Show me the money

[thelakelander]

No reason to stop it.  Just level the playing field, so that the cost to operate or live in either is about the same, and you'll see a larger percentage go to an area that has historically been unfeasible for them to do so.  In addition, if public policy drives more sustainable development, that will improve the quality of the burbs as well as the urban core.

[Garden guy]

No reason to stop it.  Just level the playing field, so that the cost to operate or live in either is about the same, and you'll see a larger percentage go to an area that has historically been unfeasible for them to do so.  In addition, if public policy drives more sustainable development, that will improve the quality of the burbs as well as the urban core.

Level playing field? In Jax thats a joke. Without a plan...nothing will change..jtb will be the new downtown...and everyone thought all of the cash from the skinner family in local races was'nt going to have to be returned.

[Anti redneck]

How can this be stopped? What needs to be done? Someone needs to say something to Brown or the COJ.

[JeffreyS]

I submit that lots of these things have started happening here.  My much younger cousin just left Brooklyn, NY he has been there about eight years after growing up in Jax finishing college.  I thought more typical brain drain he gets educated and gets out but surprisingly he is coming back and is interested in downtown, The south bank towers or Springfield. He of course is not expecting it to be like NYC but wants an Urban scene to participate in and we have stared to see that coming about.

[ben says]

I submit that lots of these things have started happening here.  My much younger cousin just left Brooklyn, NY he has been there about eight years after growing up in Jax finishing college.  I thought more typical brain drain he gets educated and gets out but surprisingly he is coming back and is interested in downtown, The south bank towers or Springfield. He of course is not expecting it to be like NYC but wants an Urban scene to participate in and we have stared to see that coming about.

Have the same exact thing going on with my girlfriend

[simms3]

No reason to stop it.  Just level the playing field, so that the cost to operate or live in either is about the same, and you'll see a larger percentage go to an area that has historically been unfeasible for them to do so.  In addition, if public policy drives more sustainable development, that will improve the quality of the burbs as well as the urban core.

The second part regarding policy sounds good.  The first part sounds bad.  You can't level the playing field from a cost perspective.  Name a city where living or operating in the core is as cheap or cheaper than the burbs.  Well - actually I can guarantee you it's cheaper in Jacksonville for retailers.  A good Publix-anchored center or the SJTC is going to have much higher rents and in the first case much lower tenant improvement packages.  Office to office, parts of the Southside are probably $2-3 more expensive than similar space downtown, though buildings on the SS are newer and thus equipped for the 21st century and they come with free parking.

You can't artificially make downtown desirable by "leveling the price playing field."  That's not how it works anywhere.  Downtowns/business districts are on the rise because in most cities that's what the people want.  Jacksonville is unique in that it doesn't really have the same engaged population outside of this board.  It's a city filled with people who don't care.

On top of this, the inner core actually needs to be more expensive than what it is now to pay for things that will provide the appropriate trade-off people/companies are looking for when deciding between urban and suburban.  What I mean by this is that A) taxes all across the city should actually be higher (and to give you an example of either how cheap Jax people are or how conservative they are or how out of touch they are or how poor they are they think taxes are still wayyy too high!...it's literally the cheapest city in America!), B) companies/invested parties downtown need to care more than they do and they need to set up a CID whereby they tax themselves more to pay for public improvements, C) Jacksonville just needs a population who cares and who is willing and able to spend the money to be and live downtown.

[WmNussbaum]

Yes, not caring is another big part of the problem. You can see it in the trash that people litter public areas with. I live in Avondale and on a given Saturday or Sunday morning see what they could not be bothered to dispose of properly, from beer bottles and cans, and cigarette butts to - you name it.  I think that doesn't go in in Town Center, but probably due to sufficient trash receptacles and sufficient staff to keep the place looking like it should.

The two owners of the Landing have blamed low usage on the parking problem. The real problem is that too many folks here think that walking a few blocks to get somewhere is just too much to endure. (But I acknowledge that walking downtown is too often not the nicest experience thanks to the homeless, the inefficient lighting, etc.)

Hey, I just had an idea -quite possibly stupid, but what the hell. Let's all start taking smart-phone photos of folks who are throwing butts on the ground and posting them to a hall of shame. Who amongst us can create the website?

[thelakelander]

You can't level the playing field from a cost perspective.  Name a city where living or operating in the core is as cheap or cheaper than the burbs.  Well - actually I can guarantee you it's cheaper in Jacksonville for retailers.  A good Publix-anchored center or the SJTC is going to have much higher rents and in the first case much lower tenant improvement packages.  Office to office, parts of the Southside are probably $2-3 more expensive than similar space downtown, though buildings on the SS are newer and thus equipped for the 21st century and they come with free parking.

Zoom out a bit from the development world, which is reactionary, to the planning and policy world, which ultimately drives local market conditions.  I'd argue from a planning policy standpoint, that we've bankrupted our urban cores by subsidizing suburban development for the last sixty years.  Leveling the playing field is as simply as easy as reducing the subsidies that drive new development further away from our more sustainable urban cores (this not only includes downtown but your older inner ring neighborhoods as well).

You can't artificially make downtown desirable by "leveling the price playing field."  That's not how it works anywhere.

My focus would not be just "downtown" but we've artificially made several far flung areas more desirable by subsidizing.  For example, if we don't invest the billions in a JTB or Outer Beltway, it becomes significantly less feasible for private development to occur along those corridors.  If we don't dump the hundreds of millions into infrastructure in a spot like Cecil, it becomes a less attractive option for private sector industrial investment.  However, when we do dump money into these places, it typically comes at the expense of places that actually generated the public money to invest in the first place.

Downtowns/business districts are on the rise because in most cities that's what the people want.  Jacksonville is unique in that it doesn't really have the same engaged population outside of this board.  It's a city filled with people who don't care.

I totally disagree with this statement.  Jacksonville, in general is no different from several of its peer cities.  Cities tend to grow organically.  There's a certain segment of the population that prefers urban, suburban, rural, etc. and a larger percentage who really don't care as long as their daily lives aren't negatively impacted.  Where Jacksonville has really suffered is on the leadership level and decades of poor public decisions that have transformed much of its urban core to a moonscape.  Such decisions have limited small business growth opportunities and places a larger burden on big business and money to jump start the redevelopment process, when help from all sectors and demographics is needed.

On top of this, the inner core actually needs to be more expensive than what it is now to pay for things that will provide the appropriate trade-off people/companies are looking for when deciding between urban and suburban.  What I mean by this is that A) taxes all across the city should actually be higher (and to give you an example of either how cheap Jax people are or how conservative they are or how out of touch they are or how poor they are they think taxes are still wayyy too high!...it's literally the cheapest city in America!),

Or perhaps we should learn to better utilize the tax money that already comes in?  It's obvious that we've invested in a growth model that does not work or pay for itself.  You actually hit on an example of this horrible growth model at the public level, when you mentioned the city's off-street parking requirements in the Riverside Park development thread.  Things like that combine to drive an overall development pattern that doesn't pay for itself.  Perhaps it's time to revisit that model before throwing more tax money into the fire?

B) companies/invested parties downtown need to care more than they do and they need to set up a CID whereby they tax themselves more to pay for public improvements,

Something like this is already in place, although the JEDC is in charge of how the money gets spent.  I believe that's where the funds for the Laura Street Streetscape and Friendship Fountain projects came from.

C) Jacksonville just needs a population who cares and who is willing and able to spend the money to be and live downtown.

This will happen if policy is modified and the city gets out of the way.  I have tons of examples where people wanted to get involved, invest there money in downtown specifically but policy has driven them away to other areas.  Florida Coastal, half the artist at CoRK, Cameron Kuhn, Sleiman/Landing situation, and even our little food truck event are quick examples that immediately pop in my mind.

Name a city where living or operating in the core is as cheap or cheaper than the burbs.

I said, level the playing field but I would never attempt to provide a direct number, because every development opportunity should be evaluated on an individual basis.  With that said, Philadelphia is an example of a city that successfully helped level their playing field via a massive tax abatement program a decade ago.  In fact, it was wildly successful for the revitalization of Center City.  Others such as Portland and Lexington have successfully implemented urban development boundaries.  A few others that are hard pressed, such as Detroit and Youngstown, are going as far as closing off neighborhoods to drive development and investment to other areas to compete against suburban pressures. 

[thelakelander]

Yes, not caring is another big part of the problem. You can see it in the trash that people litter public areas with. I live in Avondale and on a given Saturday or Sunday morning see what they could not be bothered to dispose of properly, from beer bottles and cans, and cigarette butts to - you name it.  I think that doesn't go in in Town Center, but probably due to sufficient trash receptacles and sufficient staff to keep the place looking like it should.

Actually, public roadways like Southside Boulevard and Philips Highway are some of the trashiest I've seen in town.  Btw, SJTC is a private development.  Trashy public ROW is more likely a result of a struggling public maintenance department that may be stretched too thin.  Again, another example of a situation that can be contributed to a horrible development pattern.

The two owners of the Landing have blamed low usage on the parking problem. The real problem is that too many folks here think that walking a few blocks to get somewhere is just too much to endure. (But I acknowledge that walking downtown is too often not the nicest experience thanks to the homeless, the inefficient lighting, etc.)

This statement is a perfect example of what has ailed downtown for decades.  Instead of acknowledging problems that have been stated by business owners for sixty years, we continue to ignore these issues and suggest that people need to be trained.  Perhaps, just for once, it would make sense to listen and attempt to address these types of issues?  This downtown redevelopment stuff is really simple.  We just tend to overcomplicate the situation.

[WmNussbaum]

This statement is a perfect example of what has ailed downtown for decades.  Instead of acknowledging problems that have been stated by business owners for sixty years, we continue to ignore these issues and suggest that people need to be trained.

Years and years ago the only parking was on the street and it was not sufficient. Store employees took up too many of the metered spots to have space left over for shoppers. Now that isn't the case. There are two fairly large parking garages within easy walking distance of the Landing. One on the NE corner of Bay and Main, and the other on Bay between Bay and Laura. I think it's deplorable that the City reneges on its promises to create closer parking, but with the other space available, was the promise really necessary to begin with? Between the garages and the sites of razed buildings, there is ample parking all over the core area. (It might get a bit tighter when the new courthouse opens in May.)

Ron Chamblin, how about weighing in on this thread?

Speaking of Ron, the problem of the homeless is real. It is a fairly new one - about 10 years or less. It is exacerbated because the jail which regularly releases inmates and Sulzbacher are both close to the old core city. I have no legally or socially acceptable solution to that problem, but it would help if those two institutions were somewhat removed from the area we would like to see thrive again. At lease one person I consider knowledgeable think that the jail - Oops, "pretrial detention facility - may be nearing the end of its useful life. One can only hope.

[simms3]

You can't level the playing field from a cost perspective.  Name a city where living or operating in the core is as cheap or cheaper than the burbs.  Well - actually I can guarantee you it's cheaper in Jacksonville for retailers.  A good Publix-anchored center or the SJTC is going to have much higher rents and in the first case much lower tenant improvement packages.  Office to office, parts of the Southside are probably $2-3 more expensive than similar space downtown, though buildings on the SS are newer and thus equipped for the 21st century and they come with free parking.

Zoom out a bit from the development world, which is reactionary, to the planning and policy world, which ultimately drives local market conditions.  I'd argue from a planning policy standpoint, that we've bankrupted our urban cores by subsidizing suburban development for the last sixty years.  Leveling the playing field is as simply as easy as reducing the subsidies that drive new development further away from our more sustainable urban cores (this not only includes downtown but your older inner ring neighborhoods as well).

I'll just speak from the experience of working for private equity myself.  We invest in two types of markets: core gateway markets on the coasts where there is over-regulation and near impossibility of new development, but we are one of a small handful.  Then we have opportunistic funds where money is allocated to urbanizing cities such as Atlanta and smaller cities such as Nashville and Savannah and Chattannooga where beyond planning there is an intown boom fueled by universities, growing corporations and improving 21st century economic fundamentals.  Local planning policies have never determined our investments.  It's ALL about fundamentals for us, and we are not alone.

Charlotte and Nashville sprawl even further than Jacksonville does, yet each has a strong and growing core thanks to a combination of strong local universities, strong corporate leadership and strong mayors who had vision to partner with the private sector and universites.  I don't believe either city has ground-breaking policies different from Jacksonville.  Both cities will get you on things as little as signage.  Both cities have overzealous bureaucracies and "economic" boards, etc.  Those cities do have higher taxes.  The difference is in the private sector and the people.

You can't artificially make downtown desirable by "leveling the price playing field."  That's not how it works anywhere.

My focus would not be just "downtown" but we've artificially made several far flung areas more desirable by subsidizing.  For example, if we don't invest the billions in a JTB or Outer Beltway, it becomes significantly less feasible for private development to occur along those corridors.  If we don't dump the hundreds of millions into infrastructure in a spot like Cecil, it becomes a less attractive option for private sector industrial investment.  However, when we do dump money into these places, it typically comes at the expense of places that actually generated the public money to invest in the first place.

Again, there is no city in America that is not continuing to expand and build new highways and roads an schools in the suburbs.  Every city has suburbs that are expanding faster than the city and in a much more unsustainable way.  We can't stop "subsidizing" the suburbs as you say, or they will turn to crap and NOBODY will move here.  Instead we can come up with packages that include funding for the suburbs and the core simultaneously, much like the Better Jacksonville Plan.  Atlanta is using this tactic to hopefully pass a $19B transportation bill tax this summer whereby the suburbs will get tons of new roads, but the city will also expand MARTA and the Beltline dramatically so everyone wins.  It has yet to be determined if it will pass, but it sure as hell wouldn't if it were 70/30 or greater transit to roads.  More people will always want roads over transit anywhere in America

Downtowns/business districts are on the rise because in most cities that's what the people want.  Jacksonville is unique in that it doesn't really have the same engaged population outside of this board.  It's a city filled with people who don't care.

I totally disagree with this statement.  Jacksonville, in general is no different from several of its peer cities.  Cities tend to grow organically.  There's a certain segment of the population that prefers urban, suburban, rural, etc. and a larger percentage who really don't care as long as their daily lives aren't negatively impacted.  Where Jacksonville has really suffered is on the leadership level and decades of poor public decisions that have transformed much of its urban core to a moonscape.  Such decisions have limited small business growth opportunities and places a larger burden on big business and money to jump start the redevelopment process, when help from all sectors and demographics is needed.

Just from my limited experience traveling with my company and my observations living outside of Jacksonville, people in Jacksonville just aren't as engaged as people elsewhere.  It's not just a Jacksonville thing, though.  It's largely a FL thing.  I agree that our local leadership has historically been lacking compared to practically anywhere, even compared to other cities in FL.  That being said Jacksonville has always had a larger corporate sector that has had plenty of opportunity to intervene.  The city has also had major business leaders that have had opportunity to intervene.  Peter Rummell is now basically the head of ULI and resides in Jacksonville, and I know he is a member of some local groups and has spoken, but where is the ACTION?

On top of this, the inner core actually needs to be more expensive than what it is now to pay for things that will provide the appropriate trade-off people/companies are looking for when deciding between urban and suburban.  What I mean by this is that A) taxes all across the city should actually be higher (and to give you an example of either how cheap Jax people are or how conservative they are or how out of touch they are or how poor they are they think taxes are still wayyy too high!...it's literally the cheapest city in America!),

Or perhaps we should learn to better utilize the tax money that already comes in?  It's obvious that we've invested in a growth model that does not work or pay for itself.  You actually hit on an example of this horrible growth model at the public level, when you mentioned the city's off-street parking requirements in the Riverside Park development thread.  Things like that combine to drive an overall development pattern that doesn't pay for itself.  Perhaps it's time to revisit that model before throwing more tax money into the fire?

I was floored by the ratio requirement, but I also commented that in Midtown Atlanta the requirement may be lower but developers are still building to a similar ratio because as urban as it is in contrast, until it gets to DC/NYC/Boston/Seattle densities the car will always rule and people living IN the city will still need a car...or two.  I still think Jacksonville is horribly under-taxed.  With the little taxes we have coming in, how would you allocate the spending?  Too many tough choices need to be made to appease too many groups of people politically split all over the city's 750 square miles.

B) companies/invested parties downtown need to care more than they do and they need to set up a CID whereby they tax themselves more to pay for public improvements,

Something like this is already in place, although the JEDC is in charge of how the money gets spent.  I believe that's where the funds for the Laura Street Streetscape and Friendship Fountain projects came from.

I can promise you that while on the surface it may seem like Jax/downtown is set up similarly, it is not.  It truly is not.  My neighborhood CID is so advanced that I have a CID card that gives me discounts with shops/businesses within the zone.  Not only that, EVERY business district from downtown to the various burbs has its own very involved CID.  On top of this there are 8 TIDs separate from the CIDs within the city, and then the county has its own.  On top of this are the various economic empowerment zones, one of which I live in as well.  The city may be in the poor house, but these zones are plugging and chugging private money into public bond financing and also churning privately taxed money into "public" projects within these zones.  The city did not pay one penny for the miles of streetscaping done around me in the past 3 years.  It was all tax money, but private tax money that the city had almost no control over as specified in the legal documents setting up and empowering the CIDs.  On top of all this and even with the high vacancies, there are still enough corporations, businesses, and deep pockets who can fund these zones.  That will make it difficult for Jacksonville - and is an example of when money comes in handy.

C) Jacksonville just needs a population who cares and who is willing and able to spend the money to be and live downtown.

This will happen if policy is modified and the city gets out of the way.  I have tons of examples where people wanted to get involved, invest there money in downtown specifically but policy has driven them away to other areas.  Florida Coastal, half the artist at CoRK, Cameron Kuhn, Sleiman/Landing situation, and even our little food truck event are quick examples that immediately pop in my mind.

I agree with all of this.  BUT the people of Jacksonville are who keep electing these dolts and I don't hear a public outcry over any of this outside of this board.  Maybe the FTU does not even care, but seriously if any of this were to happen in a more engaged city there would be a major outcry if it were truly against the wishes of the people.  I'm telling you PEOPLE DON'T CARE.

Name a city where living or operating in the core is as cheap or cheaper than the burbs.

I said, level the playing field but I would never attempt to provide a direct number, because every development opportunity should be evaluated on an individual basis.  With that said, Philadelphia is an example of a city that successfully helped level their playing field via a massive tax abatement program a decade ago.  In fact, it was wildly successful for the revitalization of Center City.  Others such as Portland and Lexington have successfully implemented urban development boundaries.  A few others that are hard pressed, such as Detroit and Youngstown, are going as far as closing off neighborhoods to drive development and investment to other areas to compete against suburban pressures.

Philadelphia is probably the best analogy to what could be done in Jax, but keep in mind the tax abatements there covered the entire city limits, which are much smaller than Duval County, but still included far more land outside of Center City than in.  Also, there are differences between the two.

1) There were a ton of Center City buildings to choose from, creating liquidity in the market and reducing competition between investors.

2) There has always been a mentality in Philly of preserving the past, and plenty of investors had already been major donors to the Franklin Institute, museums, CC organizations and the like.

3) The fundamentals were already there: a drive, a will, major local universities, major museums and tourist attractions, Walnut St shops, Rittenhouse Square, big corporate headquarters and amazing public transportation.

4) Bottom line rents in CC at the beginning of the program were still pretty high.  Even in 1980 dollars rents in some of the newly rehabbed buildings would be akin to some of the nicer developments in Jax today.  Cars were also not necessary and it was and is very expensive to own a car in CC.  Likewise the infrastructure to support cars, aka garages, did not need to be built.

5) Rents were high because they needed to be and because they could be.  Philly has a lot of wealthy young professionals and wealthy families.  It was easy to convince Penn grads who stayed in Philly that they needn't move to the Main Line but could just cross the river or stay in the University area.  These Penn grads had great jobs and could and would happily afford high rents in a cool building.  A little bit different situation than Jax.

6) Combine high rents, good incomes in the area with highly educated young people, great fundamentals, liquidity and tons of choices and you have a great investment and a burgeoning investment community taking advantage of the abatements.

Novare received a tax abatement from the city of Atlanta for its latest barebones multifamily high rise ($2.5M if I remember correctly), and this also helped lower rents - but the 1BRs are still starting at $1,500.  This development will not have all the bells and whistles.  Could Jax support similar rents?

Unfortunately Jacksonville does not have most or any of these options to play into the tax abatement program.  It's not as if rehabbing buildings and new construction are drastically less there than elsewhere, but rents are...and therein lies the problem.

Also, I would weary of copying Detroit and Youngstown on anything they do.  We don't know if their policies will work, but historically they have done nothing right in those towns.

[thelakelander]

WmNussbaum, the Landing situation dealt with "dedicated" parking for potential Landing retail anchors, which has nothing to do with the overall number of non-dedicated parking spaces in downtown garages and on surface streets.  Some believe it should be solved by adding to downtown's parking supply.  I believe it makes more sense to "dedicate" a certain number of existing spaces within close distance of the shopping center.

[simms3]

Just don't see how retailers will come to the Landing anyway without the fundamentals, parking or not.  If downtown were a true tourist district with more hotels and more tourists, then parking would be far less a factor.  That being said there are 3 groups who can feed 3 different types of retailers downtown: office workers, residents and tourists.  Contrary to popular belief by me earlier in my life and by many on this board, office workers don't do much shopping at all in any downtown.  They want sundries, dry cleaning and one-stop shop kiosks at most before they clear out and go home.  If their home is a few blocks away, then they are obviously categorized as a downtown resident, as well.  The residents want their staples within easy walking, transit, or yes even driving distance with parking.  Tourists are totally different and fall into various sub-categories.

We have very few office workers.  We have basically no residents.  And we don't have many tourists at all.

Parking at the Landing could currently be 1.0 space per 1,000 SF directly in front and free and easy for visitors and still no national/credit retailer will give the Landing a chance.

If Sleiman is smart, then even if he were given all the parking in the world he would not make any major improvements to the center to try to attract tenants without better overall downtown fundamentals and/or MAJOR "subsidies".  This is the dirty little secret because he knows nothing he does right now or the city does right now will translate to retailers/tenants 1-2 years from now.

As major downtown owners in NYC and going down from there, we offer major TI allowances for virtually all of our ground floor tenants - even in NYC.  It does not automatically translate to a long list of tenants dying to be in one of our developments.  They have proformas on their real estate side just like we do, and it comes down to compromises that ensure both parties reach or exceed proforma.  This is also the case in NYC.  So if it's not a given that a retailer will go in your Fifth Ave space in Manhattan, it's certainly not a given for some lame place in dead downtown Jax.

Again...money drives all decisions

[thelakelander]

Charlotte and Nashville sprawl even further than Jacksonville does, yet each has a strong and growing core thanks to a combination of strong local universities, strong corporate leadership and strong mayors who had vision to partner with the private sector and universites.  I don't believe either city has ground-breaking policies different from Jacksonville.  Both cities will get you on things as little as signage.  Both cities have overzealous bureaucracies and "economic" boards, etc.  Those cities do have higher taxes.  The difference is in the private sector and the people.

You mentioned it in your post but left it out in the last sentence.  Don't underestimate political leadership.  For example, Charlotte is very agressive on incentivizing development deals that Jax would never seriously consider.  Just a few years ago they gave tons of incentives to Johnson & Whales University to pick and move to Uptown.  When a city has a vision and puts its money where its mouth is, the private sector usually jumps on board.

Again, there is no city in America that is not continuing to expand and build new highways and roads an schools in the suburbs.

Sure there is.  Most major cities are boxed in by other municipalities.  To compete, they find creative ways to improve their quality of life (ex. like the Philly tax abatement program).  In some cities like Milwaukee and San Francisco, they've gone as far as closing and removing expressways to replace them with pedestrian scale boulevards and greenways.  They just have no control over what goes on outside of their borders.

Every city has suburbs that are expanding faster than the city and in a much more unsustainable way.  We can't stop "subsidizing" the suburbs as you say, or they will turn to crap and NOBODY will move here.  Instead we can come up with packages that include funding for the suburbs and the core simultaneously, much like the Better Jacksonville Plan.

Yes, we have a national wide problem and the chickens are currently coming home to roost.  Some cities, such as Harrisburg, PA have already filed for bankruptcy.  Others are well on their way.  So eventually, we will stop with the subsidies because the cash will run dry due to a ponzi scheme oriented growth pattern.  Even the BJP's well ran dry without a significant portion of intended projects ever being completed.  Nevertheless, you can stop the unsustainable subsidies and still maintain viable districts throughout.  However, policies will have to be modified to encourage more sustainable development within urban cores and suburbs.

Just from my limited experience traveling with my company and my observations living outside of Jacksonville, people in Jacksonville just aren't as engaged as people elsewhere.  It's not just a Jacksonville thing, though.  It's largely a FL thing.  I agree that our local leadership has historically been lacking compared to practically anywhere, even compared to other cities in FL.  That being said Jacksonville has always had a larger corporate sector that has had plenty of opportunity to intervene.  The city has also had major business leaders that have had opportunity to intervene.  Peter Rummell is now basically the head of ULI and resides in Jacksonville, and I know he is a member of some local groups and has spoken, but where is the ACTION?

From my experience, people want to be engaged but its not so easy for them to do so.  Thus, many relocate to areas where their innovation and creativity are embraced on a larger level.  Just look at how hostile we've been to the food truck industry here.  Something, that if embraced, could easily help put people on the street in areas of downtown that are currently dominated by surface parking lots.

I was floored by the ratio requirement, but I also commented that in Midtown Atlanta the requirement may be lower but developers are still building to a similar ratio because as urban as it is in contrast, until it gets to DC/NYC/Boston/Seattle densities the car will always rule and people living IN the city will still need a car...or two.  I still think Jacksonville is horribly under-taxed.  With the little taxes we have coming in, how would you allocate the spending?  Too many tough choices need to be made to appease too many groups of people politically split all over the city's 750 square miles.

The best answer here is  to look at other cities that spread across hundreds of miles, yet still have fairly decent downtowns.  Oklahoma City, Nashville, Charlotte, Columbus, Indianapolis, Memphis, etc. are all good peer cities to evaluate on that level.

I can promise you that while on the surface it may seem like Jax/downtown is set up similarly, it is not.  It truly is not.  My neighborhood CID is so advanced that I have a CID card that gives me discounts with shops/businesses within the zone.  Not only that, EVERY business district from downtown to the various burbs has its own very involved CID.  On top of this there are 8 TIDs separate from the CIDs within the city, and then the county has its own.  On top of this are the various economic empowerment zones, one of which I live in as well.  The city may be in the poor house, but these zones are plugging and chugging private money into public bond financing and also churning privately taxed money into "public" projects within these zones.  The city did not pay one penny for the miles of streetscaping done around me in the past 3 years.  It was all tax money, but private tax money that the city had almost no control over as specified in the legal documents setting up and empowering the CIDs.  On top of all this and even with the high vacancies, there are still enough corporations, businesses, and deep pockets who can fund these zones.  That will make it difficult for Jacksonville - and is an example of when money comes in handy.

This is where getting out of the way of the private sector may make some sense.  That would allow entities to do just this without "stepping on the toes" of a public agency who believes this is their turf.

I agree with all of this.  BUT the people of Jacksonville are who keep electing these dolts and I don't hear a public outcry over any of this outside of this board.  Maybe the FTU does not even care, but seriously if any of this were to happen in a more engaged city there would be a major outcry if it were truly against the wishes of the people.  I'm telling you PEOPLE DON'T CARE.

People care just as much as they do in most Sunbelt cities, Jacksonville's size.  Looking back, they cared enough to tax themselves with the BJP, which is still fairly revolutionary for a community with Jax's demographics.  However, you've got to have leadership to push a vision through.  For whatever reason, we've struggled in this arena.

Philadelphia is probably the best analogy to what could be done in Jax, but keep in mind the tax abatements there covered the entire city limits, which are much smaller than Duval County, but still included far more land outside of Center City than in.  Also, there are differences between the two.

1) There were a ton of Center City buildings to choose from, creating liquidity in the market and reducing competition between investors.

2) There has always been a mentality in Philly of preserving the past, and plenty of investors had already been major donors to the Franklin Institute, museums, CC organizations and the like.

3) The fundamentals were already there: a drive, a will, major local universities, major museums and tourist attractions, Walnut St shops, Rittenhouse Square, big corporate headquarters and amazing public transportation.

4) Bottom line rents in CC at the beginning of the program were still pretty high.  Even in 1980 dollars rents in some of the newly rehabbed buildings would be akin to some of the nicer developments in Jax today.  Cars were also not necessary and it was and is very expensive to own a car in CC.  Likewise the infrastructure to support cars, aka garages, did not need to be built.

5) Rents were high because they needed to be and because they could be.  Philly has a lot of wealthy young professionals and wealthy families.  It was easy to convince Penn grads who stayed in Philly that they needn't move to the Main Line but could just cross the river or stay in the University area.  These Penn grads had great jobs and could and would happily afford high rents in a cool building.  A little bit different situation than Jax.

6) Combine high rents, good incomes in the area with highly educated young people, great fundamentals, liquidity and tons of choices and you have a great investment and a burgeoning investment community taking advantage of the abatements.

Novare received a tax abatement from the city of Atlanta for its latest barebones multifamily high rise ($2.5M if I remember correctly), and this also helped lower rents - but the 1BRs are still starting at $1,500.  This development will not have all the bells and whistles.  Could Jax support similar rents?

Unfortunately Jacksonville does not have most or any of these options to play into the tax abatement program.  It's not as if rehabbing buildings and new construction are drastically less there than elsewhere, but rents are...and therein lies the problem.

When I look at this situations, they're easier to tackle when you break apart the causes and effects.  Our cause is we've created an uneven playing field to drive development to far flung areas of town and have subsidized billions to do so.  That move has been a success but it has drained downtown, the urban core, and COJ's budget.  To apply the Philly model here would call for tax abatement, not only in downtown but most of the pre consolidated city.  When you combine the two, you do have decent urban fabric to work with.  You also have to acknowledge that stimulating small business growth in these areas is just as important (if not more) than large scale development.

Also, I would weary of copying Detroit and Youngstown on anything they do.  We don't know if their policies will work, but historically they have done nothing right in those towns.

Depends.  I'd copy Detroit's streetcar, Campus Martius, and Dequindre Cut projects any day.  Those particular solutions towards mass transit and public space planning will work in any community.  Detroit's Eastern Market area is also exactly what Jax should attempt to create with the industrial district around the Beaver Street farmers market.  However, closing off areas of town won't and probably won't work in Detroit and Youngstown either. 

[thelakelander]

Just don't see how retailers will come to the Landing anyway without the fundamentals, parking or not.  If downtown were a true tourist district with more hotels and more tourists, then parking would be far less a factor.  That being said there are 3 groups who can feed 3 different types of retailers downtown: office workers, residents and tourists.  Contrary to popular belief by me earlier in my life and by many on this board, office workers don't do much shopping at all in any downtown.  They want sundries, dry cleaning and one-stop shop kiosks at most before they clear out and go home.  If their home is a few blocks away, then they are obviously categorized as a downtown resident, as well.  The residents want their staples within easy walking, transit, or yes even driving distance with parking.  Tourists are totally different and fall into various sub-categories.

We have very few office workers.  We have basically no residents.  And we don't have many tourists at all.

Parking at the Landing could currently be 1.0 space per 1,000 SF directly in front and free and easy for visitors and still no national/credit retailer will give the Landing a chance.

If Sleiman is smart, then even if he were given all the parking in the world he would not make any major improvements to the center to try to attract tenants without better overall downtown fundamentals and/or MAJOR "subsidies".  This is the dirty little secret because he knows nothing he does right now or the city does right now will translate to retailers/tenants 1-2 years from now.

As major downtown owners in NYC and going down from there, we offer major TI allowances for virtually all of our ground floor tenants - even in NYC.  It does not automatically translate to a long list of tenants dying to be in one of our developments.  They have proformas on their real estate side just like we do, and it comes down to compromises that ensure both parties reach or exceed proforma.  This is also the case in NYC.  So if it's not a given that a retailer will go in your Fifth Ave space in Manhattan, it's certainly not a given for some lame place in dead downtown Jax.

Again...money drives all decisions

All this depends on the type of retail.  If we're talking about an upscale chain or major department store, that's one thing.  If we're talking about attracting more service, entertainment, and dining oriented retail venues than that's another.  The Landing will never be a place that's going to attract the same type of chains populating SJTC or Avenues Mall.  However, it can be a place that attracts more entertainment and dining oriented venues.  Nevertheless, dedicated parking plays a role in both.  It would also be a great location for a Beaver Street style public market.  That option would not rely so much on dedicated parking but it would net Sleiman his desired leasing rates either.

Also, I think Sleiman's Landing may be the key to transforming the heart of the urban core.  It needs to be opened up to Laura Street and that interior mall needs to be flipped inside out.  I agree that this should be considered as a package deal with anything concerning the Landing.