A Downtown Capital Infusion?

[Cheshire Cat]

I agree, but I also think that its time to put a lot of the long knives away. 

There will be rich and powerful people and there will be poor and influential people and there are good and bad in both groups.  But we do all have to work together.

At the end of the day, we have to work on our process, and that process of how we do things as a city should be fair and universal, no matter who the villains or the angels are.

I feel like we have let the angels slide so many times, and the devils pay their weight in lieu of a fair an universal system for decades now.

And its because we pay attention to 'who', not 'what' or 'how'.

I know you have positive ideas as well as a perfectly virgo instinct for seeing what is being done wrong, and we need all voices frankly.

And I think its good for you and I to have this discussion with each other so that people can see debates placed in their proper proportion of thesis, anti thesis and synthesis.

I would agree.  For me it is not seeing the players as angels or devils though.  It is more about who has the money and power to have a seat at the table where the real decision making goes down and who never gets to the table.  As it stands, those without influence and power don't generally find that seat at the table unless they have a lever to get them there.  Just being nice doesn't do it.  There has to be a balance of understanding, will and the ability for the average individual to make and attend meetings and functions regularly.  Most cannot and the result of that is a system that is not serving the community the way it should.  I don't want to go off topic but want to give one example here of how things go out of balance and remain that way.  The example is the situation with Kim Scott and those regular citizens that are working hard to expose inequities in a city department while the mayor is not only ignoring concerns about the department and how it functions but instead is giving her a promotion.  The back side of that is that we have a city department head that is insulated by friends holding political power.  Not only is she insulated, she then uses her power to send out code enforcement officers in retaliation to the focus put on her and start tagging things like lettuce in a public garden.  Politics and private influence is what is driving this instance and we can all see the struggle that has ensued when it comes to private citizens being heard.  Again, don't want to get off topic here.  We can put away the long knives when the powers that be stop attempting to use their own knives to cut off the toes of the average citizens in order to serve a select group. Only fully understanding how influence, money and power works in our city will give the average citizen, small business person and voter the information they need to make informed decisions and take action accordingly.

[ronchamblin]

If one is to make progress in understanding an issue or a problem, one must seek out, among all the aspects of it, the most significant.  As we observe the overall scenario of the downtown core and its continued lack of movement toward vibrancy and infill, we must attempt to focus on the three or four significant aspects affecting movement.  What are they?  Any somewhat complex problem has two or three components that are quite fundamental to its solution, and unless attention and energy is applied to those components, no progress can be made. 

To expend too much energy on peripheral components of a problem, those not relevant to the solution, is to waste assets and energy ... and to fail ultimately. 

What are the three or four significant components impacting the downtown core revitalization?  If progress is to be had, these significant aspects must be discovered and engaged.

A little repetitive, but I always like to make my point.

[simms3]

you don't spend public money when times are bad!

I can't disagree more on this issue. If anything public investment is the key when times are bad, as interest rates are low to zero, labor cost are significantly lower, and most suppliers will be looking to cut a deal to move product. In short it's better to spend when things are cheap.

I get what you're saying.  On the private side, a lot of things need to come together for investment during rough times.  Of course, depending on who you are, the capital invested, etc, investing at the bottom of the market could work well or may not work well.  I must admit, my understanding of public finance is not nearly as clear as my understanding of private sector financial theory and its applications.

I do wonder, though, whether public investment in a thing such as "downtown" can be viewed in the same context as healthcare or energy.  For instance, to advance large sweeping programs, many politicians wait for the times to get so bad and people to get so desperate for some sort of change/policy.  However, downtown Jax doesn't seem to be viewed by the public the way healthcare or pension reform is.  Interest rates are still extremely low even though times are fantastic in most cities now.  Construction costs are up, but certainly not in Jax.  Concrete and labor are skyrocketing in crane cities happening now in SF, Miami, Houston, NYC, and Boston.  I still think in this particular case, when there is optimism in the air, the private guys feel comfortable crawling out of the woodwork, substantive discussions are being had, and the capital markets and local job costs are favorable, now is kind of the time to strike.  Not in bad times when the city's tax base shrinks with property value deterioration and taxpayer job losses.  Floating bonds and/or spending money on downtown projects, especially in a city like Jax, in those times could prove challenging at the very least.

