MORATORIUM: The money in the Mobility Fund can’t be spent on just any road, sidewalk, etc.; it can only be spent on the specified improvements in the Mobility Plan. Examples include widening Philips to 6 lanes AND adding a bus rapid transit line AND a light rail line. In fact, under the Mobility Plan 33% of all fees collected will be spent on 6-laning just three roads in the County.
AGAINST MORATORIUM: Mobility fees are intended to fund specified improvements in the Mobility Plan as an effort. These improvements will assist in guiding growth in a direction to where it is fiscally sustainable for Jacksonville taxpayers.
In Mobility Zones 1 and 8, the mobility fee will eventually fund the 25% local match required for a proposed commuter rail line between Downtown Jacksonville and St. Augustine. In the short term, mobility fees in those zones would fund the reconstruction of Philips Highway between Butler Boulevard and Baymeadows Road. This project would upgrade the rural roadway with pedestrian and bicycle facilities, creating an environment for transit oriented development for inner city bus lines and regional commuter rail. See the community's vision for the Philips Highway corridor below.
With that said, 33% of all fees collected in the first set of priority projects would be spent on reconstructing Philips Highway, Normandy and Southside Boulevards to include transit, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and facilitate better automobile movement. However, these facilities will be funded by projects within their specific mobility zones and can be altered just as easy as placing a three year moratorium on the entire plan and fee.
Example: A Vision for Philips Highway - City of Jacksonville Southeast Vision Plan
Quote
Arlington, VA's Rosslyn-Ballston corridor is standard for sustainable land use planning and Smart Growth development because it concentrates development along a transportation artery with more intense areas of development at important intersections that include transit stations.
As illustrated below, the corridor bears a striking geographic resemblance to Philips Highway and provides an existing example of what the corridor could become in the future. Philips Highway's economic and activity centers, future transit, and sufficient land depth has the potential to create a compatible transition to adjacent neighborhoods while achieving growth.
The intersection of Philips Highway and JTB, reimagined as a mixed-use node centered around mass transit.
City of Jacksonville Southeast Vision Plan
Pro moratorium spreadsheet presented to the Downtown Investment Authority indicating $82 million in job cost spurred by $3.1 million worth of waived mobility fees.
4. FOR MORATORIUM: According to CMSO data, development worth $82.174 million in job costs was permitted during the first waiver period, an average rate of $6.847 million per month. In contrast, since the first waiver period ended in October, 2012, only two projects (blue) worth $452,500 in job cost have paid mobility fees totaling $66,000.
AGAINST MORATORIUM: As of mid February 2013, 18 projects have moved forward. 16 (most are eligible for mobility fee waivers) have been omitted from this list by moratorium proponents for some reason. According to CMSO data, the last day for an eligible Mobility Fee Certificate holder to apply for the fee waiver is April 19, 2013. (Note: The eligibility period for a mobility fee certificate holder is 6-months from its issuance date). Until this fee waiver process ends, it’s disingenuous to taxpayers to attempt to utilize two recent non-eligible projects as a trend of ineffectiveness.
18 applications between 9/21/2012 and 2/14/2013. Most projects have not had to pay mobility fees because they either take advantage of the mobility plan's location criteria or are still eligible to be granted mobility fee waivers from last year's moratorium experiment.
5. FOR MORATORIUM: The $82.174 million does not include the money injected into the local economy on site work and payroll for design and construction. It also does not include the documentary stamp tax revenue to the local government from deeds and mortgages associated with the development.
AGAINST MORATORIUM: By providing the private sector with a legal public handout, it is hollow-hearted to make the assumption that all projects that applied for mobility fee waivers would not have moved forward if a moratorium were not in place. For example, two of the largest mobility fee waivers were granted to 7-Eleven, Inc. Bringing in $16.7 billion in annual revenues (2009), prior to the consideration and approval of the first moratorium, 7-Eleven Inc. announced their intentions to open as many as 80 stores in North Florida by 2015. The reason for this was not a mobility fee moratorium. It was the expiration of a 20-year non-compete agreement with the Gate Petroleum that required the company to stay out of the Jacksonville market. This is development and job creation that would have happened regardless of the mobility fee moratorium experiment and should not be promoted as anything otherwise.
source: 7-Eleven re-enters Northeast Florida: 20-year non-compete deal with Gate expires https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/print-edition/2011/10/14/7-eleven-re-enters-northeast-florida.html?page=all
6. FOR MORATORIUM: $3.185 million in mobility fees were waived during the first waiver period, but the $82.174 million in improvements that were permitted will generate $824,640 in General Fund revenue (calculated at 2012 millage rate for the General Services District and Urban Service District 1 of 10.0353 mills per $1,000 of value). This means the $3.185 million in fees waived will be recouped from the increased property tax revenues in less than four years.
