The Jaxson

Jacksonville by Neighborhood => Downtown => Topic started by: thelakelander on December 20, 2017, 08:21:52 PM

Title: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on December 20, 2017, 08:21:52 PM
 ???
Quote
City Hall would have a steep financial investment — up to $26 million — in the highly anticipated but long-delayed development planned on Jacksonville’s Southbank, according to a draft proposal released Wednesday that seeks to prop up the stalled project.

The proposal — hammered out in secret — adds layers of complexity and taxpayer risk to what was once planned to be a straightforward transaction between JEA and a private development group that promised nothing short of a transformational mixed-use project on 30 acres of utility-owned waterfront land.

Full article: http://jacksonville.com/metro/news/2017-12-20/proposal-shows-taxpayers-would-invest-heavily-delayed-southbank-project
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: MusicMan on December 20, 2017, 10:08:57 PM
As Gomer Pyle once said: "Surprise, surprise, surprise!"

What an effing joke.  This is our city in a nutshell.  A complete boondoggle and 3 years in the making.  Tell "Elements" to get lost, and put it back up for purchase. 

Of course with Jacksonville, the guys who own the Publix San Marco site (Regency?) will pick it up........
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on December 20, 2017, 11:06:56 PM
A Southbank project needs $26 million in incentives? I'd love to see that type of money put into refurbishing the historic preservation trust fund.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Transman on December 20, 2017, 11:19:09 PM
Kinda crazy, the city decides to get into the land development business.  This should never happen, I don't believe being a developer is in the city charter.  The City needs to start over on the parcel.  Just sell it to the highest bidder and move on.  The fact they need the help is all you need to know. 
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Jagsdrew on December 21, 2017, 08:51:34 AM
The city really needs to get out of the property management and ownership business. Really is ridiculous they hold this land for years and years, sell it to a developer for cents on the dollar and also give them tax incentives.

I need to develop and build something. I'm in the wrong business.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: acme54321 on December 21, 2017, 09:10:26 AM
“If it was proposed and indicated that the city would have put up $26 million on infrastructure, I’m pretty sure we would have had additional bidders three and a half years ago,”

Good point.  JEA needs to nip this one in the bud and put this thing back out on the street.  What a waste of time.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Josh on December 21, 2017, 09:14:22 AM
The city really needs to get out of the property management and ownership business. Really is ridiculous they hold this land for years and years, sell it to a developer for cents on the dollar and also give them tax incentives.

I need to develop and build something. I'm in the wrong business.

Kinda crazy, the city decides to get into the land development business.  This should never happen, I don't believe being a developer is in the city charter.  The City needs to start over on the parcel.  Just sell it to the highest bidder and move on.  The fact they need the help is all you need to know.

This isn't the city's land, it's JEA's. It definitely needs to go back on the market after this mess.

Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: CityLife on December 21, 2017, 09:35:08 AM
I thought this was an ok project for Jax if Rummell's group was going to assume most of the risk for a legacy type project. That said, there are better opportunities to stimulate catalytic projects on the northbank for that type of investment. 

The District is essentially landlocked. There are single family homes/BK to the southeast and 95 to the south/southwest. There are some opportunities to fill in those ridiculous surface lots to the west, but by and large there are not many other redevelopment opportunities nearby. The District would essentially be an island unto itself, not integrated into the fabric of Downtown.  Downtown needs an Orange Avenue (Orlando), Clematis Street (WPB), Las Olas (Ft. Lauderdale) type shopping, dining, and entertainment district; not a large scale Tapestry Park project that is not integrated into a larger urban area.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on December 21, 2017, 09:42:31 AM
Totally agree!
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: sanmarcomatt on December 21, 2017, 10:12:21 AM
Not sure what amuses me more...How the City actually uses our tax dollars or people telling me Jax isn't better because our taxes are too low.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: MusicMan on December 21, 2017, 02:45:00 PM
Lets simplify this whole project.  It's 30 acres. That should hold 100 single family homes.  At $350,000 per home that puts $35,000,000 into the tax role, and a nice community could thrive there. You might be able to get more for a nice 3/2 with 2000 sf there. Add some community amenities like a pool, fitness center, riverwalk  and marina and it would sell out quickly.   A monthly HOA ( lets say $200) would be paid to JEA and provide income for the next 100 years ( in addition to the income from selling the parcel).   ($20,000 per month)

JEA needs to move on and stop pretending to be a real estate developer. 

This whole enterprise again illustrated why the RFP process is ridiculous.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: marcuscnelson on December 22, 2017, 01:50:22 AM
Lets simplify this whole project.  It's 30 acres. That should hold 100 single family homes.  At $350,000 per home that puts $35,000,000 into the tax role, and a nice community could thrive there. You might be able to get more for a nice 3/2 with 2000 sf there. Add some community amenities like a pool, fitness center, riverwalk  and marina and it would sell out quickly.   A monthly HOA ( lets say $200) would be paid to JEA and provide income for the next 100 years ( in addition to the income from selling the parcel).   ($20,000 per month)

JEA needs to move on and stop pretending to be a real estate developer. 

This whole enterprise again illustrated why the RFP process is ridiculous.

Maybe I'm too greedy for wanting more than a glorified subdivision directly on our downtown riverbank, but I want more than a glorified subdivision. Obviously Rummell isn't panning out, but I'd think we should be able to at least get a decent bit of density.

Didn't Rummell's plan for The District include townhouses on a section of it already?
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Noone on December 22, 2017, 05:46:26 AM
The city really needs to get out of the property management and ownership business. Really is ridiculous they hold this land for years and years, sell it to a developer for cents on the dollar and also give them tax incentives.

I need to develop and build something. I'm in the wrong business.

Kinda crazy, the city decides to get into the land development business.  This should never happen, I don't believe being a developer is in the city charter.  The City needs to start over on the parcel.  Just sell it to the highest bidder and move on.  The fact they need the help is all you need to know.

This isn't the city's land, it's JEA's. It definitely needs to go back on the market after this mess.



+1
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on December 22, 2017, 05:50:40 AM
Lets simplify this whole project.  It's 30 acres. That should hold 100 single family homes.  At $350,000 per home that puts $35,000,000 into the tax role, and a nice community could thrive there. You might be able to get more for a nice 3/2 with 2000 sf there. Add some community amenities like a pool, fitness center, riverwalk  and marina and it would sell out quickly.   A monthly HOA ( lets say $200) would be paid to JEA and provide income for the next 100 years ( in addition to the income from selling the parcel).   ($20,000 per month)

JEA needs to move on and stop pretending to be a real estate developer. 

This whole enterprise again illustrated why the RFP process is ridiculous.

Maybe I'm too greedy for wanting more than a glorified subdivision directly on our downtown riverbank, but I want more than a glorified subdivision. Obviously Rummell isn't panning out, but I'd think we should be able to at least get a decent bit of density.

Didn't Rummell's plan for The District include townhouses on a section of it already?

Yes, it includes townhomes. This proposed deal sounds like the city is buying the land and building the infrastructure, while Rummell serves as a master developer, essentially flipping individual parcels to other groups to construct individual projects that align with the master plan.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: vicupstate on December 22, 2017, 08:41:45 AM
Lets simplify this whole project.  It's 30 acres. That should hold 100 single family homes.  At $350,000 per home that puts $35,000,000 into the tax role, and a nice community could thrive there. You might be able to get more for a nice 3/2 with 2000 sf there. Add some community amenities like a pool, fitness center, riverwalk  and marina and it would sell out quickly.   A monthly HOA ( lets say $200) would be paid to JEA and provide income for the next 100 years ( in addition to the income from selling the parcel).   ($20,000 per month)

JEA needs to move on and stop pretending to be a real estate developer. 

This whole enterprise again illustrated why the RFP process is ridiculous.

Maybe I'm too greedy for wanting more than a glorified subdivision directly on our downtown riverbank, but I want more than a glorified subdivision. Obviously Rummell isn't panning out, but I'd think we should be able to at least get a decent bit of density.

Didn't Rummell's plan for The District include townhouses on a section of it already?

Yes, it includes townhomes. This proposed deal sounds like the city is buying the land and building the infrastructure, while Rummell serves as a master developer, essentially flipping individual parcels to other groups to construct individual projects that align with the master plan.

In other words, the city assumes the lionshare of the risk and Rummell gets all the profits.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: sanmarcomatt on December 22, 2017, 08:51:48 AM

In other words, the tax payer assumes the lionshare of the risk and Rummell gets all the profits.

I put on my Editor hat
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on December 22, 2017, 08:57:27 AM
If the deal is configured this way (ex. city buys land and builds most of the infrastructure), what's the point of Rummell's involvement?
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: marcuscnelson on December 22, 2017, 08:28:14 PM
If the deal is configured this way (ex. city buys land and builds most of the infrastructure), what's the point of Rummell's involvement?

Profiting.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Noone on December 24, 2017, 08:09:21 AM
Lets simplify this whole project.  It's 30 acres. That should hold 100 single family homes.  At $350,000 per home that puts $35,000,000 into the tax role, and a nice community could thrive there. You might be able to get more for a nice 3/2 with 2000 sf there. Add some community amenities like a pool, fitness center, riverwalk  and marina and it would sell out quickly.   A monthly HOA ( lets say $200) would be paid to JEA and provide income for the next 100 years ( in addition to the income from selling the parcel).   ($20,000 per month)

JEA needs to move on and stop pretending to be a real estate developer. 

This whole enterprise again illustrated why the RFP process is ridiculous.

Maybe I'm too greedy for wanting more than a glorified subdivision directly on our downtown riverbank, but I want more than a glorified subdivision. Obviously Rummell isn't panning out, but I'd think we should be able to at least get a decent bit of density.

Didn't Rummell's plan for The District include townhouses on a section of it already?

Yes, it includes townhomes. This proposed deal sounds like the city is buying the land and building the infrastructure, while Rummell serves as a master developer, essentially flipping individual parcels to other groups to construct individual projects that align with the master plan.

In other words, the city assumes the lionshare of the risk and Rummell gets all the profits.

+1
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on January 11, 2018, 12:32:18 AM
DIA approves paying up to $45 million in incentives to free District developers of the risk...

Quote
The District would have 1,170 residential units, 200 hotel rooms, 200,000 square feet of office space, 285,000 square feet of retail space, and a 125-slip marina. It also would extend the Southbank Riverwalk and have a public park on the riverfront. The total investment would be about $433 million, according to a DIA presentation to the board.

The city’s would have a substantial financial role. It would pay up to $26.4 million for improvements that would be usable by the public. The city also would pay JEA, which currently owns the property, a total of about $18.6 million in annual installments through 2040. The city then would have Elements be the master developer.

The purchase of the land with payments stretching through 2040 would mark a significant change from JEA’s original intent to sell the land in a straight transaction. Elements offered to buy the land for $18 million three years ago, but the deal never closed.

Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2018-01-08/downtown-panel-wants-jea-shoulder-some-risk-district-development-deal
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: sanmarcomatt on January 11, 2018, 09:24:44 AM
DIA approves paying up to $45 million in incentives to free District developers of the risk...

Quote
The District would have 1,170 residential units, 200 hotel rooms, 200,000 square feet of office space, 285,000 square feet of retail space, and a 125-slip marina. It also would extend the Southbank Riverwalk and have a public park on the riverfront. The total investment would be about $433 million, according to a DIA presentation to the board.

The city’s would have a substantial financial role. It would pay up to $26.4 million for improvements that would be usable by the public. The city also would pay JEA, which currently owns the property, a total of about $18.6 million in annual installments through 2040. The city then would have Elements be the master developer.

The purchase of the land with payments stretching through 2040 would mark a significant change from JEA’s original intent to sell the land in a straight transaction. Elements offered to buy the land for $18 million three years ago, but the deal never closed.

Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2018-01-08/downtown-panel-wants-jea-shoulder-some-risk-district-development-deal

At this point, I can only laugh. But if this is agreed upon, please tell me that the School Board bldg becomes part of the development.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: sanmarcomatt on January 11, 2018, 09:46:53 AM
Breaking news.

The district has been renamed "The Blockchain District" and Rummel now has fools begging to invest millions. Problem solved.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on January 11, 2018, 09:49:04 AM
No, the school board building will still be there. DCPS is not involved in this.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: sanmarcomatt on January 11, 2018, 09:57:35 AM
No, the school board building will still be there. DCPS is not involved in this.

and the joke gets funnier....
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on January 11, 2018, 10:07:17 AM
More details. This thing could tie up the Southbank TIF in the same manner that has the Northbank TIF in the red:

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/amid-concerns-downtown-investment-authority-approves-deal-to-buy-land-proposed-for-the-district
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: vicupstate on January 11, 2018, 10:53:13 AM
Quote
While DIA unanimously approved the project, members said they wanted detailed answers about the structure of the deal, the financial ability of both the master developer and its potential partners to see the project to completion, and the use of funds from the Southside TID to pay JEA.

I realize they will  have a another vote on this eventually, but if JEA approves it, they will be under a lot of pressure to not kill the deal. If there is so much trepidation about this deal, they should have tabled it till the next time they could meet.

Is it a safe assumption that since this project is on the launch pad that the Shipyards is definitely on the back burner? I can't imagine anyone thinking this project and Shipyards could both happen simulataneously. 
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Tacachale on January 11, 2018, 11:03:36 AM
Quote

Is it a safe assumption that since this project is on the launch pad that the Shipyards is definitely on the back burner? I can't imagine anyone thinking this project and Shipyards could both happen simulataneously. 

Other signs point to the Shipyards being on the backburner as well, at least for the time being. The hints dropped by the Mayor as well as the Jags about an entertainment district closer to the stadium for one, and tying of the development to removing the Hart Bridge ramps (which isn't happening soon) for two.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Steve on January 11, 2018, 11:18:57 AM
Quote
While DIA unanimously approved the project, members said they wanted detailed answers about the structure of the deal, the financial ability of both the master developer and its potential partners to see the project to completion, and the use of funds from the Southside TID to pay JEA.

I realize they will  have a another vote on this eventually, but if JEA approves it, they will be under a lot of pressure to not kill the deal. If there is so much trepidation about this deal, they should have tabled it till the next time they could meet.

Is it a safe assumption that since this project is on the launch pad that the Shipyards is definitely on the back burner? I can't imagine anyone thinking this project and Shipyards could both happen simulataneously. 

Normally, I'd agree about pressure. However, I don't think DIA will be under too much pressure in this case. Ultimately, JEA can only apply so much pressure. With City Council members questioning this whole thing the pressure would be less as I think this might have a hard time clearing Council anyway.

Now, with that said I don't fully understand this whole thing yet. I've read the articles posted here a couple times, but I need to read through this when I'm not multi-tasking here....this is a little complex.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Tacachale on January 11, 2018, 11:25:39 AM
Quote
While DIA unanimously approved the project, members said they wanted detailed answers about the structure of the deal, the financial ability of both the master developer and its potential partners to see the project to completion, and the use of funds from the Southside TID to pay JEA.

I realize they will  have a another vote on this eventually, but if JEA approves it, they will be under a lot of pressure to not kill the deal. If there is so much trepidation about this deal, they should have tabled it till the next time they could meet.

Is it a safe assumption that since this project is on the launch pad that the Shipyards is definitely on the back burner? I can't imagine anyone thinking this project and Shipyards could both happen simulataneously. 

Normally, I'd agree about pressure. However, I don't think DIA will be under too much pressure in this case. Ultimately, JEA can only apply so much pressure. With City Council members questioning this whole thing the pressure would be less as I think this might have a hard time clearing Council anyway.

The pressure will mostly come from the administration.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on January 11, 2018, 11:37:58 AM
Now, with that said I don't fully understand this whole thing yet. I've read the articles posted here a couple times, but I need to read through this when I'm not multi-tasking here....this is a little complex.

I think it sounds slightly more complicated than it actually is.

Original plan was for Elements to purchase the property directly from JEA for $18.6 million, and then likely ask the city to provide $46 million in public infrastructure (utilities, roads, riverwalk extension, maybe public parkspace, etc.).

The new plan has Elements putting that same $18.6 million immediately toward public infrastructure, asking the city for $18.6 million less in infrastructure improvements ($26.4 million), and having the DIA purchase the land from JEA for $18.6 on a twenty-ish year loan, to be paid paid back annually using a 75/25 combination of revenue directly generated from the District and the Southbank TIF.

The actual numbers seem to be about the same.

On the surface, it seems like an iffy deal for JEA, but Elements also bid $6 million higher for the land than anyone else, so they'd likely see far less cash if the property went back to market.

What I actually kind of like about the new proposal is that, if everyone agrees that the District as imagined would be a huge net win for the southbank, it holds all parties responsible for doing their part to get shovels in the ground quickly and make the project a success.

