Jacksonville Landing Says Garage Not Enough

[thelakelander]

ok, say that the owners of the Suntrust building fix that surface lot(its an eyesore now)... they won't have enough space to give the Landing its spots PLUS spots that they could use... hence why a parking garage is being proposed.  You can use google maps to figure out how many spots could be arranged at that parcel as a surface lot.  It's not capable of 500 parking spaces, that's for sure.

The problem is... short term parking is being offered to the Landing in this newest scheme(which is in extremely high supply downtown, in fact the most short term parking in the entire city is downtown), that as you know is different than dedicated parking.

I'm not sure of the ownership structure of the garages within a two block radius of Suntrust, but there are two large garages (one near the Omni and one on Bay & Main) and a couple of surface lots as well.  How is the occupancy within those garages and if they aren't 100% full, could deals be worked out to secure dedicated parking for both Suntrust and the Landing? Btw, where have the Humana/Suntrust Tower workers been parking for the last two decades?

[thelakelander]

It sounds increasingly like the city is willing to work to fulfill its obligations, but Sleiman is trying to milk it for more and more. I just double checked on why Peyton vetoed the previous deal in March was because Sleiman had pushed through a bill that, on top of receiving $3.5 million WITHOUT having to build a garage, he would get another $1.9 million to "subsidize short-term parking operations".

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-03-09/story/city-council-fails-override-jacksonville-landing-parking-purchase-veto

Peyton pointed out that this deal was more than the $5 million Sleiman had payed for the Landing itself.

+1 I think you hit the nail on the head with this one.

You can't fault Sleiman for the purchase.  Rouse wanted out of here, Sleiman offered $5 million and they took it and ran back up north.

[Tacachale]

Forgive me for being thick, this still seems very strange to me. If the city owes the Landing the equivalent of $3.5 million, and they're going to put $3.5 million into this garage that includes some parking for the Landing, couldn't they work out a deal with Sleiman to put whatever money he was going to have to put into parking, into expanding this garage? Then just call the $3.5 million their obligation to the Landing, and call Sleiman's money the money he would have contributed to any other $3.5 million deal with the city. Or am I still missing something crucial?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

The existing deal for the Landing exists today in its current form which includes $3.5 million for the completion of a parking garage and $500K parking validation program. It is unaffected by the legislation that was passed last night.

The legislation that passed last night, will result in a 500 space garage being built on the vacant parcel bound by Bay Street, Hogan Street, Water Street and the Sun Trust Building. It is primarily to accomodate parking for the Sun Trust Building, but also to provide 200 public spaces for the businesses in the area (which includes the Landing).

If I'm reading this correctly, then the city could expand the size of the garage on it's own dime to include the Landings' 500 dedicated spaces, waive the 3.5M payment (unless Slieman fronts the money for the spaces) and we have more retail, dedicated parking for the Landing and a surface lot is gone.

Does that sound right?

[Tacachale]

It sounds increasingly like the city is willing to work to fulfill its obligations, but Sleiman is trying to milk it for more and more. I just double checked on why Peyton vetoed the previous deal in March was because Sleiman had pushed through a bill that, on top of receiving $3.5 million WITHOUT having to build a garage, he would get another $1.9 million to "subsidize short-term parking operations".

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-03-09/story/city-council-fails-override-jacksonville-landing-parking-purchase-veto

Peyton pointed out that this deal was more than the $5 million Sleiman had payed for the Landing itself.

+1 I think you hit the nail on the head with this one.

You can't fault Sleiman for the purchase.  Rouse wanted out of here, Sleiman offered $5 million and they took it and ran back up north.

I don't fault Sleiman for making a good deal that worked for him on the purchase. I do fault him for trying to squeeze the city out of substantially more than what the actual obligation was.

[thelakelander]

No argument from me on that one.

[fieldafm]

they're going to put $3.5 million into this garage that includes some parking for the Landing...

Then just call the $3.5 million their obligation to the Landing

Then no dedicated parking for the Landing would exist(the reason for the original agreement with Rouse in the late 80's)... just more short term parking that is controlled by a third party, which is what the city already has plenty of.

Furthermore, the odd parcel and cul-de-sac (aka - Sister Cities Park), off of Hogan Street across Water Street from the Landing, is being considered for a hotel location.

That same hotel has kicked around the tires on 3 other sites in the last 5 years.  Let's not get real excited about that prospect just yet.

Btw, where have the Humana/Suntrust Tower workers been parking for the last two decades?

You mean all 30 of them?

The existing deal for the Landing exists today in its current form which includes $3.5 million for the completion of a parking garage and $500K parking validation program. It is unaffected by the legislation that was passed last night.

Everyone pay careful attention to this which is what I have been saying since Peyton was able to pull a final FU to old Sleiman on his way out the door.  B/c essentially... this money is going to be spent on more parking and the city still has an obligation to the Landing to provide parking(its tenant btw... is that how a landlord treats their tenants?).  So in this scheme, the answer to an oversupply of parking downtown will be... more parking with public money?  Does that sound good to any of you?  Is THAT good for downtown? 

This legislation is simply BAD for the city.  Period.

Let's go back to getting Old Man Willie to resolve his $50k obligation to you... and then we can all move forward.

