City unveils Jaguars stadium plan

[jaxoNOLE]

Just would like to say that even if this discussion changes no minds, I find it very edifying and have learned a lot from it.

I'm very curious about why the entertainment district wasn't feasible at the same time. A timing issue? Funding? Signs point to tighter times ahead across the board.

To Jax_Developer, in no way do I think the CBA is "irrelevant." Certainly open to debate on the priorities contained within and even the TVM vs. Nominal dollars argument, but I think we previously agreed the RoR itself, even after TVM adjustments, was pretty decent. Questions of where those dollars are spent--well, everybody wants more, right?

I still think this parking agreement was a way of guaranteeing the city comes back for the entertainment district. If the handshake commitment is there anyway, it explains why the city isn't concerned with such a concession. It's hardly the first ROFR-ish situation we've willingly negotiated. Doesn't change the fact that finances will dictate what we can do in totality.

[/pure uneducated speculation...again]

[Tacachale]

Just would like to say that even if this discussion changes no minds, I find it very edifying and have learned a lot from it.

I'm very curious about why the entertainment district wasn't feasible at the same time. A timing issue? Funding? Signs point to tighter times ahead across the board.

To Jax_Developer, in no way do I think the CBA is "irrelevant." Certainly open to debate on the priorities contained within and even the TVM vs. Nominal dollars argument, but I think we previously agreed the RoR itself, even after TVM adjustments, was pretty decent. Questions of where those dollars are spent--well, everybody wants more, right?

I still think this parking agreement was a way of guaranteeing the city comes back for the entertainment district. If the handshake commitment is there anyway, it explains why the city isn't concerned with such a concession. It's hardly the first ROFR-ish situation we've willingly negotiated. Doesn't change the fact that finances will dictate what we can do in totality.

[/pure uneducated speculation...again]

Timing and resources mostly. It was an asshaul to get just this deal signed and sealed in time (and it still needs the NFL approval, and certain parts are still working their way through the Land Use and Zoning process, and part of the CBA still got pushed back, etc., etc.). Just a big, complicated deal.

[Jax_Developer]

Just would like to say that even if this discussion changes no minds, I find it very edifying and have learned a lot from it.

I'm very curious about why the entertainment district wasn't feasible at the same time. A timing issue? Funding? Signs point to tighter times ahead across the board.

To Jax_Developer, in no way do I think the CBA is "irrelevant." Certainly open to debate on the priorities contained within and even the TVM vs. Nominal dollars argument, but I think we previously agreed the RoR itself, even after TVM adjustments, was pretty decent. Questions of where those dollars are spent--well, everybody wants more, right?

I still think this parking agreement was a way of guaranteeing the city comes back for the entertainment district. If the handshake commitment is there anyway, it explains why the city isn't concerned with such a concession. It's hardly the first ROFR-ish situation we've willingly negotiated. Doesn't change the fact that finances will dictate what we can do in totality.

[/pure uneducated speculation...again]

Very much appreciate the genuine dialogue. I'm completely fine being the minority here & I respect that other people view it as a good deal but just believe not enough detail has come to light.

But, the CBA at it's core is a distraction. Is it a good ROI? Yes totally, when you only factor in the CBA only. Idk if anyone has listened to the finance committee, but here is their meeting on August 6th (or so I hope). (https://jaxcityc.granicus.com/player/clip/5882?view_id=1&redirect=true)

In this meeting, our council members, realized that they have zero jurisdiction over the CBA. Zero. Let's just say, you can listen to their reaction in the video. Now, they are trying to fix that for the 905 legislation. This is another example of the deal being forced in a timetable that was not appropriate. Every news outlet, council meeting etc. was all about this one item - that we now are admitting was passed in error. The mayor & the Jags will have exclusive dealing on that CBA money & let's just say... this is another example of us, the citizens, needing to trust the powers that be.

