|
Metro Jacksonville
|
 |
« on: April 23, 2008, 05:00:00 AM » |
|
Five City-Owned Properties that Should be Sold Now! With the economic slowdown and Florida's Property Tax Amendments, Jacksonville is in a bit of a budget crunch. The city owns a lot of property downtown that is not contributing the the revitalization effortor the tax rolls Today, Metro Jacksonville takes a look at five city-owned properties that should be sold to the provate sector as soon as possible. Full Article http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/769
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vicupstate
|
|
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2008, 08:06:05 AM » |
|
Excellent idea for a topic. I bet it wouldn't be too hard to find another 5 sites either. Look for smaller parcels that would make great infill projects.
I would hold on to at least one block of the courthouse parcel, for expansion or to sell once the courthouse project is done. In fact it might be best to build the courthouse first then sell the extra blocks.
The State/Union parcel will not get much attention IMO from private sector though. The traffic is a high-speed freeway configuration. Unless that can be changed, it has limited appeal for much of anything. That is not a retail destination, and it will take more than one retailer to make it one. Still, it doesn't hurt to try.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thelakelander
|
|
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2008, 08:34:27 AM » |
|
I don't know why we continue to sit on these properties. Another one that should be immediately sold is the Snyder Memorial Church on Hemming Plaza. It should be immediately sold "as is" and let the private sector deal with its renovation.
As for the block on Union Street, I believe the city has issued an RFP for it. It was mentioned a week or two ago that some developers and retailers have been interested in it. However, I would assume we would see something like a gas station, CVS or fast food restaurant go up there surrounded by surface parking, based on Sax Seafood's approved layout.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Steve
|
|
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2008, 10:12:30 AM » |
|
I bet it wouldn't be too hard to find another 5 sites either. No, it wouldn't. I could probably have made the list 10 without much work at all. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bike Jax
|
|
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2008, 11:23:27 AM » |
|
The city isn't interested in selling the property they are sitting on. I have friends that have made multiple offers on city owned buildings in the downtown area. These building would not only have been restored to their former glory. They would have created a live/work for the new owners bringing not only much needed retail, but also full time and fully vested residents to the urban core.
All these offers were at and above current market value and were made within the last 6 months.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lunican
|
|
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2008, 11:51:07 AM » |
|
Offers were also made on city owned lots in Springfield that they refuse to sell (or maintain).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vicupstate
|
|
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2008, 11:53:00 AM » |
|
The city isn't interested in selling the property they are sitting on. I have friends that have made multiple offers on city owned buildings in the downtown area. These building would not only have been restored to their former glory. They would have created a live/work for the new owners bringing not only much needed retail, but also full time and fully vested residents to the urban core.
All these offers were at and above current market value and were made within the last 6 months.
This does not surprise me at all, I have first hand knowledge of similiar occurances. I don't understand the logic at all. If there is a decent reason, I wish they would share it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bike Jax
|
|
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2008, 12:16:05 PM » |
|
If there is a decent reason, I wish they would share it.
My friends offers were rejected with the statements from the city that their intended projects didn't fit in with the city's vision. They (the city) were unwilling to expound on what exactly their plan was/is. All we can assume is that single family residential, art and food is not part of whatever plan they have. One friend by the way proposed a fine art gallery/studio in a couple of different buildings and the other a full service bakery. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thelakelander
|
|
« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2008, 12:28:35 PM » |
|
If they do have a vision, its probably to let these buildings decay to the point where they fall in on themselves, leaving expensive overpriced dirt for large scale developers. Although, this does not explain why they refuse to sell isolated single family lots in Springfield.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Midway
|
|
« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2008, 02:43:02 PM » |
|
It is much easier to transfer land to your political cronies or business associates when the time is right than to siphon off cash from the city treasury.
In real estate deals there are a lot of grey areas that no one thinks to look at, while if you steal cash, that's very easily spotted. So there is really no advantage in converting these properties into cash that the citizens of Jacksonville will only just demand spent on things like "parks" or "schools" or "police".
When the Mayor runs the city for the benefit and amusement of his family, selling that land suddenly does not look so good, from his standpoint.
So, just consider these properties as "patronage banks", that at some future time will grease the wheels of business. Unfortunately, it probably won't be the city's business.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vicupstate
|
|
« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2008, 02:54:02 PM » |
|
If there is a decent reason, I wish they would share it.
One friend by the way proposed a fine art gallery/studio in a couple of different buildings and the other a full service bakery. In that case, I can understand why the city didn't bite. The homeless don't have much use for such things. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
raheem942
|
|
« Reply #11 on: April 24, 2008, 03:55:28 PM » |
|
who would buy??? we cant even get a stadium name?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
urbanlibertarian
|
|
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2008, 04:56:49 PM » |
|
If City of Jax needs an example of why you don't hold out for big developers they need look no further than Jax Beach. Downtown development began to take off there when the city backed off from big redevelopments after several failures and just improved infrastructure. At that point individual property owners began their own redevelopment. Also you can't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government." Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
Steve
|
|
« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2008, 05:00:22 PM » |
|
who would buy??? we cant even get a stadium name?
Well, buying property is a bit different than buying a stadium name. With the stadium name, you are essentially buying a billboard for 10-20 years that will be shown on national TV a couple times a year. Buying real estate is different because you are doint it to make money directly off of the property. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sheclown
|
|
« Reply #14 on: April 25, 2008, 05:37:57 PM » |
|
Also you can't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
That is the most amazing line -- |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"And what is fear of need but need itself? Is not dread of thirst when your well is full, the thirst that is unquenchable?" Kahlil Gibran
|
|
|
|
facebook and 
twitter.
