Not so fast! A recent study appearing in the Harvard Business Review suggests that the secret to job growth is not in doling out tax breaks to big employers in an attempt to entice them to move to your city. If anything, cities with a lot of smaller firms tend to have higher job growth than cities with only a few large firms. Having a business environment that promotes entrepreneurship by reducing business startup and other small business costs imposed by the government is a far better way to improve the job situation in a city than tax incentives to larger established firms.

The benefits are not only in job creation, but also in product innovation. In the book From Poverty to Prosperity written by Arnold Kling and Nick Shulz, the authors argue that innovation does not tend to originate from established firms, but from entrepreneurs risking everything on a novel idea.  Established firms tend to be more conservative in their risk taking than entrepreneurs, but risk taking is essential for innovation.  So lots of entrepreneurs with big dreams lead to a lot more great ideas for goods and services that improve our lives.

I am sure that some government official is reading this and saying to himself “Maybe, we should increase the corporate welfare that is going to small businesses and entrepreneurs!”.  And he would be missing the point!  The best thing that the government can do is to provide the essential government services that cannot be provided by the free market and then get out of the way!

Here is one way for government to get out of the way of entrepreneurs.  When monks tried to sell simple coffins in Louisiana, the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors threatened them with fines and jail time.  Their crime?  Not being part of the funeral parlor cartel that uses the government to protect itself from competition.  The free market does not need government help to weed out the entrepreneurs who do not provide anything of value to their customers that they cannot already find cheaper and better elsewhere.

Add to your social network:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CONCERNED TAXPAYERS OF DUVAL COUNTY CONCERNING THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS.

WHEREAS, the City of Jacksonville and associated governmental entities fund more than 2/3 of the cost of three defined benefit pension plans for public employees; and
WHEREAS, these 3 plans have funding deficits of more than $1.4 billion (as of 10/1/09), and these deficits are likely to increase; and
WHEREAS, these deficits are over $1,600 per Jacksonville resident and almost $5,000 per Jacksonville household, and are a drag on property values and new business; and
WHEREAS, the cost of funding these 3 plans is more than $110 million per year currently – about 7% of the City budget, and these figures and percentages are likely to increase, if no corrective action is taken;and
WHEREAS, these 3 plans, as they now exist, and far too costly to the City, and will cause the City to raise taxes in the future, if the plans are not eliminated or scaled back; and
WHEREAS, these plans are very costly to administer (about $14 million per year), and pay out over $215 million per year in benefits, and yet the City does not in fact have clear control of the administration of these plans; and
WHEREAS, private employers have largely stopped using defined benefit plans, and instead use defined contribution plans to provide retirement benefits for their employees; and
WHEREAS, proposals have been made to the Charter Revision Commission to give the City such clear control, and to bar future accruals of benefits under said plans after 2013; and
WHEREAS, the City’s currently outstanding collective bargaining proposals, even if adopted, will not prevent such future tax increases, or resolve the problem of lack of City control;
it is hereby RESOLVED, that the City Charter should be amended as described above, the City should revamp its current collective bargaining strategy so as to demand greater employee concessions, and the Mayor and City Council should take all other necessary and appropriate actions to scale back and eventually eliminate
these 3 plans, and replace them with defined contribution plans.

Add to your social network:

Specifically, they have amended the complaint filed last year against the City of Jacksonville and the City Council to request that the Court declare the passage of Ordinance 2010-217 to be both illegal and void. The several grounds asserted include multiple City and Council violations of Florida’s open government meeting (“Sunshine”) law.

The lawsuit further seeks to protect the public interest by asking the Court to force the City to correct violations of the public records law, which require government and officials to make records available to every citizen for review and copying. The City has failed to create and provide minutes of a public meeting (related to Trail Ridge), and refused to make a Council member’s records of the official business use of his cell phone available to the public.

A press conference will be held at 12:00 noon on Thursday, June 3, 2010, in front of the Jacksonville City Hall, 117 West Duval Street, Jacksonville, Florida, by Victor Wilhelm, President of the CTDC, and John Winkler, lead attorney for the Plaintiffs.

The Concerned Taxpayers of Duval County, Inc. is a not for profit corporation and nonpartisan political committee dedicated to serving the community as a watchdog group, using public information to oppose corruption, waste, and “Sunshine Law” violations in government. Additional information is available from the author of this press release, immediate past president John Winkler, who can be reached at 904-384-9918.

