EverBank Field Development Renderings

[Tacachale]

Good move, pretty much a no-brainer. Recent renderings have the amphitheatre facing the stadium though. I wonder if that was a stipulation from the city in order to sign off on the project? Also, the Jags have mentioned the intent of having about 25 (maybe more). Very interesting to see what that's going to do/bring to the immediate area. Exciting stuff guys.   

More like brain dead.  A huge transfer of wealth to the city's wealthiest resident, or I should say non-resident, at the expense of the public. One of the stupidest things JAX has ever done, and that is saying something.

Hyperbole. The city made at least 3 far worse deals within the last few years alone: Sleiman's Landing proposal, the overpriced scoreboards, and Khan's Shipyards project. I'm still baffled by the blowback this project has gotten in light of the comparative silence the media (and social media) gave those objectively worse deals.

That's not specifically directed at you, Vic, beyond the fact that your wording suggests that none of those could be as bad as this.

[RattlerGator]

It might as well of been directed at Vic. The envy is outrageous.

[fsquid]

Charlotte has done the same by giving Mr. Richardson anything he wants.

[tufsu1]

Hyperbole. The city made at least 3 far worse deals within the last few years alone: Sleiman's Landing proposal, the overpriced scoreboards, and Khan's Shipyards project. I'm still baffled by the blowback this project has gotten in light of the comparative silence the media (and social media) gave those objectively worse deals.

I was not aware that the Sleiman deal was within the last few years...also not aware of any deal the City has reached with Khan on the Shipyards. 

[Tacachale]

Hyperbole. The city made at least 3 far worse deals within the last few years alone: Sleiman's Landing proposal, the overpriced scoreboards, and Khan's Shipyards project. I'm still baffled by the blowback this project has gotten in light of the comparative silence the media (and social media) gave those objectively worse deals.

I was not aware that the Sleiman deal was within the last few years...also not aware of any deal the City has reached with Khan on the Shipyards.

I'm speaking, of course, about Sleiman's proposal for $11 million dollars to demolish the Landing and replace it with a bland development, which was a variant of things he's been proposing for the last several years. Fortunately the city didn't finalize that or Khan's Shipyards proposal, which was majorly problematic but which got little but adulation from the media.

[Jax-Nole]

Good move, pretty much a no-brainer. Recent renderings have the amphitheatre facing the stadium though. I wonder if that was a stipulation from the city in order to sign off on the project? Also, the Jags have mentioned the intent of having about 25 (maybe more). Very interesting to see what that's going to do/bring to the immediate area. Exciting stuff guys.   

More like brain dead.  A huge transfer of wealth to the city's wealthiest resident, or I should say non-resident, at the expense of the public. One of the stupidest things JAX has ever done, and that is saying something.

Not a stupid idea at all. The city is in desperate need of a new amphitheater. Metro Park's is structurally unsafe to use any more.

Years of wear and tear have taken its toll on the covered pavilion. The structural deficiencies in the tent were severe enough that a city-hired New York firm in October said it is "not safe to occupy and must be brought down."
"Whether we have those improvements or not (at EverBank Field), there's still an issue at Metro Park," said council member Doyle Carter, head of the Recreation, Community Development, Public Health and Safety Committee.
Carter called it a "stretch" to fix the tented staging area for a price he's heard could reach $10 million — especially with a venue that could meet the city's needs being built nearby.
And even if it were rebuilt, he said, noise issues and event limitations would still be there.

Full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=546623

The city will own it and have a much easier and less restrictive venue to hold events in, regardless of if the Jaguars were to leave town (highly unlikely). There is a legal limit of 12 paid events a year at Metro Park right now. This venue will allow them more per year. I might be wrong on this number, but I think there is a limit of 15 with the new amphitheater. That can increase with advance warning. I was watching the vote earlier and one of the councilmen said it like building a house and only paying 50 cents for every dollar it costs to build. The city would have been stupid not to take the offer. There is no way they could have negotiated a better deal. In building it, if it is under-budget when built, the Jags pay the city back. If it is over-budget, the Jags pay the overages. The city will eventually make their money back in increased tax revenue (at least for the amphitheater part of the package). I'm sure Khan will make some money on it, but if you were him, you would probably want to make some money also if you were spending $45 million. Also, we will no longer have to hear every time Metro Park holds a concert about the people across the river complaining about the sound. In all likelihood, this will be the end of the stage there.

[Captain Zissou]

Hyperbole. The city made at least 3 far worse deals within the last few years alone: Sleiman's Landing proposal, the overpriced scoreboards, and Khan's Shipyards project. I'm still baffled by the blowback this project has gotten in light of the comparative silence the media (and social media) gave those objectively worse deals.

That's not specifically directed at you, Vic, beyond the fact that your wording suggests that none of those could be as bad as this.

Don't forget the Parador parking garage.  That ranks up there with the worst deals in history for me.

[Tacachale]

Hyperbole. The city made at least 3 far worse deals within the last few years alone: Sleiman's Landing proposal, the overpriced scoreboards, and Khan's Shipyards project. I'm still baffled by the blowback this project has gotten in light of the comparative silence the media (and social media) gave those objectively worse deals.