AGAINST MORATORIUM: This $82 million figure is fundamentally flawed. As the graphic (top of page) indicates, 40% of the projects (green) used to get that number never would have had to pay a mobility fee, so why would their job costs be used in a case for waiving a fee they never had to pay?
Nevertheless, in February 2013, that $3.19 million in waived fees had increased to $4.77 million as remaining mobility fee waiver eligible projects move forward (which directly impacts the “after” waiver number mentioned in point 4). However, as the response to point 5 highlights, there is strong reason to believe that many of the projects receiving waivers over the last year would have moved forward even if a mobility fee were in place. Especially since 36% of the $4.8 million waived went to 7-Eleven (see #5). As of March 1, 2013, the $4.8 million in mobility fees waived had increased to $5 million.
East 3rd Street in Long Beach, CA is an example of a context sensitive street. All mobility fee funded road projects would include bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
7. FOR MORATORIUM: Mobility fee payments are one time payments, but the increased property tax revenues produced by the projects approved during the waiver will continue in perpetuity.
AGAINST MORATORIUM: When will it be the right time to not have citizens shoulder the impacts of new development? This isn’t an either or situation and should not be viewed as one. It has never been proven that the mobility fee kills projects where market demand truly exists for them.
The mobility fee’s structure already includes a method the development community can utilize to eliminate or reduce their “trip generation” fee. The whole point of the 2030 Mobility Plan is to provide Jacksonville with a path to alter its overall development pattern into one that is fiscally sustainable and safer for its taxpayers. The fee is simply the funding mechanism to incentivize that change. For those who chose to not work within the goals of the award winning community developed policy, they have the option to pay a mobility fee that helps cover the cost to taxpayers for their negative impact on surrounding infrastructure. In return, those funds generated will be reinvested into the surrounding community to mitigate transportation impacts in a manner that aligns with the community’s already adopted visioning plans. A three year moratorium effectively embraces an unsustainable growth pattern the general community continues to express a desire to move from.
Source: Mobility Fee Credit Adjustment System (Location-based land use & transportation strategy page 13, credit adjustment system page 31):
https://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/community-planning-division/2030-mobility-plan-final-may-2011-as-adopted.aspx
COJ Adopted Visioning Plans:
https://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/community-planning-division/plans-and-studies/vision-plans.aspx
JAX 2025 Community Survey Results:
https://www.jax2025.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/JAX2025-Survey-Results.pdf
8. FOR MORATORIUM: According to the City’s Road Links Status Report, there has been essentially no net increase in traffic since January, 2010.
AGAINST MORATORIUM: In general traffic counts have been flat or down statewide since 2006. This is in large part a result of the economy. According to an analysis by FIU’s Research Institute on Social & Economic Policy, the state has lost 715,200 jobs in the Great Recession. In addition, economic and social trends indicate a demographic shift in mode share with usage of transit, bicycle, pedestrian facilities (something Jacksonville is sorely lacking in) increasing. As the economy recovers, traffic counts will increase from existing development. With the addition of new traffic coming from new development over “four” years of waiving mobility fees, someone will be forced to pick up the tab for mitigating new development. When will it be the right time to not have citizens shoulder the impacts?
9. FOR MORATORIUM: The adopted Mobility Plan calls for only 11% of the Mobility Fund to be spent on sidewalks and bike lanes, spread across all Mobility Zones, and spent no faster than it is collected in each zone for this purpose.
