Florida’s largest cities are competing for development while confronting many of the same problems: expensive housing, aging infrastructure, population growth and pressure to revitalize urban neighborhoods.

But when local governments offer developers tax rebates, grants, density bonuses or other public incentives, what does the public receive in return?

The answer varies considerably among Jacksonville, Tampa, Orlando, Miami and Fort Lauderdale. Some cities explicitly connect certain incentives to affordable or workforce housing. Others allow developers to provide different public benefits, while Jacksonville’s largest recent Downtown incentive packages have largely focused on increasing development, density, retail activity and the tax base.

A New 101 Report Series Comparing Florida Cities

This is Part I of Florida Cities Head-to-Head, a new 101 Report series comparing Jacksonville with Tampa, Orlando, Miami and Fort Lauderdale across measurable areas of city government.

The series grows out of our earlier comparison, “Jacksonville Is a Top Boomtown. How Does It Compare With Tampa, Orlando and Miami?” That analysis found that Florida’s major metropolitan areas may share strong population growth while producing very different outcomes in housing, income and economic conditions.

Now we are moving from how Florida cities are growing to how their governments respond to that growth.

Future installments will compare police and public safety, fire and rescue, parks, public works, government administration, Downtown investment, debt, taxes and overall government growth.

How We Compared Jacksonville, Tampa, Orlando, Miami and Fort Lauderdale

Comparing these cities requires an important qualification.

Jacksonville is a consolidated city-county government. Tampa, Orlando, Miami and Fort Lauderdale operate within separate county governments that may provide services Jacksonville handles through consolidated government.

For that reason, Florida Cities Head-to-Head will not simply compare raw municipal budgets. We will compare equivalent programs and governmental functions wherever possible, using measures such as spending per resident, percentage of comparable spending, program requirements and measurable public benefits.

For this first installment, the central question is narrower:

When government provides an incentive to development, what does the developer have to provide in return?

Jacksonville: $98.58 Million for Gateway Jax — But What Is Required?

Gateway Jax provides an unusually large Jacksonville example.

In August 2024, the Jacksonville City Council approved $98.58 million in incentives for the first four blocks of what was then called the Pearl Street District and is now part of Pearl Square. The package consisted of approximately $59.6 million in Recapture Enhanced Value grants and $38.9 million in completion grants.

The private investment associated with those four blocks was approximately $419 million. Individual agreements required specified amounts of residential development and ground-floor retail, while the grants are tied to completion of the projects and, in the case of REV grants, increased property value.

What is notable for this comparison is what the original $98.58 million incentive package was not primarily structured to purchase: income-restricted housing.

The DIA's published description of the package identifies minimum residential units, retail space and development requirements but does not identify an affordable or workforce-housing set-aside among the central requirements of those four incentive agreements. The public return being pursued was principally redevelopment: more residents, retail, density, property value and economic activity Downtown.

Pearl Square Shows Jacksonville's Development Strategy

Pearl Square has since expanded well beyond those first four blocks.

As of July 2026, DIA described the project as a nearly $1 billion, nine-block development expected to contain more than 1,250 apartments, a boutique hotel, Publix, restaurants, retail and green space. The Vandeveer, its first 205-unit apartment building, was approaching completion.

The development also promises public-facing amenities. DIA says plans include widened and shaded sidewalks, public park space and a curbless festival street, while separate incentives have helped support the planned Downtown Publix.

Those are legitimate measurable public benefits. But they represent a different policy model from cities that explicitly make affordable housing, workforce housing or another defined community benefit part of the exchange for certain development incentives.

Tampa: Public Money Can Trigger a Community-Benefits Process

Tampa provides one of the clearest contrasts.

The Tampa City Council approved a Community Benefits Agreement program in 2023 that creates a formal process for considering the social and community effects of major development plans receiving public funds. Potential benefits include affordable or workforce housing, environmental resilience, public infrastructure, workforce development and economic opportunities.

The exact package can therefore differ by project rather than imposing one universal housing percentage.

For Tampa's GasWorx development, for example, the city's CBA documentation offered a menu of qualifying benefits that included construction of affordable or workforce housing, historic-building renovation, public parking, complete-streets or multimodal improvements and technological public improvements.