That's not specifically directed at you, Vic, beyond the fact that your wording suggests that none of those could be as bad as this.

Don't forget the Parador parking garage.  That ranks up there with the worst deals in history for me.

Oh man, can't believe I forgot about that one. And that one went through every step of the way with as little friction as possible.

[dp8541]

The city is receiving ownership of assets that they are paying half of the value.   Do not see how this can be a bad move, and apparently, neither did the city counsel

[RattlerGator]

By a 19-zip vote, with an aging and severely limited Metropolitan Park front-and-center in the consciousness of the City. But hey, Vic assures us it's brain dead and one of the worst things the city has ever done . . . so there's that.

[Houseboat Mike]

The huge issue I have with this is simple- we heard about this proposal what, a couple months ago? And boom! Just like that, we approved $45M in spending.

However getting the city to approve tax incentives or credits to bring development to the core, well now hang on, we gotta do some studies, make sure it is feasible, make sure this is a good deal, and we will get back to you, in about 10 years. Barnett, LST, etc.

I get it, 50 cents on the dollar investment is a good deal, and I really don't oppose the spending. But to say that "well, we gotta spend the money on sports stuff and not on core development" is weak. Why have segregated accounts for investment? Why not have one investment account, and if it is proven the proposed plan benefits the city, then it gets approved, no matter if it is tax incentives to bring a business downtown, an amphitheater, cleaning up dirt (shipyards- which we will have to do anyway before it is sold), etc.?

[dp8541]

Completely agree that there are other areas I would much rather see the city invest in than the sports district.  However, the reason this was approved so quickly by the city is that the city actually owns what they are investing towards.  I have not heard of any other potential developments where the city would own an asset a private developer is willing to contribute towards at the rate of current stadium project.

[RattlerGator]

yeah. the nice thing about a forum like this is that we have time to measure outcomes.

Do you, now! I'll make sure to keep an eye out for those measurements. Not partisan opinions, mind you (an apparent specialty of this forum), but measurements.

Of course, its not like the whole country is beginning to revisit sport franchise parasitism or anything (see municipal stadiums and FIFA).

And it is good to get periodic reminders for your penchant to overstate, Stephen. Parasitism? Mmmm hmmmm. I think I'm gonna report you to our billionaire owner of the Jaguars and, and . . . ooooh, you're gonna be in trouble!

The whole country? Mmmm hmmmm. Frisco, Texas (and many other municipalities around this great nation, I'm sure) would like to have a word with you, son.

[thelakelander]

Good move, pretty much a no-brainer. Recent renderings have the amphitheatre facing the stadium though. I wonder if that was a stipulation from the city in order to sign off on the project? Also, the Jags have mentioned the intent of having about 25 (maybe more). Very interesting to see what that's going to do/bring to the immediate area. Exciting stuff guys.   

More like brain dead.  A huge transfer of wealth to the city's wealthiest resident, or I should say non-resident, at the expense of the public. One of the stupidest things JAX has ever done, and that is saying something.

Various quotes from council members:

"We're going to own $90 million worth of assets," Councilman John Crescimbeni said at the meeting. "We're going to spend 50 cents on the dollar to get there. That's a deal that's difficult to walk away from."

"You can always find something wrong and critique things," Brown said. "You can always say something can be done better. We've got some good things going, we're putting people to work. The Jaguars are investing assets in the city. This is a good project."

"[The bill] is long on assumptions and short on guarantees," Becton said. "There's a better deal to be had. Nevertheless, his vote was an "aye."

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/blog/morning-edition/2015/12/city-funding-for-amphitheater-sails-through-city.html

Tommy Hazouri referred to it as a Christmas gift for the city.

"There's no way we can fix Metro Park to work as an amphitheater in the future," Gulliford said.

http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=546634

[vicupstate]

Jeez, I hardly know where to begin.

Let me put it in an analogy.

Let's say I am a wealthy person and I hold options to buy 500 vacant lots and distressed houses in Jacksonville, I make an offer to the city.  I will invest $45mm into building and/or renovating these houses. The city will pay $45mm as well. An average of $180k will be spent per house.  The title will be held by the city, thus there will be no property taxes to pay. I will rent out all of them and receive 100% of the rent or any other income I can generate from them. My company will have complete control of the properties in perpetuity.

All maintenance and upkeep on them will be paid 50/50 between the city and myself. 

I stand to collect market rate rent while completely eliminating my property tax expense, no small item I may add. I will also reduce my maintenance and carrying expenses by 50%.  That is not small potatoes either.  But best of all, I will be spared 50% of the debt service.
It is a pretty big payday for me, to be sure.

In return the city will 'own' these houses. The renovations/construction will likely spur new invest in the vicinity, so the city gets that benefit. People will be living in these previously unoccupied houses, thus bring demand for goods and services.

The way I see it, my proposal is a lot better than Khan's because it doesn't rob the maintenance fund of the  Sports District and the FL/GA game is not affected to the tune of $900k per year.


Should the city take this deal?