[thelakelander]

Btw, where have the Humana/Suntrust Tower workers been parking for the last two decades?

You mean all 30 of them?

Specifically, the 519 that were laid off when Humana shut down their service center around 2002.  I simply don't understand why we "need" more parking even though the number of downtown workers is significantly lower than it was 20 years ago.  It seems like downtown already has too much parking and that dedicated spaces for both the Landing and Suntrust could possibly be handled by better utilizing existing garages and lots.  One of the things I did like about the recently killed deal was the fact that an existing lot would be utilized instead of adding to the parking supply.

[Tacachale]

they're going to put $3.5 million into this garage that includes some parking for the Landing...

Then just call the $3.5 million their obligation to the Landing

Then no dedicated parking for the Landing would exist(the reason for the original agreement with Rouse in the late 80's)... just more short term parking that is controlled by a third party, which is what the city already has plenty of.

Why couldn't the dedicated parking be in this garage?

[fieldafm]

they're going to put $3.5 million into this garage that includes some parking for the Landing...

Then just call the $3.5 million their obligation to the Landing

Then no dedicated parking for the Landing would exist(the reason for the original agreement with Rouse in the late 80's)... just more short term parking that is controlled by a third party, which is what the city already has plenty of.

Why couldn't the dedicated parking be in this garage?

B/c the owner of the proposed parking garage doesn't want it.  Short term parking is more profitable to them then seperating out dedicated parking to the Landing. 

[cline]

they're going to put $3.5 million into this garage that includes some parking for the Landing...

Then just call the $3.5 million their obligation to the Landing

Then no dedicated parking for the Landing would exist(the reason for the original agreement with Rouse in the late 80's)... just more short term parking that is controlled by a third party, which is what the city already has plenty of.

Why couldn't the dedicated parking be in this garage?

B/c the owner of the proposed parking garage doesn't want it.  Short term parking is more profitable to them then seperating out dedicated parking to the Landing. 

So since you are obviously connected with Sleiman, care to share who any of these "top-grade mall tenants" are that are beating down the door to locate at The Landing once they get their dedicated parking?  Just curious. 

[Ocklawaha]

Parking is not an issue in downtown...the issue is people who think they should have a parking spot at the front door of every place they visit....if you can't walk a few blocks then move to lake city and have a good time....i never have understood the whole hoopla over parking downtown...i have never had a problem..and one other thing i'm sure the city would be willing to put a parking lot there if the place were'nt empty half of its life..just because you make a parking space does'nt make the demand for your business go up...

I think parking is one of the foundations of a urban community, one we have completely messed up. Certainly at 43,000 spaces downtown has enough parking right now. The breakdown of our downtown parking is the punitive fines and nickle and dime robbery of the meters that chase people away.  With the same stores that are out at the Town Center, most would fail downtown because who wants to pay for the privilege of parking with a punishing fine if you were in the dressing room too long?  If we are serious about downtown we need to lose the meters and cut some slack on fines. Portland, Oregon had an interesting take on this, any out of area automobile parked over the limit was tagged with a "WELCOME TO THE ROSE CITY" ticket. The ticket had no fine, explained that the city controls parking with timed zones and asks the auto owner to comply in the future. I heard they even played with one that had a list of things to do downtown as well as coupons redeemable for drinks, food, etc at local restaurants and entertainment locations. I imagine the promotional pieces on these tickets were paid advertising and helped to offset any loss of revenue. 

OCKLAWAHA

[Rynjny]

Is it just me or does anybody else felt uncomfortable going into jax landing?. I felt the place are not well lit and had a strange odor (sewer gas). anybody else felt the same?.

[tufsu1]

Is it just me or does anybody else felt uncomfortable going into jax landing?. I felt the place are not well lit and had a strange odor (sewer gas). anybody else felt the same?.

The lighting has been upgraded quite a bit...and yes, there is sometimes a strange odor.... but I have no issue in entering the landing (either through the inside or from the river).

[MusicMan]

Parking or not, as long as Sleiman owns The Landing it will always be a loser. He is a slum lord, that is his earned reputation. As FineHoe pointed out, you coud have free curbside valet at The Landing and it would still suck. The problem at The Landing is Sleiman, not a lack of parking. This guy may have $$ but he has no clue about being a retail landlord. What other properties does he own that are succesful?

Look at the Starbucks debacle. He had Starbuck's there, the only one in downtown Jacksonville, and now they are gone.  WTF?? This is a major Fortune 500 company that did a steady business in that location. He had them out side of the main building. A smart landlord would give them free rent and put them inside maybe on the water, with a great view. The Starbucks in Riverside is killing it. Folks go there and hang out, enjoying drinks and surfing the web, some even actually work out of a Starbucks.  If he had positioned them correctly it would have brought foot traffic INSIDE the Landing, one of their biggest problems is not enough foot traffic inside. PLUS Starbucks always draws folks from out of town, because they have a following. Another problem solved, bringing out of towners INSIDE The Landing.  Just imagine , you are strolling around downtown and ask someone, "Is there are Starbucks anywhere?:  "Sure inside The Landing, on the water. It's got a great view." 

I walk a mile (one way) to get to Jags games. If The Landing had great tenants then folks would walk a block or two to patronize them.