Author Topic: River City Brewing redevelopment should be mixed use  (Read 3082 times)

Ken_FSU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 695
Re: River City Brewing redevelopment should be mixed use
« Reply #30 on: November 18, 2020, 10:08:00 AM »
Nothing's ever easy in this city.

MOSH announcing their move to the Northbank spooked Related, who was counting on synergy with the museum to make their development viable.

Because the MOSH is leaving, Related is now requesting right-of-first-refusal for the former MOSH property.

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/dia-board-to-vote-on-dollar92-million-river-city-brewing-proposal

Also looks like we might be looking at another long gap between demolition and construction.

Related wants to demo the RBC as soon as they close on the property in July, but wants until late 2022 to file permitting and until 2026 to complete construction.

What I do love is that it sounds like the incremental tax revenue gained by converting property to a private owner is going to be held for maintenance at Friendship/St. Johns park.

Quote
DIA Director of Downtown Real Estate and Development Steve Kelley said the latest agreement would generate $129,350 annually to supplement the park and fountain’s maintenance budget.

According to Kelley, $79,350 would come from additional tax revenue generated from the redeveloped site while another $50,000 would be generated from the publicly owned property joining the tax rolls.

Again though, just so strange that we're negotiating a right of first refusal based on a MOSH move that appears reliant on multiple dominos magically falling into place with Lot J, the feds, Met Park, etc.

marcuscnelson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 983
  • Gen Z - Tired of the status quo
Re: River City Brewing redevelopment should be mixed use
« Reply #31 on: November 18, 2020, 10:51:02 AM »
Sounds like an awful lot of changes to make at seemingly the last minute.

Quote
Board members want to avoid a situation like the Ford on Bay on the Northbank.

A New York-based developer’s proposed $136 million project there is held up by Hyatt Regency Jacksonville Riverfront’s right of first refusal on one of the two project parcels.

“We’ll probably get a lot fewer respondents knowing someone else has the right of first refusal, similar to the Hyatt situation. I’m wondering why we’re considering that,” said board member Todd Froats.

At least they seem to be learning their lesson? That extra $50k in taxes sounds rather aspirational to me.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2020, 10:52:35 AM by marcuscnelson »
So, to the young people fighting in this movement for change, here is my charge: march in the streets, protest, run for school committee or city council or the state legislature. And win. - Ed Markey

Captain Zissou

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3895
Re: River City Brewing redevelopment should be mixed use
« Reply #32 on: November 18, 2020, 11:03:08 AM »
I guess this demonstrates the importance of complimenting uses clustered in a compact setting.... 

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31855
    • Modern Cities
Re: River City Brewing redevelopment should be mixed use
« Reply #33 on: November 18, 2020, 02:00:11 PM »
It demonstrates the importance of transparent master planning and what can happen when you don't have a master plan. It was a pretty badly kept rumor that MOSH was headed to the Shipyards the last few months. It's surprising that there's no serious thought to adaptively reusing the existing MOSH structure for another cultural attraction and avoiding selling off the property altogether.  Under no circumstances should Related have a first right of refusal on this space, IMO.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

jaxlongtimer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 787
Re: River City Brewing redevelopment should be mixed use
« Reply #34 on: November 18, 2020, 07:26:32 PM »
It demonstrates the importance of transparent master planning and what can happen when you don't have a master plan. It was a pretty badly kept rumor that MOSH was headed to the Shipyards the last few months. It's surprising that there's no serious thought to adaptively reusing the existing MOSH structure for another cultural attraction and avoiding selling off the property altogether.  Under no circumstances should Related have a first right of refusal on this space, IMO.

Agree, Lake.  Another giveaway deal by Curry & Co.  The building could be used to house a number of non-profit or civic uses.  Why should they have first dibs?    If their project was dependent on MOSH and they want a long delay to start construction, I have to question if they really have a credible development plan in the first place.  No way MOSH should be a major factor for them to get this done.  Numbers must be really tight to make this work, even after the City incentives, making this appear to me to be very risky.  No room for even a minor error.  The City should walk.