The whole parking thing is such a mess even if there is a goal "one-day" to build an entertainment district. It will cost $150M+ to construct 5000+ structured parking spaces... an amount that eclipses any CBA benefit. Also the $25M credit is not just $25M... it is quite literally a free option that can applied to any parking parcels with a 2025 appraisal - that can be executed in 7 years. I'm just saying... anyone in the business knows that's worth way more than $25M. If the land with billions of projects within a square mile appreciates just 5% per year, that credit is now worth $35M+. Let's not calculate opportunity cost.

Add up just the credit & throw in 2,000 spots for structured parking. We would have been better off just giving the money to the Eastside than forming these one-sided agreements. The CBA is really a feel good activity at this point.

I strongly encourage everyone who disagrees with me to listen to that finance committee video. It is about 15 minutes long.

[landfall]

Anything that is auto centric, such as a suburban stadium surrounded by thousands of parking spaces is a no no to me. It's anti urban and I also am not a fan of increased pollution or drunk driving. If we are going to invest in this sort of thing it should be close to an existing critical mass.

[BridgeTroll]

I have to say… I have certainly enjoyed this thread/ discussion/ conversation. Widely divergent viewpoints, well represented. Can the parking lots be used for other things? Warped Tour?  Welcome to Rockville type stuff?

[jaxlongtimer]

Maybe if JTA offered quality urban core mass transit the parking lot issue wouldn't be so critical. 

The greater Downtown area keeps trying to compete with the suburbs by insisting on parking to match associated facilities.  That is a losing proposition (see the exodus of offices from the core) that also diminishes what a Downtown should be. Not insisting on robust mass transit in the urban core is a missed opportunity of Downtown to distinguish itself from the suburbs.

If the stadium district wants to be considered part of Downtown (a doubtful status in my mind given its distance from the core), it should mimic the same demands a real downtown requires and build in a much more substantial and permanent mass transit component than the current token buses JTA runs on game days (and, even at that, not for any other stadium events, as a rule, other than maybe FL-GA).

Aside from green spaces, our failure to have circulating urban core mass transit is a major component to our failing Downtown.

[Jax_Developer]

LMFAOOOO. There it is folks. In black & white. Quite the circus and a massive waste of effort on the most meaningless portion of the bill. The Jags really worked the city in this agreement.

Jacksonville attorney Paul Harden, a lobbyist for the Jaguars, said the team believed the 33-year period “may be a little long and dilute the impact” of the funding.

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/sep/06/not-so-fast-committee-returns-to-work-on-community-benefits-agreement/

[thelakelander]

They are basically suggesting to the council special committee to not water the bill down. Glad the council is reconsidering.

[Tacachale]

They are basically suggesting to the council special committee to not water the bill down. Glad the council is reconsidering.

Agreed. 15 years is still too long but a fair compromise to the 33 years originally approved by this committee. Hopefully this thing gets put to bed from the city’s side at council on Tuesday and we can get to work.

[Jax_Developer]

They are basically suggesting to the council special committee to not water the bill down. Glad the council is reconsidering.

Rules for me & not for thee. They quite literally are admitting their CBA contribution is "a little long" and their funds will "dilute the impact" of the CBA. Why did we focus so much time on this CBA? There is no legitimate argument, in my opinion, that any funds from the Jags beyond about Year 10 will have any impact for the current residents. Rather, investors in these areas will be the ones who really benefit. Sound familiar?

We can't borrow on any Jaguars funds nor decide how they are spent in the CBA & yet we have a soft commitment of $150M to funding to this bill that is "locked-in" for whatever timeframe is decided by council. Moreover, we as the citizens were sold on the idea that this CBA was somehow a net positive in the deal but the reality is that the Jaguars are not okay with 1:1 spending. They want a positive return, even with the "community" portion of the bill. That is absurd & the fact this has not been called out is another testament to the lack of effective reporting in this town. I could give a crap what political hat you wear.

The whole thing makes absolutely zero logical sense. The city should have requested a number in a much more realistic timeframe, even if it is smaller. It seems it's all about the big price tag, and I'm sure it makes the headlines seem better. We "beat" the Buffalo Bills' CBA, yet their CBA is 100% team funded through anticipated stadium spending. Does anyone really think the Jags won't be clearing $3M in alcohol profits per year in their subsidized stadium? Or from their future parking lots that will be subsidized by taxpayers?

