Comment

Comment by JL Gawlik on June 13, 2011 at 3:47pm

Patricia, The city of Jacksonville gave up their share of $4,000,000.00 million dollars in naming rights to sweeten the deal to Everbank last year.  That money SHOULD of gone to COJ. Now the Jaguars are arguing over $500,000.00 stating that COJ should pay not them, this has been hanging for three years. A city attorney can go over the contract signed by COJ and the Jaguars and easily solve this problem. I had pulled up an article in one of the earlier post here, that was reported either in 2009 or 2010 that Everbank was sitting on over $540,000,000.00 plus million dollars. There are so many other important things to be address with the JEDC funds and the above money that COJ should not give to the Jaguars or Everbank.  Great job by the way on all that you and the others are doing.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on June 13, 2011 at 2:52pm

The thing that makes the Everbank argument a bit rediculous is that these folks are already in the city of Jacksonville and therefore, when Everbank moves from where they are now to downtown, it will be a net job gain of zero.  Although it might help the businesses downtown for them to go there, it will hurt the businesses where they currently are located by an equal or greater amount when they leave their current location.  These folks are so morphed on downtown, they fail to see the big picture which is the whole city of Jacksonville................the only thing they care about is the downtown!

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on June 13, 2011 at 2:49pm

I think many of us are upset about the ethics issue and the Everbank issue and it is what everyone has been working on.  For some of us to switch horses now onto a bill we aren't even familiar with would not be easy.  I also believe everyone has a differenct bent on some things or may say something the previous folks have not said.  I am glad you are working on something very comprehensive and suspect it will be well done!

Comment by Rod Morrill on June 13, 2011 at 2:41pm

Patricia, J.R. and all,

 

I can offer a condensed or simplified alternative of my previous suggestion. (Plan B)

 

If this item is truly important to you and you think action should not be taken by City Council then you will have to take action.

 

Not everyone can take on a public role and for those you have the telephone and e-mail.

 

For those please call you Council Member and the six Council Member-at-Large give your name to whoever answers and ask them to make a note of you call and give a copy of that note to the Council Member and a copy for the record of communication opposed to 2011-368 and 2011-369 and that there be no action taken until more information is made available to the public. Another method is to send an e-mail to each Council Member and Council Member Elect (they have coj email now)

Those who can and will GO TO CITY COUNCIL.  Give you name, what Council District your in and state that you want your Council Member and At-Large Members to answer the following.

 If there are several speakers from FCTP then each include just one of the numbered items

 

I am herein declaring my opposition not only to these Bills (2011-368, 2011-369) but also to the rapid and nearly unannounced drafting of the ordinances even before the date of the supporting documentation from JEDC.

 

1.   The Bills and their supporting documents have contradictions, incomplete statements of facts and thus are missing information to form the very baseline numbers and facts for these agreements.

 

2.   One JEDC document says Everbank has nearly 1400 employees and another says 1200 employees.

 

3.   There is mention of a 2007 agreement made with Everbank to add 120 employees and that was not met but the report fails to mention that that agreement was to be met by December 31, 2008 which is over two years ago and even though an extension was reportedly requested there is no mention where they are in meeting that increase today and how many employees there are today compared to 2007. 

 

4.   What value is there to a gain of 200 employees if there are LESS employees today than in 2007.

Are we going to reward for returning what was lost!

 

I oppose any action on these items at least until the supporting "facts"? can be qualified and quantified.

 

I inserted this from my e-mail to all the City Council Members.

 

I hope to see you there.

 

Rod

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on June 13, 2011 at 2:29pm

Hello all,

I just came back from the special finance meeting for the automated garbage pickup issue.  Good news as this may be off the table.  I spoke and said I didn't think they had adequately published this as they only just said they were going to try the automated service out and now what they have before them is a done deal to install it and didn't think the open meeting rules has been met.  I also spoke about rule 126 in connection to state law which requires municipalities to have ordinances covering items over $50,000, 150,000 etc.  The company who will be doing the automated service was there and I spoke with the representative who will be going in front of various community groups for the next 2 weeks and explaining everything and soliciting comments as well.  As it turns out, the company is getting the contract extension, because they will be providing the cans and even replacement cans if one gets damaged which is a fairly large expense and must have an extended contract to cover themselves for the expense.  The good thing for the taxpayers is garbage collection fees should go down since it will cut people required on the truck from 3 to 2 once the automated system is in which cuts the number of employees.  After I spoke with the rep, I was pretty much ok with the process being used and the actual service and the extension.

Comment by CJ on June 13, 2011 at 2:21pm

I just sent this, my first of many to be addressed tomorrow,

Bill 11-361 contains too many ideas and you all know as well as I that Bills must contain one idea. 