To have rights to the property for several years also amounts to a free option and options have value that the City should be extracting.  The developer should just pay for an option.  With that, the City gets real dollars, RCBC can remain open until real activity takes place (if it ever does) and, if the developer walks in the end, the City hasn't lost much, if anything (it keeps the option money and RCBC keeps on "truckin.")

vicupstate

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
Re: River City Brewing redevelopment should be mixed use
« Reply #35 on: November 18, 2020, 07:37:47 PM »
I think giving Related a Right of First Refusal is crazy. On the other hand, given how bad the city is at negotiating deals, I can hardly blame them for thinking they could get one. 
"The problem with quotes on the internet is you can never be certain they're authentic." - Abraham Lincoln

Ken_FSU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 695
Re: River City Brewing redevelopment should be mixed use
« Reply #36 on: November 18, 2020, 08:48:47 PM »
Why should they have first dibs?    If their project was dependent on MOSH and they want a long delay to start construction, I have to question if they really have a credible development plan in the first place.  No way MOSH should be a major factor for them to get this done.  Numbers must be really tight to make this work, even after the City incentives, making this appear to me to be very risky.  No room for even a minor error.  The City should walk.

I think giving Related a Right of First Refusal is crazy. On the other hand, given how bad the city is at negotiating deals, I can hardly blame them for thinking they could get one. 

I actually sympathize with Related here.

Let's look at the full picture of their entrance into the Jacksonville market:

1) The DIA puts out an RFP for a convention center at the old Courthouse site.
2) Numerous firms pour tens of thousands of dollars into their proposals. Jacobs sends like 30 people to the pitch.
3) Right after a winner in chosen, the mayor's office swoops in and says, "Never mind! We're not ready for a convention center!," presumably because of the Jags' unsolicited proposal at the Shipyards.
4) The DIA puts out another RFP for the Ford on Bay site, this time for mixed use.
5) Related, a credible developer new to the market, despite an insane right-of-first refusal conflict in the RFP, pours their expertise and resources into a bid for a 350-unit, $80 million residential development at the Ford on Bay site, only to lose to Spandrel.
6) Despite language in the RFP requiring a quick start to construction, the firm that Related lost to still hasn't broken ground, or even closed on the land, and the property has now hilariously got another unsolicited bid for a convention center attached to it again.
7) The DIA say to Related, "Hey, we'd still love to have you enter the Jacksonville market, and we've got a goal of having 10,000 residents downtown by 2024. There's a property on the river where the leaseholder is looking for someone to buy them out. And here's a beautiful plan for MOSH 2.0 and Friendship Fountain/St. Johns Park right on your doorstep.
8 ) Related decides to shift the same ~350-unit, ~$80 million development to the RCBC site.
9 ) After public outcry and DIA pushback, Related is asked to add a restaurant component to their proposed development.
10) Related, without hesitation, submits a new plan with a restaurant targeted at park and MOSH visitors.
11) The mayor's office, having made grand promises to transform the riverfront between the Berkman 2 and the Sports Complex before Curry leaves office, gets in MOSH's ear, greases the CIP, and promises free riverfront land on the Northbank if MOSH will cross the river.
12) MOSH puts out a press release with comments from the mayor's office announcing the move; the DIA - the agency tasked with negotiating downtown deals - doesn't even know how to comment, and still doesn't even know what part of the Shipyards the MOSH has been promised.
13) Related, having gone through the botched Ford on Bay RFP process, agreed to move their development across the river (despite the original property they bid on still being a barren grass field), negotiated a buy-out with RCBC, gone out of their way to be good neighbors and add a restaurant component to serve MOSH and park visitors only to find out on the news that the museum was moving, is finally like, "What in the actual fuck is going on in this city? Can we have one of those right-of-first refusals too? And if the firm that we lost to on Ford on Bay gets 10 years to start construction, why can't we?"