The Eastside residents will not see these benefits & people like me will reap these benefits 10-20 years down the road. Really sad & depressing to see this type of agreement applauded here. I would like to think that people on the Jaxson are more informed on these deals, but there seems to be a pretty heavy resentment towards acknowledging the massive short comings of this deal.

- Less than 50:50 split for the Stadium
- Less than 50:50 split for the CBA
- 0:100 split for any other items in the Jags Agreement
- 50+ acres of newly restricted city owned property

[thelakelander]

Rules for me & not for thee. They quite literally are admitting their CBA contribution is "a little long" and their funds will "dilute the impact" of the CBA. Why did we focus so much time on this CBA? There is no legitimate argument, in my opinion, that any funds from the Jags beyond about Year 10 will have any impact for the current residents. Rather, investors in these areas will be the ones who really benefit. Sound familiar?

Unless I'm missing something, the original proposed agreement had COJ funding $30 million within the first 3 years? The council committee diluted that timeline.

Why did we focus so much time on this CBA?

Because the negative impact of displacement and gentrification is a serious community concern.

The Eastside residents will not see these benefits & people like me will reap these benefits 10-20 years down the road.

It won't be a handout but I'm pretty confident that Eastside residents and business owners will be in position to benefit from the CBA before people like you will. I've personally sat in enough neighborhood meetings about their portion of the CBA to understand how it will most likely be structured and used there.

The whole thing makes absolutely zero logical sense. The city should have requested a number in a much more realistic timeframe, even if it is smaller. It seems it's all about the big price tag, and I'm sure it makes the headlines seem better. We "beat" the Buffalo Bills' CBA, yet their CBA is 100% team funded through anticipated stadium spending. Does anyone really think the Jags won't be clearing $3M in alcohol profits per year in their subsidized stadium? Or from their future parking lots that will be subsidized by taxpayers?

From the Eastside community perspective, I could care less about beating Buffalo, how their deal is structured or what the Jags will make in alcohol profits. These points are for someone else to debate. I can only provide detail about ongoing Eastside initiatives, the community vision and how funding will be potentially used to boost that work.

[jaxoNOLE]

I think the gap in perception is driven by different expectations. Personally, I figured taxpayers getting hosed was pretty much a given any time we sit down with an NFL franchise. My personal assessment isn't that this is a "good" deal -- but rather that it is, at the margins, favorable relative to my expectations going in.

My theory is that the major concerns with the deal you raised were probably going to be part of any deal -- "table stakes," so to speak. If that's true, any CBA money from the Jags (diluted or not) is a marginal benefit. As I mentioned before, if that assumption doesn't hold and the splits and parking issues were actually fungible up or down dependent on the amount of CBA funding...then it becomes impossible to assess the deal unless we get a look into the different options offered there, which of course we never will.

Speaking only for myself, I don't disregard the concerns you've raised. Aside from the parking, which I will be fascinated to see interact with the entertainment district, I'm simply not surprised by the responsibility splits and I feel the CBA is a clever perk to soften the blow--like 6 months free Disney+ when Verizon forces a plan switch and bumps your price $10/month. It still sucks, you're basically paying for the freebie, but...you're still better off accepting the freebie than not. Unless you just want to dump Verizon altogether.

P.S. -- Regardless of the stadium deal, the city should be funding Eastside community improvements and the downtown parks anyway. I'd be glad to see that money allocated even if the Jags didn't match at all.

[jaxlongtimer]

Maybe if JTA offered quality urban core mass transit the parking lot issue wouldn't be so critical. 

The greater Downtown area keeps trying to compete with the suburbs by insisting on parking to match associated facilities.  That is a losing proposition (see the exodus of offices from the core) that also diminishes what a Downtown should be. Not insisting on robust mass transit in the urban core is a missed opportunity of Downtown to distinguish itself from the suburbs.

