Author Topic: The District wants $26 million in public incentives  (Read 21264 times)

sanmarcomatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1011
  • Mayor of The Donut District
Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
« Reply #60 on: January 12, 2018, 12:21:51 PM »
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2018-01-11/special-council-committee-will-scrutinize-development-deal-district

Elements not pleased with the committee. That's a shame.

Well....I'll say this: Brosche nominating Shellenberg to lead the committee is a little......biased. Clearly Shellenberg already has his mind made up. Now, Shellenberg could be crazy or he could be dead on in his reasoning - I don't know. But, having someone who has already publicly blasted this thing doesn't scream of impropriety.

If that means going overboard in the wrong direction to potentially protect tax payers, I will take it. Maybe if we had someone like that during the Delaney pension deals, this city's budget would not have been screwed beyond belief for decades. For too long this government has bent the tax payer over to benefit itself and to benefit developers.

Perhaps this deal is the greatest deal in the history of Jax.Maybe it is a boondoggle. Hopefully this committee will review it thoroughly and make the best decision. However, if they are going to make a mistake, I will take a mistake of no deal over the alternative.

jaxnyc79

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 384
Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
« Reply #61 on: January 12, 2018, 12:24:21 PM »
Don't both the Shipyards and District proposals include huge swaths land on the waterfront that are completely public?  Isn't that partly what the city investment in the District is for?

Huge is a relative term.  Louisville Waterfront Park is 85-acres.  I think the reference was to waterfront green-space that would be as iconic and compelling as what's in Louisville.  Not just a heavily landscaped front yard for a complex.
Springfield Park, downtown's largest public space, is a mile long and covers around 40-acres currently. Tying it in with the riverwalk, the green spaces along McCoys and the spaces proposed with the Shipyards project would trump what Louisville has. However, it involves dusting off what we don't use and ignore.

I sort of think of downtown and Springfield as separate communities.  Downtown, I thought, was below State Street and down to the riverfront.  The region's greatest natural asset is the St. Johns River and what better way to showcase it than to put a massive civic space right alongside it.  Springfield park might be nice too (never been there) and worth maintaining, but I'm addressing waterfront park space in my definition of Downtown Jacksonville.

jaxnyc79

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 384
Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
« Reply #62 on: January 12, 2018, 12:27:29 PM »
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2018-01-11/special-council-committee-will-scrutinize-development-deal-district

Elements not pleased with the committee. That's a shame.

Well....I'll say this: Brosche nominating Shellenberg to lead the committee is a little......biased. Clearly Shellenberg already has his mind made up. Now, Shellenberg could be crazy or he could be dead on in his reasoning - I don't know. But, having someone who has already publicly blasted this thing doesn't scream of impropriety.

If that means going overboard in the wrong direction to potentially protect tax payers, I will take it. Maybe if we had someone like that during the Delaney pension deals, this city's budget would not have been screwed beyond belief for decades. For too long this government has bent the tax payer over to benefit itself and to benefit developers.

Perhaps this deal is the greatest deal in the history of Jax.Maybe it is a boondoggle. Hopefully this committee will review it thoroughly and make the best decision. However, if they are going to make a mistake, I will take a mistake of no deal over the alternative.

I like Shellenberg's skepticism, and respect it.  And this Munz must be an amateur.  It's a huge PR gaffe to get into a war of words with a guy whose skepticism is rooted in taxpayer concern.  Just pull together an amazing and persuasive presentation for the committee. 

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28007
    • Modern Cities
Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
« Reply #63 on: January 12, 2018, 12:36:04 PM »
Don't both the Shipyards and District proposals include huge swaths land on the waterfront that are completely public?  Isn't that partly what the city investment in the District is for?

Huge is a relative term.  Louisville Waterfront Park is 85-acres.  I think the reference was to waterfront green-space that would be as iconic and compelling as what's in Louisville.  Not just a heavily landscaped front yard for a complex.
Springfield Park, downtown's largest public space, is a mile long and covers around 40-acres currently. Tying it in with the riverwalk, the green spaces along McCoys and the spaces proposed with the Shipyards project would trump what Louisville has. However, it involves dusting off what we don't use and ignore.