That makes Tampa's model important for this series: the public benefit does not necessarily have to be housing, but certain projects receiving public assistance can face an explicit process for defining what the community receives.

Tampa Is Also Putting CRA Money Directly Into Workforce Housing

Tampa's Community Redevelopment Agency uses another approach: purchasing long-term affordability directly.

In May 2026, Tampa announced a $4 million CRA investment that converted 22 apartments in a 104-unit Downtown project into workforce housing. Those units are restricted to households earning between 80% and 140% of Area Median Income.

The affordability restriction lasts 50 years.

Tampa's broader CRA Unit Creation and Conversion program similarly offers developers subsidies tied directly to affordable units, with maximum subsidies varying according to household income level and affordability requirements lasting 50 years.

In these programs, the exchange is unusually easy to measure: public subsidy buys a specified number of income-restricted units for a specified period.

Orlando: Tax Incentives Can Require Workforce Housing

Orlando provides another useful comparison because some of its development incentives explicitly connect the public benefit to housing affordability.

Under Orlando's Targeted Revitalization Site Redevelopment Pilot Program, qualifying projects can receive a 10-year refund equal to 50% of the city portion of new property-tax increment generated by the project. To qualify under the housing provision, at least 10% of the housing units must be reserved for households earning between 80% and 120% of Area Median Income.

Performance benchmarks become part of the agreement, and grant agreements require Orlando City Council approval.

That creates a particularly useful benchmark for Jacksonville: rather than merely asking whether a development contains housing, Orlando can connect a tax-based redevelopment incentive to a defined percentage of workforce-income units.

Orlando Also Trades Density and Fees for Affordable Housing

Orlando uses several additional tools.

Certified affordable developments can receive reduced or waived transportation and parks impact fees, while the city also offers density bonuses that allow developers to build more units than normally permitted in exchange for affordable housing or contributions to the city's Housing Trust Fund.

Some alternative development standards require at least 20% low- and very-low-income units. Orlando also reports negotiated agreements in large rezoning projects: Lake Nona's additional 7,225 approved units include a 10% affordable commitment, while RoseArts' 5,650-unit expansion similarly includes a 10% commitment.

The principle is straightforward: additional development value can be exchanged for a defined housing benefit.

Miami: More Height Can Mean More Public Benefits

Miami uses yet another model.

Under portions of the Miami 21 zoning framework, developers seeking additional development rights can provide specified public benefits. Those benefits can include affordable or workforce housing, parks and open space, civic space, connectivity, brownfield redevelopment, infrastructure improvements or contributions to a public-benefits trust fund.

Miami's FY2025-26 budget describes a dedicated Public Benefits Trust Fund established to collect Miami 21 cash contributions supporting affordable and workforce housing, parks and open space and other specified purposes.

That means Miami's model can monetize something other than a traditional cash grant. Extra development rights themselves have value, and the city can require a public contribution in exchange for granting them.

Miami's Wynwood Rules Make the Exchange Even More Explicit

The Wynwood/Mana Special Area Plan provides a concrete example.

Its regulations allow additional height in exchange for specified public benefits including affordable or workforce housing, parks, civic space, connectivity and public improvements. The regulations also provide formulas connecting additional development area to the amount of qualifying public benefit provided.

The rules further require cash contributions associated with bonus height, with a portion of applicable public-benefit funding directed toward affordable or workforce housing.

Miami therefore illustrates something that can be missed when comparing cities solely by cash incentives: zoning concessions can be valuable public incentives too.

Fort Lauderdale: Density and Height Bonuses Can Carry 30-Year Housing Requirements

Fort Lauderdale provides perhaps the cleanest example of a percentage-based exchange.

In portions of the South Regional Activity Center, a developer can receive a 100% density increase but must set aside 10% of all units as affordable housing — 5% at or below 80% of median family income and another 5% at or below 100%.

Those units carry a 30-year deed restriction.

Additional density can require additional affordable units, while Fort Lauderdale uses similar affordability requirements in several other zoning districts and development-bonus programs.

Fort Lauderdale Also Offers Direct CRA Development Assistance

Fort Lauderdale's CRA operates direct incentive programs as well.