If the stadium district wants to be considered part of Downtown (a doubtful status in my mind given its distance from the core), it should mimic the same demands a real downtown requires and build in a much more substantial and permanent mass transit component than the current token buses JTA runs on game days (and, even at that, not for any other stadium events, as a rule, other than maybe FL-GA).

Aside from green spaces, our failure to have circulating urban core mass transit is a major component to our failing Downtown.

Back to parking for a moment... I noted in the aerials of Hard Rock Stadium yesterday what appears to be much larger acreage of surface parking lots around the stadium compared to Everbank.  Just wondering if this is actually the case?

[thelakelander]

I think the gap in perception is driven by different expectations. Personally, I figured taxpayers getting hosed was pretty much a given any time we sit down with an NFL franchise. My personal assessment isn't that this is a "good" deal -- but rather that it is, at the margins, favorable relative to my expectations going in.

My theory is that the major concerns with the deal you raised were probably going to be part of any deal -- "table stakes," so to speak. If that's true, any CBA money from the Jags (diluted or not) is a marginal benefit. As I mentioned before, if that assumption doesn't hold and the splits and parking issues were actually fungible up or down dependent on the amount of CBA funding...then it becomes impossible to assess the deal unless we get a look into the different options offered there, which of course we never will.

Speaking only for myself, I don't disregard the concerns you've raised. Aside from the parking, which I will be fascinated to see interact with the entertainment district, I'm simply not surprised by the responsibility splits and I feel the CBA is a clever perk to soften the blow--like 6 months free Disney+ when Verizon forces a plan switch and bumps your price $10/month. It still sucks, you're basically paying for the freebie, but...you're still better off accepting the freebie than not. Unless you just want to dump Verizon altogether.

P.S. -- Regardless of the stadium deal, the city should be funding Eastside community improvements and the downtown parks anyway. I'd be glad to see that money allocated even if the Jags didn't match at all.

I pretty much feel the same way.

[marcuscnelson]

Really sad & depressing to see this type of agreement applauded here. I would like to think that people on the Jaxson are more informed on these deals, but there seems to be a pretty heavy resentment towards acknowledging the massive short comings of this deal.

Not to be overly blunt but… so what? No matter what, we were going to spend a lot of money to keep the NFL, they had all of the leverage going in, the CBA isn't perfect, we know all of these things. We knew that back in May, you knew that back in May:

I want the Jaguars to stay. I want a stadium deal. I want the Eastside to benefit. All that said, we have $70M of unmatched city dollars (on top of the other tens of millions of dollars) going towards just parks stuffed into the deal...

This deal represents a lot of what is wrong with local policymaking. Want a stadium deal only? Fine, don't include $300M+ of "other" spending on top of $70M. The fine prints read that the OUTEAST & Community funds will be paid equally over 30 years. I can 100% guarantee that the $70M unmatched city funds will not be over 30 years, rather in 5 or less. (Probably why the Jags are not matching any funds.)

Where's the real analysis in this deal? Zero analysis around NPV vs. Future Value of Money. All the dollars are the same in this example. How much does the city actually benefit from the extra spending?

The stadium deal itself isn't what will displace the Eastside, it's all the Four Seaons, Parks, Lot J... etc. all coming together that will do it. Why shovel that onto the general taxpayer? Private ventures on public land should be able to cover that concern.

The real win of this deal (from a basic deal summary) are the reworked terms of how the Jags & the COJ will operate the stadium. I like what Donna is doing, I just don't understand the reasoning at play here.

We wanted to stay in pro sports, they wanted to get paid handsomely for it, it's not that complicated. Whatever acknowledgement you're looking for isn't going to fix that. I think it's fair to say that there's clearly been an effort to have some sort of benefit beyond purely the stadium by itself, which is at least better than Charlotte got. The city could have requested lots of things, but if we weren't willing to walk away (which everyone knows we weren't) then the NFL had no real obligation to accept. At this point the deal is done and we'll have to deal with whatever consequences there are when they arrive.