I sort of think of downtown and Springfield as separate communities.  Downtown, I thought, was below State Street and down to the riverfront.  The region's greatest natural asset is the St. Johns River and what better way to showcase it than to put a massive civic space right alongside it.  Springfield park might be nice too (never been there) and worth maintaining, but I'm addressing waterfront park space in my definition of Downtown Jacksonville.



Yeah, I tend to view downtown by what its actual development pattern is. Historically, Springfield Park was the northern border running the length of DT with Springfield on the opposite side. It's where all the old grand buildings still stand. It has the baseball fields, architecture, history, waterway, monuments that make for a great urban space. The best places in my opinion, use and build upon the things that make them unique and special. I don't believe the river should be the deciding factor for green space. I offer Metropolitan Park as an example of a large riverfront green space that failed partially due to its isolation.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 12:53:15 PM by thelakelander »
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

sanmarcomatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1011
  • Mayor of The Donut District
Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
« Reply #64 on: January 12, 2018, 01:52:22 PM »
and now Pete is crying and trying to influence. It makes me wonder why they would have to try so hard....

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2018-01-12/developer-behind-district-says-feud-between-city-council-president-mayor-curry

Steve

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
« Reply #65 on: January 12, 2018, 03:24:59 PM »
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2018-01-11/special-council-committee-will-scrutinize-development-deal-district

Elements not pleased with the committee. That's a shame.

Well....I'll say this: Brosche nominating Shellenberg to lead the committee is a little......biased. Clearly Shellenberg already has his mind made up. Now, Shellenberg could be crazy or he could be dead on in his reasoning - I don't know. But, having someone who has already publicly blasted this thing doesn't scream of impropriety.

If that means going overboard in the wrong direction to potentially protect tax payers, I will take it. Maybe if we had someone like that during the Delaney pension deals, this city's budget would not have been screwed beyond belief for decades. For too long this government has bent the tax payer over to benefit itself and to benefit developers.

Perhaps this deal is the greatest deal in the history of Jax.Maybe it is a boondoggle. Hopefully this committee will review it thoroughly and make the best decision. However, if they are going to make a mistake, I will take a mistake of no deal over the alternative.

That's a pretty broad brush. I can manage my money so tightly in my personal life that I never see a movie, don't pay for internet access, and walk to work/ride a bike to work every day. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Like you said, this may or may not be a good idea. I just don't like having someone so outspoken about the project be leading the committee  about it. It's like having someone who hates dogs be on the board of the Humane Society.

The Council committee isn't the final vote - I have no doubt this has to go to council. He certainly has the right to advocate his position.

If I were the Council President, I'd throw Shellenberg and a downtown advocate on the committee (maybe Boyer), with neither of them leading it. Council committees are generally 5 person committees for something like this. That would be a true neutral view of things.

fieldafm

  • Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4052
Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
« Reply #66 on: January 12, 2018, 03:37:44 PM »
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2018-01-11/special-council-committee-will-scrutinize-development-deal-district

Elements not pleased with the committee. That's a shame.

Well....I'll say this: Brosche nominating Shellenberg to lead the committee is a little......biased. Clearly Shellenberg already has his mind made up. Now, Shellenberg could be crazy or he could be dead on in his reasoning - I don't know. But, having someone who has already publicly blasted this thing doesn't scream of impropriety.

If that means going overboard in the wrong direction to potentially protect tax payers, I will take it. Maybe if we had someone like that during the Delaney pension deals, this city's budget would not have been screwed beyond belief for decades. For too long this government has bent the tax payer over to benefit itself and to benefit developers.

Perhaps this deal is the greatest deal in the history of Jax.Maybe it is a boondoggle. Hopefully this committee will review it thoroughly and make the best decision. However, if they are going to make a mistake, I will take a mistake of no deal over the alternative.

