Jacksonville Landing Says Garage Not Enough

[duvaldude08]

I knew when this tpoic started it was going to go forever.

[Keith-N-Jax]

Like the parking garage issue?

[tufsu1]

^Not in terms of getting corporate entities to sign contracts at locations that don't meet their site selection requirements.  Come to think of it, even Baltimore's Harborplace and Gallery has a garage with 1200 spaces. 

the garage was built with the Gallery, more than six years after Harborplace opened....and those spaces are hardly dedicated...part of the garage is reserved for the office bulding above and the rest is general public parking...in fact, my family parked there just about every time we visited the inner harbor from 1986 on.

Same goes for the garage across from Channelside....over half is reserved for long-term parking (port staff and cruise passengers)...the rest is public parking and used by those visiting the shops as well as the aquarium.

So it seems to me that having a garage across the street from the Landing with a certain amount of spaces set aside for the public is the same thing.

[thelakelander]

How do you know those public spaces weren't marketed by ownership as "dedicated" to retail clientele?  It's not like major retail centers actually stick up signs in the parking garages that say "dedicated" vs "non dedicated." 

On the surface of their site, it sure looks like its being marketed to potential tenants that they have a 1000 spaces of their own.

http://www.ggp.com/properties/mall-properties/harborplace-the-gallery

On the surface, one would think they could get away with less, given the high foot traffic count that area gets.

[tufsu1]

I'm sure it is being marketed that way...and since Rouse built the building and garage, they (and now GGP) can make that claim.

It's just like the existing Landing lot...I'm sure they label it as dedicated parking, but it is available to the general public.

But that's the difference between downtowns and suburbs...noone is going to park at SJTC that isn't going there

So, again....the Landing can actually build parking (as the current agreement calls for) or work out a deal with an existing facility for dedicated parking...but other than subsidizing a validation program, why should COJ pay $ for the second option?

[ChriswUfGator]

I'm sure it is being marketed that way...and since Rouse built the building and garage, they (and now GGP) can make that claim.

It's just like the existing Landing lot...I'm sure they label it as dedicated parking, but it is available to the general public.

But that's the difference between downtowns and suburbs...noone is going to park at SJTC that isn't going there

So, again....the Landing can actually build parking (as the current agreement calls for) or work out a deal with an existing facility for dedicated parking...but other than subsidizing a validation program, why should COJ pay $ for the second option?

You mean, aside from the the 300 page contract that obligates them to pay for it?

[thelakelander]

I'm sure it is being marketed that way...and since Rouse built the building and garage, they (and now GGP) can make that claim.

It's just like the existing Landing lot...I'm sure they label it as dedicated parking, but it is available to the general public.

Yes, its exactly the same, except the Landing can only market 250 spaces as their own dedicated spots to potential clients.  Harborplace markets 1000 and Bayside in Miami markets 1200.  You can't market 200 spaces in a garage you have no control over as dedicated for your specific use to potential tenants.

But that's the difference between downtowns and suburbs...noone is going to park at SJTC that isn't going there

This has nothing to do with meeting site selection requirements for perspective tenants.

So, again....the Landing can actually build parking (as the current agreement calls for) or work out a deal with an existing facility for dedicated parking...but other than subsidizing a validation program, why should COJ pay $ for the second option?

The current agreement doesn't call for the Landing specifically to build a garage.  The entity that was supposed to construct the old garage/tower no longer exists.  We don't need a garage to provide dedicated parking in an effort to help make downtown's major attraction more economically viable.  Nevertheless, that's a red herring argument regarding the purpose and need of dedicated parking for a retail center.

[finehoe]

No they don't.. and you're trying to argue this point with two people that make a living doing this. 

I thought you were taking your ball and going home.

[thelakelander]

For what its worth, I decided to look up the number of spaces marketed by some retail/dining/entertainment centers in the downtowns of similar sized peer cities.

Uptown Charlotte's EpiCenter has a 1000 space garage.

Louisville's 4th Street Live garage has 731 spaces.

Memphis' Peabody Place is directly connected to a garage with 3,000 spaces.

Fort Worth's Sundance Square claims to have 5,000 spaces.