Its Northwest-Progresso-Flagler Heights CRA offers forgivable or low-interest financing for qualifying development projects of at least $5 million, along with separate programs supporting streetscape improvements, commercial-property improvements and business development.

That is another reason this series must distinguish between incentives specifically designed to create affordable housing and general redevelopment incentives that may pursue broader economic objectives.

Otherwise, comparing one city's housing program against another city's Downtown redevelopment grant would create a misleading result.

The Five Cities Are Not Making the Same Bargain

The first comparison reveals several different approaches.

Jacksonville has used large REV and completion grants to accelerate Downtown development, density, retail and tax-base growth. Tampa has developed a community-benefits process while also using CRA funding to purchase long-term workforce affordability.

Orlando ties some tax refunds, density bonuses and fee reductions directly to defined affordable or workforce-housing outcomes. Miami uses valuable development rights and bonus height as leverage for public benefits. Fort Lauderdale has programs where increased density or height carries explicit affordable-housing percentages and long-term deed restrictions.

Those approaches should not be treated as interchangeable. A $10 million completion grant, a density bonus and a $10 million affordable-housing subsidy represent different public expenditures and purchase different outcomes.

What Should We Measure When Developers Receive Public Incentives?

This is where Florida Cities Head-to-Head will differ from simply compiling incentive totals.

For each major development agreement, the more revealing questions are: How much public value was provided? What measurable benefit was required? How long does that benefit last? And what happens if the developer fails to deliver it?

For housing, that means tracking the number of income-restricted units, percentage of the development, applicable AMI levels and length of affordability.

For non-housing benefits, it means identifying jobs and wage requirements, public infrastructure, parks, streetscape improvements, retail commitments, historic preservation, public parking, transit improvements and other enforceable obligations.

Jacksonville's $98.58 Million Gateway Deal Provides a Useful Benchmark

The Gateway Jax agreement is therefore useful not because it proves Jacksonville gives developers "more" or "less" than another city.

It provides a benchmark for asking what Jacksonville chooses to purchase with development incentives.

For the original four-block package, approximately $98.58 million in city incentives supported roughly $419 million in private investment — public incentives equal to roughly 23.5% of that stated private investment amount. The projects were required to deliver substantial residential and commercial development, but the DIA's published description of the package does not identify a percentage of those apartments that must be income-restricted.

Compare that structure with Orlando's 10% workforce-housing requirement for one redevelopment tax-refund program, Fort Lauderdale's 10% affordability requirement for certain density bonuses, Tampa's 50-year workforce-housing investments and Miami's public-benefits exchanges, and the policy differences become much easier to see.

The Bigger Question Is What Jacksonville Wants Its Incentives to Accomplish

Jacksonville has made Downtown redevelopment a significant public priority.

Pearl Square is producing apartments, retail, a grocery store, public spaces and increased Downtown investment. Those outcomes should be counted when evaluating the city's return rather than reducing the discussion exclusively to affordable housing.

But Florida's other major cities demonstrate that governments can structure development incentives around additional measurable benefits — including income-restricted housing, infrastructure, workforce development and long-term affordability requirements.

That gives Jacksonville residents and policymakers something more useful than a simple argument over whether incentives are good or bad: a set of Florida benchmarks for examining what taxpayers receive in exchange.

Florida Cities Head-to-Head Is Just Beginning

This series began with development incentives because Jacksonville's recent Downtown investments provide an immediate comparison with policies already being used elsewhere in Florida.

But development is only one part of the municipal equation.

Part II of Florida Cities Head-to-Head will compare Police & Public Safety in Jacksonville, Tampa, Orlando, Miami and Fort Lauderdale — including spending per resident, share of comparable city spending, staffing and how public-safety spending has changed over time.

As this series develops, each installment will add another layer to a common dataset measuring how Florida's major cities spend, govern and respond to growth.

The objective isn't to declare a winner.

It is to give residents something far more useful: comparable numbers showing the different choices Florida cities make with public money.

Florida Cities Head-to-Head: Part II

Florida Cities Head-to-Head: Part I

Jacksonville's Development Divide: Part 5