In terms of the Shipyards, I think it's closer than people think. The only minor roadblocks standing in the way of the project breaking ground are:

1) The execution of a development agreement between Iguana and the city
2) The $90 million state-funded removal of the Hart Bridge Ramps, which isn't even in the FDOT's five-year plan.
3) The multi-year, $45 million+ remediation of the Shipyards Property, Met Park, and the area under the ramps, which the city hasn't even properly estimated, let alone contracted, yet.
4) The negotiation of a land swap for Metro Park, and the construction of a new park in-kind on said contaminated land
5) The completion of Berkman 2, which may or may not be structurally sound by this point.

No joke, wouldn't be surprised to see the Shipyards going vertical by March.

Kidding aside, though Lamping has said that the Shipyards will proceed with or without the removal of the Hart Bridge ramps, the mayor has a line item in this year's budget indicating removal is the long-term plan, and there's still no plan at all in place to begin environmental cleanup. Realistically, it's going to be a long time before this one breaks ground.

10-1 that Khan just continues piecemealing his original Shipyards plans in and around the stadium like he's done with Daily's Place. I bet the Cordish Jacksonville Live-ish entertainment complex, and potentially a hotel, break ground in the stadium district, opposite the Hart Bridge ramps, before we see any movement on the Shipyards proper.

Could see the Shipyards itself ending up mostly residential/office.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: sanmarcomatt on January 11, 2018, 12:20:41 PM
Original plan was for Elements to purchase the property directly from JEA for $18.6 million, and then likely ask the city to provide $46 million in public infrastructure (utilities, roads, riverwalk extension, maybe public parkspace, etc.).

The actual numbers seem to be about the same.


When you put it that way (numbers about the same)it isn't as bad. However, the expectation from the beginning was for the city to kick in 46 million for infrastructure? As in the beginning of the bid process?
I am not saying you are incorrect but lets just say I am skeptical.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on January 11, 2018, 12:52:52 PM
Originally, there were no public expectations of the city funding infrastructure for this development.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: MusicMan on January 11, 2018, 01:22:30 PM
Thanks for the clarification Lake. I don't remember any promise from the COJ to provide $46 million in infrastructure support. Can KenFSU document that?

"While DIA unanimously approved the project, members said they wanted detailed answers about the structure of the deal, the financial ability of both the master developer and its potential partners to see the project to completion, and the use of funds from the Southside TID to pay JEA."

The catch phrase above is 'the financial ability of both the master developer and it's potential partners to see the project to completion'.....
Well so far they could not even close the original deal/bid they put forth, and have all the "partners" for this deal even been identified? 

Satisfying this particular set of issues seems damn near impossible to me.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: vicupstate on January 11, 2018, 01:46:24 PM
Quote
What I actually kind of like about the new proposal is that, if everyone agrees that the District as imagined would be a huge net win for the southbank, it holds all parties responsible for doing their part to get shovels in the ground quickly and make the project a success.

Considering the city is one of those partners, and would be responsible for certain aspects only it could do, that statement should not be of any comfort to anyone. 
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on January 11, 2018, 02:28:58 PM
Thanks for the clarification Lake. I don't remember any promise from the COJ to provide $46 million in infrastructure support. Can KenFSU document that?

Shouldn't be a surprise, we've been talking about it since 2015:

https://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=23712.0

Sure, no concrete promises were ever made, no numbers were publicly specified (not to say they weren't discussed behind closed doors), but the final step was always going to be to negotiate a development agreement with the city. Do you really think anyone is going to commit to a 30-acre, $440 million riverfront development, on the Southbank, in 2018 Jacksonville, without public subsidy?

That's insane.

Particularly when, right across the river, the city was prepared to hand Shad Khan the Shipyards for free, pay $35 million for remediation, and build out the infrastructure along Bay Street, including riverwalk extension.

Atkins got an $8 million subsidy for the Trio and Barnett (~10% of project cost, similar to what we're talking above), including a similarly odd agreement involving the city paying for a parking garage and leasing it back to Atkins over the next couple decades, I believe.

The city just handed over nearly $10 million to Edward Waters College, of all places.

We ponied up $45 million for half of the $90 million in stadium improvements recently made to Everbank under the guise of splitting half the cost of an amphitheater with Shad Khan (reality check: we realistically got a $30 million amphitheater and subsidized the cost of the club upgrades and practice field). 

Cowford Chophouse? Subsidized (~10% project cost).

Carling and 11E? Subsidized.

It's the nature of the current downtown landscape.

Have zero problem with anyone thinking the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost, but surprise at the developer asking for public incentives? Come on. This ain't Manhattan, and the precedent has long since been set.



Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on January 11, 2018, 03:30:38 PM
I'd pass. It's essentially the Southbank and San Marco. It's a completely different animal (market) from the Northbank and inner city neighborhoods like Brooklyn or even EWC. Might as well give East San Marco money. But I'm a guy that would pass on the Shipyards too. I also don't see $440 million being committed to that site anytime soon. No matter how the amount of incentives, the market is the market.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: sanmarcomatt on January 11, 2018, 03:44:29 PM
I hope they pass as well. Purely for selfish reasons, I would love for it to be built as it would greatly improve the area close to where I live. However, I would prefer tax payer money be directed somewhere else.

Besides, isn't this next to where the city wants to buy properties just to demolish due to flood issues? More concrete next door doesn't seem to be the best answer.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on January 11, 2018, 04:01:17 PM
I wish them well. I just believe DT incentives are better used to fill funding gaps in areas of revitalization that the market can't support (ex. historic preservation/adaptive reuse, etc.). If COJ is paying for the land and infrastructure, why abruptly marry itself to Elements?
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on January 11, 2018, 04:07:06 PM
It's going to be interesting to see what happens.

A ridiculous number of projects potentially competing for limited public money in the next 0-36 months.

District, Shipyards, Cordish, convention center, maybe Berkman, USS Adams, the Landing if Curry has his way, etc. 
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on January 11, 2018, 04:37:37 PM
Which is why the pot should be used wisely. Spread it out and this phase of DT redevelopment will end up just like the rest. A few isolated new things in a sea of deadness.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Tacachale on January 11, 2018, 04:48:13 PM
Thanks for the clarification Lake. I don't remember any promise from the COJ to provide $46 million in infrastructure support. Can KenFSU document that?

Shouldn't be a surprise, we've been talking about it since 2015:

https://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=23712.0

Sure, no concrete promises were ever made, no numbers were publicly specified (not to say they weren't discussed behind closed doors), but the final step was always going to be to negotiate a development agreement with the city. Do you really think anyone is going to commit to a 30-acre, $440 million riverfront development, on the Southbank, in 2018 Jacksonville, without public subsidy?

That's insane.


I'm not against incentives, but there are legit questions about this project, and some of the others you mentioned.


Particularly when, right across the river, the city was prepared to hand Shad Khan the Shipyards for free, pay $35 million for remediation, and build out the infrastructure along Bay Street, including riverwalk extension.


That was a terrible deal negotiated by the previous administration. We'd have been crazy to take it.


Atkins got an $8 million subsidy for the Trio and Barnett (~10% of project cost, similar to what we're talking above), including a similarly odd agreement involving the city paying for a parking garage and leasing it back to Atkins over the next couple decades, I believe.


This is also a historic rehab in the core of Downtown. The District is on the outskirts in the Southbank. It won't have the impact on the downtown core that projects within the core would have. The amount of money is also a totally different story.


The city just handed over nearly $10 million to Edward Waters College, of all places.


It was $8.4 million, and half of it went to an athletics field for community use. Even looking at the whole $8.4 million it's a fraction of the cost of the District.


We ponied up $45 million for half of the $90 million in stadium improvements recently made to Everbank under the guise of splitting half the cost of an amphitheater with Shad Khan (reality check: we realistically got a $30 million amphitheater and subsidized the cost of the club upgrades and practice field). 


This one was for buildings the city actually owns, and the Jags paid half. And like you say, the amphitheater itself would have cost $30 million or more, but it's worth the cost (or it would be if they'd ever book anything but dad rock from the last century). Not really a comparable situation.


Cowford Chophouse? Subsidized (~10% project cost).

Carling and 11E? Subsidized.


All historic rehabs in the downtown core, and the incentives were a fraction of this cost.

[/quote]


It's the nature of the current downtown landscape.

Have zero problem with anyone thinking the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost, but surprise at the developer asking for public incentives? Come on. This ain't Manhattan, and the precedent has long since been set.

The fact that incentives can be good doesn't mean they're always good. It needs evaluation on a case-by-case basis.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on January 11, 2018, 06:47:58 PM
^Don't get me wrong, I totally see where you're coming from, and it's a sound argument, but I'd counter that even though the public ask is multiple times more than the Trio, or Edward Waters, or Cowford, the potential economic impact is magnitudes higher. If Elements is contractually committed to - as they should be before full public investment is potentially made - building out 1,200 residential units, a 200 room hotel, a 125-slip marina, 200,000 square feet of office space, and 285,000 square feet of retail, including restaurants new to the market, a movie theater, a supermarket, a drug store, etc, then of course the incentives would be higher than a single restaurant, or a community field/dorm.

We're talking hundreds more residential units than the Laura Street Trio, Lavilla Lofts, Lofts at Monroe, Houston Manor, the Carling, the Strand, 11E, and the Peninsula COMBINED. A short walk from the southern terminus of the Skyway. Connected to the riverwalk with large areas of public greenspace. And a river taxi across from the sports district. No, it's not in the central business district, but it's on the Southbank riverfront, and would all but certainly have positive externalities on the downtown region.

More positive impact than any of the other projects vying for public dollars? That's up to those in charge to decide.

But personally, I don't think the ask is out of line with the scale of what Elements is proposing.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jaxnyc79 on January 11, 2018, 07:19:18 PM
Thanks for the clarification Lake. I don't remember any promise from the COJ to provide $46 million in infrastructure support. Can KenFSU document that?

Shouldn't be a surprise, we've been talking about it since 2015:

https://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=23712.0

Sure, no concrete promises were ever made, no numbers were publicly specified (not to say they weren't discussed behind closed doors), but the final step was always going to be to negotiate a development agreement with the city. Do you really think anyone is going to commit to a 30-acre, $440 million riverfront development, on the Southbank, in 2018 Jacksonville, without public subsidy?

That's insane.

Particularly when, right across the river, the city was prepared to hand Shad Khan the Shipyards for free, pay $35 million for remediation, and build out the infrastructure along Bay Street, including riverwalk extension.

Atkins got an $8 million subsidy for the Trio and Barnett (~10% of project cost, similar to what we're talking above), including a similarly odd agreement involving the city paying for a parking garage and leasing it back to Atkins over the next couple decades, I believe.

The city just handed over nearly $10 million to Edward Waters College, of all places.

We ponied up $45 million for half of the $90 million in stadium improvements recently made to Everbank under the guise of splitting half the cost of an amphitheater with Shad Khan (reality check: we realistically got a $30 million amphitheater and subsidized the cost of the club upgrades and practice field). 

Cowford Chophouse? Subsidized (~10% project cost).

Carling and 11E? Subsidized.

It's the nature of the current downtown landscape.

Have zero problem with anyone thinking the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost, but surprise at the developer asking for public incentives? Come on. This ain't Manhattan, and the precedent has long since been set.

Keep an Open Mind

While I do believe there are more pressing needs on the Northbank, I wonder if there are parts of the structure of this deal, that could serve as a template for transferring land ownership from the city (and city-chartered entities) to private development.

The District has no cash value to the COJ.  It doesn't generate tax revenue.  It's a big piece of nothing along the waterfront.  To generate cash value, the property needs to be put to private economic use.  It needs a private enterprise to put crap on it that generates cash flow, so that the cash flows can be used to pay property taxes (and sales taxes).

Elements is saying, transfer this thing of no value to our control.  We will be the trigger that puts it to private economic use, so that it starts creating taxable value.  The city can then take a slice of all that future value, and use it make the JEA whole on its transfer of this huge piece of nothing.

As for the city's responsibility to spend money NOW on infrastructure...


The District land looks like a big, barren field that could be in the middle of nowhere.  It's never been "urbanized," and yet we want to make it a downtown neighborhood.  It needs narrow streets (preferably grid-patterned) and sidewalks to form urban blocks, it needs lamp posts, it needs parks and squares, and it needs riverfront access, plus maybe some other crap underground that I can't speak on.  These are all urban neighborhood elements that the COJ might reasonably be expected to install.

COJ buying from JEA

Well, the COJ and JEA are very much intertwined.  The COJ is in a revenue-sharing arrangement with JEA and is as close to an equity owner as you can get.  JEA funds its operations to provide services as a utility by collecting light bill payments, and borrowing from the bond markets.  It gives COJ some of those collections, and pays its people salary and bonuses.  It's community-owned.  The District property is community-owned.  The property is no longer serving its purpose as a resource for power generation for the community.  Now, it is doing absolutely nothing for the community (not even generating prop or sales tax revenue), and yet it is community-owned.  So the community should just give away to a developer who can be that trigger to give it "value" to the Community. 

Whether that's Elements, or some other developer who can build structures and create occupancy for the highest possible private economic use, is another question.

LaVilla Properties

Based on this reasoning - yes, I conclude - the city should give away properties in LaVilla.  Do your due diligence on the bidders - evaluate which ones have the most compelling ideas for the property and can demonstrate the wherewithal to actually get those ideas executed as quickly as possible - and then give the properties away to private economic use.  On the other hand, if the City's Bond Rating depends on some inflated view of property in its possession, and if giving away property for future cash flows causes the COJ to trip up some key debt ratios now, well then I can "smell" an incentive to hold on to property.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: MusicMan on January 11, 2018, 07:36:05 PM
I don't know or remember, but what type of money did the COJ give to the developer of The Peninsula?  San Marco Place? The Strand?
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on January 11, 2018, 09:30:48 PM
I don't know or remember, but what type of money did the COJ give to the developer of The Peninsula?  San Marco Place? The Strand?

I honestly can't remember, but all three towers were built during the pre-recession condo boom, so I'd be shocked if any major incentives were handed out. That said, all three condos should benefit from publicly subsidized infrastructure work being done in the area in the form of the $4 million Riverplace "road diet" funded by the Southbank TID, which is incidentally only $465k less than what the District proposes to take from the TID over the next 20 years (25% of the $18.6 million loan repayment to JEA = $4.65 million), interest excluded.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: sanmarcomatt on January 11, 2018, 09:31:50 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.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Tacachale on January 11, 2018, 11:25:36 PM
I don't know or remember, but what type of money did the COJ give to the developer of The Peninsula?  San Marco Place? The Strand?

I honestly can't remember, but all three towers were built during the pre-recession condo boom, so I'd be shocked if any major incentives were handed out. That said, all three condos should benefit from publicly subsidized infrastructure work being done in the area in the form of the $4 million Riverplace "road diet" funded by the Southbank TID, which is incidentally only $465k less than what the District proposes to take from the TID over the next 20 years (25% of the $18.6 million loan repayment to JEA = $4.65 million), interest excluded.

They received substantial incentives. None to this level (I can find some links tomorrow). They also increased the downtown population by several times, and the deals were also a lot more straight forward.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jaxlongtimer on January 12, 2018, 12:53:51 AM
I would not be sad to see this project go away.  It's not that I object to the vision (though I am unhappy about the taxpayer subsidies), I just think this land should become an urban park for the next few centuries along with the Shipyards property.  Every successful urban core I have ever visited of any reasonably sized city, and many smaller ones, has significant green space to support urban residential development.  Downtown Jax has almost none.

I am talking about decent acreage (dozens to hundreds), enough to support bike/jogging paths, volleyball and playing fields, maybe a water feature (fishing/lilly pond, swimming pool, fountains, etc.), dog walks, public boat launch/docks/piers, gardens and other outdoor recreation and activities.  I don't know why anyone would want to live downtown without such amenities and would suggest this is one big reason more people are not living downtown now.

Don't think the above is important?  Then why does every major master planned development today put such amenities front and center in their developments and marketing materials?

By the way, if we ever want to host a future Super Bowl or other major events, where are we going to congregate some 250K to 500K+ people downtown?  Guess what was used for our Super Bowl?  The Shipyards and the District properties!
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on January 12, 2018, 03:10:47 AM
^Don't get me wrong, I totally see where you're coming from, and it's a sound argument, but I'd counter that even though the public ask is multiple times more than the Trio, or Edward Waters, or Cowford, the potential economic impact is magnitudes higher. If Elements is contractually committed to - as they should be before full public investment is potentially made - building out 1,200 residential units, a 200 room hotel, a 125-slip marina, 200,000 square feet of office space, and 285,000 square feet of retail, including restaurants new to the market, a movie theater, a supermarket, a drug store, etc, then of course the incentives would be higher than a single restaurant, or a community field/dorm.

You can't contractually force them to build all of that if the market can't support it. Like the Shipyards, that master plan is a pipe dream that will take decades to develop.