Nor can any part of the Bill move forward without including public input and/or financial impact for such endeavors. Especially since there is no approval for any Regional Transportation Center project to buy any land for that JTA can get for free in lieu of contributions for something that doesn't exist.

Please withdraw this Bill until such time it can be broken down into separate pieces and evaluated on individual merit. 

2011-361	ORD Declaring Surplus Parcels (RE #s 074828-0000, 074829-0000, 074830-0000,074832-0000, 074834-0000, 074836-0000, 074837-0000, 074838-0000, 074839-0000, 074840-0000, 074843-0000,074844-0000, 074846-0000, & 074859-0000; Auth Conveyance of Fee Simple Title to JTA for use in Regional Transportation Center (RTC) at No Cost in Lieu of $5 Million Cash Contribution from COJ to RTC Proj; Waive Provisions of Sec 122.424 (Appraisal Assessed Value Over $25,000), Ord Code, to allow Conveyance to JTA at No Cost; Amend 2011-2015 5-Yr CIP Apvd by Ord 2010-558-E to Delete "JRTC Bus" Proj (Dist 9 - Jones) (Hodges) (Req of Mayor) Public Hearing Pursuant to Chapt 166, F.S. & CR 3.601 - 6/14/11
	1. 5/24/2011 CO  Introduced: R,F,TEU
	6/6/2011 TEU Read 2nd & Rerefer;   6/6/2011 R Read 2nd & Rerefer
	6/7/2011 F Read 2nd & Rerefer ------------------------------------------------------------------ The enterprise zone changes along with Kaman will be introduced tomorrow so no public hearing yet. Two more weeks to work on it

Comment by J.R. on June 13, 2011 at 1:41pm

JL, use any or all of that. It might help to go back through the information posted and pick out the most egregious things that really stand out. You could include Gov. Scott's new Executive Order I posted to reinforce the point that we expect and demand full disclosure and transparency from them.

Also, that we expect them to follow all laws, rules, regulations and ordinances, to the letter, because we're going to be closely examining every aspect of the process they follow and actions they take. Ask them why they have been hiding El-Ad Group's information, since El -Ad is a party to this EverBank deal, along with Parador Partners, LLC. They can't pass a bill that hides one of the major parties to the deal.  What are they hiding, other than El Ad Group is a subsidiary of Delek Group, which is owned by one of the richest men in the world and is a multi-billion dollar foreign conglomerate based in Israel? Hard to come up with a reason why Duval County taxpayers should have to subsidize that... or any private business, for that matter. 

The manner in which they have tried to rush this through at mach speed is a slap in the face of taxpayers, as well as a violation of their rights to an open and honest process that considers their needs. I'm certain you, of all people, will do well with exercising your First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom to petition your government.

Give 'em hell. Tell 'em we're T.E.A.... Taxed Enough Already!

Comment by JL Gawlik on June 13, 2011 at 1:08pm

J.R., are we just calling and emailing all council members just  about the Everbank relocation deal? Do we mention Brownfield/enterprise funds, also or just the JEDC funds and involvement? Do we mention the two foreign multi-billion dollar El-ad, Delek group, companies involved. I think i got that right. Boy, y'all have really pulled a LOT of great info on this, and do we mention the Ethic Committee/Commission that has been watered down by the City Council and them prevention it from being a independent over seer unlike Attorney Carla Miller and her group was working so hard to create to make sure elected representatives remain honest, honorable stewards of our tax dollars and city?

Comment by J.R. on June 13, 2011 at 12:56pm

To those who are sending e-mails to Council Members, which I hope is everybody, you can mass e-mail your message by sending it to as many as ten Council Members at a time in one e-mail, so as not to appear to be spamming. All you have to do with the second and third group is copy and paste your message into the new e-mails you are sending.

Please do this, for it is an urgent matter. Mayor Peyton and Jack Webb are trying to rush the EverBank deal through, under the radar, at mach speed, without taxpayers receiving fully-disclosed information about the deal.

It is a bad deal for taxpayers, who will all be forced to subsidize two foreign multi-billion dollar international conglomerates, in addition to the multi-million dollar EverBank, none of which need corporate welfare from Duval County Taxpayers.  They can more than well afford to pay their own way wherever they choose to locate Everbank. And, taxpayers can't afford to subsidize Everbank, in the amount of $1Million to get them to stay in their present location in the suburbs.  Subsidizing private businesses is not the responsiblity of county taxpayers.

Comment by CJ on June 13, 2011 at 12:37pm

One of those "New" enterprise zones is a few miles from where Kaman Aerospace corp now resides which I dont think is a coincidence. Plus the bill contains no address to where the Brownfield/enterprise funds will be spent but where Kaman current is located they are not qualified for the funds.

 

Oddly it is a spot that stands alone from all other zones.

 

Another coincidence?

 

 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 16
• 17
• 18
• 19
• 20
• …
• 41
• Next ›
• Page