Mayor Curry wants the Landing back

[thelakelander]

why does sleiman need a dime or any commitment from the city to operate it as strip center as he described.  He's had 12 years.

Full redevelopment called for demolishing the structure, building additional green space and removing a Main Street Bridge ramp. Since the city owns the land where all of this would take place, some type of public private partnership would be needed for full redevelopment. I'm under the impression his threat is if the city doesn't assist in full redevelopment, he'll remodel the existing structure on his own dime and operate it like a shopping center. If so, I'd accept that offer.

has he been proposing he pay for all the landing improvements if he can get his 600 spots?  I'm assuming no, but please correct me.

The unfilled dedicated parking problem predates Sleiman.  However, the dead 2015 redevelopment plan involved COJ paying $11.8 million for building demolition, site and infrastructure improvements and Sleiman paying for the building improvements.

[fieldafm]

why does sleiman need a dime or any commitment from the city to operate it as strip center as he described.  He's had 12 years.

has he been proposing he pay for all the landing improvements if he can get his 600 spots?  I'm assuming no, but please correct me.

in my view he's been refusing to do anything until he gets what he wants from the city- money.  sleiman positions it as you do.  the city wont "let" him do anything?

the city wont give him everything he wants seems more accurate.  if sleiman was worth his salt and such a savvy operator he would've done something besides complain for the last 12 years

there's been nothing stopping from running it like a strip center since day one.  sure they owe him parking but he wants more and wont operate in good faith otherwise.

Let's put something to rest, as there are a lot of facts that get glossed over in this discussion. The City's Development Agreement and subsequent operating lease with Rouse signed over 30 years ago, that Sleiman took over and now operates under, REQUIRES the city to provide additional parking. In fact the word 'parking' appears more times than there are pages in the lease (there are over 700 pages in the lease). Parking isn't something that Rouse thought would be nice to have. They required the City to build additional parking as a condition of the developer breaking ground. The City has never lived up to that agreement 30 years later. Most WalMart leases don't go beyond 30 years. Another interesting tidbit, there is also clawback language that indicates that if the People Mover (AKA the Skyway) was ever torn down that there is significant recourse due to the building owner as consideration.


The vast majority of land leases require the landowner's consent before the building could undergo substantial renovations. Sleiman can't just tear the building down without the City of Jacksonville consenting to such action. So in effect, 'the city wont "let" him do anything' in regards to redevelopment. Seeing as though the City owns the land underneath the buildings, I simply can't think of any developer who would ever completely redevelop property on land owned by a local municipality without said municipality pay for any infrastructure improvement needed to support a new building on said land.
As a point of comparison, the Shipyards development and The District development will also require much more public infrastructure improvement paid for by the City of Jacksonville, than any redevelopment proposal that Sleiman has ever presented since taking ownership of the Landing more than a decade ago. Why is it completely reasonable to expect the City to pay for infrastructure improvements to serve The District... but not the Landing? At least in The District's case, the master developer will own the land.


As to what kind of landlord the City has been... take a look at the floating public docks lining the Northbank Riverwalk/Jacksonville Landing. Over half of the available dock space has been in a state of disrepair and are closed off to the public. That's the City of Jacksonville's responsibility. Not only is the City refusing to live up to their 30 year obligation in regards to automobile parking... they aren't even repairing boat parking that presently exists.  That puts things in quite a different perspective if you removed the words 'Toney Sleiman' out of the equation and looked at the situation objectively.

[Noone]

The floating docks at the Shipyards property have a  barge and crane working on them. 
Stay Positive.
2016-305 and an "Amen" to brother Ron and sister Steph

[KenFSU]

Seriously. I began following this site around 2007 and moved back to Jax in 2009. I think the Fuddruckers jokes were abundant since I first arrived.

To that point, just want to quickly note how focused, pleasant, and constructive the discourse has been on MetroJax as of late.

It's quite the throwback

[Noone]

why does sleiman need a dime or any commitment from the city to operate it as strip center as he described.  He's had 12 years.

has he been proposing he pay for all the landing improvements if he can get his 600 spots?  I'm assuming no, but please correct me.

in my view he's been refusing to do anything until he gets what he wants from the city- money.  sleiman positions it as you do.  the city wont "let" him do anything?

the city wont give him everything he wants seems more accurate.  if sleiman was worth his salt and such a savvy operator he would've done something besides complain for the last 12 years

there's been nothing stopping from running it like a strip center since day one.  sure they owe him parking but he wants more and wont operate in good faith otherwise.

Let's put something to rest, as there are a lot of facts that get glossed over in this discussion. The City's Development Agreement and subsequent operating lease with Rouse signed over 30 years ago, that Sleiman took over and now operates under, REQUIRES the city to provide additional parking. In fact the word 'parking' appears more times than there are pages in the lease (there are over 700 pages in the lease). Parking isn't something that Rouse thought would be nice to have. They required the City to build additional parking as a condition of the developer breaking ground. The City has never lived up to that agreement 30 years later. Most WalMart leases don't go beyond 30 years. Another interesting tidbit, there is also clawback language that indicates that if the People Mover (AKA the Skyway) was ever torn down that there is significant recourse due to the building owner as consideration.


The vast majority of land leases require the landowner's consent before the building could undergo substantial renovations. Sleiman can't just tear the building down without the City of Jacksonville consenting to such action. So in effect, 'the city wont "let" him do anything'.


As to what kind of landlord the City has been... take a look at the floating public docks lining the Northbank Riverwalk/Jacksonville Landing. Over half of the available dock space has been in a state of disrepair and are closed off to the public. That's the City of Jacksonville's responsibility. Not only is the City refusing to live up to their 30 year obligation in regards to automobile parking... they aren't even repairing boat parking that presently exists.  That puts things in quite a different perspective if you removed the words 'Toney Sleiman' out of the equation and looked at the situation objectively.

+1
It's About Time

[remc86007]

Why have the docks in front of the landing been allowed to deteriorate so much? Trying to dock or even just pick someone up is incredibly dangerous. The city is lucky they haven't been sued.

[Jim]

why does sleiman need a dime or any commitment from the city to operate it as strip center as he described.  He's had 12 years.

has he been proposing he pay for all the landing improvements if he can get his 600 spots?  I'm assuming no, but please correct me.

in my view he's been refusing to do anything until he gets what he wants from the city- money.  sleiman positions it as you do.  the city wont "let" him do anything?

the city wont give him everything he wants seems more accurate.  if sleiman was worth his salt and such a savvy operator he would've done something besides complain for the last 12 years

there's been nothing stopping from running it like a strip center since day one.  sure they owe him parking but he wants more and wont operate in good faith otherwise.

Regarding the parking issue.  Many tenants will not sign leases without dedicated parking.  This has been a problem long before Sleiman bought the facility.  That's partly why Rouse sold their $40 million Landing to Sleiman for just $5 million and bailed out. 

He also doesn't own the land underneath.  He can't just do whatever he wants, it requires the city to work with him.

I'm also starting to wonder if he ran over your dog last week or something.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

why does sleiman need a dime or any commitment from the city to operate it as strip center as he described.  He's had 12 years.

has he been proposing he pay for all the landing improvements if he can get his 600 spots?  I'm assuming no, but please correct me.

in my view he's been refusing to do anything until he gets what he wants from the city- money.  sleiman positions it as you do.  the city wont "let" him do anything?

the city wont give him everything he wants seems more accurate.  if sleiman was worth his salt and such a savvy operator he would've done something besides complain for the last 12 years

there's been nothing stopping from running it like a strip center since day one.  sure they owe him parking but he wants more and wont operate in good faith otherwise.

Regarding the parking issue.  Many tenants will not sign leases without dedicated parking.  This has been a problem long before Sleiman bought the facility.  That's partly why Rouse sold their $40 million Landing to Sleiman for just $5 million and bailed out. 

He also doesn't own the land underneath.  He can't just do whatever he wants, it requires the city to work with him.

I'm also starting to wonder if he ran over your dog last week or something.

This sums it up nicely:

...quite a different perspective if you removed the words 'Toney Sleiman' out of the equation

[fieldafm]

Why have the docks in front of the landing been allowed to deteriorate so much? Trying to dock or even just pick someone up is incredibly dangerous. The city is lucky they haven't been sued.

While a portion of the docks have been in disrepair and closed for much longer, at least part of the cause for the current abhorrent state of the the docking facilities can be blamed on the hurricane that came through last year.  To that end, bulkheads in San Marco that were damaged by the hurricane are presently being repaired. The City put forth a temporary fix on a small portion of the downtown docks a few weeks ago, but the vast majority are sitting in a state of dysfunction. Boaters coming down to watch the fireworks during the 4th of July next week will be greeted by a 'thanks, but no thanks' attitude downtown. And we wonder why the river through downtown isnt more active?

[KenFSU]

To your point Mike, I think a lot of people erroneously view the city's parking obligation as a "nice to have" that Sleiman won't stop whining about, rather than a necessity. They say things like, "there's plenty of parking downtown" and "people can walk." This misses the point though that the type of restaurants and retailers needed to anchor the Landing - the CVSs, and Cheesecake Factories, or whatever - have specific requirements for dedicated parking. If the parking isn't there, the conversation ends. The parking issue isn't Sleiman being whiney, but rather the city handcuffing him to the point that he cannot effectively bring in the types of establishments the Landing needs.

[Tacachale]

To your point Mike, I think a lot of people erroneously view the city's parking obligation as a "nice to have" that Sleiman won't stop whining about, rather than a necessity. They say things like, "there's plenty of parking downtown" and "people can walk." This misses the point though that the type of restaurants and retailers needed to anchor the Landing - the CVSs, and Cheesecake Factories, or whatever - have specific requirements for dedicated parking. If the parking isn't there, the conversation ends. The parking issue isn't Sleiman being whiney, but rather the city handcuffing him to the point that he cannot effectively bring in the types of establishments the Landing needs.

It can be two things at once.

[thelakelander]

I just think it's wrong to claim the guy is 100% responsible for the mismanagement of the center, when its clear there's been a fight with the property owner since day one.  Both Rouse and Sleiman have dealt with a partner not willing to keep up their end of the bargain so there's blame to go around. IMO, end the fight, make a decision (full redevelopment vs remodel and run like a shopping center) and move on. That's the only way this place will get better anytime soon.

[KenFSU]

To your point Mike, I think a lot of people erroneously view the city's parking obligation as a "nice to have" that Sleiman won't stop whining about, rather than a necessity. They say things like, "there's plenty of parking downtown" and "people can walk." This misses the point though that the type of restaurants and retailers needed to anchor the Landing - the CVSs, and Cheesecake Factories, or whatever - have specific requirements for dedicated parking. If the parking isn't there, the conversation ends. The parking issue isn't Sleiman being whiney, but rather the city handcuffing him to the point that he cannot effectively bring in the types of establishments the Landing needs.

It can be two things at once.

There's plenty of blame to go around. Neither side has acted in particularly good faith, and Sleiman has actively turned down parking offers from the city that he considered inadequate. Just disagree with the T-U's and Mayor's characterization that Sleiman's lack of commitment and strong-arming is solely responsible for the Landing's woes when it's clear that the problems run much deeper and in many ways, pre-date Toney altogether.

[FlaBoy]

For dedicated parking to exist, the city will either need to build Sleiman a $10-15 million parking garage (where?) or figure out a way to have dedicated spots from what is already there/being built.

From the article that Ennis quoted earlier in this thead at http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-09-13/story/jacksonville-landing-says-35-million-grant-parking-garage-not-enough

The city made a deal to provide parking before the Landing opened in 1987, but that still hasn't been fulfilled. Doing that would require the city to provide another 300 parking spaces on weekdays and 375 on nights and weekends.

My initial thought is, we need to at least be able to meet the nights/weekend portion.

It [Parador Garage] could also meet the Landing's night and weekend quota and open 200 weekday spots for shoppers. But Barcelo said the location doesn't meet the needs of the top-grade mall tenants the Landing seeks.

It seems they don't want the Parador, even with sufficient dedicated spots.

$3.5 million will be provided by the City of Jacksonville towards the [Parador Garage] project's costs in exchange for 200 daily and 375 night and weekend public spaces on a first come first serve basis to benefit the Jacksonville Landing and other surrounding commercial businesses.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/local/retail-less-parking-garage-proposed-for-downtown

So it looks like the city has the sufficient level of spots for the Landing due to this deal if dedicated strictly to the Landing and not other commercial districts, correct? I don't know what else Sleiman or his attorney could want with it right across the street.

The city agreed in 2011 to earmark $3.5 million to help Parador build the garage. The city's payment is in exchange for Parador setting spaces aside 200 spaces on weekdays and 375 spaces on weeknights and weekends for the public. The garage would increase parking options for patrons of the Landing, located across the street from the site. But the Landing has said the garage is not enough to comply with the city's long-standing obligation to provide parking for the riverfront mall.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-10-11/story/600-space-parking-garage-downtown-jacksonville-wins-final-approval


1) Is the city done with its weekend obligation for the Landing or easily could attain it?

The answer seems to be Yes.

2) The city is 100 spots short of the dedicated weekday amounts, so how could it meet that level?

I think the answer is to do it as part of the Laura Street Trio garage. Won't there be 250 city owned spots there for COJ to distribute as it sees fit? Although not right across the street, this garage will only be two blocks from the Landing.

The city would also agree to lease a 550-space parking garage at a cost of $660,000 per year for 20 years. The developer would lease back 250 spaces at a cost of $300,000 per year, according to information presented at a DIA meeting in February.

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2017/06/06/historic-building-plans-that-commit-city-to.html

[FlaBoy]

To your point Mike, I think a lot of people erroneously view the city's parking obligation as a "nice to have" that Sleiman won't stop whining about, rather than a necessity. They say things like, "there's plenty of parking downtown" and "people can walk." This misses the point though that the type of restaurants and retailers needed to anchor the Landing - the CVSs, and Cheesecake Factories, or whatever - have specific requirements for dedicated parking. If the parking isn't there, the conversation ends. The parking issue isn't Sleiman being whiney, but rather the city handcuffing him to the point that he cannot effectively bring in the types of establishments the Landing needs.

Can he not fill up the current dedicated parking spots with those leases at least? Nothing has held him back especially with the Parador Garage. If the place is so full it needs additional parking, that will be a new conversation. I just feel as if there will never be enough parking and we will always be running around, even if the city met the parking agreement, which it seems to be only short of by 100 spots.