Below is a summary of the amended complaint. You can view the entire complaint here.

Paragraphs 1 to 5 briefly explain why the suit exists and the relief requested

Paragraphs 6 to 11 are jurisdictional and standing allegations

Paragraphs 12 to 20 are the early history of the City’s dealings with WM and Trail Ridge

Paragraphs 21 to 39 are the history of the Mayor’s attempted deal with Waste Management, the subsequent Waste Management vs. the City litigation, and the 2010-217 “settlement”

There are 15 individual counts:

COUNT ONE

Violation of Sunshine Law F.S. §286.011(2)and/or F.S. §119.07 for Failure to Record Minutes of Trail Ridge Oversight Special Committee Meeting of November 4, 2009

COUNT TWO

Violation of Sunshine Law (F.S. §286.011(8)(a)) – SHADE MEETING of November 24, 2009 — exceeding permissible scope of meeting [transcript attached as Exh. 17]

COUNT THREE

Violation of Sunshine Law (F.S. § 286.011(8)(a)) – SHADE MEETING OF MARCH 9, 2010 — exceeding permissible scope of meeting [transcript attached as Exh. 18]

COUNT FOUR

Violation of Sunshine Law (F.S. §286.011(8)(a)) – SHADE MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2010 — exceeding permissible scope of meeting[transcript attached as Exh. 19]

COUNT FIVE

Violation of Sunshine Law – unlawful shade consideration of $486,000 in noise abatement actions in lawsuits against third party, and subsequent incorporation into “litigation settlement”

COUNT SIX

Violation of Sunshine Law – unlawful shade consideration of $7.2 million in City claims against non-party, not in litigation, and subsequent incorporation into “litigation settlement”

COUNT SEVEN

Violation of Sunshine Law – use of shade meetings to evade open meetings law and improper incorporation of extraneous matters into “litigation settlement”

COUNT EIGHT

Violation of Sunshine Law and voting conflicts statutes (F.S. §286.012, F.S.§112.311, §112.313; F.A. §112.3143(3)(a)) by Councilman Ray Holt and Councilman Dr. Johnny Gaffney

COUNT NINE

Violation of Sunshine Law (F.S.§286.012) by Councilman Art Graham on Ordinance 2010-217 (failure to vote on bill)

COUNT TEN

Failure to waive Ordinance Code §126.105- failure to submit to the Planning and Development Department

COUNT ELEVEN

Failure to comply with Ordinance Code § 106.215 (2/3 vote of Council needed)

COUNT TWELVE

Public records law violation –refusal to provide Holt’s cell phone records

COUNT THIRTEEN

Violation of Sunshine Law (F.S. §286.011) ILLEGAL MEETING(S) of May 24-25, 2010 – C/M Clark and C/M Joost in re: Council president’s election

COUNT FOURTEEN

Declaratory judgment as to scope of 1990 RFP and application to 2010-217

COUNT FIFTEEN

Application of OGC Opinion of December 18, 2008 to Procurement of landfill operations “services” and to Procurement of services in general

Exhibit list:

Exhibit 1 – 1990 Request for Proposals [attached separately]

Exhibit 2 – City of Jacksonville Ordinance 2010-217

Exhibit 3 – City of Jacksonville Ordinance Code Chapter 126 [attached separately]

Exhibit 4 – Jacksonville Office of General Counsel letter dated December 18, 2008 [attached separately]

Exhibit 5 – Jacksonville Office of General Counsel letter dated February 27, 2009

Exhibit 6 — Memorandum of April 14, 2010 from Cindy Laquidara

Exhibit 7 – City Council Auditor’s report, April 15, 2010

Exhibit 8 – Memorandum of April 16, 2010 from Cindy Laquidara

Exhibit 9 – March 11, 2010 notice of Shade meeting of City Council

Exhibit 10 – March 12, 2010 notice of Shade meeting of City Council

Exhibit 11 – Letter to Waste Management from City Solid Waste director Fred Forbes dated January 22, 2010

Exhibit 12 – Letter form City Council of May 25, 2010

Exhibit 13 – Communications Allowance Request of Ray Holt dated June 26, 2009

Exhibit 14 – Jacksonville City Council Communications Allowance Policy, July 1, 2005

Exhibit 15 – Council Auditor Report dated March 10, 2008

Exhibit 16 – Docket Trail Ridge Landfill, Inc. and Waste Management Holdings, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville

Exhibit 17 – Shade Meeting Transcript of November 24, 2009

Exhibit 18 – Shade Meeting Transcript of March 9, 2010

Exhibit 19 – Shade Meeting Transcript of March 15, 2010

Exhibit 20 – Ordinance 2009-362-E

Exhibit 21 – Ordinance 2010–170-E

Exhibit 22 – Trail Ridge Oversight Committee Meeting Notice (for meeting 11/4/09)

Exhibit 23 – Screen shot of Jacksonville City Council Trail Ridge Oversight Committee available documents as of May 30, 2010

Add to your social network:

If you do not agree, consider the Florida Times Union story on the Equal Business Opportunity office. Apparently, productivity for this office was measured in number of websites viewed per hour by its employees rather than in anything useful to the taxpayers who are footing its bill. Not surprisingly, a sharp reduction in staff who seemed to not having anything better to do with their time was recommended by the Inspector General’s office. We couldn’t agree more.

Add to your social network:

Here are some interesting news items concerning the landfill contract controversy. Clay County is doing what Jacksonville should do – bidding the landfill contract!  I guess that Waste Management did not have previous contracts with Clay County government that it could twist to its advantage and keep its competitors at bay.

The Florida Times Union editorial board complained that the committee-as-a-whole meeting mentioned above did not provide adequate time for discussion concerning the proposed settlement. We could hardly disagree with the Florida Times Union’s assertion that a contract worth more than $400 million over 26 years merits more than two hours of discussion. Let’s hope that Council President Richard Clark listens to this wise advice.

Finally, Concerned Taxpayers of Duval County (CTDC) President Victor Wilhelm had a letter to the editor concerning the landfill contract controversy published in the Florida Times Union. The CTDC has never wavered from its initial position that the contract must be bid and Wilhelm’s letter reflects this position.

What can you do? Let your City Councilperson know that competitive bidding of this contract not only makes good economic sense but assures an open and transparent process free of corruption.

Add to your social network:

See below past President John Winkler’s commentary on the landfill question.

It doesn’t take knowledge of rocket science to operate a landfill. Whatever Waste Management (WM), Republic/Southland, or anyone else in the garbage disposal industry may want the people of Jacksonville and their City Council to believe, spreading out household trash and covering it with dirt really is something that anyone able to operate a dump truck and bulldozer can do. While it may or may not be the kind of civic duty Jacksonville cares to perform using its own employees, there is nothing so special about the creation of a thousand-layer trash pile that it can only be done by giving exclusive rights to do so to one outfit, without competitive bidding, for the next thirty-five years.

Wait, you say, is this a rerun column? The whole “bid the landfill” vs. “Waste Management Forever” debate was fought out last year, you remember, and won by the forces of light when City Council rejected the Mayor’s no-bid, 35 year, $750 million contract extension on running the Trail Ridge dump, right? Didn’t the City then leap at the chance to litigate with Waste Management if need be in order to establish our right to either build our own trash mound or have the low bidder do it? Yes, that happened, but suddenly there’s a new deal proposed by the Jacksonville General Counsel that is a whole lot like the Mayor’s old deal. Call it landfill redux, deja vu all over again, or lipstick on a pig – no matter how you slice the new proposed landfill contract, it’s still (at best) last year’s baloney. Unlike last year, however, there is no time for a deliberative process at City Council. The new proposed contract (Ordinance 2010-217) demands City Council accept it by April 30, 2010, as presented, with no changes allowed.

When a group of us at the Concerned Taxpayers of Duval County (www.jaxtaxpayers.org) sued the City last year to get a ruling that Jacksonville had to either bid out a contract this huge or do the work themselves, we pointed out several legal problems in the Mayor’s tentative agreement. One provision of that proposal (still available for review at www.coj.net under Ordinance 2008-538) was an illegal clause which could have, under certain circumstances, forced the sale of the entire thousand acre Trail Ridge landfill site, and an adjacent “borrow pit” (dirt mine) site, from the City to Waste Management without any competition. Another illegal aspect of the earlier version of the no-bid contract under state law was that it could have gone on for an indefinite period of years, since it defined WM’s right to spread garbage in terms of tons (42 million) rather than time. Interestingly, the proposed contract now thrown in front of City Council avoids these two problems by leaving out the bargain land sale provision and defining a maximum number of years that Waste Management will have the exclusive right to run the City’s landfill(s). The new proposal essentially allows no more than ten years as the period WM would have been running the existing landfill before it would have been full, another 19 years for WM to operate any expansions or new landfill, with another possible six year extension “upon mutual agreement.” Not, in my opinion, coincidentally, this potentially 35 year agreement is the same length of time as the estimates on how long the Mayor’s earlier proposal would have run.