AGAINST MORATORIUM: Actually, funds for pedestrian and bicycle facilities are included in all projects funded by the mobility fee. Cost estimates were generated to make all roadway projects “context sensitive” or “complete streets.” The 11% quoted to be utilized on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure throughout all mobility zones are in addition to multimodal projects to be constructed as a part of roadway improvements. These additional projects are intended to effectively create a citywide connected bicycle and pedestrian network, which is something that doesn’t exist today, which directly leads to Jacksonville being nationally known as a deadly city for bicyclist and pedestrians.
Quote
Quote from 2030 Mobility Plan Executive Summary:
Each new or widened roadway included in the prioritized transportation improvement project list is assumed to include sidewalks and bicycle facilities consistent with the applicable cross-section for road design, bus turn-out facilities, and Comprehensive Plan policies. Roadway improvement projects consist of a combination of new roads, widening existing roads, intersection improvements and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) improvements. The total cost for proposed roadway improvements included in the 2030 Mobility Plan is $218 million in 2010 dollars.
2030 Mobility Plan Executive Summary (page E-2):
https://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/community-planning-division/2030-multimodal-transportation-study---executive-s.aspx
Jacksonville ranked third worst pedestrian city:
https://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/walking-in-Jacksonville/Q7nPXexPWEesueu9CMXy2g.cspx
According to ULI, infill projects are some of the hottest in today's real estate market.
10. FOR MORATORIUM: According to the Urban Land Institute, for 2013 Jacksonville ranks 39 out of 51 major U.S. cities in overall real estate prospects. The data from the first waiver period proves that a second waiver would have a positive and needed economic impact.
AGAINST MORATORIUM: According to the Census Bureau, Jacksonville is currently ranks as the 40th largest MSA in the country (366 MSA overall), suggesting that our ranking is on par for our size, given the economic recession and recovery process. According to the Urban Land Institute’s Emerging Trends in Real Estate for 2013, the emerging plays for real estate investment and development are:
1. Acquisitions on budding infill locations.
2. New-wave office and build to core in 24-hour markets.
3. Industrial facilities near ports and international airports.
4. Using caution investing in secondary and tertiary cities.
5. Backing off apartment development in low-barrier-to-entry markets.
6. Single-family housing funds.
7. Repurposing the surfeit of obsolescent properties.
The entire concept of the 2030 Mobility Plan and fee structure feeds into these nationwide economic trends. As Jacksonville repositions itself to align with what the marketplace is looking for, our overall real estate prospects will rise in a similar fashion to peer secondary cities such as Charlotte (17 in real estate, 33 in MSA size), Salt Lake City (21 in real estate, 48 in MSA size), and Nashville (18 in real estate, 37 in MSA size), and Oklahoma City (32 in real estate, 43 in MSA size).
US Metropolitan Areas by Population:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas
ULI 2013 Emerging Trends in Real Estate:
https://www.uli.org/emerging-trends/emerging-trends-in-real-estate-2013/
11. FOR MORATORIUM: Development Agreement 2012-703 for the Pope & Land project in Brooklyn authorized a loss of $5.15 million in revenue to the City. Development Agreement 2012-270 for the 220 Riverside project in Brooklyn authorized a loss of $4.9 million in revenue to the City.
AGAINST MORATORIUM: Why should taxpayers view Development Agreements 2012-703 and 2012-270 be viewed under a microscope but not take a similar approach with the hundreds of projects that would be subsidized under an all out moratorium, that features no checks and balances to protect public fiscal interest?
The 2030 Mobility Plan and fee creates a situation where projects, such as Pope & Land and 220 Riverside become market rate. This is done by removing the indirect subsidies given to fed an unsustainable development pattern that historically has not generated the return we tend to assume, resulting in immediate budget deficits as soon as growth ends.
Development Agreements 2012-703 and 2012-270 should be viewed under the same microscope as projects, such as service jobs created by Waffle House, Family Dollar, etc. via mobility fee waivers. In the case of the Lane Avenue 7-11, it received a $325,000 subsidy to create a store that produces an average annual payroll of $90,000. Notwithstanding 7-11’s five year area development agreement. Even jobs created by a typical LA Fitness have an average per capita wage in the range of $25,000. These are clear cases of projects that are better off for the taxpayer being evaluated on an individual basis for their true Return on Investment (ROI) than being granted a subsidies without oversight via a mobility fee moratorium.
Article by Ennis Davis. Contact Ennis at edavis@moderncities.com