RD River City Brewing restaurant proposed

[jaxlongtimer]

I wouldn't get my hopes up too high with this one. Any outcome of something advancing to construction in the near term (i.e. by 2024) on this site is highly unlikely. Related has no good reason to sell the property and reworking a plan means starting the process over when it comes to financing, DDRB, permitting, negotiating incentives, etc.

And, we will have a new mayor, council and staff so maybe they get their act together and change tact on approving every deal that comes along without regard to the quality of the project or the rules the City has for incentivizing and locating them.  If anyone but Davis wins, I expect a wholesale change at DIA and more.

[vicupstate]

On the bright side, a grass lawn on the Southbank is a suitable match for Lenny's Lawn on the Northbank.  As I said before. Make Related grass it over, and shift the city's focus to the Hemming Plaza area. Once MOSH moves a land swap with Related might work. MOSH is a single purpose building and too low density for that site anyway. 

[Jagsdrew]

It's a real damn shame that during the economic boom before COVID, we literally went the opposite direction in DT growth. Demo'd the Courthouse, Landing, Berkman and RCBC. We got a low-rise apt, FIS and a JEA building to name a few while other cities, for example in FL, Tampa & Orlando, have seen such a renaissance of growth, development and major projects blossom. Just sucks how we are falling even further behind.

It's crazy how we just can't get our act together on anything. This is 2000s all over again for Jacksonville. Lots of proposed projects and developments ready to go, and boom, they all fall through.

[Ken_FSU]

^The double whammy comes not just with the demolitions, but with the precious city/DIA dollars wasted just to subtract from the urban fabric.

The tragedy isn't just that we allowed an active riverfront restaurant in a strategically important location to be demolished years before it needed to be.

The other half of the tragedy is that if Related doesn't decide to move forward with the project, we are going to have to pay $11 MILLION from our downtown development coffers just to buy back the vacant land where said vibrant restaurant once stood.

Just like we ended up paying more to demolish the Landing and buy out its owner than we budgeted to build the park to replace it.

The demolitions don't just result in lost opportunity cost for repurposing those structures, but they also result in the lost opportunity cost inherent in dumping tens of millions of limited taxpayer dollars into activity that results in no net-new gain for Downtown Jacksonville.

tl;dr:

[jaxlongtimer]

^ Additional economic losses come from not collecting rents on the lease with River City Brewing.  I assume those stopped when the land was "sold" to Related.  I hope it goes on the tax rolls for at least $11 million, equal to the buyback price, in value so the City can at least collect some decent tax revenue on it and maybe motivate Related to move forward with a plan soon than later.

[jaxoNOLE]

There's no doubt the loss of RCBC is a waste in light of this news. Is it naive to think, though, that now that the demo is complete and can't be undone -- that Related as a landowner is better than the city? Pragmatically -- forget even the repurchase price -- what has the DIA shown us thus far to suggest a repo and RFP would yield superior results  or ROI relative to whatever Related may cook up in the indeterminate future?

Realistically, we should try to encourage them grassing it (as others suggested) and expand events like Sip and Stroll out there, to include more vendors and have it be a low-grade park adjacent to the fountain. For that matter, dedicating a few bucks to security at this site and Lenny's Lawn and waiving open container laws on select days could encourage some picnicking and marginal activity in otherwise desolate spaces. People will find a way to enjoy the riverfront if you let them. Lease the land back for a dollar a year, pay for basic upgrades and security...yeah, the taxpayers got hosed, but at least let us use the space in exchange. The repurchase right should give us SOME leverage if Related won't play ball.

[scbennett67@gmail.com]

That land has always been public park property. At least when the city was leasing the land to river city brewing company the public could go there any time they wanted too. It seams like developers is figuring out ways to take that land away from us.

[JaGoaT]

A BIGGER AND BETTER OPPORTUNITY IS ABOUT TO PRESENT ITSELF

Really now? Do you know something that we don't? So.......why don't you NOT TELL US ABOUT IT.

https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2023/01/26/river-city-brewing-redevelopment-stalls-could-see.html

[Houseboat Mike]

So it is a solid...."Perhaps" by spring. I think what really grinds my gears is that everyone is in such a dang hurry to tear stuff down, with absolutely no, none, zip, zero repercussions for taking a pause once the old building stock is gone. The supply chain issues were an issue before the building came down. Why did the building have to come down?

City owned land leases in my opinion are terrible, I still remember when the city was on the hook for fixing that stupid building because it had termites when it was harbormasters. SO I am not necessarily saddened by the loss of that building, but it is just insane how much of our building stock gets torn down and then we get to look at foundations for a few decades, or if we are lucky, they pave over the foundations and just make it a parking lot illegally.

Yeah, I know, I don't have a good answer, I am just incredibly frustrated at the absolute lack of leadership I am seeing in this city.

[Steve]

So it is a solid...."Perhaps" by spring.

That was usually the response I got when I asked a girl out in High School.

My guess is the chances of a "Yes" in the spring for either this project or my High School dating prospects are about the same.

[thelakelander]

Realistically, we should try to encourage them grassing it (as others suggested) and expand events like Sip and Stroll out there, to include more vendors and have it be a low-grade park adjacent to the fountain. For that matter, dedicating a few bucks to security at this site and Lenny's Lawn and waiving open container laws on select days could encourage some picnicking and marginal activity in otherwise desolate spaces. People will find a way to enjoy the riverfront if you let them. Lease the land back for a dollar a year, pay for basic upgrades and security...yeah, the taxpayers got hosed, but at least let us use the space in exchange. The repurchase right should give us SOME leverage if Related won't play ball.

Related controls the land now and has no plans to sell. Without a doubt, they'll come back with an alternative plan and ask for millions in incentives. The question is if that happens within the next year, years or a decade from now?

When it comes to them allowing the public on their property, who is responsible for the liability associated with that? When it comes with greening the property, who is responsible for paying to tear up the parking lot, remove various utilities, level and sod the property for a temporary use? I find it hard to believe that Related would cover any of those costs or assume the liability of people getting hurt on the property. IMO, it will likely stay in its current condition for the foreseeable future.

[jaxlongtimer]

^ If not already, they may put up a "beautiful" chain link fence to insure no one trespasses on their property.  I wonder if the City included a provision for maintaining it as a vacant lot.  Can you say "eyesore" for years like the unfinished Berkman was?

[vicupstate]

The City CAN buy the property right now for $11 mm though, right? If so, how long is that option available?

[thelakelander]

No, the city can't force Related to sell it back. However, if Related wants to sell, the city can buy it back for that price.

[vicupstate]

No, the city can't force Related to sell it back. However, if Related wants to sell, the city can buy it back for that price.

Does Related have the right to sell to someone else, or must it sell to the city if it parts with the property?