Quote
We're talking hundreds more residential units than the Laura Street Trio, Lavilla Lofts, Lofts at Monroe, Houston Manor, the Carling, the Strand, 11E, and the Peninsula COMBINED. A short walk from the southern terminus of the Skyway. Connected to the riverwalk with large areas of public greenspace. And a river taxi across from the sports district. No, it's not in the central business district, but it's on the Southbank riverfront, and would all but certainly have positive externalities on the downtown region.

There would be a greater impact on downtown by adding a fraction of that in the Northbank. Don't discount the economic benefit that density brings.

Quote
More positive impact than any of the other projects vying for public dollars? That's up to those in charge to decide

It should be vetted thoroughly by council, that's a good thing.

Quote
But personally, I don't think the ask is out of line with the scale of what Elements is proposing.

It appears to the naked eye to be pretty shady and has the potential to be a big failure that sucks away the TIF for a fringe development site for decades. The lack of transparency to this point should be a major concern.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jaxnyc79 on January 12, 2018, 06:50:36 AM
I would not be sad to see this project go away.  It's not that I object to the vision (though I am unhappy about the taxpayer subsidies), I just think this land should become an urban park for the next few centuries along with the Shipyards property.  Every successful urban core I have ever visited of any reasonably sized city, and many smaller ones, has significant green space to support urban residential development.  Downtown Jax has almost none.

I am talking about decent acreage (dozens to hundreds), enough to support bike/jogging paths, volleyball and playing fields, maybe a water feature (fishing/lilly pond, swimming pool, fountains, etc.), dog walks, public boat launch/docks/piers, gardens and other outdoor recreation and activities.  I don't know why anyone would want to live downtown without such amenities and would suggest this is one big reason more people are not living downtown now.

Don't think the above is important?  Then why does every major master planned development today put such amenities front and center in their developments and marketing materials?

By the way, if we ever want to host a future Super Bowl or other major events, where are we going to congregate some 250K to 500K+ people downtown?  Guess what was used for our Super Bowl?  The Shipyards and the District properties!

I really like your idea of a sprawling riverfront park.  Are the remediation requirements far lower if we turn the Shipyards into a park instead of other uses for the time being?  They’d have to carefully manage the homeless problem because that freaks out a ton of people in the region.  I was just thinking, if Jax makes it to the Super Bowl, and the city wanted to do something like a “community-wide pep rally,” where would that occur?  Certainly not in Hemming Plaza. 
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on January 12, 2018, 07:42:57 AM
To be honest, we don't maintain the downtown parks with these facilities already. Restore the green spaces along McCoys and Hogans creeks and we'll have a downtown park system that's a lot better than any isolated park on the edge of the urban core could be. They'd not only energize DT, but Brooklyn, Mixon Town, Springfield, Eastside and Sugar Hill too. Green space should be included at the Shipyards and JEA sites but it should be integrated with a mix of other uses. With no mix of uses, we'd be making a regional suburban designed park that won't effectively be integrated with the downtown core.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jaxnyc79 on January 12, 2018, 08:35:53 AM
To be honest, we don't maintain the downtown parks with these facilities already. Restore the green spaces along McCoys and Hogans creeks and we'll have a downtown park system that's a lot better than any isolated park on the edge of the urban core could be. They'd not only energize DT, but Brooklyn, Mixon Town, Springfield, Eastside and Sugar Hill too. Green space should be included at the Shipyards and JEA sites but it should be integrated with a mix of other uses. With no mix of uses, we'd be making a regional suburban designed park that won't effectively be integrated with the downtown core.

No one is undermining the idea of cleaning up creeks, just that a large riverfront green space in the midst of what will someday be the "critical mass" part of downtown, serving as a regional civic gathering place, could be catalytic.   
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Lostwave on January 12, 2018, 09:14:41 AM
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?
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Steve on January 12, 2018, 09:34:59 AM
I don't know or remember, but what type of money did the COJ give to the developer of The Peninsula?  San Marco Place? The Strand?

There definitely were incentives given for these three. Peninsula and the Strand are the save developer, San Marco Place was a different group.

However, that's a little different situation. This was vertical high-rise construction of residential when ZERO existed. When you're the first, some money is available.

My concerns here with the money is not the amount per se, but I'm not sure I see land on the outskirts of the Southbank of Downtown being a huge economic driver.

This isn't a historic rehab - that is a one of a kind building unique to Jacksonville. This is vacant land!

I'd say this: if they want COJ to pay for roads that would be public road and have public benefits (like connecting to parks, shops, etc.), I'm open to that. But to subsidize mid-rise construction? I'm not feeling it

(This is all with the caveat that I need to take time and really understand the ask here).
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Steve on January 12, 2018, 09:38:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on January 12, 2018, 10:09:49 AM
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?
Yes, they both do.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jaxnyc79 on January 12, 2018, 10:37:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on January 12, 2018, 11:25:09 AM
To be honest, we don't maintain the downtown parks with these facilities already. Restore the green spaces along McCoys and Hogans creeks and we'll have a downtown park system that's a lot better than any isolated park on the edge of the urban core could be. They'd not only energize DT, but Brooklyn, Mixon Town, Springfield, Eastside and Sugar Hill too. Green space should be included at the Shipyards and JEA sites but it should be integrated with a mix of other uses. With no mix of uses, we'd be making a regional suburban designed park that won't effectively be integrated with the downtown core.

No one is undermining the idea of cleaning up creeks, just that a large riverfront green space in the midst of what will someday be the "critical mass" part of downtown, serving as a regional civic gathering place, could be catalytic.   
Neither will be in the middle of anything. They're both on the edge of downtown.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on January 12, 2018, 11:29:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jaxnyc79 on January 12, 2018, 12:19:59 PM
To be honest, we don't maintain the downtown parks with these facilities already. Restore the green spaces along McCoys and Hogans creeks and we'll have a downtown park system that's a lot better than any isolated park on the edge of the urban core could be. They'd not only energize DT, but Brooklyn, Mixon Town, Springfield, Eastside and Sugar Hill too. Green space should be included at the Shipyards and JEA sites but it should be integrated with a mix of other uses. With no mix of uses, we'd be making a regional suburban designed park that won't effectively be integrated with the downtown core.

No one is undermining the idea of cleaning up creeks, just that a large riverfront green space in the midst of what will someday be the "critical mass" part of downtown, serving as a regional civic gathering place, could be catalytic.   
Neither will be in the middle of anything. They're both on the edge of downtown.

I said "what will someday be critical mass."  It's not as though we can supplant the old Barnett buildings with a 70-acre park, but the Shipyards is close enough, and if it ends up as a 70-acre riverfront park, a critical mass could potentially develop fairly proximal to it.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: sanmarcomatt 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.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jaxnyc79 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.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jaxnyc79 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. 
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander 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.

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-2592-hogans-creek-parks-aerial.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: sanmarcomatt 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
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Steve 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.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: fieldafm 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).
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: sanmarcomatt 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 :)

Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: ProjectMaximus 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.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: sanmarcomatt 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.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Tacachale 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.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: MusicMan 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.

Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: TimmyB 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.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jaxnyc79 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.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander 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.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jaxnyc79 on January 13, 2018, 12:32:53 PM
In the meantime, Broadstone continues to go up next door to the District without incentives. Structured parking garage and all.

When I see the online presentation of the District, I do like the attempt to create an urban village that could set a precedent for (or inspire) other urban-village style projects throughout the urban core.  Personally, I like that style for Jax versus randomly-placed big block projects and nothing really tied together to feel communal.  Having said that, I don’t think Elements was honest in the JEA bid process, and I hate how they’re handling the PR in the wake of releasing the proposal.  Sending an email out to your good ole boy network just because City Council forms a committee to study a complex transaction, especially after the disasters of the early 2000s with the Shipyards, is wholly inappropriate.  Rummell has a lot of f—�ing nerve.  I want to know the names on that email distribution. 
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on January 13, 2018, 12:59:53 PM
LOL at that TU editorial. The best way to protect the taxpayer is to let Elements do what they said they were originally going to do. That would have been best for the Shipyards too, even if it would have become more shipping and logistics related, which was the original intended use two decades ago. We would have had a private company creating logistics jobs, the property would have been on the tax rolls and the millions in tax money burned could have went to better use in the heart of the city. Jumping in this deal is simply more of the same. If Elements bit off too much than they can chew, taxpayers shouldn't be assuming the risk to buy the dream that's been sold for this site over the last three or four years.

When I see the online presentation of the District, I do like the attempt to create an urban village that could set a precedent for (or inspire) other urban-village style projects throughout the urban core.  Personally, I like that style for Jax versus randomly-placed big block projects and nothing really tied together to feel communal.

I've learned over the years to not get caught up in conceptual development proposals. Much of the stuff we've been shown with the District and Shipyards is all smoke and mirrors. People assume what's in the pretty pictures will actually be built and built at record speed. In reality, it would take decades for the local market to support what's shown. Throw in economic recessions and changes in the market and probably 80% of what's shown in those conceptual sketches never happens. As for the "urban village", the precedent was set back in the 19th century. It's the downtown Northbank and its street grid. The bones are already there. The design guidelines are already in place. We just have to stick with them for infill, while also enhancing the things we already have.

The Laura Trio, Barnett, 20 West Adams, Hotel Indigo are all much smaller projects. However, they'll have twice as much positive impact on downtown, its vibe and image because they are being built in that original urban pedestrian scale setting.

Quote
Having said that, I don’t think Elements was honest in the JEA bid process, and I hate how they’re handling the PR in the wake of releasing the proposal.  Sending an email out to your good ole boy network just because City Council forms a committee to study a complex transaction, especially after the disasters of the early 2000s with the Shipyards, is wholly inappropriate.  Rummell has a lot of f—�ing nerve.  I want to know the names on that email distribution.

The bold part is the worse part of this whole thing. The lack of transparency really smells. When deals smell, it's usually the taxpayer that ends up getting fleeced.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jaxnyc79 on January 13, 2018, 01:34:01 PM
LOL at that TU editorial. The best way to protect the taxpayer is to let Elements do what they said they were originally going to do. That would have been best for the Shipyards too, even if it would have become more shipping and logistics related, which was the original intended use two decades ago. We would have had a private company creating logistics jobs, the property would have been on the tax rolls and the millions in tax money burned could have went to better use in the heart of the city. Jumping in this deal is simply more of the same. If Elements bit off too much than they can chew, taxpayers shouldn't be assuming the risk to buy the dream that's been sold for this site over the last three or four years.

When I see the online presentation of the District, I do like the attempt to create an urban village that could set a precedent for (or inspire) other urban-village style projects throughout the urban core.  Personally, I like that style for Jax versus randomly-placed big block projects and nothing really tied together to feel communal.

I've learned over the years to not get caught up in conceptual development proposals. Much of the stuff we've been shown with the District and Shipyards is all smoke and mirrors. People assume what's in the pretty pictures will actually be built and built at record speed. In reality, it would take decades for the local market to support what's shown. Throw in economic recessions and changes in the market and probably 80% of what's shown in those conceptual sketches never happens. As for the "urban village", the precedent was set back in the 19th century. It's the downtown Northbank and its street grid. The bones are already there. The design guidelines are already in place. We just have to stick with them for infill, while also enhancing the things we already have.

The Laura Trio, Barnett, 20 West Adams, Hotel Indigo are all much smaller projects. However, they'll have twice as much positive impact on downtown, its vibe and image because they are being built in that original urban pedestrian scale setting.

Quote
Having said that, I don’t think Elements was honest in the JEA bid process, and I hate how they’re handling the PR in the wake of releasing the proposal.  Sending an email out to your good ole boy network just because City Council forms a committee to study a complex transaction, especially after the disasters of the early 2000s with the Shipyards, is wholly inappropriate.  Rummell has a lot of f—�ing nerve.  I want to know the names on that email distribution.

The bold part is the worse part of this whole thing. The lack of transparency really smells. When deals smell, it's usually the taxpayer that ends up getting fleeced.

Question though: we’ve talked about all the property the city owns throughout downtown, and putting that to other uses, perhaps for residential infill.  What would be the structure of a land giveaway to these other uses?  In the case of the Landing, the city leased the property to development use (which is now a disaster of course).  But let’s say the focus of a land giveaway throughout downtown was going to be residential.  Maybe the city wouldn’t just assign title at the outset, but perhaps give out development rights while retaining ownership of the underlying property, and then transferring ownership once the property was satisfactorily developed?
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jaxnyc79 on January 13, 2018, 01:43:29 PM
LOL at that TU editorial. The best way to protect the taxpayer is to let Elements do what they said they were originally going to do. That would have been best for the Shipyards too, even if it would have become more shipping and logistics related, which was the original intended use two decades ago. We would have had a private company creating logistics jobs, the property would have been on the tax rolls and the millions in tax money burned could have went to better use in the heart of the city. Jumping in this deal is simply more of the same. If Elements bit off too much than they can chew, taxpayers shouldn't be assuming the risk to buy the dream that's been sold for this site over the last three or four years.

When I see the online presentation of the District, I do like the attempt to create an urban village that could set a precedent for (or inspire) other urban-village style projects throughout the urban core.  Personally, I like that style for Jax versus randomly-placed big block projects and nothing really tied together to feel communal.

I've learned over the years to not get caught up in conceptual development proposals. Much of the stuff we've been shown with the District and Shipyards is all smoke and mirrors. People assume what's in the pretty pictures will actually be built and built at record speed. In reality, it would take decades for the local market to support what's shown. Throw in economic recessions and changes in the market and probably 80% of what's shown in those conceptual sketches never happens. As for the "urban village", the precedent was set back in the 19th century. It's the downtown Northbank and its street grid. The bones are already there. The design guidelines are already in place. We just have to stick with them for infill, while also enhancing the things we already have.

The Laura Trio, Barnett, 20 West Adams, Hotel Indigo are all much smaller projects. However, they'll have twice as much positive impact on downtown, its vibe and image because they are being built in that original urban pedestrian scale setting.

Quote
Having said that, I don’t think Elements was honest in the JEA bid process, and I hate how they’re handling the PR in the wake of releasing the proposal.  Sending an email out to your good ole boy network just because City Council forms a committee to study a complex transaction, especially after the disasters of the early 2000s with the Shipyards, is wholly inappropriate.  Rummell has a lot of f—�ing nerve.  I want to know the names on that email distribution.

The bold part is the worse part of this whole thing. The lack of transparency really smells. When deals smell, it's usually the taxpayer that ends up getting fleeced.

You make a great point about Shipyards use.  It’s sitting there fenced off and just adds to the perception of a forlorn downtown.  Is it too contaminated for people to even walk on it?  Like could a riverfront festival marketplace under tents take place there, even? 
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on January 13, 2018, 01:57:02 PM
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Development/The-Shipyards/i-sPTdCc3/0/a7ac1839/L/P1510267-L.jpg)

People park there for the Jags games. Every now and then, you'll find a person walking their dog out there. The waterfront is largely fenced off because the bulkhead work that a previous defunct developer was doing is incomplete.

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Development/The-Shipyards/i-MswhCCC/0/69152c6c/L/P1510255-L.jpg)

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Development/The-Shipyards/i-L8LKPZ9/0/72ae4e84/L/P1510241-L.jpg])

Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jaxnyc79 on January 13, 2018, 02:05:45 PM
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Development/The-Shipyards/i-sPTdCc3/0/a7ac1839/L/P1510267-L.jpg)

People park there for the Jags games. Every now and then, you'll find a person walking their dog out there. The waterfront is largely fenced off because the bulkhead work that a previous defunct developer was doing is incomplete.

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Development/The-Shipyards/i-MswhCCC/0/69152c6c/L/P1510255-L.jpg)

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Development/The-Shipyards/i-L8LKPZ9/0/72ae4e84/L/P1510241-L.jpg])


So a version of the Riverside Arts Market here (with tents for shade)?  Is that a crazy idea?
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Tacachale on January 13, 2018, 03:45:45 PM
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Development/The-Shipyards/i-sPTdCc3/0/a7ac1839/L/P1510267-L.jpg)

People park there for the Jags games. Every now and then, you'll find a person walking their dog out there. The waterfront is largely fenced off because the bulkhead work that a previous defunct developer was doing is incomplete.

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Development/The-Shipyards/i-MswhCCC/0/69152c6c/L/P1510255-L.jpg)

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Development/The-Shipyards/i-L8LKPZ9/0/72ae4e84/L/P1510241-L.jpg])


So a version of the Riverside Arts Market here (with tents for shade)?  Is that a crazy idea?

No demand for that and no one to run it.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Tacachale on January 13, 2018, 03:54:42 PM
This isn’t similar to the Shipyards deal. In that deal, the city gave incentive money for the public use portions only. The developer later defrauded the city by kiting that money for other things. They should have paid up a lot more than they did, but the city did get the land in the fallout.