It's just absurd, and moves like the convention center RFP, the Ford on Bay RFP where we technically didn't have development rights for half the property, the JEA privatization mess, this Related boondoggle, and even forcing Sleiman out of a 50-year lease at the Landing are sending a very loud, very clear message to outside developers, investors, and firms that this city is a clown show and that they'd be wasting their time and resources trying to do business here in good faith.

All comes down to transparency and communication from the mayor's office and shadow government.

Without it, the DIA is just going to keep getting their legs chopped out from under them when they're trying to do the right thing.


« Last Edit: November 18, 2020, 08:57:55 PM by Ken_FSU »

jaxlongtimer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 787
Re: River City Brewing redevelopment should be mixed use
« Reply #37 on: November 18, 2020, 09:35:44 PM »
Ken, I get your perspective.  However, the taxpayers shouldn't constantly be left holding the bag because the Mayor and DIA can't come up with a world class master plan for all to live up to.  It wouldn't bother me if Khan, Rummel, Related and others just walked from these deals over the incompetency of the above or for any other reason.  If we can't do it right, better to punt to another day when we have the right people in place to do a first class job representing the community at large. 

If these deals get done wrong, we get risky projects costing the taxpayers big dollars when they jump the rails.  To compound the disaster, we get poorly conceived projects on prime property that many think shouldn't be developed in the first place but rather should be used as public green space by the river.  Lastly, the eye sores will be with us for decades as memorials to the current bad development practices (e.g. Berkman Plaza, County Courthouse, Hyatt Hotel) before we can swing the bat again.

Developers accept the risk of putting these deals together and make big bucks when they are successful to cover that risk (i.e. including covering the costs of those deals that fail to materialize) so I don't have much sympathy for them.  Further, there is no such thing as a free lunch.  You want the taxpayers to subsidize your project, you accept that it is a political and complex process fraught with additional risks and failure is a more-than-minimum probability, especially when dealing with civic leader amateurs.

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31855
    • Modern Cities
Re: River City Brewing redevelopment should be mixed use
« Reply #38 on: November 18, 2020, 09:37:34 PM »
I feel for them but I wouldn't give them first right of refusal or consider a plan where the city sells the property to the private sector. Like the Landing, this is another riverfront asset where transparency is lacking but could be put to great public use.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

Ken_FSU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 695
Re: River City Brewing redevelopment should be mixed use
« Reply #39 on: November 18, 2020, 09:46:09 PM »
^Definitely with both of you guys that we shouldn't be giving anyone right of first refusal unless there's a world class development attached to it (this a 335 unit residential building is not), but I do understand why Related requested it, and I feel bad that they're getting yanked around.


jaxlongtimer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 787
Re: River City Brewing redevelopment should be mixed use
« Reply #40 on: November 18, 2020, 10:04:21 PM »
^Definitely with both of you guys that we shouldn't be giving anyone right of first refusal unless there's a world class development attached to it (this a 335 unit residential building is not), but I do understand why Related requested it, and I feel bad that they're getting yanked around.

To add, a "first right of refusal" is the worst thing a property owner can offer as it is akin to not selling the property to anyone else.  No one is going to make the effort to negotiate and do due diligence at great expense on your property knowing that at the last second a third party can parade in and swipe the deal from out under.  Effectively, you are left with only one buyer "competing" for your property.  You have absolutely no leverage at that point in obtaining top dollar.

The better alternative is to offer Related a "first option."  This can take two forms:  (1) Related pays $x for an option to buy the property at a set future price to be exercised anytime between now and some set future date.  If not exercised, the option expires and they get nothing in return for their option money (ok, a tax write-off :) ).  (2) Related has a first option to acquire/lease the property if the City decides to put the property out for rent/sale.  In this case, they have x days to negotiate a deal with the City at the City's then-asking price and terms.  If they don't bite, the City then offers the property to the world-at-large at that price or more with like terms.  Related then takes the chance someone bites on that and they are locked out at that point.