Jacksonville's Landing has a 250 space surface lot but people claim that should have no impact on attracting tenants with site selection requirements that include a certain number of dedicated parking.  Any idea of why all of these similar sized centers have so many spaces?  Also, the downtowns of the cities mentioned above are all light years ahead of DT Jacksonville when it comes to life.

[tufsu1]

You mean, aside from the the 300 page contract that obligates them to pay for it?

from what I understand, the agreemnent obligates the City to pay $3.5 million following the construction of new parking...so please don't be disingenuous.

realistically I'm with others on here....while I don't believe downtown needs more parking, I do understand the need for "dedicated" parking the Landing can claim.

As I get it, the deal now being discussed would have another developer providing the parking....and in order for the $3.5 million to go through to the other developer, Sleiman and COJ would have to agree to amend the agreement one more time....if Sleiman doesn't like that (maybe because he doesn't get to make $ on the parking), he doesn't have to sign on.

[thelakelander]

There's nothing disingenuous in overlooking a position that isn't based on reality.  Cameron Kuhn was supposed to develop that garage as a part of the Riverwatch project.  That agreement didn't state the Landing had to build a garage for the city to live up to its decades old obligation to provide parking.  I'm not an attorney, but I don't even know how such an agreement would even continue when one of the main parties as disappeared.  It sounds like a new logical deal is in order.  Also, in the Suntrust deal, the developer isn't even providing the dedicated parking spots for the Landing.  So we're subsidizing the construction of a 500 space garage and not even resolving the Landing parking obligation.

The saga of how Cameron Kuhn stormed into Jacksonville several years ago with downtown development plans was strange enough.

It turns out it's even odder.

One of his investors stands accused of steering hedge funds to put huge amounts of money into a Ponzi scheme.

Frank E. Vennes Jr. was indicted April 20 in Minneapolis on four counts of security fraud and one count of money laundering. He pleaded not guilty.

The federal prosecution of Vennes does not have anything to do with Vennes lending millions of dollars to Kuhn, an Orlando developer who made a big splash in Jacksonville in 2005 and 2006. He bought several downtown buildings, including the old Barnett Bank building, historic Laura Street Trio and the SunTrust building.

But Vennes' legal problems have complicated efforts to build a parking garage on a half-block parcel of land next to the SunTrust Tower. Kuhn originally was going to build the parking garage, but after he abandoned his plans during the real estate downturn, Vennes took ownership of the property and inherited the obligation to build the parking garage.

City officials had some talks with Vennes about building the parking garage to satisfy the city's contractual obligation to provide parking for The Jacksonville Landing. But in 2008, a federal investigation of a massive Ponzi scheme named Vennes in an affidavit for a search warrant of his home.

Instead of pursuing the parking garage, Vennes has faced the criminal investigation and a raft of claims by creditors against his assets.

The April indictment alleges Vennes, 53, of Stuart, received more than $60 million in commissions by steering a hedge fund's investments into a Ponzi scheme operated by one of Vennes' business associates, Thomas J. Petters of Minnesota.

Petters built a $3.65 billion Ponzi scheme by falsely telling investors that his business, Petters Co. Inc., bought a huge volume of consumer merchandise such as electronics and sold it at profit to big box retailers, according to prosecutors.

Petters' company did not buy merchandise, however, and he used the investors' money for personal uses. He is serving a 50-year federal prison sentence.

A bill pending before Jacksonville City Council would clear the way for Parador Partners, owner of the SunTrust building, to purchase the land from Project Riverwatch LLC, which is entirely owned by Vennes. The property's market value is $2.6 million, according to the Duval County Property Appraiser's Office.

The city would drop a state lawsuit it filed against Project Riverwatch seeking $2 million in damages because Project Riverwatch has not built a parking garage.

The city also would release Project Riverwatch from the 2007 agreement for the garage. Project Riverwatch would give back to the city a small parcel of land that has a Sister City monument and benches .

That would clear the way for the city to execute a new development agreement with the SunTrust building's owner for the construction of a parking garage.

http://m.jacksonville.com/business/2011-06-14/story/jacksonville-landing-garage-caught-legal-woes-federal-charges

[thelakelander]

No where does it say that the Landing had to build a garage for the city to resolve its long standing obligation to provide the Landing with dedicated parking spaces.  Dedicated spaces aside, how does the city anticipate resolving its obligation when the garage only includes 200 public spaces?  Am I right that for this to work, the Landing would have to agree to allow the city to create a number of spaces well below the current contractually obligated number?  If so, why would the Landing want to do that?

Background Information: Parador Partners is the latest company to take up the project of constructing a
parking garage on the vacant lot on Hogan Street between Bay and Water Streets with reserved spaces for
Jacksonville Landing patrons. Parador also intends to lease spaces in the garage to tenant of the SunTrust bank
building on the northwest corner of Bay and Hogan Streets, which does not have its own parking facility. In
2002, pursuant to the 5th Amendment to the Landing lease, the City contracted with Humana Medical Plan, Inc. to
construct a parking garage at the corner of Bay and Hogan Streets adjacent to the then-Humana Building, within
which would be reserved 300 weekday and 375 night and weekend spaces for Landing patrons. Humana later
sold its office building and the adjacent vacant lot to developer Cameron Kuhn of Orlando who agreed to take up
Humana’s obligation to construct the parking garage as part of his Project Riverwatch. Several years later Mr.
Kuhn declared bankruptcy and the parking garage project fell through. The City conveyed Sister Cities Plaza
to Mr. Kuhn for his Riverwatch project, and is in the process of retrieving ownership of the property from the
Riverwatch bankruptcy trustee via a settlement agreement pending before the Council in Ordinance 2011-365.

The City has a long-standing contractual obligation to provide the Jacksonville Landing with 300 weekday and
375 night and weekend parking spaces in the immediate proximity of the Landing, which it has attempted to
fulfill by contracting with Humana and then with Project Riverwatch for the construction of a parking garage with
reserved spaces for Landing patrons. Most recently a proposal for the City to fund the Landing’s purchase of an
existing nearby surface parking lot in satisfaction of the obligation was approved by City Council but vetoed by
the Mayor.

cityclts.coj.net/docs/2011-0366%5CBill%20Summary/2011-0366.doc

[tufsu1]

I didn't say the Landing had to build the parking...just that additional parking w/ dedicated spaces needed to be constructed....from what I understand, that is what the 7th amendment to the lease says.

And yes, you are correct....the current proposal does not provide the required # of weekday spaces for the Landing (300), so Sleiman has every right to say no and not amend the agreement

Now I would be curious to see what he would say if the proposed deal was restructured to provide the proper # of spaces to the Landing.

[Tacachale]

No where does it say that the Landing had to build a garage for the city to resolve its long standing obligation to provide the Landing with dedicated parking spaces.  Dedicated spaces aside, how does the city anticipate resolving its obligation when the garage only includes 200 public spaces?  Am I right that for this to work, the Landing would have to agree to allow the city to create a number of spaces well below the current contractually obligated number?  If so, why would the Landing want to do that?

At the same time, it doesn't say that the city has to give the landing $3.5 million for just any parking. AFAICT that number was part of the garage deal. The city paying $3.5 million and turning a surface lot into a garage is a much different deal than paying the same amount for just the lot. And it certainly doesn't say that the city owes the landing $3.5 million for a surface lot PLUS $1.9 million to subsidize temporary parking.

It does seem silly that the city would spend money on a different garage project across the street from the Landing that literally no one believes will settle the Landing issue.

[fieldafm]

Just answer these two questions:

1) Let's say Old Man Willie owed both you and your grandpa 50k each.  Gramps dies.  Does that mean OMW doesnt owe you the 50k anymore unless grandpa rises from the dead?


2) Say you work at Darden and are in charge of site selection for Chili's.  You have a whole team of people whose entire job is to figure out the demographics of your customer base.  You find that for a site to be successful, you have to have 40k people within a 5 mile radius with an average household income of $80k.  You have two sites to choose from.  One site is at River City Marketplace and for your 300 seat restaurant, you will have a dedicated parking lot with 90 spaces.  The other is at the Landing and your 300 seat restaurant will have 0 dedicated parking spaces in a location that already has a parking perception problem(people in this city just HAVE to be able to park at the front door, that's the reality of Jacksonville-I personally don't have this problem but people in this town by and large do).  Both sites fit into your necessary demographic.  Which site do you invest YOUR money in?