[ronchamblin]

Kim Scott is a problem, and I think the mayor backs her at his own political peril.

But surely you agree that development takes money and power, regardless of the pure politics.  That is true anywhere in the world.  It would seem to make sense that a proposition that requires Money and Power would only include the people who have them.

Successful projects do not require both money and power, but only money.

[Cheshire Cat]

Kim Scott is a problem, and I think the mayor backs her at his own political peril.

But surely you agree that development takes money and power, regardless of the pure politics.  That is true anywhere in the world.  It would seem to make sense that a proposition that requires Money and Power would only include the people who have them.

Let me see how to word this so that my thoughts will not be viewed as oppositional.    Of course it takes money to drive development.  That money and power does not come in it's entirety from those with funding and influence.  Much of that power and money is coming from the city itself and that power structure.  However the money the city has at its disposal is public money, basically tax dollars.  The system was supposedly set up so that our elected officials would represent all of it's citizens equally, since our government is funded to represent us.  However the balance of power in Jacksonville is reflective of the balance of power nationally, which is that the politicians are driven by private funding, power and influence.  That is why we do not go forward because as Shad Khan so readily noticed, our movers and shakers have no vision and what little vision there is lacks the collective backing to go forward.  In our city we have special interests that drive who gets the money for development and everything else depending upon their political connections.  The people of Jacksonville are not being represented via our local government.  Much of what does happen that is improvement to any degree often happen in the course of one or another agenda being fulfilled that matches the needs and desires of those with money and influence.  That's a fact.  So a proposition that requires money of course includes those with it and those with power, but that should not equate to them at the helm of Ship Jacksonville. 

[Cheshire Cat]

If one is to make progress in understanding an issue or a problem, one must seek out, among all the aspects of it, the most significant.  As we observe the overall scenario of the downtown core and its continued lack of movement toward vibrancy and infill, we must attempt to focus on the three or four significant aspects affecting movement.  What are they?  Any somewhat complex problem has two or three components that are quite fundamental to its solution, and unless attention and energy is applied to those components, no progress can be made. 

To expend too much energy on peripheral components of a problem, those not relevant to the solution, is to waste assets and energy ... and to fail ultimately. 

What are the three or four significant components impacting the downtown core revitalization?  If progress is to be had, these significant aspects must be discovered and engaged.

A little repetitive, but I always like to make my point.

Ron I do have some ideas as to what the significant issues are that impact our forward progress.  I would be interested to hear your ideas of what they are as well of the ideas of others before commenting.

[Cheshire Cat]

Kim Scott is a problem, and I think the mayor backs her at his own political peril.

But surely you agree that development takes money and power, regardless of the pure politics.  That is true anywhere in the world.  It would seem to make sense that a proposition that requires Money and Power would only include the people who have them.

Successful projects do not require both money and power, but only money.

I don't completely agree with that sentiment Ron.  Perhaps power is not the right word to put to my views on this.  I will replace that word with the word influence.  In Jacksonville your money can only take you so far if the system is set up to work against you.  Too often the system works against our local entrepreneurs, small developers, small business etc.  Who you know can make or break you in Jacksonville regardless of funding. 

[ronchamblin]

Kim Scott is a problem, and I think the mayor backs her at his own political peril.

But surely you agree that development takes money and power, regardless of the pure politics.  That is true anywhere in the world.  It would seem to make sense that a proposition that requires Money and Power would only include the people who have them.

Successful projects do not require both money and power, but only money.

I don't completely agree with that sentiment Ron.  Perhaps power is not the right word to put to my views on this.  I will replace that word with the word influence.  In Jacksonville your money can only take you so far if the system is set up to work against you.  Too often the system works against our local entrepreneurs, small developers, small business etc.  Who you know can make or break you in Jacksonville regardless of funding. 

Some would say that money provides power.

Perhaps I simply wanted to convey that power, in the usual sense, is not necessary to accomplish projects.

I like to think that any significant project requires only money and a viable plan to achieve the project.

I agree that "influence" is a word related to power. 

All people have influence, and as the influence increases, we might say that they gain power.

Actually, I was trying to pick on Stephen.

[Cheshire Cat]

^In this city influence is often key when those with money compete.  Remember the big fight betweenWaste Management and another competitor? It was the influence not the money that sealed that deal in Jacksonville. lol

Not gonna comment on the pick on Stephen thingy. lol

[mtraininjax]

I actually think it should go mostly toward incentives for plans that would get some occupancy in local storefronts and create some activity.

I would recommend that the money NOT go to storefronts, but rather to assist in developments for residents. Build more residential and the commercial will build out the storefronts to provide goods and services that the residents want and need.

I would not spend money to assist in renovations for a church or a park, unless it was tied directly to incentives for residential units. Gotta grow downtown by more than 500 new residents per year.

[Cheshire Cat]

I actually think it should go mostly toward incentives for plans that would get some occupancy in local storefronts and create some activity.

I would recommend that the money NOT go to storefronts, but rather to assist in developments for residents. Build more residential and the commercial will build out the storefronts to provide goods and services that the residents want and need.

I would not spend money to assist in renovations for a church or a park, unless it was tied directly to incentives for residential units. Gotta grow downtown by more than 500 new residents per year.

I respectfully don't agree.  If we go with the more residents idea, we are not going to see anything happen anytime soon.  That turns on great connectivity with public transport, grocery stores etc. .  I know that many folks believe having residents downtown first is key.  I think that having activity in the storefronts downtown will draw more people into the core and that will lead to more folks being interested in living there.  We have plenty of empty residential space in the standing Berkman Plaza. There is a reason for that and for the fact that the second building was never completed.   We need activity and action to get people interested and excited about living in the core.

[ronchamblin]

If one is to make progress in understanding an issue or a problem, one must seek out, among all the aspects of it, the most significant.  As we observe the overall scenario of the downtown core and its continued lack of movement toward vibrancy and infill, we must attempt to focus on the three or four significant aspects affecting movement.  What are they?  Any somewhat complex problem has two or three components that are quite fundamental to its solution, and unless attention and energy is applied to those components, no progress can be made. 

To expend too much energy on peripheral components of a problem, those not relevant to the solution, is to waste assets and energy ... and to fail ultimately. 

What are the three or four significant components impacting the downtown core revitalization?  If progress is to be had, these significant aspects must be discovered and engaged.

A little repetitive, but I always like to make my point.

Ron I do have some ideas as to what the significant issues are that impact our forward progress.  I would be interested to hear your ideas of what they are as well of the ideas of others before commenting.

Sorry about delay.  I was away.

Let's see.  I will state them in sequence, not necessarily in order of importance:

1)  The achievement, by whatever means, of greater foot traffic (population) in the core.  As I've said before, achieving this alone, by whatever means, will result in drawing "more" people into the core -- in the form of residents, workers, businesses, visitors etc.  This is a goal, and not a process.  Every business must have a certain level of foot traffic to survive and prosper.  Therefore, as the foot traffic (population) in the core increases, the core will attract and support more types of businesses.  Achieving a certain level of food traffic in the core, will move the core toward what we could call a threshold, above which, people will begin to move into the core as residents, workers, and entrepreneurs.

The importance of gaining foot traffic is so important for speeding the journey to vibrancy, that it must be encouraged by all means available .. incentives of all types.  I guess i'm talking about a threshold effect.  A post threshold level of population will "automatically" apply pressure for new residents, workers, and visitors.     

I will suggest a No. 2 soon.  So far, what do you think about the importance of the first?  And what do you think about the idea of even talking about "significant" components, and their relation to progress ... as compared to peripheral issues that is? 

[mtraininjax]

I think that having activity in the storefronts downtown will draw more people into the core and that will lead to more folks being interested in living there.

With respect to your counterpoint, I don't know a single commercial Realtor who would agree with that point that you build more storefronts to lure more residents.  Sure they would love to sell you a storefront, but without traffic to support it, why bother? Downtown is the 8-5 crowd, then after 5 it is left with a few thousand residents. The storefronts that are there now, do you see them expanding their stores and getting bigger as a result of additional storefronts coming downtown? Where is the real growth of downtown? It comes from new residents. Why did Sleiman say he plans to add residential to his Landing venture? Because he knows more residents will expand his offerings for more commercial storefronts.

Berkman II failed because it was built at the tail-end of the Real Estate Boom. If the project was viable and safe, you would see capital return and an entity purchase it, just as someone purchased the half-built condo project on Goodby's Creek. Just as some entity purchased the Old San Jose Development. Just as the condos at Ortega Yacht Club have sold out over the last year, and the land for the others is being discussed for purchase. As the economic cycle returns, real estate will return. But more than a real estate turn is needed for downtown to thrive, it needs more downtown residents. Add the residents, the commercial stores will come to chase down the dollars of the residents.

If you need more proof of chicken/egg - Look at 220 Riverside. The apartments and condos in and around the facility led to Whole Foods and other restaurants announcing that they want to be there to support the people who will reside there. Did the Whole Foods pop up before 220 Riverside broke ground? Nope, only after they had evidence of growth and people to support the store. As more residents pop-up around 220 Riverside, I believe that Park Street will see a renaissance, but there need to be more residential projects to drive this growth. Same goes for downtown.

[ronchamblin]

Let me explain further Diane.  The example might make it seem like I'm tooting my own horn, but it is real, and it will illustrate my point about foot traffic.  My example is good because I've received no incentives, and am doing these projects with my own limited funds -- and the bank's. 

I bought ... borrowed funds for ...  a vacant building in 2006 and borrowed to renovate it.  I opened the bookstore / cafe in 2008.  This brought eight workers into the core, and draws many customers from the suburbs into the core.  Therefore, the project has clearly resulted in "increasing the foot traffic" in the core.

This is one project, brought to success via a viable business plan, some work, and some money investment.  It's all good.

Two years ago, I bought the adjacent building, most of which was unoccupied.  The single tenant moved to Adams street, thereby providing no loss of foot traffic in the core.

Recently, I've started the clean out and basic demo of the building.  Soon, the drawings will be complete, and I will seek bank funds to proceed with full renovation.  The important thing for my point is that completion of the building, and filling it, will add about four more workers to the core, and perhaps twelve more residents to the core.

These two projects will produce a net addition of over twenty new people into the core, not counting customer draw from the suburbs, thereby increasing the "foot traffic" for other businesses in the core -- one more step forward to what we call vibrancy.

The point is that every other person or investor who does the same kind of projects, will add "population" or "foot traffic" to the core.  What happens after twenty people or investors do their projects ... each adding ten or twenty people to the core ... plus their customs from the suburbs?  That's a few hundred people permanently added to the core.  And many will be customers to other businesses.

The most significant addition of "population" is the project as begun by Steve Atkins .. with the trio and the Barnett.  This will be a big addition to the "foot traffic".

All of these projects, small and large, will increase the population ... which will in turn, allow more types of businesses to open and prosper in the core.  And as more businesses and services are active in the core, it will become more attractive for new residents to move into the core.

A momentum will increase .. and a threshold will arrive, after which, businesses and residents will be almost competing to engage the core.

These kind of projects are solid.  There is no talk ... no hope... no praying.  No power is involved.... only an idea, and work, and money.  And I don't give a damn about influence.  Just get the fuck our of my way and I will do the goddamn project. Time for a beer and a book.

[mtraininjax]

Ron, congrats, you are a pioneer, but then you already know it.