While the Concerned Taxpayer suit has been in abeyance since the Mayor’s proposal was withdrawn, the very serious issue of whether City Council has the right to waive the requirements of the City Procurement Code and proceed to give WM the exclusive right to operate any City dumps far beyond the scope of the 1990 bidding process remains undetermined. We had hoped that City Council would retain the spine it grew last spring, see the WM litigation through trial, and obtain a judicial confirmation that the City does, in fact, have the right to seek competitive bids for landfill operations once WM buries another 5 to 7 million tons at Trail Ridge. Unfortunately, City Council President Richard Clark, without waiting for either a financial or careful outside legal analysis of the new proposal, has already opined that it “makes good business sense” to avoid further litigation; this was one of the Mayor’s old arguments, unanimously rejected by the City Council less than a year ago. Perhaps the less impulsive members of City Council will take note of the following flaws in the new proposal and reject (or ignore) Ordinance 2010-217 as a poorly conceived, badly executed plan to deprive the taxpayers of the benefits of fair and free market competition.

For example, I question what this language, in section 5.2 of the new “take it or leave it” proposed contract means: “Annual Adjustment of Fee. On July 1 of each year, the then current rates shall be adjusted by a factor which shall be the product of one (unity) and a decimal fraction equal to 0.70 times the preceding twelve-month change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), said change being expressed as a decimal fraction.Adjusted rates shall be the product of the then current rates and the modifier and shall be expressed correct to the nearest whole cent ($0.01).” The CPI required by the contract is the CPI-W, which currently stands at 212.544 using 1982-4 as a base of 100.

To explain, let’s say inflation is three percent in the first year of the contract. On July 1, 2011, the new CPI-W is 218.920, or a change of 6.376 when “expressed as a decimal fraction.” If that is what the proposal means, then 0.70 times 6.376 is 4.4632 and the “product” of “one (unity)” and 4.4632 is 4.4632. On the other hand, is the change supposed to be the percentage, to be expressed as “.03,” which leads to an adjustment factor of .021? In either case, if “the modifier” (not otherwise defined) is the same as the “factor,” the result is absurd. The “product of the then current rates and the modifier” is either $10.58 per ton of regular trash in year one times 4.4632, or $47.22 per ton in year two, or $10.58 times .021, or $0.22 per ton. If there is no change in the CPI-W, then WM works the next year for free, under either interpretation of the adjustment factor. If prices go down in year one, the second year price becomes negative; does anyone seriously believe that Waste Management will pay the City for the privilege of burying our garbage?

Obviously the drafters of the new proposed contract, in their haste, used the word “product” when they meant “sum” and the word “modifier” when they meant “annual adjustment factor,” and they should have spelled out that the annual adjustment is going to be 70% of the annual percentage change in the CPI-W (assuming that is what they meant). This is the same kind of incredible sloppiness in drafting contract language back in 1991 that created the present litigation between the City and Waste Management over what that contract really means. Is this really the best that a battery of well-paid lawyers can do? Disclosure: although I am a lawyer, no one has paid me a dime for any of the work I’ve done or am doing in connection with the landfill.

One more example of the lurking disasters in the proposed contract should suffice. Section 5.6 calls for the City and Waste Management to “use reasonable efforts” to come to an agreement on using Waste Management to recover recyclables from the “current waste stream,” but if they can’t agree, “CITY shall be entitled to competitively bid the establishment and operation of such an operation.” [Yes, it really is written that way] The very next sentence says Waste Management “shall have the exclusive right to operate any such new technology requested by the City.” So the City can bid out the recycling operation but only Waste Management can run the equipment. Is it so hard to envision another lawsuit brought by WM against our town if it tries to actually use a different company to pull recyclables? Count I: failure of City to use reasonable efforts to negotiate in good faith. Count II: request for injunction against the City,violating WM’s exclusive right to operate new technology at Site.

Alas, while I am confident that this exposure of the gross ineptitude displayed by the City’s lawyers in drafting the second “no-bid landfill contract” will result in more changes, I am not so sanguine about the City Council just doing the right thing, letting the 1991 landfill contract run out in five to seven years, and then either running Trail Ridge with our own local employees or bidding out operations on shorter contracts.