This deal appears to want incentives far beyond what the public use of the development will be. It’s up front about what the money will go to but it’s a huge ask.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Tacachale on January 13, 2018, 03:56:50 PM
Mayor Curry isn’t weighing in until DIA and council vets it. Meaning, he’s going to wait to see what the polls say.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on January 13, 2018, 04:16:24 PM
This isn’t similar to the Shipyards deal. In that deal, the city gave incentive money for the public use portions only. The developer later defrauded the city by kiting that money for other things. They should have paid up a lot more than they did, but the city did get the land in the fallout.

This deal appears to want incentives far beyond what the public use of the development will be. It’s up front about what the money will go to but it’s a huge ask.
The details of the deals are different.  However, they both are similar in that the city got involved when it didn't have too. In the Shipyards example, the worse thing that could have happened by not getting involved is Spence buying that property and using it for industrial use. In this case, the worse thing that could happen is the Elements proposal dies and JEA ends up having someone else pay something less than +18 million for the land. 
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Tacachale on January 13, 2018, 04:40:55 PM
This isn’t similar to the Shipyards deal. In that deal, the city gave incentive money for the public use portions only. The developer later defrauded the city by kiting that money for other things. They should have paid up a lot more than they did, but the city did get the land in the fallout.

This deal appears to want incentives far beyond what the public use of the development will be. It’s up front about what the money will go to but it’s a huge ask.
The details of the deals are different.  However, they both are similar in that the city got involved when it didn't have too. In the Shipyards example, the worse thing that could have happened by not getting involved is Spence buying that property and using it for industrial use. In this case, the worse thing that could happen is the Elements proposal dies and JEA ends up having someone else pay something less than +18 million for the land.

The Spences didn't have the money or the ability to do anything with the site regardless of incentives. Otherwise they wouldn't have stolen the city's money in the mixed use project that did get approved. It would still be sitting there empty in their hands, or sold off (and probably still empty, without incentives). The only difference is that the city wouldn't have the land.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on January 13, 2018, 05:00:53 PM
I was always under the impression the Spences purchased the property to build a warehouse and not a mixed-use development. They've built a few outside of downtown since. It's also not a major negative IMO if the city didn't own the contaminated property, if a warehouse was on it or if it were sold off and sitting empty in private hands. It's situated in the location that lends itself to not being the major redevelopment catalyst that everyone dreams of. If these types of proposals like the District fail to materialize, DT Jax won't suffer.

With that said, it's pretty interesting that the two large tracts of empty waterfront in DT are the two parcels owned by COJ and JEA, where we've been dreaming for 20 years for luxury condos and uses. Even Commodores Point, is a major economic plus with North Florida Shipyards and the other industrial uses paying property taxes and higher wages to their employees. It's not always a negative to not put the public at risk by dealing with entities to do projects they may not have the capacity to pull off.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: MusicMan on January 14, 2018, 10:44:47 AM
"With that said, it's pretty interesting that the two large tracts of empty waterfront in DT are the two parcels owned by COJ and JEA, where we've been dreaming for 20 years for luxury condos and uses. Even Commodores Point, is a major economic plus with North Florida Shipyards and the other industrial uses paying property taxes and higher wages to their employees. It's not always a negative to not put the public at risk by dealing with entities to do projects they may not have the capacity to pull off."

Agreed.

At this point Rummell has delayed the deal he agreed to beyond any reasonable expectation. Either he closes with the $18 million and then the city does what it has implied it will do, or move on. 

It is completely beyond my comprehension that this could go any further down the road with Elements not closing on a 3 year old deal.
The market has improved pretty dramatically since he signed. Imagine if you could agree to purchase a house in Riverside/Avondale/Springfield or San Marco 3 years ago, delay for 3 years, then expect to close on the price you negotiated 3 years ago. No Seller would agree to that.  If Rummell doesn't think it's worth the money, then he can find another parcel to develop.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: MusicMan on January 14, 2018, 09:11:59 PM
I have been going back through the public record of reporting on this debacle through the Business Journal and it is more and more a Twilight Zone story. Literally everything the developers said was BS. As if they knew they could string this out until the City decided to pay for it.  SAD.

From Dec 2015............

"They built the Empire State Building in 13 months. They were designing it as they were building it," Balanky said. "It's in our economic interest to build this development as quickly as possible."

"Elements did lose some points for the amount of time the developers said they would need to bring the project to closing: They requested 365 days of due diligence to review the property and 90 days to close, while RocaPoint Partners requested 60 days of due diligence with 30 days to close on the property.

"Time is money and we need to consider that," JEA board Chairman Mike Hightower said. "But the gentlemen at Elements want to get it right for the citizens of Jacksonville."

"Despite the 15 months the developers requested for due diligence and closing, they don't necessarily expect it to take that long, they said."

Checking my calculator we are over 1000 days into the process................. And now they have COJ paying for the land.




Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Elwood on January 16, 2018, 01:41:50 PM
https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/jacksonville/jea-balks-at-selling-the-district-land-to-city-will-sell-to-developer-instead
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on January 16, 2018, 02:05:49 PM
Good, that's for the best.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: TimmyB on January 16, 2018, 02:35:12 PM
This gets even more ridiculous.  According to the JBJ, Elements asked JEA to scrap that idea because it was "too complicated"!  Are you kidding me?  At the last minute, you try to cram something down everyone's throat, then go on the offensive and call council members out, as though THEY are standing in the way of "progress", and now you say "just kidding"?  Oh, and by the way, we need until July 18th.  Good grief.

Elements partner Michael Munz requested that plan be scrapped at the JEA board meeting Tuesday afternoon.

He said the transaction had become complicated with all the moving pieces and proposed JEA continue with a proposal that would see Elements purchase the property for $18.5 million by July 16.

“It became, as we went through this, putting all the legal parts together, more complicated than it should be,” he said after the meeting.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: marcuscnelson on January 16, 2018, 04:51:49 PM
This gets even more ridiculous.  According to the JBJ, Elements asked JEA to scrap that idea because it was "too complicated"!  Are you kidding me?  At the last minute, you try to cram something down everyone's throat, then go on the offensive and call council members out, as though THEY are standing in the way of "progress", and now you say "just kidding"?  Oh, and by the way, we need until July 18th.  Good grief.

Elements partner Michael Munz requested that plan be scrapped at the JEA board meeting Tuesday afternoon.

He said the transaction had become complicated with all the moving pieces and proposed JEA continue with a proposal that would see Elements purchase the property for $18.5 million by July 16.

“It became, as we went through this, putting all the legal parts together, more complicated than it should be,” he said after the meeting.


Alright, then.

They've given us a date. DIA and City Council should hold them to it. If the sun rises on July 17th and JEA still owns that property, dump Elements and ask for new offers, because at that point they're obviously not committed to going ahead with this project.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: MusicMan on January 16, 2018, 05:25:47 PM
Can we get a "Proof of Funds" from these jackasses please?

"Too complicated from all the moving pieces?"  The bozos are the ones moving all the pieces around, no one else.

I noted when they asked for this latest extension that there was no way it would happen as they stated it would. Lo and behold, they did not get it done and are asking for YET ANOTHER EXTENSION.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jaxlongtimer on January 16, 2018, 10:46:14 PM
Can we get a "Proof of Funds" from these jackasses please?

Great point!  Most Realtors won't waste time with potential buyers without first seeing that they can finance/close on what they are looking for.  Not at all unusual to require proof you can perform before bidding on a deal.  That should include proven experience and references.  Who wants to waste time with unqualified buyers.  This process should never have gotten to this point but, like Khan's deal, the #1 qualification is your political connections.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on January 16, 2018, 11:16:35 PM
Can we get a "Proof of Funds" from these jackasses please?

Great point!  Most Realtors won't waste time with potential buyers without first seeing that they can finance/close on what they are looking for.  Not at all unusual to require proof you can perform before bidding on a deal.  That should include proven experience and references.  Who wants to waste time with unqualified buyers.

Proven experience? References? If you know anything about Peter Rummell's accomplishments over the last 40 years, this statement is patently absurd. The man has developed half the state. He's the former CEO of the the largest landholder in Florida, St. Joe Company. He was a Chairman at Disney, and developed all of Celebration. And despite having four decades of success elsewhere, the guy is Jacksonville through-and-through. He founded, and funded, One Spark. He co-chaired the committee that brought Super Bowl 39 to Jacksonville.

Disagree all you want with the details of the project, but to suggest that perhaps the most proven developer in the city, if not one of the most proven developers in the state, needs to submit references? Really?
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: vicupstate on January 16, 2018, 11:19:52 PM
He doesn't work for either of those companies now does he?  He has expertise and knowledge, but does he have the half a billion needed to build it?
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jaxlongtimer on January 17, 2018, 12:17:28 AM
Can we get a "Proof of Funds" from these jackasses please?

Great point!  Most Realtors won't waste time with potential buyers without first seeing that they can finance/close on what they are looking for.  Not at all unusual to require proof you can perform before bidding on a deal.  That should include proven experience and references.  Who wants to waste time with unqualified buyers.

Proven experience? References? If you know anything about Peter Rummell's accomplishments over the last 40 years, this statement is patently absurd. The man has developed half the state. He's the former CEO of the the largest landholder in Florida, St. Joe Company. He was a Chairman at Disney, and developed all of Celebration. And despite having four decades of success elsewhere, the guy is Jacksonville through-and-through. He founded, and funded, One Spark. He co-chaired the committee that brought Super Bowl 39 to Jacksonville.

Disagree all you want with the details of the project, but to suggest that perhaps the most proven developer in the city, if not one of the most proven developers in the state, needs to submit references? Really?

Well, if you follow St. Joe, check out how, even though it started with about 1,000,000 acres of Florida land (mostly bought during the depression by Ed Ball for as little as $1/acre) and 60 miles of Gulf of Mexico waterfront, it ended up as a troubled company whose stock, per Yahoo Finance was on a downhill swing when Rummell left it and has tread water ever since.  How do you blow Rivertown sitting on miles of some of the prettiest land in the state along the St. John's river?  How does that happen when you have these lands on the books for almost nothing?  It sure doesn't take a genius to make money starting out with such opportunities but it takes special management to blow it.

Disney is not much different.  Cheap land purchases and Disney's name and unlimited resources are like the keys to Ft. Knox.  I've been to Celebration and am not impressed.  And, check out some of its reviews over the years with comments like this:
Quote
Other issues dogged Celebration as the years wore on, too. It emerged that the builders who had constructed the homes had been under-qualified and over-rushed, and nearly all of the buildings had problems within a few years.
https://gizmodo.com/celebration-florida-the-utopian-town-that-america-jus-1564479405 (https://gizmodo.com/celebration-florida-the-utopian-town-that-america-jus-1564479405)

By the way, this is Rummell on his own, not with existing hundreds of millions or billions of others' dollars placed in his hands.  I am not saying he isn't smart or experienced, but he is playing with a whole different context here.  How many "District" type developments has he led with his own capital on the line and not having a "cast of supporting thousands" and "deep pockets" on board from day one?  Lastly, development is a risky business not for the feint of heart.  If you are selling land, it is because you are transferring its development risk to the buyer.  As such, you should be assured you can close your deal and get paid because no one is immune to failure.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: marcuscnelson on January 17, 2018, 03:14:41 AM

Proven experience? References? If you know anything about Peter Rummell's accomplishments over the last 40 years, this statement is patently absurd. The man has developed half the state. He's the former CEO of the the largest landholder in Florida, St. Joe Company. He was a Chairman at Disney, and developed all of Celebration. And despite having four decades of success elsewhere, the guy is Jacksonville through-and-through. He founded, and funded, One Spark. He co-chaired the committee that brought Super Bowl 39 to Jacksonville.

Disagree all you want with the details of the project, but to suggest that perhaps the most proven developer in the city, if not one of the most proven developers in the state, needs to submit references? Really?

Is that really that impressive though? Like jaxlongtimer said, most of those were using other people's money and managing to not screw things up. Disney has enough oversight to prevent everything imploding, Celebration seems to have issues and Disney's mostly separated itself at this point, He bungled Rivertown until Mattamy bought it, and the company he ran to do it is apparently not doing great, OneSpark basically collapsed until Bold Events bailed it out, and now he's wasted three years of valuable development time on The District with nothing to show for it.

If we'd given it to RocaPoint three years ago, maybe there'd at least be shovels in the ground. Sure, the development would be less interesting, but it'd be on the tax rolls and have the potential to improve, versus the same plot of grass from three years ago.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: MusicMan on January 17, 2018, 08:32:40 AM
I agree that he has done impressive things. However, if you read the e mail he sent out when he found out about a panel being created to review the new financial arrangements for the 3 year old deal HE had not been able to close on, it read like a spoiled child being asked for homework.  Not like an experienced CEO who understood why a Buyer or partner in a deal might want to see things more thoroughly explained or fleshed out.   That e mail was/is in my opinion a very telling document.

P.S. You can find that e mail in a related thread on MJ somewhere.

One of the best things to come out of this debacle is that, reading the message boards here and on the JBJ, and the TU, there is nearly 100% agreement that this rearrangement of financing at the last minute is horse manure. People got a nice whiff of it and stayed away. Hooray for Jax!
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: heights unknown on January 17, 2018, 10:54:49 PM
That's more like it; now let's move forward with this project and quit tap dancing.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on March 15, 2018, 12:10:18 PM
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/rummell-the-district-could-land-major-hq
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: vicupstate on March 15, 2018, 12:35:23 PM
JEA would be my guess. Assuming they aren't sold.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on March 15, 2018, 01:43:50 PM
JEA would be my guess. Assuming they aren't sold.

I'd say yes, but the quote suggests a local company who isn't currently downtown:

Quote
“We’re working right now with a major office user who will bring their headquarters Downtown.”
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: MusicMan on March 15, 2018, 03:56:33 PM
From the article:


Before starting the development, Rummell and partner Michael Munz need to complete financing, buy the land and earn Downtown Investment Authority and City Council approval."

Sorta confused here, thought they had approval from DIA and City Council. 

Count me in the "still skeptical" group in regards to this 'project.'   Looking for financing 4 years after being awarded the development rights?
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Bativac on March 15, 2018, 07:50:38 PM
From the article:


Before starting the development, Rummell and partner Michael Munz need to complete financing, buy the land and earn Downtown Investment Authority and City Council approval."

Sorta confused here, thought they had approval from DIA and City Council. 

Count me in the "still skeptical" group in regards to this 'project.'   Looking for financing 4 years after being awarded the development rights?

Yeah. It reads like another press release. I would not hold my breath on this one.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: edjax on March 15, 2018, 08:40:34 PM
With regard to potential HQ moving there, perhaps Acosta?
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on March 22, 2018, 05:20:07 PM
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/03/22/developer-of-solar-powered-town-selected-to-lead.html
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jagsonville on March 22, 2018, 05:50:39 PM
Sounds promising... don’t think Rummel had deep enough pockets to pull of the financing by himself. Hopefully this will end up like the Barnett where someone with a good idea but lack of financing found a deep pocketed partner to pull off a project.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: MusicMan on March 23, 2018, 09:19:27 AM
Babcock Ranch?  Never heard of it. And I go to SW Florida a couple times a year for work.

How about a moratorium on this thread until Rummel closes on the real estate? 

We are now 1000 days (can that be correct?) since he was awarded the rights to develop this property.

And the truth is we still don't know if he will close. At this point all the questions should be answered.


From the article:

"The Michael Munz and Peter Rummell mixed-use development on the Southbank could soon be in front of city planners."

Can someone tell me what this means? 
If he does not close I wonder if RocaPointe is still interested?
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: CityLife on March 23, 2018, 09:44:44 AM
^You haven't heard of it, because it is just getting started. People in the development industry in Florida are well aware of it. Huge and very important project.

Syd Kitson is a well regarded guy in Florida and so is his firm. I don't believe they have much of a track record with vertical urban/downtown type projects, but that doesn't mean they can't pull it off. There are national firms that would be more of a slam dunk, but this is still a very positive step from Rummell's team.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: MusicMan on March 23, 2018, 09:51:30 AM
"...a very positive step from Rummel's team..."

His team of 2?   This is the most screwed up POS real estate deal in the history of a town littered with screwed up real estate deals.

Why not give Rummel 1000 more days?  I guess it will be 1000 more (if he closes this summer) before anything is finished over there....
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: heights unknown on March 23, 2018, 09:57:08 AM
"...a very positive step from Rummel's team..."

His team of 2?   This is the most screwed up POS real estate deal in the history of a town littered with screwed up real estate deals.

Why not give Rummel 1000 more days?  I guess it will be 1000 more (if he closes this summer) before anything is finished over there....
LOL. Music Man I like you. My thoughts and sentiments exactly. In my opinion here is another one we shouldn't be wasting our time with pondering over whether to give out precious funds; not that the track record is not there, but already they are showing a lack of irresponsibility and non-initiative in getting this project off the ground. Things take too long as it is to get constructed and finished in this city.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on March 23, 2018, 10:08:08 AM
Babcock Ranch?  Never heard of it. And I go to SW Florida a couple times a year for work.

I'm from Fort Myers.

It's a pretty big deal.

It's one of the most ambitious, meticulously planned developments you'll find anywhere.