That's a pretty broad brush. I can manage my money so tightly in my personal life that I never see a movie, don't pay for internet access, and walk to work/ride a bike to work every day. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Like you said, this may or may not be a good idea. I just don't like having someone so outspoken about the project be leading the committee  about it. It's like having someone who hates dogs be on the board of the Humane Society.

The Council committee isn't the final vote - I have no doubt this has to go to council. He certainly has the right to advocate his position.

If I were the Council President, I'd throw Shellenberg and a downtown advocate on the committee (maybe Boyer), with neither of them leading it. Council committees are generally 5 person committees for something like this. That would be a true neutral view of things.

Boyer is on the committee with Schellenberg, along with Gulliford, Garrett Dennis and Sam Newby.
Beyond being in commercial real estate by trade, Schellenberg is also the Council liaison to JEA and actually sits in on JEA board meetings... so he has some valuable perspective on this deal.  The fact that the principals of Elements are crying about how unfair this committee is after having negotiated secret handshake deals behind closed doors that uses taxpayer money to underwrite their own personal fortunes... does not exactly inspire confidence.

You know there are already ways to pay for infrastructure financing for DRIs like the District... CDDs, MUDs, land-secured bonds, required
dedication, in lieu fees, mobility fees, etc that don't involve a municipality using taxpayer money to purchase the land and then rob a TIF blind in order to pay for roads, utility lines, sidewalks, bulkheads and sewer lines (meaning nearby properties are underwriting these development costs, instead of the actual developer).
« Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 03:55:55 PM by fieldafm »

sanmarcomatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1011
  • Mayor of The Donut District
Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
« Reply #67 on: January 12, 2018, 04:06:17 PM »
I can manage my money so tightly in my personal life that I never see a movie, don't pay for internet access, and walk to work/ride a bike to work every day. That doesn't make it a good idea.


I love your financial plan but you forgot about shoveling all of the savings into the stock market for years and becoming a member of the "you didn't build it" crowd.

I think any talk of how government spends money (other people's money) would be more like breaking into your kid's piggy bank and going to Cowford, splurging on two bottles of heavily marked up wine, putting the rest on a credit card, and making the minimum payment for years :)


ProjectMaximus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3081
Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
« Reply #68 on: January 12, 2018, 04:14:22 PM »
I like Shellenberg's skepticism, and respect it.  And this Munz must be an amateur. It's a huge PR gaffe to get into a war of words with a guy whose skepticism is rooted in taxpayer concern.  Just pull together an amazing and persuasive presentation for the committee.

That's hilarious. Not that I don't agree with you (didnt read the article and not gonna dive into the details yet) but you should google Michael Munz to understand the irony.

sanmarcomatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1011
  • Mayor of The Donut District
Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
« Reply #69 on: January 12, 2018, 04:20:12 PM »
[  The fact that the principals of Elements are crying about how unfair this committee is after having negotiated secret handshake deals behind closed doors that uses taxpayer money to underwrite their own personal fortunes... does not exactly inspire confidence.


Winner Winner. Chicken Dinner.

Tacachale

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6920
Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
« Reply #70 on: January 12, 2018, 04:49:25 PM »
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2018-01-11/special-council-committee-will-scrutinize-development-deal-district

Elements not pleased with the committee. That's a shame.

Well....I'll say this: Brosche nominating Shellenberg to lead the committee is a little......biased. Clearly Shellenberg already has his mind made up. Now, Shellenberg could be crazy or he could be dead on in his reasoning - I don't know. But, having someone who has already publicly blasted this thing doesn't scream of impropriety.

If that means going overboard in the wrong direction to potentially protect tax payers, I will take it. Maybe if we had someone like that during the Delaney pension deals, this city's budget would not have been screwed beyond belief for decades. For too long this government has bent the tax payer over to benefit itself and to benefit developers.

Perhaps this deal is the greatest deal in the history of Jax.Maybe it is a boondoggle. Hopefully this committee will review it thoroughly and make the best decision. However, if they are going to make a mistake, I will take a mistake of no deal over the alternative.