Last year WM’s competitors made lots of noise about how they could beat the Mayor’s deal if allowed to bid; this year they are (so-far) strangely silent. But the citizenry needn’t be silent. Call and email all 19 City Council members. Sign the petition at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/bidtrailridge . Attend the City Council meetings April 12 and 26 to encourage your elected officials to do the right thing. Already the City’s solid waste disposal “fee” is being raised because it is less than the cost of collection. If the public doesn’t make the City restrain those costs by preserving competitive bidding, all of us and our descendants will be paying the price for decades to come.

John Winkler, Attorney

Videos sponsored by the Jacksonville Young Democrats on the landfill question:

Video 1
Video 2

Add to your social network:

City Council Town Hall Meeting – Districts 7, 9 and 10
Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.
FSCJ Downtown Campus – 401 W. State Street, Jacksonville Florida

City Council Town Hall Meeting – Districts 12 and 14
Thursday, April 08, 2010  6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.
FSCJ Kent Campus, 3939 Roosevelt Boulevard, Jacksonville Florida

City Council Town Hall Meeting – Districts 8 and 11
Thursday, April 22, 2010  6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.
FSCJ North Campus, 4501 Capper Road, Jacksonville Florida

City Council Town Hall Meeting – Districts 1, 2, 3 and 13
Thursday, May 06, 2010 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.
FSCJ South Campus, 11901 Beach Boulevard, Jacksonville Florida

Add to your social network:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CONCERNED TAXPAYERS OF DUVAL COUNTY IN SUPPORT OF ELECTED POSITIONS FOR DUVAL COUNTY

Whereas, it has not been demonstrated that the appointment of representatives of the People by the mayor creates a more efficient or responsive municipal government versus their election.

Whereas, history has demonstrated that the consolidation of the People’s representatives into fewer executive, legislative and judicial offices erodes accountability and responsiveness of governments.

Whereas, residents in Duval County have not expressed a desire of the appointment of offices that are currently elected.

Now therefore:

Be it resolved that the Concerned Taxpayer of Duval County supports the continued election of City Council, School Board, Sheriff, Clerk of Court, Property Appraiser, Tax Collector and other offices as necessary.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CONCERNED TAXPAYERS OF DUVAL COUNTY IN SUPPORT INCLUDING AN ETHICS CODE INTO THE DUVAL COUNTY MUNICIPAL CHARTER

Whereas, the original municipal charter of the consolidated government of Duval County included a code of ethics.

Whereas, the ethics code was removed from the charter in 1972 and Duval County government has operated without an ethics code since that time.

Whereas, the residents of Duval County deserve an ethical government whose elected and appointed officials as well as employees behave in a manner that avoids impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

Whereas, the legal framework only provides remedies for criminal acts and not unethical acts.

Whereas, the residents of Duval County deserve to have the agents of the Duval County government be accountable to a code of ethics.

Now therefore:

Be it resolved that the Concerned Taxpayer of Duval County supports the inclusion of an ethics code in the municipal charter of Duval County to be determined and enforced in an accountable and transparent fashion that does not burden the Taxpayer with increased bureaucracy.

A PROPOSED RESOLUTION FOR THE CTDC:

To the Honorable Members of the Florida House of Representatives and Florida Senate:

Whereas, Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution guarantees to every person access to the courts for redress of any injury, and that justice shall be administered “without sale, denial or delay;” and

Whereas, under present law, dating back to an act of the Territorial Legislature of December 11, 1824, foreclosure of a mortgage in Florida requires the foreclosing party to file a lawsuit and establish to the satisfaction of an elected Florida judge both that the Plaintiff is the correct party to bring the action, and is entitled to the judicial sale of the encumbered real property for application of the proceeds against the original debt; and

Whereas this judicial foreclosure procedure permits the property owner to raise defenses concerning the validity of the debt, the foreclosure procedure, and the status of the Plaintiff as the correct party to maintain their case within the foreclosure suit itself, and without the need to file an independent legal action, or to incur the up to $1900 filing fee now required to file such an action; and

Whereas, recently litigated foreclosure cases in this state have revealed that in many instances that due to the recent discredited practice of securitization of mortgages the party claiming to own the note and mortgage being foreclosed upon is unable to establish, even by a preponderance of the evidence, either that they are in fact the owner or that they otherwise are entitled to initiate foreclosure proceedings, to such an extent that the Florida Supreme Court has announced that court-ordered mediation shall be required in all contested foreclosure cases; and