Not necessarily analogous with the District in terms of development type, but in terms of philosophy, it seems like a great fit.

With Kitson & Partners leading development, I wouldn't expect a sprint toward construction, but I'm positive it'll be really well thought out.

Here's some more info:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-03-23/this-florida-city-is-100-solar-powered

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/babcock-ranch-aims-be-america-s-greenest-city-inspiration-ncna854076

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/how-to-build-a-self-driving-solar-powered-telehealth-stem-educated-town/

https://www.thestar.com/life/travel/2018/03/02/floridas-babcock-ranch-is-a-planned-community-that-really-runs-on-sunshine.html

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/37695664/babcock-ranch-holds-grand-opening

https://www.coastalliving.com/homes/babcock-ranch-solar-town-florida

https://fortmyers.floridaweekly.com/articles/babcocks-charter-school-system-is-growing-quickly/

Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: fieldafm on March 23, 2018, 10:25:41 AM
Quote
I don't believe they have much of a track record with vertical urban/downtown type projects

That is correct. Kitson is mainly a developer of suburban retail centers and golf-course/country club developments... the Solar City concept is a pivot from the company's typical wheelhouse.


Quote
"The Michael Munz and Peter Rummell mixed-use development on the Southbank could soon be in front of city planners."

Can someone tell me what this means? 

A development agreement along with the necessary entitlements still need completion/approval from the DIA/City.. which would include infrastructure agreements (like water/sewer/utilities/roadways/sidewalks/etc).  A project like this would have been a DRI, until Governor Scott got rid of those awhile back.  If I am not mistaken, there was a DRI done on this site from the previous development proposal from the 2004/2005 timeframe. Pretty sure they are using that previous DRI as a template for the new entitlement, but I could be wrong as I obviously don't work for/on this project.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: MusicMan on March 23, 2018, 10:33:31 AM
Sounds like a cool project.

Can they handle 2 MASSIVE projects at the same time, at 2 different ends of the state? (After review it looks like BR is mostly complete)



Rummel has played the JEA Board and the JAX citizenry hungry for SOMETHING on that parcel like a Stradivarius.

If you go back and read the quotes from the past 3+ years it's a comedy of errors (and omissions)  from Rummel's "team."

I am just tired of the talk...........  Isn't everybody else?

Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: tufsu1 on March 23, 2018, 10:45:00 AM
^ Babcock Ranch is nowhere near mostly complete - it pretty much just opened

and yes, I am very tired of the talk on this project - have very little confidence in Rummel/Munz to pull this off
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jagsonville on March 26, 2018, 12:23:31 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/Davidcawton/status/978303752976379904

Update from jax daily record reporter
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Steve on March 26, 2018, 02:04:55 PM
I'm more okay if the funds are going to infrastructure (water/sewer, roads, electrical, etc.). CDDs certainly aren't uncommon. I'm not as familiar with the REV grants though as that's the critical piece (The payback).
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Steve on March 26, 2018, 02:06:36 PM
David Cawton's twitter has more info. This seems to be making more sense now, but still not sure as I'd like to see the full report and read it.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on March 26, 2018, 03:31:40 PM
David Cawton's twitter has more info. This seems to be making more sense now, but still not sure as I'd like to see the full report and read it.

I think most of what he reported was a bit off, actually.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jagsonville on March 26, 2018, 04:09:35 PM
http://www.jacksonville.com/news/20180326/new-deal-for-district-has-56-million-in-property-tax-rebates

Another updates. Looks like they are being a bit more specific about the project. 725 apartments, 200 condos, 25 townhomes, etc.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on March 26, 2018, 04:25:05 PM
Here's my understanding of the new framework, based on the JBJ and T-U's reporting today:

1) Elements buys the land outright from JEA, at the $18.5 million originally agreed upon.

2) The city loans the DIA $26.4 million to spend on infrastructure for the project, specifically to develop parkland (a riverfront park up to 5 acres, a seperate park, a walking trail around the development), a half-mile extension of the riverwalk, roads, public parking, etc. Ownership of the public spaces would be transferred to the city. The DIA will pay the city back over the next 20 years, exclusively using revenue from the Southside TID.

3) A Community Development District is established for the project, with $30 million in bonds being issued to jumpstart development. Elements has a financial backer on board ready to put down the $30 million (the backer hasn't been identified, but has been in talks with Aundra Wallace for the last week or two).

4) The District would pay back the $30 million in bonds over the next 22 years, via a a 22-year REV grant from the DIA.

5) No clue if it's binding, but per the timetable given to the City Council, the entire project - 725 apartments, 147 hotel rooms, 200 condominiums, 25 townhomes, 125 marina slips, plus 134,600 square feet of retail space and 200,000 square feet of office space - would be built-out by 2022.

The City Council would need to agree to the loan to the DIA, and because the REV grant exceeds 15 years, the council would also need to sign off on that too.

Aside from the CDD aspect, and the switch back to Elements purchasing the property outright, I think the biggest difference I've seen here is the post-purchase transfer of ownership of the riverfront greenspace (4-5 acres) back to the city.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: marcuscnelson on March 26, 2018, 05:40:12 PM
Here's my understanding of the new framework, based on the JBJ and T-U's reporting today:

1) Elements buys the land outright from JEA, at the $18.5 million originally agreed upon.

2) The city loans the DIA $26.4 million to spend on infrastructure for the project, specifically to develop parkland (a riverfront park up to 5 acres, a seperate park, a walking trail around the development), a half-mile extension of the riverwalk, roads, public parking, etc. Ownership of the public spaces would be transferred to the city. The DIA will pay the city back over the next 20 years, exclusively using revenue from the Southside TID.

3) A Community Development District is established for the project, with $30 million in bonds being issued to jumpstart development. Elements has a financial backer on board ready to put down the $30 million (the backer hasn't been identified, but has been in talks with Aundra Wallace for the last week or two).

4) The District would pay back the $30 million in bonds over the next 22 years, via a a 22-year REV grant from the DIA.

5) No clue if it's binding, but per the timetable given to the City Council, the entire project - 725 apartments, 147 hotel rooms, 200 condominiums, 25 townhomes, 125 marina slips, plus 134,600 square feet of retail space and 200,000 square feet of office space - would be built-out by 2022.

The City Council would need to agree to the loan to the DIA, and because the REV grant exceeds 15 years, the council would also need to sign off on that too.

Aside from the CDD aspect, and the switch back to Elements purchasing the property outright, I think the biggest difference I've seen here is the post-purchase transfer of ownership of the riverfront greenspace (4-5 acres) back to the city.

Wow, so this… this could actually happen.

But do they really think they'll have everything built out within 4 years? That doesn't sound very doable, unless they start, like, tomorrow.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: TimmyB on March 26, 2018, 05:46:45 PM

Wow, so this… this could actually happen.

But do they really think they'll have everything built out within 4 years? That doesn't sound very doable, unless they start, like, tomorrow.

This will all be in the press release on Sunday, if you follow my drift.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on March 26, 2018, 07:17:40 PM
Sounds like Lori Boyer is a pretty big proponent of the new framework.

From the T-U:

Quote
Boyer said that “puts the burden” on the developer to fully build out The District in order to get the full amount of REV grants.

The city would focus its spending on projects that the public can use. The $26.4 million budget for the city’s portion of the work would mainly go toward construction of a riverfront bulkhead, extending the Southbank Riverwalk, building a boardwalk and a paved trail around the edge of the property, and creating a riverfront park and “pocket parks” on the site. The city would get the land for the parks at no cost.

Boyer said even if The District never builds anything, the city still would have the benefit of increasing public access to the St. Johns River with the parks and a longer riverwalk. The city also would extend Prudential Drive and Broadcast Place into the development site, and construct Riverside Drive along the area where the riverfront parks would go.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on March 26, 2018, 07:45:00 PM
P.S. So we know that the state budget has $10 million set aside for demolition of the section of the Hart Bridge ramps between the stadium and Met Park. We also know that as soon as that ramp comes down, Shad Khan wants to develop Met Park. And we also know that in order to do so, because federal grant money was used to build Met Park, the city would need to execute an in-kind land swap and build a park elsewhere.

If the proposed framework for the District is approved, resulting in the city owning five acres of riverfront parkspace on the Southbank, with additional pocket parks and trails surrounding it, there's your land swap, right? Clearing way for further development on the river in front of the stadium. Ideally, we'll have an amazing parkspace in a future Shipyards development, but in terms of satisfying the swap on paper, and clearing that hurdle for immediate remediation and development of the Met Park space, this could be a side benefit that I haven't seen anyone mention yet.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on March 26, 2018, 07:51:29 PM
Met Park is way bigger than five acres. A land swap for it is most likely taking place within the Shipyards site.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on March 26, 2018, 08:58:23 PM
Met Park is way bigger than five acres. A land swap for it is most likely taking place within the Shipyards site.

Current Met Park, for sure, but wasn't original Met Park (phase one), which was built using the federal grant, much, much smaller? Like under 10 acres?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but pure acreage is only one variable considered when weighing the merits of a land swap. Appraised value is equally important. As is age/obsolescence. Five acres of clean waterfront land might not carry that much different a value than a dead park on 20 acres of contaminated land, bounded by highway and shared with a TV station.

Love the Shipyards park floated by Khan, particularly with the USS Adams integration, it has to happen, and to me, it's the absolute ideal location for an urban riverfront park to bridge the CBD and the Sports district, but it's realistically years off by the time that the Hart ramps are fully demolished and the Shipyards is fully remediated. The existing Met Park site, conversely, might be less than two years from being shovel ready, depending on how quickly the ramp comes down and the Met Park land is cleaned up.

If the arctic pace of Shipyards remediation is holding up a land-swap that will allow Met Park redevelopment to begin, might be worth at least thinking about whether all of this new combined greenspace the city is potentially bankrolling and owning would qualify for the swap. Might move along redevelopment of that site more quickly and get the pure financial liability of a future swap off the books.


Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on March 26, 2018, 10:32:58 PM
Metropolitan Park is 32 acres. I have to go back and check but I don't believe the original park was smaller than 10 acres. Also from my understanding, it makes sense to turn a portion of the Shipyards into green space because of the contamination issue. Also, the green space proposed for the District was always a part of the plan. Maybe time will prove me wrong but at this point, I don't see a strong link between Metro Park and what's proposed at the District.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Shirt Tail Johnson on March 27, 2018, 10:47:17 AM
The original plan was $433M in costs, but it looks like this plan is is calling for a reduction of 25% or so, so we can only estimate the new cost will be 325M give or take a few mill.  The 56M that the city is kicking in property taxes and 26M in infastructure improvements represents about 82M which is approximately 25% equity stake in the deal.  Take out the 26M and leave the tax rebates its a 17% equity stake. Not bad  a bad deal for the developer.  If i were a betting man, My guess is Rummell and Co are will have less than that "in the deal" once completed. 
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on March 27, 2018, 11:02:24 AM
If Shirt Tail is correct, sounds like this year's Christmas gifts will be provided by the Rummell household!
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on March 27, 2018, 11:13:09 AM
A little more granular detail from the Daily Record:

Quote
First, the DIA would fund $26.4 million in public infrastructure.

The DIA would build three riverfront parks totaling 3.5 acres, another 1-acre pocket park, a 1,900-foot expansion of the Southbank Riverwalk and bulkhead construction, a walking trail around the development, a parking lot for 100 public spaces and the expansion of three roads for public access.

While Elements plans to buy the property from JEA, it would need to convey the land marked for public use to the city – free of any loans or other encumbrances – before it could begin development.

Wallace said the DIA has $5 million allocated for public infrastructure costs set aside for the project and about $4 million more earmarked over the next two fiscal years.

Wallace said Mayor Lenny Curry’s administration advised him the city would provide a loan to the DIA to make up the difference, about $16 million to $20 million, at an interest rate of 2.66 percent over 20 years. That would need council approval.

“Under this scenario, we can afford to do The District and other projects as well,” said Wallace in response to a question from council member Tommy Hazouri.

Wallace said the loan would be repaid from tax revenue generated in the Southside Tax Increment Financing District, which encompasses part of the Downtown Southbank.

He said the fund has enough cash to cover the loan obligation and assist other projects on the Southbank during that time.

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/dollar26-4m-deal-for-the-district
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Steve on March 27, 2018, 12:43:09 PM
I'd like to know if the $26.4M is for this, and only this:

"The DIA would build three riverfront parks totaling 3.5 acres, another 1-acre pocket park, a 1,900-foot expansion of the Southbank Riverwalk and bulkhead construction, a walking trail around the development, a parking lot for 100 public spaces and the expansion of three roads for public access."

If so, no issue with that part of it. I do think the City should be on the hook for these items. Save for the "walking trail around the development" and the "1-acre pocket park" which is probably a small percentage anyway, the rest of the items could legitimately be used by anyone in the city.

(I find it unlikely that someone would make their way over there to enjoy a small pocket part or a walking trail around the place).
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: JBTripper on March 27, 2018, 03:50:03 PM
I believe the walking path around the development will be part of a shared-use path through San Marco, the Southbank, and connecting with Riverside across the Fuller-Warren. It certainly can and will be used by anyone in the city.

(https://media.news4jax.com/photo/2017/06/20/Riverwalk-expansion_1497987225669_9978885_ver1.0.jpg)
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on March 27, 2018, 05:08:40 PM
Yes, it's intended to be a part of the loop CW Boyer has been working on over the last few years.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jaxnyc79 on March 27, 2018, 06:14:07 PM
Here's my understanding of the new framework, based on the JBJ and T-U's reporting today:

1) Elements buys the land outright from JEA, at the $18.5 million originally agreed upon.

2) The city loans the DIA $26.4 million to spend on infrastructure for the project, specifically to develop parkland (a riverfront park up to 5 acres, a seperate park, a walking trail around the development), a half-mile extension of the riverwalk, roads, public parking, etc. Ownership of the public spaces would be transferred to the city. The DIA will pay the city back over the next 20 years, exclusively using revenue from the Southside TID.

3) A Community Development District is established for the project, with $30 million in bonds being issued to jumpstart development. Elements has a financial backer on board ready to put down the $30 million (the backer hasn't been identified, but has been in talks with Aundra Wallace for the last week or two).

4) The District would pay back the $30 million in bonds over the next 22 years, via a a 22-year REV grant from the DIA.

5) No clue if it's binding, but per the timetable given to the City Council, the entire project - 725 apartments, 147 hotel rooms, 200 condominiums, 25 townhomes, 125 marina slips, plus 134,600 square feet of retail space and 200,000 square feet of office space - would be built-out by 2022.

The City Council would need to agree to the loan to the DIA, and because the REV grant exceeds 15 years, the council would also need to sign off on that too.

Aside from the CDD aspect, and the switch back to Elements purchasing the property outright, I think the biggest difference I've seen here is the post-purchase transfer of ownership of the riverfront greenspace (4-5 acres) back to the city.

I love governmental fund accounting: "The City lends money to the DIA:)"  I mean, the DIA is essentially the City, no?  So how about, the City is spending 26.4 million on infrastructure, and expects a return on investment in the form of private property on the tax rolls yielding tax revenue.

I do agree with the City building urban infrastructure (including public waterfront space) on this plot of land, however, because the city should be in the business of building and upgrading infrastructure for the direct benefit of the city residents at large.  Frankly, this new infrastructure should be built in such a way that the it outlasts this entity called the Elements. 

Personally, I don't think the Elements will actually get this project done.  Given the time spent already, and the PR mess in December, I think these guys are above their skis.  But brand new infrastructure on a vast waterfront dirt patch should make this said dirt patch an  attractive piece of urban real estate to some developer somewhere out there.

Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on March 27, 2018, 06:23:49 PM
I think the market and economy will stop full build-out from happening by 2022. However, Elements will turn out fine. Most of the risky proforma budget blowing factors are being eliminated or greatly diminished. Elements sounds more like a master developer or land flipper to me.  Seems like other entities will come in and pay Elements for parcels to build their own financed projects on them.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jaxnyc79 on March 27, 2018, 07:11:19 PM
I think the market and economy will stop full build-out from happening by 2022. However, Elements will turn out fine. Most of the risky proforma budget blowing factors are being eliminated or greatly diminished. Elements sounds more like a master developer or land flipper to me.  Seems like other entities will come in and pay Elements for parcels to build their own financed projects on them.

Let's wager a bit.  My prediction: Infrastructure gets built, then Elements fizzles/fades, and someone else brought in to get the hotel built.  Economic slowdown or real estate tapering puts everything on pause and then who knows.  Win-win for me.  If I'm right, I can celebrate being right.  If I'm wrong, that's good for downtown:). 
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Steve on March 28, 2018, 09:38:55 AM
I believe the walking path around the development will be part of a shared-use path through San Marco, the Southbank, and connecting with Riverside across the Fuller-Warren. It certainly can and will be used by anyone in the city.

