Comment

Comment by Charles D White on June 20, 2011 at 8:19pm

That is good news , I may be wrong but if they are bottled up in committee they can not make the June 28th Council meeting band and that's is an important first step. I railed on Mayor Obama on air ( a caller called him that) for his use of the lame duck council ala Obama Reid and Pelosi. Thank You and I'll get an interpretation tomorrow.

Comment by CJ on June 20, 2011 at 8:16pm

Mr Tucker 366 is Suntrust.  the property for the Garage is next to Suntrust across from the landing. I called The Landing management and they said they dont really care who builds a garage as long as their businesses can get parking for patrons. I say me too as long as tax payers dont have to pay 3.5 million in corp. welfare to get it.

PLUS Sisters City Parcel should not be part of the Bill as it is a separate issue and that is by law against the law.  Appraisal requirement was waived which is bad enough then to give the option to buy the parking lot for $500 qualifies as dereliction of duty by County officials and I will bring that to their attention soon.

 

I am thinking the walk out could not have been better.  Tho Council can take it up as a whole on Tuesday over riding Rules if votes are there but to hold up all the other bills is very cool :)

Im chomping at the bit to see the video, probably on line by tomorrow 

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on June 20, 2011 at 7:16pm

Chuck, I seem to think I was not totally clear, so I will say all the bills I listed were not acted on today in the rules committee as they came after the "walk out".

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on June 20, 2011 at 7:07pm

Chuck, they got through the agenda to the RTC bill which was voted down.  Then, the discussion to redo the bill and Lee refused and refused to recognize a point of order and folks walked out, so if you look at today's Rules Committee agenda, that was all she wrote as enough people left so Lee had to shut it down.  Bills after the adjounment would include 2011-365 settlement between city, jedc & project riverwatch, 366 Parador, 368 Everbank, 377 future pension benefits and pension funding, 383enterprise zone boundary amend, 384 economic day agreement bet city, jedc, and Kaman Aerospace, 385 amend investment policy of the city, 386 amend chapt 155 adult arcade center, 388 amend ord code to estab limited town center landscape maint responsibilities, 389-394 appointments and reappointments, 395 - 396 mourning and commemorating the loss of vincent leroy myrick, 397 Approp 521, 844.92 380,393.60 FDEP grant, 398 approp 1,039,225 (962, 879 FDEP grant, 399 general employee retirement plan, 400 police and firefighters pension plan.

 

That was everything off the agenda I had and they followed it to the letter right up to the disagreement over the rtc. 

Comment by FCTP on June 20, 2011 at 7:00pm

CJ;  Is it SunTrust or EverBank?  Your letter is terrific and I'm confused by the two banks.  Maybe I missed something. 

 

I would love to share this with the entire tea party database before tomorrow but wanted to make sure this was cleared up -- from my end.  God bless all of you for staying on top of this.  You guys are so awesome and if it didn't appear to be a John Boener thing, I would cry!

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on June 20, 2011 at 6:47pm

Wow, CJ.  Absolutely terrific letter.  Mine are never, ever that good.

Comment by CJ on June 20, 2011 at 4:06pm

Thank you Ms. McBride I did get to it.

Im not sure about Rules, I cant wait for the Media film to get on line assuming they wont cut it up.

I just watched the RCD meeting and they approved the Parador Garage so just I sent them this....

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council

Bill 11-366 

The conception of what is now the Landing began in 1984 using money from the northwest Jacksonville economic development fund for Rouse and Associate and so began the City’s obligation for a parking garage with 900 spaces . In 1988 legislation begins for a parking garage on a portion block of Forsyth, Main, Laura, and Bay even assimilating land thru emanate domain to do so. This is the first of what turns out to be more than 26 Bills and now 7 amendments spanning 27 years of grants, bonds, obligations, ownership, usage of funds, Taxes, and land changes with nothing to show for it but a loss in parking spots from 900 to less than 500.

 

The aversion of the city against fulfilling its promise to the Landing is beyond comprehension especially since the funding was available from various sources and on the CIP for over a quarter of a century. 

 

Then out of the Blue with some sort of imagined urgency the City cares about the urban core and Suntrusts parking abilities. And it dawns on me why Bill 11-73 for parking for the Landing was vetoed by the Mayor and why Council was manipulated to not over ride the veto. Which brings to light negotiations for this Bill has been going on at least since January.

 

Exploring this Bill I see no urgency after 27 years to rush this it.  Next the City has no right ethically to put tax payers on the hook for a penny let alone a minimum of 3.5 million for an entity that needs no financial aide to build anything, Emphasizing financing available from the northbank community redevelopment trust fund which is its purpose.

 

Third the city is only looking at shirking its responsibilities to the Landing not for the benefit of the citizenry. Experience shows constant contract failures from the past when rushed and that contain no real repercussion for that failure which results usually to the detriment of the community.

 

Fourth page 7 line 7 refers to Sisters City Parcel that has no business being in this bill since it is a second idea contained within one Bill on top of the fact that selling any piece of prime parking area with in city limits, worth its weight in gold, but waiving appraisal laws for an option price of $500 and purchase price of $500 is ludicrous.

 

Fifth page 8 line 11 says the presently unknown specific annual grant amounts will be based upon the amount of future parking validation discounts actually provided by Parador each year during the term of the program.  The annual City grant amounts will therefore be appropriated in future annual budgets. Means tax payers will be at the mercy of some unknown amount. Line 18 The purpose of the $3,507,226 appropriation in Section 2 is to provide a $3,500,000 grant to Parador (the remaining $7,226.00 is not related to this project and shall remain in the account subject to later appropriation) Since it is not related it has no business being in this bill.

Further page 8 line 31 The City’s obligation to fund the Parking Validation Program for the Parador Garage is conditioned upon JLI’s release of its foregoing contingent incentive rights. 

These rights were given in Bill 10-330 less than a year ago and the city should consider after 27 years what it owes to the landing and the community where neither should be held financially accountable through incentives for something that should have been built years ago using money from existing funds in the Northwest economic development fund along with Money from the JEDC real estate sales and loan paybacks, Enterprise Zone Funds and should do so now. 

An entity with this size of financial assets needing a public grant is beyond comprehension.  If The Landing is willing to forego their rights to the property thats great but for the public to finance Suntrust is nothing short of corporate welfare and abusive to tax payers to top it off the "gift" of Sisters City Parcel Parking lot for $500 is down right insulting.

Thank you for sharing your time with

Respectfully

 

Comment by Charles D White on June 20, 2011 at 3:55pm

What agenda items were not heard because of the walk-out? Did EverBank or the Parador parking garage get discussed?

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on June 20, 2011 at 3:44pm

CJ, the agenda for the finance committee now works if you click on your link.

Comment by JL Gawlik on June 20, 2011 at 2:50pm

Mr. Crescimbeni, has been so wonderful corresponding with me. He even mailed me a letter when i apparently missed his first correspondence with one of my first emails to all 19 city council members. He responds the same day or the next day, the other two who responding, Bishop, Joost, neither of them were my city council rep. Jack Webb, who did not respond like the other 15 members. Joost and Bishop responded ten days after my email went out, they only responded that one time. Mr. Crescimbeni responds immediately to each email. I am amazed that Mr. Crescimbeni does ALL of his correspondence even the mailed letters. 

There is apparently a LOT of waste with the city council in my opinion just as there is with other city departments. 

RTC, is that the Regional Transportation Center? That is good news about the JTA land transfer. 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• …
• 41
• Next ›
• Page