Urban Jacksonville

Tomorrow is a huge day for the future of our city. No matter what side of the budget debate you fall on, you have to be a bit apprehensive. If City Council votes against the Mayor’s tax increase, will the outcome be as dire as the mayor forecasts? Will cuts to cultural institutions, the shuttering of the LaVilla Theater, the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission and more set our city back culturally for years to come?

Today the ~~16 member~~ 19 member City Council will vote on the issue of raising property taxes to avoid cutting Public Safety, City Services and Social/Cultural/Events. It’s going to be a real nail biter too. Tia Mitchell reports the council is literally divided on the issue:

Nine of the 16 council members reached last week told the Times-Union they’re leaning toward supporting Mayor John Peyton’s proposal for now, setting the tax rate at 9.5 mills – a 12 percent increase.

Regardless of the outcome there are those in the city who will carry on the fight for cultural enhancement, despite (or in spite of) those who would trade culture in our city for lower or no taxes.

Let’s say after all is said and done, Council does not approve the tax increase, what next? Peyton can veto the bill or refuse to sign, but so far he hasn’t indicated what his plans are if the hike is rejected.

Some more links on the topic

City Council divided on property tax (Jacksonville.com)
Has the budget crisis spawned a ‘new’ Mayor Peyton? (Jacksonville.com)
Yarborough: cut arts and social service funding (Folio Blog)
Pension Tensions (Shelton Hull)
More links on the budget

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 28th, 2009 at 10:50 am and is filed under Activism, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Tags: Budget, city council, Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission, john peyton, Tia Mitchell

Austin Cassidy

19 members on the City Council.
hopemcmath

I certainly hope that those who are charged with making the right decisions for our city take a long view and support the increase. If we do not invest in our city, it is possible to become a cultural wasteland. All great cities and cultures are measured by the artistic fingerprint they leave behind and by how they treat and uplift their most vulnerable citizens. No one will remember who sat on City Council or who ran a particular organization, but the art, literature, architecture left for future generations will continue to inspire and educate. It IS the job of government to support quality of life for its citizens and that can mean everything from great art for all to social services for those in crisis. The strength of these initiatives (along with our beautiful parks and impressive libraries) is in part why I have chosen to live here and work in a field that can help make a difference. Although I am not overly optimistic at this point, I have not given up on the power of conversation and providing information to those who are in the decision making seats. PLEASE raise my taxes!!!
http://ChangeJacksonville.blogspot.com/ Dave

If low taxes were the secret to economic prosperity, places like Somalia and Haiti would be among the most prosperous places on Earth.

The proposed tax increase would cost my wife and me over $500 a year, on property that we are unable to sell. Still, IF the City Council makes every effort to assure that every dime collected is well spent, I'm in favor of the increase.

The problem is, for far too long, City money has not been spent well. Whether it's the Shipyards deal, the Berkman deal (those were supposed to be apartments, not condos, remember?) or deals with the Mayor's buddies, there is a long history of the taxpayer being ripped off.

I urge the City Council to 1) approve the millage rate increase and 2) spend the rest of their terms bringing integrity to City government.
http://www.theurbancore.com TheUrbanCore

It would be great if someone like Abel could send us updates of the budget debates in tonights city council meeting during http://www.urbanjacksonvilleweekly.com
Where culture and the city are always the topics ™
vicupstate

The Berkman WAS apartments before it went condo. It just converted sooner than originally expected. I considered that a good thing since it helped prove a market for BOTH rental and ownership in DT. Also, some units were bought by investors and then rented, so the project still brought rentals into the DT market.

Secondly, what difference does it make? The point of the project was to increase the DT permanent population, which it did/does.
Dave

The point is, it was INTENDED to be apartments, and to REMAIN apartments, but the developer chose to walk away with a hefty profit at taxpayer expense. As for rentals, sure, there are some, but about 25% of the units are in foreclosure and the condo association is struggling to meet the costs of major repairs. Those would be non-issues had it remained apartments.

Bottom line is a(nother) developer took advantage of the city. I don't blame him – it's his job to make as much profit as possible. I blame city officials who weren't especially careful in how they worded the contract.
vicupstate

My understanding was that the city's incentives were intended to get the project BUILT. The developer's original plan was to go rental for 5 years and then convert. There are income tax advantages that encourage that.

Berkman got a offer too good to refuse, and sold it. Berkman built the building as promised. I see no downside here.
vicupstate

The Berkman WAS apartments before it went condo. It just converted sooner than originally expected. I considered that a good thing since it helped prove a market for BOTH rental and ownership in DT. Also, some units were bought by investors and then rented, so the project still brought rentals into the DT market.

Secondly, what difference does it make? The point of the project was to increase the DT permanent population, which it did/does.
Dave

The point is, it was INTENDED to be apartments, and to REMAIN apartments, but the developer chose to walk away with a hefty profit at taxpayer expense. As for rentals, sure, there are some, but about 25% of the units are in foreclosure and the condo association is struggling to meet the costs of major repairs. Those would be non-issues had it remained apartments.

Bottom line is a(nother) developer took advantage of the city. I don't blame him – it's his job to make as much profit as possible. I blame city officials who weren't especially careful in how they worded the contract.
vicupstate

My understanding was that the city's incentives were intended to get the project BUILT. The developer's original plan was to go rental for 5 years and then convert. There are income tax advantages that encourage that.

Berkman got a offer too good to refuse, and sold it. Berkman built the building as promised. I see no downside here.

Does the Future of Our City Hang by a Vote?

Some more links on the topic

Recent Comments

Archive »