Whereas there is now pending for consideration in the upcoming Session of the Legislature a bill prepared by the Florida Bankers’ Association entitled the “Florida Consumer Protection and Homeowner Credit Rehabilitation Act,” which, if enacted into law, would remove the requirement for judicial foreclosure of any mortgage entered into in the past or to be entered into in the future which contains language authorizing “non-judicial foreclosure,” and create a procedure by which foreclosure would take place without use of the courts unless the real property owner paid the requisite fees and filed a lawsuit challenging the non-judicail foreclosure; and

Whereas, in the case of existing mortgages, this proposed change of the law amounts to an after-the-fact reduction of the rights of the citizen who at present is afforded the protection of the courts by forcing the citizen to initiate a lawsuit, at enormous expense, simply in order to merely present defenses against threatened loss of property; and

Whereas, no mere claims by the financial services industry of the need to expediently deal with court backlogs justifies the reduction of the present rights of natural persons and real property owners in foreclosure cases; and

Whereas this proposed legislation is intended solely to benefit a class of litigants who, presented with a need to prove to a judge their right to relief and increasingly unable to do so, have chosen to seek to change the law rather than comply with it, it is

RESOLVED, that the Concerned Taxpayers of Duval County, Inc., opposes the so-called  “Florida Consumer Protection and Homeowner Credit Rehabilitation Act,” and calls for the rejection of this proposed legislation, as well as the rejection of any other proposals for implementation of non-judicial mortgage foreclosure, or of any other limitation on the rights of individual Florida citizens either to the protection of the courts.

Add to your social network:

Upcoming Budget Workshops

Thurs., 2/11/10 – 6-8 p.m.
CPAC District 2 Budget Workshop
Blue Cypress Community Center
4012 University Blvd. N.

Sat., 2/27/10 – 9:30-11:30 a.m.
CPAC District 4 Budget Workshop
Cecil Community Center
13531 Lake Newman Drive

Sat., 3/06/10 – 9:30-11:30 a.m.
CPAC District 1 Budget Workshop
Jacksonville Children’s Commission
1095 A. Philip Randolph Blvd.

Thurs., 3/25/10 – 6-8 p.m.
CPAC District 5 Budget Workshop
Clanzel T. Brown Community Center
4545 Moncrief Road

Sat., 4/17/10 – 9:30-11:30 a.m.
CPAC District 3 Budget Workshop
Balis Community Center
1513 LaSalle Street

Add to your social network:

When you read the above excerpt from Mayor John Peyton’s speech, you get the sense that Peyton has a rather ambitious view of his role as Mayor.  Rather than running an efficient government that provides an essential but limited set of services to local taxpayers, Peyton instead want to be the savior of Jacksonville dispensing  job opportunities and improved quality of life to everyone like Santa Claus on Christmas day.  While this may seem noble to many, you have to question whether Peyton has the godlike powers to make this happen.  Cities are complex social organizations that defy top down control by politicians no matter how sincere or self confident they may be.  The reason that free markets work is that they do not presume that one person or even a committee of people have the knowledge and available tools to manage the complex web of personal and economic relationships that take place within Jacksonville.  Free markets rely on the decentralized decision making by entrepreneurs trying to discover what their customers need and then meeting that need before their competitors beat them to the punch.

Recently, the Jacksonville Charter Revision Commission proposed that the mayor develop a four year strategic plan that includes a “vision statement, mission statement, financial plan, goals and measurements for annual performance reviews”.   While strategic planning is important for any organization including city government, we need to be careful to identify what the goal of this foray into strategic planning should be and should not be.  It should not be a strategic plan for Jacksonville.  Instead, it should be a strategic plan for Jacksonville city government.  There is a difference.  The former assumes a godlike remolding of a city of 800,000+ people while the latter is more realistic in its desire to do just a few essential things and do them well.

A savior mentality seems to be inherent within the politician psyche.  Efficiently provide a limited set of services that the free market finds difficult to duplicate is way too mundane for politicians like Peyton.  It is more fun for Peyton to throw around taxpayer money in a vain attempt to transform Jacksonville into his vision of what he thinks that it should be regardless of whether Jacksonville residents want to go along for the ride.  My advice to Mayor Peyton is to get the city budget under control without another tax increase, reform the city pension system and leave the quality of life issue to the private sector which is more responsive to its customers than governments tend to be.

Add to your social network: