The Landing owners issue ultimatum for future development

[vicupstate]

Mayor is definitely not backing down. From Twitter this morning:

1.The Jacksonville Landing is owned by the taxpayers of Jacksonville. Sleiman Enterprises leases the landing from the city.

https://twitter.com/lennycurry/status/877874266062049280

^Wait, I'm very confused.

So, to be clear, the city owns both the land under the landing and the actual shopping center?

And Sleiman - despite being listed as the 'owner" of the Landing - owns nothing, just leases the shopping center from the city?

Is this correct? I always thought that when Sleiman purchased the Landing, he actually, you know, purchased the Landing, with the caveat being that he leased the land underneath it from the city. 

Curry can't be right.

No. It is NOT correct. Curry is either misinformed or lying.

Sleiman owns the BUILDING, he has a long term LEASE on the LAND.  The city owns the LAND.   

[Jim]

Oh great.  Just what we need.  Another political leader that lies on Twitter.

[KenFSU]

[Tacachale]

Mayor is definitely not backing down. From Twitter this morning:

1.The Jacksonville Landing is owned by the taxpayers of Jacksonville. Sleiman Enterprises leases the landing from the city.

https://twitter.com/lennycurry/status/877874266062049280

^Wait, I'm very confused.

So, to be clear, the city owns both the land under the landing and the actual shopping center?

And Sleiman - despite being listed as the 'owner" of the Landing - owns nothing, just leases the shopping center from the city?

Is this correct? I always thought that when Sleiman purchased the Landing, he actually, you know, purchased the Landing, with the caveat being that he leased the land underneath it from the city. 

Curry can't be right.

No. It is NOT correct. Curry is either misinformed or lying.

Sleiman owns the BUILDING, he has a long term LEASE on the LAND.  The city owns the LAND.

WHAT'S WITH THE YELLING.

[Downtown Osprey]

lol, all the latest posts have got me fired up! brings me back to the glory days this site.

[williamcolledge]

Since this is a land/ground lease wouldn't the building ownership revert to the City at lease expiration? Maybe Sleiman 'owns' the building today but once the lease is done that's it right?

[FlaBoy]

^ Depends on the way the contract was written. There may be some reversion rights for COJ for the buildings.


Although maybe not articulated correctly, COJ owns the land and contributed $20 million to the construction of the Landing in 1987. Never mind all the additional parking and upgrades around the Landing paid for by COJ.

[RattlerGator]

It's designated as such on the St Johns River Wiki page and the list of blackwater rivers in the US Wiki page.  While certainly not an official designation, I can't find any other classifications.

Jim, I don't have any problem with the classification. It seems to make perfect sense from what I've read. No, it was the earlier assertion of the water being dark and there being some aesthetic issue with the St. Johns as a result. That's what intrigued me. I had never heard such, and had never noticed any issue with "dark" water in the St. Johns. Not when walking up and down River Road in Orange Park, not when crossing the Buckman or any other bridge in town, not when crossing it on I-4.

When I come across something like this, and can't figure out the point (let alone whether I agree), I look for clarification. That's why I was wondering if I missed something in the point being made.

[thelakelander]

^ Depends on the way the contract was written. There may be some reversion rights for COJ for the buildings.


Although maybe not articulated correctly, COJ owns the land and contributed $20 million to the construction of the Landing in 1987. Never mind all the additional parking and upgrades around the Landing paid for by COJ.

The only way COJ was going to get Rouse here was to provide incentives. Yet, the Landing was so much of a failure that Rouse basically gave the Landing away to Sleiman to get the hell out of here.  The whole project was nothing but another example of a failed downtown redevelopment gimmick.  Quite simple, the festival marketplaces that did well were those that were located in markets and areas of density that could support them. The ones that failed were located in declining second tier downtowns like Jacksonville's.  We can make excuses about the structure turning itself away from downtown or that it needs to be razed, and we continue to do this.  However, perhaps the Landing's struggles are simply a microcosm of the district its located in and changes in national retail trends.  If such, the structure is less of an issue than addressing downtown's overall economic problems and radically changing the tenant mix to meet today's retail demands.