(https://media.news4jax.com/photo/2017/06/20/Riverwalk-expansion_1497987225669_9978885_ver1.0.jpg)

Then I agree - no issue spending tax dollars on this as then that is truly something everyone can use. I didn't connect the dots.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Steve on March 28, 2018, 09:41:00 AM
I think the market and economy will stop full build-out from happening by 2022. However, Elements will turn out fine. Most of the risky proforma budget blowing factors are being eliminated or greatly diminished. Elements sounds more like a master developer or land flipper to me.  Seems like other entities will come in and pay Elements for parcels to build their own financed projects on them.

I agree - I have no issue with the city funding infrastructure - lord knows we do it for master planned communities on the southside every day.

What skin does Elements have in the game besides Rummel and Munz's name?
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Steve on March 28, 2018, 09:43:52 AM
And.....now this:

Quote
Jacksonville businessmen Michael Munz and Peter Rummell’s names appeared Saturday in a full-page paid advertisement in The Wall Street Journal calling on lawmakers to support a package of gun law reforms.

Americans for Gun Safety Now! paid for the advertisement featuring the names of 21 individuals, including lawmakers, government officials, business leaders and professional athletes.

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/munz-rummell-appear-in-ad-backing-new-gun-laws

I'm definitely not trying to start a gun debate here and yes, Rummell and Munz are free to do what they wish. With that said, what amazing timing - jump into a divisive issue like gun control when trying to get many millions out of a city government.....wow.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on March 28, 2018, 02:51:26 PM
^Some issues are more important than apartments and hotels.

Hats off to anyone willing to risk a business opportunity to stand up for what they believe in.

Feel the same way about Shad Khan, who is in a similar position of seeking public incentives from the city for the Shipyards, yet is still willing to take a strong stand on important social issues.

I'll take a strong, reasoned opinion (in either direction) ten times out of ten over something like Curry refusing to take any stance at all, or even sign, the HRO.

If our local politicians are willing to veto funds for new development in our city because they can't handle the developer holding the opinion that a person should have to be 21 years old and pass a rigorous background check to purchase a deadly weapon, or that bump stocks and armor-piercing bullets shouldn't be on the streets, then Jacksonville deserves to remain a backwards city.

For a city that's long been controlled by the churches and socially conservative to a fault, I'm glad to see some diversity of opinion finally start to emerge, particularly from the business community, in the last decade.

 
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: MusicMan on March 28, 2018, 04:40:45 PM
AMEN!
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: JBTripper on March 29, 2018, 02:06:29 PM
So, what is the consensus around here now? Are we on board with public incentives, as long as they are used for parks and infrastructure?
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Steve on March 29, 2018, 03:24:58 PM
^Some issues are more important than apartments and hotels.

Hats off to anyone willing to risk a business opportunity to stand up for what they believe in.

Feel the same way about Shad Khan, who is in a similar position of seeking public incentives from the city for the Shipyards, yet is still willing to take a strong stand on important social issues.

I'll take a strong, reasoned opinion (in either direction) ten times out of ten over something like Curry refusing to take any stance at all, or even sign, the HRO.

If our local politicians are willing to veto funds for new development in our city because they can't handle the developer holding the opinion that a person should have to be 21 years old and pass a rigorous background check to purchase a deadly weapon, or that bump stocks and armor-piercing bullets shouldn't be on the streets, then Jacksonville deserves to remain a backwards city.

For a city that's long been controlled by the churches and socially conservative to a fault, I'm glad to see some diversity of opinion finally start to emerge, particularly from the business community, in the last decade.

 


That wasn't my point. My point is Jacksonville is a fairly split between Republican and Democrat (evidence being the last few Presidential elections. Regardless of whether or not I agree with his statement (or for that matter, the importance of the national debate), it seems like an odd choice to make a comment that likely, at best, 35% of the public won't agree with when you're trying to persuade a City Council to get land to develop at next to zero risk.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on April 11, 2018, 06:03:32 AM
Showtime (again) for The District

Quote
Can Jacksonville pull it off? That’s the question Downtown Investment Authority CEO Aundra Wallace hears from his counterparts in other cities when they react to the huge planned development called The District.

If actually built on the Southbank as proposed, The District would be larger than anything ever done in downtown Jacksonville with 950 residences, 147 hotel rooms, 134,600 square feet of retail space, 200,000 square feet of office space and a 125-slip marina.

The first attempt to pull together a development agreement disintegrated in January amid criticism about the city stepping in to buy the 30-acre tract as part of its financial support for the deal with Elements of Jacksonville, LLC.

The second attempt will officially start Wednesday when the Downtown Investment Authority board is scheduled to vote on terms that would stake the city to spending as much as $26.4 million for investments on public areas at the site. The financial framework also would enable the developer to get up to $56 million in property tax rebates over a 20-year period.

http://www.jacksonville.com/news/20180406/showtime-again-for-district
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on April 11, 2018, 01:58:56 PM
^Was just unanimously approved by the DIA (8-0).

Will move to City Council for a vote.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: MusicMan on April 11, 2018, 02:23:54 PM
"$56 million in tax rebates to the developer."

How 'bout the rest of us?
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Steve on April 11, 2018, 02:36:16 PM
"$56 million in tax rebates to the developer."

How 'bout the rest of us?

lol, right?

Here's my thing: I don't love this package, but I'm better with this than the first one...in concept. I don't have fundamental issue with the city funding infrastructure, like roads, power/water, riverwalk, parks, etc. That's $26M

The rest is tied to what actually gets built. In other words, to receive all $56M thy have to build the entire thing (meaning all of the pretty pictures we've seen). That's my understanding, and I'm skeptical it happens.

Now, my question is...do they actually close on the properly by July 18th?
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: sanmarcomatt on April 11, 2018, 03:38:22 PM
"$56 million in tax rebates to the developer."

How 'bout the rest of us?

You have some nerve looking for tax rebates. I've been reading for a decade on MJ that we pay far too little in taxes.Apparently, my quality of life sucks because of it.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Kiva on April 11, 2018, 04:16:55 PM


The rest is tied to what actually gets built. In other words, to receive all $56M they have to build the entire thing (meaning all of the pretty pictures we've seen).
Does anyone here know if that is correct? If only some of it is built the tax loss to the city is less?
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: sanmarcomatt on April 11, 2018, 05:01:10 PM


The rest is tied to what actually gets built. In other words, to receive all $56M they have to build the entire thing (meaning all of the pretty pictures we've seen).
Does anyone here know if that is correct? If only some of it is built the tax loss to the city is less?

The rebates will be based upon the taxes actually paid to the city so the thought is that if less gets built, the taxable value will be less, thus fewer taxes are actually paid, so less rebates.
Of course, we are talking about a department where a major initiative of last year was to get a handle on the homestead exemption and actually do something about the millions being lost....after..what..decades?
 I  put the odds of millions of dollars being handled competently and without any questionable practices at about ....zero. point.zero(in my best Dean Wormer voice)
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on April 11, 2018, 06:56:36 PM
Anticipated project timeline, via the Daily Record:

April 11: DIA board approves redevelopment agreement

May 2: Legislation filed with City Council for approval

May 8: Legislation introduced at council meeting

June 12: Earliest date council could vote on District legislation

July 18: Deadline for Elements to purchase land from JEA for $18.5 million

March 2019: Council approves formation of Community Development District

June 2019: City solicits bid for Community Development District construction

June - Aug. 2019: Community Development District issues $30 million in bonds

Aug. 2019: Elements conveys property to the city for public use

2019 -’21: Horizontal and vertical construction begins.

2020 - ’21: Anticipate first Certificate of Occupancy issued. REV grant commences
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: marcuscnelson on April 11, 2018, 11:10:21 PM
Somehow the timeline feels like it'd be so much longer, until you realize that 2021 is 3 years away.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on April 12, 2018, 06:57:00 AM
Deal for The District headed to City Council

Quote
The Downtown Investment Authority board voted Wednesday for a second attempt at an economic development deal for The District. The city would spend up to $26.4 million on public improvements at the site and provide up to $56 million in property tax rebates over 20 years for new, privately-built construction on vacant Southbank land.

The Downtown Investment Authority on Wednesday unanimously approved the second attempt at forging financial incentives for The District, a huge development on downtown’s Southbank that would bring residences, offices, hotel rooms and retail to a 30-acre tract that used to be the site of the Southside Generating Station.

“This property has been vacant for too long,” DIA board member Craig Gibbs said.

The proposal goes next to City Council, which could vote in June after legislation goes through reviews by council committees. City Councilman Matt Schellenberg has already questioned whether the city is shouldering too much of the cost.

The city would pay up to $26.4 million on construction of public improvements such as riverfront bulkhead, extension of the riverwalk, and roads to new waterfront parks on the site. In addition, the city would provide up to $56 million in property tax rebates over 20 years. The total investment for full build-out of The District would be around $280 million, which would be larger than anything done to date in downtown.

Full article: http://www.jacksonville.com/news/20180411/deal-for-district-headed-to-city-council
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Kerry on April 23, 2018, 08:01:12 PM
Holy crap.  What is the point in creating walkable urbanism if we give away the benefits?
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: markees on April 23, 2018, 08:59:03 PM
As I read all of the comments and replies I can't help but wonder.. What's wrong with making your home town great? I mean I get paying more in taxes might make you butt hurt but If its to actually make the city prosper is there any wrong in that. If so then you're in the wrong city.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: marcuscnelson on April 24, 2018, 01:06:42 AM
As I read all of the comments and replies I can't help but wonder.. What's wrong with making your home town great? I mean I get paying more in taxes might make you butt hurt but If its to actually make the city prosper is there any wrong in that. If so then you're in the wrong city.

First of all, welcome!

So, the issue that's getting everyone here upset is why Peter Rummell made this big, fancy urban proposal to win the RFP over the other guy, and then turned around and said that he'd need millions of taxpayer dollars through complicated and questionable deals in order to build it. To make things worse, we've been having these discussions for 4 years now with pretty much nothing to show for it. The other company, I think it was Southpoint Partners or something like that? probably could have been finished by now, but all we have is Rummell's words and a giant empty plot on the Southbank. People are upset by the idea of paying taxes to make one guy richer, with only his word to guarantee actual improvement for this town.

If things were straightforward, obvious "spend money = great city" then things would be fine, but it's much more complicated than that.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: heights unknown on April 24, 2018, 02:00:07 AM
As I read all of the comments and replies I can't help but wonder.. What's wrong with making your home town great? I mean I get paying more in taxes might make you butt hurt but If its to actually make the city prosper is there any wrong in that. If so then you're in the wrong city.

First of all, welcome!

So, the issue that's getting everyone here upset is why Peter Rummell made this big, fancy urban proposal to win the RFP over the other guy, and then turned around and said that he'd need millions of taxpayer dollars through complicated and questionable deals in order to build it. To make things worse, we've been having these discussions for 4 years now with pretty much nothing to show for it. The other company, I think it was Southpoint Partners or something like that? probably could have been finished by now, but all we have is Rummell's words and a giant empty plot on the Southbank. People are upset by the idea of paying taxes to make one guy richer, with only his word to guarantee actual improvement for this town.

If things were straightforward, obvious "spend money = great city" then things would be fine, but it's much more complicated than that.
There is no "COMPLICATION" as you say, I hate to point out, because if these people really meant well, and really wanted to do something special FOR the City of Jacksonville and/or our area, they wouldn't be looking for more or additional money or funds to help them build these things; not only are they looking for an easy way out if they build it, they are also possibly looking to "get out" and take the money and run at the first inkling or sign of trouble; and then the city and the taxpayers are left hanging (as in some examples in the not too distant past). One word plain and simple if you want to use the word "COMPLICATION;" GREED!
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: markees on April 24, 2018, 02:17:07 PM
Thanks for the welcome!

I will say though I believe there is a feud going on with the Mayor Lenny Curry and our City Council President Anna Brosche. This ultimately scares me, apparently Rummell sent an email to his constituents asking them to help Brosche see the light in all this. I would like to know what her issue is. If she doesn't want our city let alone downtown to prosper and grow she shouldn't be our city council president.... just my thoughts. 
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Tacachale on April 24, 2018, 02:28:52 PM
Thanks for the welcome!

I will say though I believe there is a feud going on with the Mayor Lenny Curry and our City Council President Anna Brosche. This ultimately scares me, apparently Rummell sent an email to his constituents asking them to help Brosche see the light in all this. I would like to know what her issue is. If she doesn't want our city let alone downtown to prosper and grow she shouldn't be our city council president.... just my thoughts.

Not really an accurate reading of the situation. Curry and Brosche have been at odds over a variety of things unrelated to the District, most recently the JEA situation. Brosche also called into question the deal the District was trying to organize. Rummell then inserted the District into the situation involving Curry and Brosche as an attempt to get the deal pushed through. It didn't work - people still had a lot of legitimate questions about what they were trying to do - and the District changed tacks anyway. Not a great moment on Rummell's part.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: MusicMan on April 24, 2018, 03:28:47 PM
Rummell made an ass of himself in this situation, Brosche had nothing to do with that.

He has played Mayor Curry and the JEA Board like a fine violin, and 1000 days into the agreement STILL HAS NOT CLOSED ON THE REAL ESTATE LIKE HE SAID HE WOULD.

And according to some reports he is still looking for the money. If that is true then what a cluster f#ck.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Gators312 on April 24, 2018, 04:11:36 PM
Thanks for the welcome!

I will say though I believe there is a feud going on with the Mayor Lenny Curry and our City Council President Anna Brosche. This ultimately scares me, apparently Rummell sent an email to his constituents asking them to help Brosche see the light in all this. I would like to know what her issue is. If she doesn't want our city let alone downtown to prosper and grow she shouldn't be our city council president.... just my thoughts.

I'm not sure how skepticism on giving Peter Rummell $80 Million for a project he has yet to own the land for nor her objections to the way the JEA dealings have played out so far is any reason why Brosche shouldn't be our City Council President. 
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: heights unknown on April 24, 2018, 04:15:53 PM
Rummell made an ass of himself in this situation, Brosche had nothing to do with that.

He has played Mayor Curry and the JEA Board like a fine violin, and 1000 days into the agreement STILL HAS NOT CLOSED ON THE REAL ESTATE LIKE HE SAID HE WOULD.

And according to some reports he is still looking for the money. If that is true then what a cluster f#ck.
And...if that's true, then THE DISTRICT may never get built!
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jaxnyc79 on April 24, 2018, 05:12:24 PM
I'm sort of over the District.  To me, the District feels a bit like "Redevelopment A-D-D." 

I'm much more into clustering growth and development in the Northbank, which frankly feels more like a traditional downtown than the Southbank, and has the density and walkability to eventually lead to street-level vitality.  I'm no expert on Governmental Fund Accounting, but I'd rather use any financing capacity available from the DIA/COJ to support Northbank projects.  Examples: re-branding and marketing downtown to an international development community, adaptive reuse of older building stock into residential and mixed-use, decontamination of polluted downtown properties, and a comprehensive stadium-area entertainment district that in some way integrates with the rest of downtown at pedestrian scale.

I also believe a revitalized Northbank has the potential to positively reverberate to neighborhoods immediately adjacent to downtown, where we would see a much larger delta and return on investment.  The Southbank is next to communities that look pretty good and appear to be doing pretty well on their own.


Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: heights unknown on April 24, 2018, 08:45:49 PM
I'm sort of over the District.  To me, the District feels a bit like "Redevelopment A-D-D." 

I'm much more into clustering growth and development in the Northbank, which frankly feels more like a traditional downtown than the Southbank, and has the density and walkability to eventually lead to street-level vitality.  I'm no expert on Governmental Fund Accounting, but I'd rather use any financing capacity available from the DIA/COJ to support Northbank projects.  Examples: re-branding and marketing downtown to an international development community, adaptive reuse of older building stock into residential and mixed-use, decontamination of polluted downtown properties, and a comprehensive stadium-area entertainment district that in some way integrates with the rest of downtown at pedestrian scale.

I also believe a revitalized Northbank has the potential to positively reverberate to neighborhoods immediately adjacent to downtown, where we would see a much larger delta and return on investment.  The Southbank is next to communities that look pretty good and appear to be doing pretty well on their own.



I understand what you are saying, and I agree; but unfortunately the south bank, or a huge portion of it is considered as downtown. I agree wholeheartedly, but let's not leave the south bank out of the equation either; anything that develops there, to me, is icing on the cake.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jaxnyc79 on April 24, 2018, 10:47:15 PM
 But let’s use scarce resources to bake the cake before we frost it
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on April 25, 2018, 09:48:27 AM
^I wouldn't necessarily say that the District will be poaching development dollars from the Northbank in coming years. Of the $26 million the city is contributing, the DIA is financing $20 million specifically through the Southside Tax Increment Financing District. The city will be paid back in full for their investment, plus interest, in the next 20 years, through incremental revenue increases that result from the development.

Also, I totally get the criticisms, especially on the extensions and the back-and-forth terms, but I think there's a pretty big double-standard between Elements and Iguana. Iguana has been sitting on the entire Northbank riverfront between Berkman 2 and Metro Park for years as well, and through two separate RFPs. They've adjusted terms and agreements on the fly, especially in regards to the Hart Bridge ramps, and we're poised to give them whatever land they want for pennies on the dollar (or free), while also covering remediation costs. And we're still years away from seeing shovels in the ground. Sure, the city plays its part, but Iguana has the capital to have started on the project over three years ago.

Yet, we don't hear 10% of the criticism of Iguana that we do of Elements.

To me, I'd frame it like this. If someone came to you and said, "If the city spent $26 to extend the Southbank riverwalk, construct four roads, and build a 4-acre riverfront park and walking trail, a developer would pay $18 million for the property ($6 million more than the next bidder) and build 1,170 residential units (twice as many as the Strand and Peninsula combined), a movie theater, an urban grocery store, a new office tower, a marina, and 200,000 square feet of restaurants, bars, and retail anchoring the Southbank riverwalk," who says no? Especially if the only way the developer is going to see full incentives is to build as much as they can, as quick as they can.

To Lori Boyer's point, the city isn't just giving away money, but gaining public infrastructure improvements that the public directly benefits from. If the development goes south, we've still got an extended riverwalk, horizontal infrastructure, public parkspace, a kayak launch, and a marketable piece of property ready for immediate development.

I've got conflicts of interest on both sides, I probably should have recused myself from the conversation months ago, but my basic opinion hasn't changed in years. The District, as envisioned, could be transformative for the Southbank, provide a true anchor tenet for the riverwalk and JTA's new autonomous system, activate the St. Johns and create long-term synergy with a Shipyards development across the river, and contribute strongly to the overall downtown effort.

And even at the peak of an economic cycle, Jacksonville's a long way away from being able to see major downtown development through without some form of public incentive.

We'll know one way or another in July.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jaxnyc79 on April 25, 2018, 01:10:04 PM
In an ideal world, all would get done.  If there are opportunity costs on the Northbank for any money and energy expended on the District, I’m just saying that I would prioritize the Northbank.  The question of urbanizing the patch of dirt on the southbank that used to be the generating station is an interesting one.  Roads and infrastructure are typically public works.  However, I’m hearing there are tons of dire public works needs in areas already full of building stock and with current residents, so I could see where some people would bristle at what’s being directed toward the District.  The District lot just happens to be open space among a relatively affluent geographic context, and maybe there’s an argument to focus on maintenance and remediation of existing built zones (including the Northbank’s empty building stock and empty lots already fronting roads with underground infrastructure, and get to Southbank open spaces later.  If you’re telling me that the city has a  funding model to get both done without one taking from the other, then great.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on April 25, 2018, 01:47:25 PM
In an ideal world, all would get done.  If there are opportunity costs on the Northbank for any money and energy expended on the District, I’m just saying that I would prioritize the Northbank.  The question of urbanizing the patch of dirt on the southbank that used to be the generating station is an interesting one.  Roads and infrastructure are typically public works.  However, I’m hearing there are tons of dire public works needs in areas already full of building stock and with current residents, so I could see where some people would bristle at what’s being directed toward the District.  The District lot just happens to be open space among a relatively affluent geographic context, and maybe there’s an argument to focus on maintenance and remediation of existing built zones (including the Northbank’s empty building stock and empty lots already fronting roads with underground infrastructure, and get to Southbank open spaces later.  If you’re telling me that the city has a  funding model to get both done without one taking from the other, then great.

And to your point, I totally agree as well.

I'd 100% consider the Southbank to be more a part of downtown proper and the CBD than the sports complex at this point (though not as far out as the District), but I'm totally with you that the absolute best way to invest downtown dollars is in the Northbank CBD. Preferably from Laura Street out.

If I had limited resources and was in charge of assigning the dollars, I think the projects that would give us the most immediate bang for our revitalization buck would be activating Snyder Memorial, restoring the Jones Furniture building and Ambassador Hotel, investing even more into Hemming Park, Food Hall-ing the Landing, getting the Marble Bank restaurant up and running, finding a way to convert the JEA tower to residential, etc.

The hope is that the big-ticket anchor projects like the Shipyards, Lot J, and the District will create infill between them and the CBD, but I think the real progress has come, and will continue to come, from grinding out one win at a time in the urban core (including LaVilla), building-by-building, block-by-block.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jaxnyc79 on April 25, 2018, 02:14:57 PM
In an ideal world, all would get done.  If there are opportunity costs on the Northbank for any money and energy expended on the District, I’m just saying that I would prioritize the Northbank.  The question of urbanizing the patch of dirt on the southbank that used to be the generating station is an interesting one.  Roads and infrastructure are typically public works.  However, I’m hearing there are tons of dire public works needs in areas already full of building stock and with current residents, so I could see where some people would bristle at what’s being directed toward the District.  The District lot just happens to be open space among a relatively affluent geographic context, and maybe there’s an argument to focus on maintenance and remediation of existing built zones (including the Northbank’s empty building stock and empty lots already fronting roads with underground infrastructure, and get to Southbank open spaces later.  If you’re telling me that the city has a  funding model to get both done without one taking from the other, then great.

And to your point, I totally agree as well.

I'd 100% consider the Southbank to be more a part of downtown proper and the CBD than the sports complex at this point (though not as far out as the District), but I'm totally with you that the absolute best way to invest downtown dollars is in the Northbank CBD. Preferably from Laura Street out.

If I had limited resources and was in charge of assigning the dollars, I think the projects that would give us the most immediate bang for our revitalization buck would be activating Snyder Memorial, restoring the Jones Furniture building and Ambassador Hotel, investing even more into Hemming Park, Food Hall-ing the Landing, getting the Marble Bank restaurant up and running, finding a way to convert the JEA tower to residential, etc.

The hope is that the big-ticket anchor projects like the Shipyards, Lot J, and the District will create infill between them and the CBD, but I think the real progress has come, and will continue to come, from grinding out one win at a time in the urban core (including LaVilla), building-by-building, block-by-block.

Yes, if we had to map out degrees of prioritization, CBD (and the ideas you cited) would be considered first degree, filling up empty and yet already urbanized lots in LaVilla and other Northbank Districts would be degree 2, Sports Complex would be degree 3

Shipyards versus District is tricky.  I'd normally prioritize Shipyards over Southbank given Shipyards proximity to higher-degree zones on the Northbank, but given contamination issues and remediation costs at the Shipyards, and the fact that the Southbank is shovel-ready, perhaps the path forward isn't as clear.

Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Charles Hunter on April 25, 2018, 03:16:38 PM
Is that true? That the JEA site needs no remediation? It has already been done?
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on April 25, 2018, 03:21:00 PM
Is that true? That the JEA site needs no remediation? It has already been done?

Clean bill of health.

https://residentnews.net/2017/08/02/major-hurdle-cleared-district-moves-forward-development/
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Charles Hunter on April 25, 2018, 05:24:12 PM
Is that true? That the JEA site needs no remediation? It has already been done?

Clean bill of health.

https://residentnews.net/2017/08/02/major-hurdle-cleared-district-moves-forward-development/

Thanks, I had forgotten that.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Tacachale on June 04, 2018, 02:03:35 PM
Quote

Despite hiccups, Jacksonville ‘District’ development clears first City Council panel

A.G. GANCARSKI

On Monday, Jacksonville City Council’s Neighborhoods, Community Services, Public Health and Safety committee greenlit the ‘District‘ development plan.

That said, the bill did not pass without considerable discussion and consternation among myriad members of the panel before the 5-1 vote

HCA Ocala
The bill (2018-313) could transform the Southbank with its radical redevelopment of 30 acres at the former Southside Generating Station property next to the Duval County School Board building.

“The District will encompass approximately 200,000 square feet of retail space, 200,000 square feet of office space, 1,170 apartments/condominiums, and a 150-200 key hotel,” per a dedicated website to the project.

Politically connected developers Peter Rummell and Michael Munz have a deal via their Elements Development to buy the land for $18.6 million from the JEA Board. That deal closes July 18.

...


http://floridapolitics.com/archives/265289-jacksonville-district
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on June 04, 2018, 03:55:58 PM
Quote

Despite hiccups, Jacksonville ‘District’ development clears first City Council panel

A.G. GANCARSKI

On Monday, Jacksonville City Council’s Neighborhoods, Community Services, Public Health and Safety committee greenlit the ‘District‘ development plan.

That said, the bill did not pass without considerable discussion and consternation among myriad members of the panel before the 5-1 vote

HCA Ocala
The bill (2018-313) could transform the Southbank with its radical redevelopment of 30 acres at the former Southside Generating Station property next to the Duval County School Board building.

“The District will encompass approximately 200,000 square feet of retail space, 200,000 square feet of office space, 1,170 apartments/condominiums, and a 150-200 key hotel,” per a dedicated website to the project.

Politically connected developers Peter Rummell and Michael Munz have a deal via their Elements Development to buy the land for $18.6 million from the JEA Board. That deal closes July 18.

...


http://floridapolitics.com/archives/265289-jacksonville-district

Wait, the public parking is metered?

I've honestly never taken the time to notice, but is public parking normally metered on the Southbank?

Why would the city invest so much public money in the District and then meter all the public parking? Seems to run counter to the entire philosophy of the development.

When we're investing so much to prop up our downtown to compete with the suburbs, I'll never understood why we then put downtown at a competitive disadvantage in charging for short-term parking.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on June 04, 2018, 06:54:41 PM
Just follow the money. Because it generates turnover and income in vibrant dense cities (that also have viable mass transit). Some see it as a potential source of income. It also drives some to parking garages (that are expensive to build) with are also set up to generate revenue for certain industries in the private sector.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Steve on June 12, 2018, 07:35:30 PM
Development Agreement Approved by Full Council. Unless the Mayor Vetos (unlikely), then it's on Rummel and Munz. Godspeed.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: MusicMan on June 13, 2018, 08:50:19 AM
"That deal closes July 18th."

Unless it doesn't.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: heights unknown on June 13, 2018, 10:51:36 PM
Super good, awesome news. Let's do this!
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Rynjny on July 13, 2018, 10:26:24 AM
Developers of Distrit close on $18.6 million land purchase from JEA

http://www.jacksonville.com/news/20180713/developers-of-distrit-close-on-186-million-land-purchase-from-jea
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Captain Zissou on July 13, 2018, 10:31:17 AM
Developers of Distrit close on $18.6 million land purchase from JEA

http://www.jacksonville.com/news/20180713/developers-of-distrit-close-on-186-million-land-purchase-from-jea

MusicMan will be SO pleased.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on July 13, 2018, 10:42:30 AM
Awesome news.

Long time coming, an exciting day for Jax.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Tacachale on July 13, 2018, 03:21:27 PM
Developers of Distrit close on $18.6 million land purchase from JEA

http://www.jacksonville.com/news/20180713/developers-of-distrit-close-on-186-million-land-purchase-from-jea

MusicMan will be SO pleased.

 ;D
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: marcuscnelson on July 13, 2018, 03:43:19 PM
It's about time.

If Rummell can really deliver on this, he's going to be enshrined as one of the people who changed this city forever. And he'd deserve it.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on July 13, 2018, 05:14:07 PM
I'm not sure about that. How many units has Vestcor added in the core? No one is saying they changed the city.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: heights unknown on July 13, 2018, 05:25:37 PM
Super awesome news...now "git er done!!!"
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: heights unknown on July 13, 2018, 05:39:47 PM
THE PLAN...straight from THE website. http://thedistrictjax.com/news/the-district-closing-release-final.pdf
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Steve on July 13, 2018, 05:43:17 PM
I'm not sure about that. How many units has Vestcor added in the core? No one is saying they changed the city.

Agreed. I can’t see a negative (aside from whether or not it was the best use of incentive money). Transformative? No.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on July 13, 2018, 08:39:06 PM
The District will absolutely be transformative for the Southbank, and I think it's one of those catalytic projects like the Laura Street Trio that will cause a lot of other dominoes to fall behind it.

I think will have residual effects on everything from JTA's new Skyway, to Duval County Schools and their HQ, to the way people use the riverwalk.

I also think it's going to create some friendly competition with Khan and the Jags.

Can you imagine looking across the river and seeing all those cranes at the District, while the Shipyards and Met Park sit their on your front lawn festering away?

Further down the line, I think we're going to see some really cool synergy between the District and Lot J/Shipyards.

Good times ahead.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Bill Hoff on July 13, 2018, 10:37:11 PM
The District will absolutely be transformative for the Southbank, and I think it's one of those catalytic projects like the Laura Street Trio that will cause a lot of other dominoes to fall behind it.

I think will have residual effects on everything from JTA's new Skyway, to Duval County Schools and their HQ, to the way people use the riverwalk.

I also think it's going to create some friendly competition with Khan and the Jags.

Can you imagine looking across the river and seeing all those cranes at the District, while the Shipyards and Met Park sit their on your front lawn festering away?

Further down the line, I think we're going to see some really cool synergy between the District and Lot J/Shipyards.

Good times ahead.

2034 will be a great year.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jaxnyc79 on July 14, 2018, 08:31:30 AM
The District will absolutely be transformative for the Southbank, and I think it's one of those catalytic projects like the Laura Street Trio that will cause a lot of other dominoes to fall behind it.

I think will have residual effects on everything from JTA's new Skyway, to Duval County Schools and their HQ, to the way people use the riverwalk.

I also think it's going to create some friendly competition with Khan and the Jags.

Can you imagine looking across the river and seeing all those cranes at the District, while the Shipyards and Met Park sit their on your front lawn festering away?

Further down the line, I think we're going to see some really cool synergy between the District and Lot J/Shipyards.

Good times ahead.

2034 will be a great year.

I'm incredibly excited about the Ambassador Hotel project.  Hope I'm wrong, but I'm just very doubtful that the District gets off the ground and that the deal looks anything like it's described today.  Will the city build a street grid on the District property so that once Elements fades, we are left with urban plots for other developers?
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: heights unknown on July 14, 2018, 12:23:27 PM
2034. Wow. Little to no optimism? If that is true, I...will...be...dead.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on July 14, 2018, 01:31:50 PM
I'm just very doubtful that the District gets off the ground and that the deal looks anything like it's described today.  Will the city build a street grid on the District property so that once Elements fades, we are left with urban plots for other developers?

All due respect, but if you're going to be doubtful, at least be informed of the facts :)

The city's going to build three riverfront parks totaling 3.5 acres, a 1-acre pocket park, a 1,900-foot expansion of the riverwalk, a public walking trail around the District, a 100-space parking lot, and expand three roads for public access.

Elements will be responsible for horizontal construction, including the street grid, sidewalks, etc., funded by issuing $30 million in bonds through the CDD.

And the bonds will be repayed through REV grants, contingent on construction and increased property value as the District is completed.

The city doesn't own the land to hand out to other developers, Elements put down $18 million for it this week.

Even though there were clear signs that continual progress was being made (environmental due diligence, the very lengthy, very expensive DDRB approval process, negotiations with tenants, marina permitting, etc.), I understand the skepticism when the sale kept getting delayed.

But now that the sale is closed, the details of the agreement are in the open, and it's crystal clear that the only way for Elements to get full incentives for this project is to keep their foot on the gas and build what they've promised, what the city has approved, and what public infrastructure will be constructed to accommodate, I just don't get the pessimism.

People who have done a lot of the good things for the city over the last 20 years have dedicated years of their lives to making the District vision a reality.

You don't do that to just randomly bail.

I've said it for years, but I'l say it again.

The District will be largely finished by the time you see anything go vertical across the river at the Shipyards.

Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Steve on July 14, 2018, 02:06:14 PM
You may end up being right, but I’ve been skeptical too-not just because of the amount of time but we’ve gone through a few different financial structures. I certainly respect Peter Rummell and his business experience, but it’s been quite painful to get to this point.

I’d love to be wrong but at this point give me a few more Ambassador Hotel projects.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Kiva on July 14, 2018, 02:45:49 PM
One optimistic sign to me is that we have projects in Brooklyn, Laura street trio, Ambassador hotel, the District and eventually the Shipyards all involving different groups. If so many companies think they can make money downtown that is a great sign. Often, once one developer shows an interest in an area others will soon follow.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: edjax on July 14, 2018, 02:47:11 PM
ANd the Ambassador is a sure thing?  Hopefully it is but what happens if they don’t get the incentives?
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: MusicMan on July 14, 2018, 05:11:27 PM
I'm SO pleased!!!!

Ha. Tell you what. Lets negotiate a price for your house today. I'll pay you in 4 years if I can find the financing. Deal?

The article is so funny too.

"The hardest thing to do is start, and we look forward to starting now and being part of the great upturn in Jacksonville’s future that is taking place — for both downtown and all of the city,” Rummell said."

Seems like the hardest thing to do was close on the vacant parcel. 4 years. Let's see what he can accomplish in the next 4.......

"“The nice thing about this is we control much more the time frame on the activities now that the land is in our hands,” he said.

WTF does that mean. They kept pushing the closing off, nobody else. 

Anyway, we are still years away from anything on that parcel. Let's see how long before the first crane goes up. In the meantime you fellas can enjoy your Champagne.   8)
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: remc86007 on July 14, 2018, 05:48:14 PM
^What I found most frustrating about all the delays was that Rummell could probably have cashed in a small portion of his Disney stock and had the money to close in his checking account in a couple days. I know rich people don't become rich by risking their own money, but Rummell isn't a spring chicken, so if I were him, I would have started this thing years ago rather than haggling over financing arrangements for years.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Steve on July 15, 2018, 01:29:11 PM
ANd the Ambassador is a sure thing?  Hopefully it is but what happens if they don’t get the incentives?

Nothing is a sure thing until it’s done. Not even The District.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: heights unknown on July 15, 2018, 04:12:31 PM
In my opinion, if no cranes or any other activity has not happened within a year, the District will NEVER happen; and that goes for any other proposed development in downtown Jacksonville. And yes I am optimistic, but our hearts have been broken, along with promises to retain that optimism.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on July 15, 2018, 05:46:40 PM
^See: Laura Street Trio.

Same years of skepticism.

Same back and forth over financing (plus a foreclosure on the Barnett).

Same trickle of tenant announcements over the years.

And now, the Barnett is ahead of schedule are we're months away from groundbreaking on the Trio proper.

And the Trio probably would already be under construction if not for the logistics (the Trio is being used to stage construction for the Barnett).

Biggest similarity though is that both projects are led by long-time Jacksonville residents personally invested in seeing our downtown flourish.

Have some faith, friend.

This ain't the same city it was even 15 years ago.

Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: heights unknown on July 16, 2018, 11:10:05 PM
^See: Laura Street Trio.

Same years of skepticism.

Same back and forth over financing (plus a foreclosure on the Barnett).

Same trickle of tenant announcements over the years.

And now, the Barnett is ahead of schedule are we're months away from groundbreaking on the Trio proper.

And the Trio probably would already be under construction if not for the logistics (the Trio is being used to stage construction for the Barnett).

Biggest similarity though is that both projects are led by long-time Jacksonville residents personally invested in seeing our downtown flourish.

Have some faith, friend.

This ain't the same city it was even 15 years ago.


Thanks Ken; you're right, so I'll try and continue to "hold" and "retain" optimism.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: ralpho37 on September 28, 2018, 12:37:30 PM
Anything ever going to happen with this "District"? Or have we all been fooled by the fancy artist renderings and newspaper articles again?
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: jaxnyc79 on September 28, 2018, 01:33:24 PM
Anything ever going to happen with this "District"? Or have we all been fooled by the fancy artist renderings and newspaper articles again?

My gut tells me this project will never get built, but in the press release post the approval of City Incentives, there was the mention of many steps before any construction could get underway in earnest.  Elements doesn't expect to begin horizontal construction until at some point between 2019 and 2021...again just a beginning of construction might take until 2021...

"before any work on the project can be done, a Community Development District will need to be formed to issue up to $30 million in bonds, which would help pay for horizontal construction. The CDD board would be selected by the developers, for as long as Elements is still a majority owner of the property.

Those bonds would be repaid through the application of 75 percent of the tax rebates granted to the project. The rebates would not kick until until vertical construction begins, an incentive for the developers to quickly make use of the vacant land. If there are any shortfalls in the debt repayment, the CDD can impose fees and charges on property owners in The District to make up the shortfall.

The company will also need to close on the purchase of the JEA-owned land by July 18. In the past, JEA has granted an extension on the deadline for Elements to buy the property at a cost of $18.5 million, but there is no indication that would happen again.

Elements hopes to begin horizontal construction between 2019 and 2021. The developers do not anticipate vertical construction, some of which will occur simultaneously with horizontal construction, to begin before late 2020 or 2021.

Earlier this year, Elements brought on the development company behind the nation’s first solar-powered town, Kitson & Partners, to execute The District development plan."
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on September 28, 2018, 01:38:30 PM
In the meantime, the Marriott in Brooklyn that was recently approved by the DDRB has already submitted their plans to the St. Johns River Water Management District.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on September 28, 2018, 02:42:13 PM
Anything ever going to happen with this "District"? Or have we all been fooled by the fancy artist renderings and newspaper articles again?

Or, are the developers simply following the plan that they very publicly put out in July that involves filing the necessary paperwork to establish a CDD, issuing bonds to fund horizontal construction, and then phasing in vertical construction once horizontal infrastructure is in place? Just because you don't see a bulldozer out there right now doesn't mean that nothing is happening.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Captain Zissou on September 28, 2018, 03:02:54 PM
I can see the property from my office and there has been work going on every day for the last few weeks.  Likely testing and what not.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: ralpho37 on September 28, 2018, 04:01:54 PM
All interesting points. Staying hopeful, but very cautiously so.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: heights unknown on September 28, 2018, 04:31:10 PM
I think it will happen (see my previous post on pessimism and optimism). As Captain Zissou and JaxNyc79 said, there are numerous preliminary items and issues that need to be attended to and resolved, most I think of a financial and environmental nature, before we see cranes and bulldozers. I will retain and "carry on" not only my optimism, but also my faith and positive attitude (sheesh, Jax, don't let us down).
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: MusicMan on September 29, 2018, 02:15:07 PM
Well as of right now the transaction still has not been recorded on COJ.net

Why not? You would think 3 months after the fact the biggest vacant lot transaction in town would have been recorded on the City Property Appraiser Public Access website.
 

Nope...                    https://paopropertysearch.coj.net/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE=0800960010

It is however mentioned in the Official Records, so I guess they will get around to it eventually.

And for what it's worth there appears to be a Mortgage on this property being held by Preston Hollow Capital LLC in the amount of $20,000,000.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: KenFSU on September 29, 2018, 05:46:07 PM
Well as of right now the transaction still has not been recorded on COJ.net

Why not? You would think 3 months after the fact the biggest vacant lot transaction in town would have been recorded on the City Property Appraiser Public Access website.
 

Nope...                    https://paopropertysearch.coj.net/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE=0800960010

It is however mentioned in the Official Records, so I guess they will get around to it eventually.

And for what it's worth there appears to be a Mortgage on this property being held by Preston Hollow Capital LLC in the amount of $20,000,000.

Come on guys, do some simple research.

Preston Hollow has always been Element's capital partner on the project.

It ain't no secret.

From the Jax Daily Record after the closing:

Quote
Dallas-based Preston Hollow Capital LLC facilitated the $18.59 million payment to the group’s Elements Development of Jacksonville LLC to secure the land, formerly home of JEA’s Southside Generating Station.

According to Duval County property records, Elements on July 13 secured a $20 million mortgage with Preston Hollow Capital, then closed on the property through a transaction with JEA.

Preston Hollow also partnered with Jacobs on the winning convention center bid, if we want to throw that into the conspiracy as well.

They're clearly bullish on Jacksonville, and I'd keep my eye on that name in the future as well.

I've said it for the last couple of years, and I'll say it again.

This project will break ground well in advance of anything on Lot J or the Shipyards.

Yes, it took longer than expected to close, but for the last two or three years, Elements has been very transparent about what they are doing. From going through the DDRB, to getting the environmental green light on the property, to permitting the marina, to securing an economic development agreement to the city, to closing on the land, and now to establishing the CDD, conveying 4.5 acres back to the city, issuing $30 million in bonds, beginning horizontal construction, and then going vertical.

They've been open about their plan, and they're executing on it.

You can't snap your fingers and get state approval on a CDD overnight.

It's a months-long process.

I see with my own eyes every day how much this project means to Elements and how much time and money they put into it, and I just don't get why this is the project that everyone constantly cries foul on.

Have Shad Khan and the Jags done ANYTHING since winning development rights to the Shipyards, besides releasing three different sets of renders, interfering with the convention center bid, and demanding the removal of Hart Bridge ramps?

Be optimistic. It might not be sexy, but the District has made more progress in the last two years than the Shipyards, Lot J, Berkman, and Ambassador combined.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: acme54321 on September 30, 2018, 08:28:56 PM
FYI - within the last week or so a small area in the middle of the property has been fenced off with construction fencing and it appears that some additional survey markers have been installed.  Then today I noticed that a drill rig had been delivered on site within the last couple of days.  Plus, they're keeping it mowed  ;D
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: acme54321 on December 17, 2018, 05:50:05 PM
Drove by this afternoon and saw what appeared to be Rummel (or another old guy that looks like him ;D) and a bunch of other suits out there looking at plans on the trunk of a car for whatever that's worth.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: marcuscnelson on December 18, 2018, 10:42:40 PM
Drove by this afternoon and saw what appeared to be Rummel (or another old guy that looks like him ;D) and a bunch of other suits out there looking at plans on the trunk of a car for whatever that's worth.

Little did you know, they were waiting for you to drive by so they could look like they're working on it!
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: sanmarcomatt on May 21, 2019, 08:56:52 AM
Hmmmm..sipping cocktails in a District riverfront bar or shopping in my San Marco Publix? Which comes first. Not sure which way to go. Of course, none of the above is always a strong Jax option.

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/the-district-takes-step-toward-building-public-infrastructure-at-the-site

Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on May 21, 2019, 09:33:18 AM
Cool. However, is this a misprint?

Quote
Owned by developers Peter Rummell and Michael Munz through Elements of Development Jacksonville LLC, the 32-acre mixed-use development is planned for completion in 2022.

Quote
When complete, The District will comprise 1,170 residential units, both for sale and lease; 200,000 square feet of office space; more than 200,000 square feet designated for retail; a hotel; riverfront bars and restaurants; a 125-slip marina; and a 3.5-acre riverfront park with an extension of the Southbank Riverwalk.

For this to be completed in 2022, literally all of what's described above would need to break ground like yesterday.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: sanmarcomatt on May 21, 2019, 09:37:48 AM
Cool. However, is this a misprint?

Quote
Owned by developers Peter Rummell and Michael Munz through Elements of Development Jacksonville LLC, the 32-acre mixed-use development is planned for completion in 2022.

Quote
When complete, The District will comprise 1,170 residential units, both for sale and lease; 200,000 square feet of office space; more than 200,000 square feet designated for retail; a hotel; riverfront bars and restaurants; a 125-slip marina; and a 3.5-acre riverfront park with an extension of the Southbank Riverwalk.

For this to be completed in 2022, literally all of what's described above would need to break ground like yesterday.

No problem in Rummel World. At the last downtown meeting, he said I would be sipping that drink in 2021.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Captain Zissou on May 21, 2019, 10:07:18 AM
Can't wait for the new surface lot on the river next to the DCSB.  Why don't we move their headquarters into Kirby Smith or one of the other schools slated for demolition?  Their current building isn't that big. It's not that nice.  It does not need to be anywhere near the river.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: acme54321 on May 21, 2019, 10:20:03 AM
What are the odds that dirt is actually moving in July?  To be fair, the drilling rig that was out there recently as working in the new DCSB parking lot area.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Steve on May 21, 2019, 11:10:07 AM
Cool. However, is this a misprint?

Quote
Owned by developers Peter Rummell and Michael Munz through Elements of Development Jacksonville LLC, the 32-acre mixed-use development is planned for completion in 2022.

Quote
When complete, The District will comprise 1,170 residential units, both for sale and lease; 200,000 square feet of office space; more than 200,000 square feet designated for retail; a hotel; riverfront bars and restaurants; a 125-slip marina; and a 3.5-acre riverfront park with an extension of the Southbank Riverwalk.

For this to be completed in 2022, literally all of what's described above would need to break ground like yesterday.

I feel like the infrastructure alone would take 12-24 months depending on level of effort.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: vicupstate on May 21, 2019, 02:15:12 PM
This project, like the San Marco Publix is on 'Jacksonville Time'. 
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: MusicMan on May 21, 2019, 04:27:13 PM
 "Can't wait for the new surface lot on the river next to the DCSB.  Why don't we move their headquarters into Kirby Smith or one of the other schools slated for demolition? "

Annie Lytle? 8)
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: acme54321 on May 22, 2019, 09:18:01 AM
(https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/sites/default/files/243793_standard.jpeg)

Interesting that they've eliminated the back road along the south edge of the property.  Seems like the one way in and out at Prudential would get very congested.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Tacachale on May 22, 2019, 09:28:23 AM
(https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/sites/default/files/243793_standard.jpeg)

Interesting that they've eliminated the back road along the south edge of the property.  Seems like the one way in and out at Prudential would get very congested.

Yeah, that's going to be a bad time.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: BridgeTroll on May 22, 2019, 10:04:23 AM
Where is the gate?  ???
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Adam White on May 22, 2019, 10:14:34 AM
"Can't wait for the new surface lot on the river next to the DCSB.  Why don't we move their headquarters into Kirby Smith or one of the other schools slated for demolition? "

Annie Lytle? 8)

Maybe they can move Annie Lytle to the empty lot...
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on May 22, 2019, 10:20:38 AM

Interesting that they've eliminated the back road along the south edge of the property.  Seems like the one way in and out at Prudential would get very congested.

Yeah, that's going to be a bad time.

The back way is still there. All they did was reconfigure the route to pull it into the roundabout.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Kerry on May 22, 2019, 10:32:29 AM
They should make Prudential connect to Barbara Ave while they are at it.  Jax seems to be the king of not making streets connect.  That is part of what makes Jax among the wort commuting cities in the country despite a relatively low population.

https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/traffic/jacksonville-named-one-of-the-worst-places-to-drive/77-511151314

...on edit - and then rename Barbara Ave to Prudential Drive (another thing Jax needs to work on - keeping street names consistent even during reconfigurations).  I live near the intersection of Shad, Hood, Hood, and Hood.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: acme54321 on May 22, 2019, 10:48:39 AM

Interesting that they've eliminated the back road along the south edge of the property.  Seems like the one way in and out at Prudential would get very congested.

Yeah, that's going to be a bad time.

The back way is still there. All they did was reconfigure the route to pull it into the roundabout.

No, there was a second road that ran along the south edge of the property that connected to Broadcast place on the original drawings/renderings.  Where it now shows a bike and pedestrain easement along parchel 4A and the south/east edge of 3A.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: acme54321 on May 22, 2019, 10:52:32 AM
They should make Prudential connect to Barbara Ave while they are at it.  Jax seems to be the king of not making streets connect.  That is part of what makes Jax among the wort commuting cities in the country despite a relatively low population.

https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/traffic/jacksonville-named-one-of-the-worst-places-to-drive/77-511151314

...on edit - and then rename Barbara Ave to Prudential Drive (another thing Jax needs to work on - keeping street names consistent even during reconfigurations).  I live near the intersection of Shad, Hood, Hood, and Hood.

Wow, even for you, this suggestion is a doozy.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on May 22, 2019, 11:14:05 AM
Oh, I see it now:

(https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/sites/default/files/243793_standard.jpeg)

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/The-District/i-JHbM2mp/0/c4878367/X2/The-District-Masterbook-16-0621-Pg1-7-Compressed_Page_4-X2.jpg)
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Kerry on May 22, 2019, 12:02:13 PM
They should make Prudential connect to Barbara Ave while they are at it.  Jax seems to be the king of not making streets connect.  That is part of what makes Jax among the wort commuting cities in the country despite a relatively low population.

https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/traffic/jacksonville-named-one-of-the-worst-places-to-drive/77-511151314

...on edit - and then rename Barbara Ave to Prudential Drive (another thing Jax needs to work on - keeping street names consistent even during reconfigurations).  I live near the intersection of Shad, Hood, Hood, and Hood.

Wow, even for you, this suggestion is a doozy.

That is the response I expected though.  I guess establishing as much street grid as possible is still a foreign concept in Jax.  It seems to be all the rage in other cities (even a requirement in some).
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Captain Zissou on May 22, 2019, 12:17:40 PM
^Except you're trying to extend a road through a wetland preservation area.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: thelakelander on May 22, 2019, 12:23:00 PM
^Isn't this also the area where COJ is actually buying homes to raze and convert the area back into wetlands?
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Charles Hunter on May 22, 2019, 01:08:04 PM
^Just across the creek at the southeast boundary of The District development.  According to the Times-Union
Quote
In February, FEMA announced it awarded a $3,464,851 grant to Jacksonville for 17 houses. The city will provide the required local match of $1,117,001. The houses are at addresses on South Shores Road, Bee Street, Barbara Avenue, Cameron Street, Vine Street, Huntsford Road, Southampton Road, Reed Avenue, Utah Avenue and Guilford Road.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Tacachale on May 22, 2019, 01:23:45 PM
Womp womp.
Title: Re: The District wants $26 million in public incentives
Post by: Kerry on May 22, 2019, 02:57:29 PM
Lol - like no roads in Florida cut through a wetland.  I guess we should return The Landing property to riverbed then.