That's a pretty broad brush. I can manage my money so tightly in my personal life that I never see a movie, don't pay for internet access, and walk to work/ride a bike to work every day. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Like you said, this may or may not be a good idea. I just don't like having someone so outspoken about the project be leading the committee  about it. It's like having someone who hates dogs be on the board of the Humane Society.

The Council committee isn't the final vote - I have no doubt this has to go to council. He certainly has the right to advocate his position.

If I were the Council President, I'd throw Shellenberg and a downtown advocate on the committee (maybe Boyer), with neither of them leading it. Council committees are generally 5 person committees for something like this. That would be a true neutral view of things.

Boyer is on the committee with Schellenberg, along with Gulliford, Garrett Dennis and Sam Newby.
Beyond being in commercial real estate by trade, Schellenberg is also the Council liaison to JEA and actually sits in on JEA board meetings... so he has some valuable perspective on this deal.  The fact that the principals of Elements are crying about how unfair this committee is after having negotiated secret handshake deals behind closed doors that uses taxpayer money to underwrite their own personal fortunes... does not exactly inspire confidence.

You know there are already ways to pay for infrastructure financing for DRIs like the District... CDDs, MUDs, land-secured bonds, required
dedication, in lieu fees, mobility fees, etc that don't involve a municipality using taxpayer money to purchase the land and then rob a TIF blind in order to pay for roads, utility lines, sidewalks, bulkheads and sewer lines (meaning nearby properties are underwriting these development costs, instead of the actual developer).

Schellenberg is a crank and fairly anti-Downtown, and sometimes subject to pretty backward thinking (like his HRO vote). But it doesn't mean he's wrong on this issue.
Do you believe that when the blue jay or another bird sings and the body is trembling, that is a signal that people are coming or something important is about to happen?

MusicMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
« Reply #71 on: January 12, 2018, 05:52:46 PM »
I'll repeat: three years down the road and the developer is now, AT THE LAST MINUTE, completely changing all the details of how this is being paid for. And the changes involve someone else (namely me and you) paying for what appears to be a hell of a lot. This was supposed to close last year and out of nowhere the developer just completely rewrote the financing and asked for another extension. BS if you ask me.

I've sold enough real estate to know this is NOT how you operate.  The $26 million subsidy should have been discussed at least a year ago.

Rummell tried to reframe this and he is 100% wrong. It's because of last minute changes like he is proposing that nothing gets done around here.


TimmyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 601
  • T
Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
« Reply #72 on: January 12, 2018, 08:20:35 PM »
I'll repeat: three years down the road and the developer is now, AT THE LAST MINUTE, completely changing all the details of how this is being paid for. And the changes involve someone else (namely me and you) paying for what appears to be a hell of a lot. This was supposed to close last year and out of nowhere the developer just completely rewrote the financing and asked for another extension. BS if you ask me.

I've sold enough real estate to know this is NOT how you operate.  The $26 million subsidy should have been discussed at least a year ago.

Rummell tried to reframe this and he is 100% wrong. It's because of last minute changes like he is proposing that nothing gets done around here.

I just read the article in the JBJ and could not agree with you more.  This sounds fishy as hell and now that someone wants to give it a closer look, he starts screaming and calling names.  Sounds like he is hiding something and wants to get this passed ASAP before someone actually sees what is happening.

jaxnyc79

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 384
Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
« Reply #73 on: January 13, 2018, 11:26:28 AM »
What the hell is wrong with your God-forsaken City.  First, the city paper (Times-Union) issues an editorial supporting a downtown mixed-use project (like seriously, isn’t there something else to weigh in on), and then this morning, I read some retributive article on Anne-Brosche, that she’s “walking back her stance on enforcing pedestrian laws,” like Anne-Brosche is a flip-flopper who wants lawlessness.  Like is this what happens when Peter Rummel doesn’t get his way?  An onslaught.  I say to hell with “the District-Live Well Lived.”  I’m already stressed and angered by it.

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28007
    • Modern Cities
Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
« Reply #74 on: January 13, 2018, 12:02:25 PM »
In the meantime, Broadstone continues to go up next door to the District without incentives. Structured parking garage and all.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali