FCSL: Law school looking Downtown

[thelakelander]

Florida Coastal School of Law hopes to move its Business and Entrepreneurial Law Clinic to Downtown next fall.
The school has been scouting locations in the urban core for months. Florida Coastal Dean Chidi Ogene said he went on one of those expeditions several months ago, where school officials saw three to five properties.

Two or three seemed to meet the school's needs, Ogene said, though he would not disclose specific sites for negotiating reasons.

The school originally hoped to open the Downtown clinic in January, but encountered delays. The clinic did open this semester with five students at the law school's Baymeadows campus.

Full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=544228

[ronchamblin]

This kind of thing is exactly what the city center needs.    

[simms3]

Hmmm, I seem to have read a few scathing articles recently on for-profit law schools where FCSL was front and center.  I'd be wary if I were a landlord.

[I-10east]

^^^An article concerning FL Coastal that was posted on the "Jax Missed Opportunity" thread.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/08/the-law-school-scam/375069/

[thelakelander]

Hmmm, I seem to have read a few scathing articles recently on for-profit law schools where FCSL was front and center.  I'd be wary if I were a landlord.

This must have been one of those articles:

The Law-School Scam

For-profit law schools are a capitalist dream of privatized profits and socialized losses. But for their debt-saddled, no-job-prospect graduates, they can be a nightmare.

Full article: http://www.likemotion.com/show/125591/the-law-school-scam-the-atlantic

[ronchamblin]

I agree as to caution on the law school ... as advice to the land lord.  However, one does not know of the future of the law school ... or I suppose this is the case.  If the future is not known then, being an optimist, I would recommend to the landlord and the city core powers at be, that they engage the school in a positive way, so as to take advantage of a "possible", and hopefully probable, future success of it.  The city core, being a somewhat desperate entity, might consider exercising optimism, especially when a project or engagement doesn't cost the tax payer tons of money.

This kind of entry into the core will be a great plus for it, in many ways.   

[pierre]

The problem, to me, seems more with "for-profit" universities in general. A high number of enrollees will never graduate from any of these schools. But will have extreme amounts of debt that they will always be liable for. These schools also enroll a high number of military veterans. So the ones paying those outrageous high tuitions are us taxpayers.

John Oliver brilliantly nailed them a few months back.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/09/08/john_oliver_student_debt_segments_goes_after_for_profit_colleges_video.html

[Tacachale]

Most for-profit schools make their bread and butter from students using federal financial aid to attend. But because they charge such obscene tuition, a large number of their students default on their loans, meaning the taxpayer has just subsidized a profit-making enterprise. And frequently, the student gets a valueless degree, or no degree at all.

Law schools are a bit different, in that it's an accredited professional degree with some job prospects. But even there the bill is steep. I have a friend who went to one of these schools in South Florida, and came out with nearly $200k in debt. He was fortunate to get a low-level position making a fraction of that amount, but he's one of the lucky ones.

[ben says]

Hmmm, I seem to have read a few scathing articles recently on for-profit law schools where FCSL was front and center.  I'd be wary if I were a landlord.

I'm not sure one has to do with the other...and I think a landlord would be an idiot to say no to InfiLaw. Downtown would be, too.

The problem, to me, seems more with "for-profit" universities in general.

This.

But also, the ABA. The ABA accredits these schools. The ABA is the governing body for law schools. If there's a problem that needs fixing, it has to start there.

Otherwise, I'd welcome them downtown, as a landlord or as a regular citizen.

[simms3]

Hmmm, I seem to have read a few scathing articles recently on for-profit law schools where FCSL was front and center.  I'd be wary if I were a landlord.

I'm not sure one has to do with the other...and I think a landlord would be an idiot to say no to InfiLaw. Downtown would be, too.

Why would a landlord be an idiot for being concerned about the long term viability or the financials of a tenant seeking a large chunk of space?  Signing a lease with FCSL could be a good move, but if it's not, then it wouldn't just be a bla move, it would be a terrible move with lots of financial implications.

I see 4 sort of options here:

If their financials are super strong, their lease guaranteed well, and their long term viability scrubbed and seen as positive:

1) Sign FCSL as a long term credit tenant and make your building a little more core
1a) Get points on exit from certain buyer profiles looking to mitigate their risk in an already risky market

If their financials are not strong, their lease not guaranteed well, and/or their long term viability questioned:

2) Sign FCSL as a long term tenant and get dinged at sale for locking up space and creating risk that tenant vacates
3) Sign FCSL as a long term tenant and find a value-add buyer (everyone in Jax) who bets they'll vacate, thus creating an opportunity to re-lease at market (which doesn't matter in Jax since there is NO market rent growth so there's NO upside in that)

Basically there is no 3, you're going to get dinged if buyers aren't keen on FCSL

4) Don't sign FCSL and wait for a better tenant, even though there likely isn't one
4a) Sell that promise to someone else and let them lease the building (maybe have FCSL in the bag as one of a few circling commitments with "credit")

I'll go with 1 or 4, and both require a hard look at their financials and some sort of "bet" on the tenant itself.

[For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A]

Coastal  is constantly seen as one of the worst law schools in the country. But moving a clinic to downtown is like JU moving an internship program downtown. It will do nothing. The students still have class in Southside, but they check in and counsel from the clinic in downtown. Maybe 20 students max are in a clinic. It makes sense since most of the big legal jobs in business law are downtown.

[river4340]

When I first saw the story, it looked pretty cool. Then I realized the clinic currently has five students. I mean, it wouldn't be a bad thing, but doesn't seem very significant.

[ben says]

Denying a financially viable and credit-worthy tenant because they sell a shit product? Yeah ok... 

[For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A]

It is not significant at all.

[simms3]

Denying a financially viable and credit-worthy tenant because they sell a shit product? Yeah ok... 

Oh, you've seen their privileged financials?  You'd be willing to give them lots of money for their buildout?  You'd be willing to overpay a leasing commission to get them in?

I'm not saying I would or would not do a deal with FCSL (though you're apparently ready to jump right into bed with them!), but I would want to take a hard look at them as with anybody.  Sounds like it's not relocating the school but rather giving them what is essentially a downtown classroom.  That changes things to a degree.