Jacksonville Landing Says Garage Not Enough

[fsujax]

Sleiman didnt buy the Landing until 2006 I believe.

[duvaldude08]

I guess I have two thoughts about this.

1. Does a current administration have to live up to the promises of the previous one? If their is no legislation supporting this parking garage, then in my opinion it is a moot point. Is it fair, no it is not, but I'm saying, administrations promise a lot of stuff that never get's done.

[/quot

There is actually legislation (if that what you want to call it), about the deticiated parking for the Landing. I believe the Landing contract and wording have been change alot of the past two decades, but the deticated parking still stands. Otherwise, they wouldnt be entertaining it.

But I have one question, if sleiman is jerking us around, what would he gain buy building a parking garage? " Oh yeah let me manipulate the city into building this garage so it can be empty and no one will come to the Landing. " Now if he got the money and the thing was never builty, THEN I would say he jerked us around. At this point, theres no way to tell what his intentions are. But at the end of the day, the city cant debate with about something THEY promised.

[manasia]

Sleiman didnt buy the Landing until 2006 I believe.

Oh Ok, I did not know that thank you for that information.

[manasia]

I guess I have two thoughts about this.

1. Does a current administration have to live up to the promises of the previous one? If their is no legislation supporting this parking garage, then in my opinion it is a moot point. Is it fair, no it is not, but I'm saying, administrations promise a lot of stuff that never get's done.

[/quot

There is actually legislation (if that what you want to call it), about the deticiated parking for the Landing. I believe the Landing contract and wording have been change alot of the past two decades, but the deticated parking still stands. Otherwise, they wouldnt be entertaining it.

But I have one question, if sleiman is jerking us around, what would he gain buy building a parking garage? " Oh yeah let me manipulate the city into building this garage so it can be empty and no one will come to the Landing. " Now if he got the money and the thing was never builty, THEN I would say he jerked us around. At this point, theres no way to tell what his intentions are. But at the end of the day, the city cant debate with about something THEY promised.

Duval I do not think he is jerking us around, I just think he is a business owner who has no initiative. I would not be waiting for a promise from the city, to build something that is detrimental to my bottom line. (But I say this with a caveat, of that it is easier said than done)

[peestandingup]

Magic wand or not, I voted for him soley on his stance regarding Downtown. I am not going to be chill too long on the issue.

You voted for him because Audrey Moran wasn't in the running. Many people here did.

[Tacachale]

Magic wand or not, I voted for him soley on his stance regarding Downtown. I am not going to be chill too long on the issue.

You voted for him because Audrey Moran wasn't in the running. Many people here did.

That's not quite fair to Alvin. Not being Mike Hogan was an equally strong asset he had.

[peestandingup]

Magic wand or not, I voted for him soley on his stance regarding Downtown. I am not going to be chill too long on the issue.

You voted for him because Audrey Moran wasn't in the running. Many people here did.

That's not quite fair to Alvin. Not being Mike Hogan was an equally strong asset he had.

Well, there's that too.

[ProjectMaximus]

I guess I have two thoughts about this.

1. Does a current administration have to live up to the promises of the previous one? If their is no legislation supporting this parking garage, then in my opinion it is a moot point. Is it fair, no it is not, but I'm saying, administrations promise a lot of stuff that never get's done.

[/quot

There is actually legislation (if that what you want to call it), about the deticiated parking for the Landing. I believe the Landing contract and wording have been change alot of the past two decades, but the deticated parking still stands. Otherwise, they wouldnt be entertaining it.

But I have one question, if sleiman is jerking us around, what would he gain buy building a parking garage? " Oh yeah let me manipulate the city into building this garage so it can be empty and no one will come to the Landing. " Now if he got the money and the thing was never builty, THEN I would say he jerked us around. At this point, theres no way to tell what his intentions are. But at the end of the day, the city cant debate with about something THEY promised.

Duval I do not think he is jerking us around, I just think he is a business owner who has no initiative. I would not be waiting for a promise from the city, to build something that is detrimental to my bottom line. (But I say this with a caveat, of that it is easier said than done)

Manasia, there are a few issues at play here. Because of the city's failure to come through on the contractually obligated parking, the Landing does not pay tax on its property (or something along those lines). Lake has shown that the lost tax revenue is far more than the cost would have been to take care of this parking issue decades ago. Also, Sleiman wants/needs to see the commitment from the city because he doesn't actually own the land under the Landing (It's under a very long-term lease) Hard to make major investments to your property when you don't trust your landowner, or so he says. 

[tufsu1]

Question:  Exactly how many spaces does he need to attract these "top-grade mall tenants"?  The garage would offer him 500.  The city is required to provide 300-375.  The article also mentions that the location doesn't meet the needs of these "top-grade mall tenants".  What is the location that would?

The garage offers zero dedicated spaces from what I've read.

from what the article says, it seems to be 200 available spaces weekdays....why can't the City/Sleiman have those dedicated for the Landing?

And still doesn't answer the question regarding location....which, as I said, is a BS excuse

[thelakelander]

Didn't the deal specify that the city would provide 375 dedicated spaces for the Landing? I still question the need for a new garage but if you're going to build one across the street, why not add 375 DEDICATED spaces to it? That's completely different from 200 spaces the Landing and everyone else can use.

[thelakelander]

As for location, could they be referring to the location of extra spaces in what will apparently be the Suntrust Tower's garage? Is it a multiple story block wide garage where Suntrust gets all the premium spots? The design of what's being proposed hasn't been shown to all of us, so there maybe some aspects to this situation that haven't been revealed to the general public.

[manasia]

Thanx Maximus, that makes a lot of sense.

[Planning Guy]

Before too many things are said regarding this deal, we all should understand the facts.

First, the Landing assumed a deal that was an obligation of Humana (the old owner of the Suntrust building and the lot proposed for the garage in question). The basis for the deal was that the Landing would build a parking garage on that land (if they acquired it) or any land in the near vicinity that Tony could acquire.

Second, the Landing would be entitled to $3.5 million from the City (as was previously promised to Humana) upon the completion of the parking garage.

Finally, a validation program would accompany the construction of the parking (funded by the City).

To put this in perspective, the Landing pushed a deal through City Council (during an election time) to purchase the parking lot adjacent to the Omni. In this legislation, the Landing was to be given $3.5 million with a parking validation program with no improvements to the parking lot. Furthermore, it was later clarified that the parking lot would not solely be used by patrons of the Landing, but rather run as a commercial parking lot.

Legislation that can be referenced for verification of this is in legislation 1986-674, 1986-1528, 1987-430, 1987-1247, 1987-1508, 1988-251, 1988-252, 1989-819, 1994-1336, 2001-059 and 2006-957.

[Tacachale]

^Thanks Planning Guy. Wasn't that the deal that Peyton vetoed a few months ago?

[thelakelander]

Thanks for the post Planning Guy.  Do you have a history of the series of deals (including the Humana parking deal) that have evolved since the opening of the Landing in the late 1980s?