The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.

[fieldafm]

The City of Jacksonville is arguing that Sleiman, et al hasn't used all reasonable efforts to lease storefronts, while bemoaning that there is a lack of high-quality merchants, that the Landing is not a first class retail facility and there are spaces that appear to be occupied but which are closed during normal business hours (somehow the City expects a painting studio, bars and a dance studio to somehow flourish from Monday through Friday between the hours of 10am to 4pm?).

I look around downtown and see tons of City-owned property that is in a serious lack of disrepair which also do not feature high-quality merchants and spaces that appear to be occupied but which are closed during normal business hours... and personally encounter a governing body that hasn't used all reasonable efforts to lease those properties.  Go figure.

[SMoody9310]

How can one expect "high end" retail shops to lease space at that dump?  The building is old and dilapidated.. and only about 300' of the 1,000' dock is usable for boaters.  Either due to Hurricane damage, or the water taxi.  I don't know who's responsible for the docks, but c'mon man....  Hurricane Matthew was 2 years ago.  Fix the thing.

[Adam White]

I look around downtown and see tons of City-owned property that is in a serious lack of disrepair...

Surely that's a good thing?

[Tacachale]

How can one expect "high end" retail shops to lease space at that dump?  The building is old and dilapidated.. and only about 300' of the 1,000' dock is usable for boaters.  Either due to Hurricane damage, or the water taxi.  I don't know who's responsible for the docks, but c'mon man....  Hurricane Matthew was 2 years ago.  Fix the thing.

The city's responsible for the docks and Riverwalk. They're not doing maintenance, because they argue Sleiman's dropping the ball on his end. Sleiman's not doing maintenance on his end, because he argues the city's dropping the ball on their end. And round and round we go.

[fieldafm]

I don't know who's responsible for the docks

That would be the City of Jacksonville... expressly agreed upon in the same lease they claim the Landing to be violating due to 'not exhausting 'all reasonable efforts to lease storefronts'.  Just a few short blocks away, the office spaces in the Florida Theatre, the retail spaces at the Main Library and the entire Snyder Memorial building (all owned by the City, who is also responsible for leasing said spaces) remain empty. In the case of the Library spaces and the Snyder Memorial.... one cannot even lease the space without the City first issuing an RFP (which they have not done in a decade for either space).

[Adam White]

How can one expect "high end" retail shops to lease space at that dump?  The building is old and dilapidated.. and only about 300' of the 1,000' dock is usable for boaters.  Either due to Hurricane damage, or the water taxi.  I don't know who's responsible for the docks, but c'mon man....  Hurricane Matthew was 2 years ago.  Fix the thing.

The city's responsible for the docks and Riverwalk. They're not doing maintenance, because they argue Sleiman's dropping the ball on his end. Sleiman's not doing maintenance on his end, because he argues the city's dropping the ball on their end. And round and round we go.

And the building certainly wasn't 'dilapidated' when Sleiman bought it.

[Snaketoz]

If you were in Sleiman's shoes and had spent millions on the Landing with the understanding you would get parking, Riverwalk upkeep, etc., how much would you spend on upkeep?  That would be throwing good money after bad.  Sleiman didn't get where he is being a fool.  He is a shrewd businessman.  If Curry is able to outlast him in court and is able to oust him from the landing, I bet someone out of the politically connected sect that put him in office will get a parking lot, get maintenance to dock, and lots of help from the city.  So predictable.

[Tacachale]

If you were in Sleiman's shoes and had spent millions on the Landing with the understanding you would get parking, Riverwalk upkeep, etc., how much would you spend on upkeep?  That would be throwing good money after bad.  Sleiman didn't get where he is being a fool.  He is a shrewd businessman.  If Curry is able to outlast him in court and is able to oust him from the landing, I bet someone out of the politically connected sect that put him in office will get a parking lot, get maintenance to dock, and lots of help from the city.  So predictable.

Well, Sleiman's interest isn't in upkeep or maintenance. He wants a payday to renovate it (ie, to tear it down). The bigger issue is that ever since Sleiman has owned the building, the plans of the day depend entirely on Sleiman's relationship with the sitting mayor. He doesn't get along with one mayor, so nothing happens; then he gets along great with the next mayor, so we almost give away the farm to pay for the Landing; then he really doesn't get along with the next mayor, and we're in the current situation.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

The bigger issue is that ever since Sleiman has owned the building, the plans of the day depend entirely on Sleiman's relationship with the sitting mayor.

...but that would take a strong government that is capable of planning for the future - which we don't have - we have a mayor that only cares about what happens RIGHT NOW.

[Tacachale]

The bigger issue is that ever since Sleiman has owned the building, the plans of the day depend entirely on Sleiman's relationship with the sitting mayor.

...but that would take a strong government that is capable of planning for the future - which we don't have - we have a mayor that only cares about what happens RIGHT NOW.

Truth.

[Snaketoz]

If you were in Sleiman's shoes and had spent millions on the Landing with the understanding you would get parking, Riverwalk upkeep, etc., how much would you spend on upkeep?  That would be throwing good money after bad.  Sleiman didn't get where he is being a fool.  He is a shrewd businessman.  If Curry is able to outlast him in court and is able to oust him from the landing, I bet someone out of the politically connected sect that put him in office will get a parking lot, get maintenance to dock, and lots of help from the city.  So predictable.

Well, Sleiman's interest isn't in upkeep or maintenance. He wants a payday to renovate it (ie, to tear it down). The bigger issue is that ever since Sleiman has owned the building, the plans of the day depend entirely on Sleiman's relationship with the sitting mayor. He doesn't get along with one mayor, so nothing happens; then he gets along great with the next mayor, so we almost give away the farm to pay for the Landing; then he really doesn't get along with the next mayor, and we're in the current situation.

Every business and every working person wants a payday.  Evidently, Sleiman didn't contribute enough to Curry's campaign.

[thelakelander]

If you were in Sleiman's shoes and had spent millions on the Landing with the understanding you would get parking, Riverwalk upkeep, etc., how much would you spend on upkeep?  That would be throwing good money after bad.  Sleiman didn't get where he is being a fool.  He is a shrewd businessman.  If Curry is able to outlast him in court and is able to oust him from the landing, I bet someone out of the politically connected sect that put him in office will get a parking lot, get maintenance to dock, and lots of help from the city.  So predictable.

Well, Sleiman's interest isn't in upkeep or maintenance. He wants a payday to renovate it (ie, to tear it down). The bigger issue is that ever since Sleiman has owned the building, the plans of the day depend entirely on Sleiman's relationship with the sitting mayor. He doesn't get along with one mayor, so nothing happens; then he gets along great with the next mayor, so we almost give away the farm to pay for the Landing; then he really doesn't get along with the next mayor, and we're in the current situation.

All of Sleiman's plans have not involved demolition. Back in Peyton's day, the plan was to expand around the existing structure until people complained about blocking viee corridor. However, Peyton's big ideas plan had a new center on the Southbank and the Landing shown as green space with a merry go round in it. A few years later Sleiman had a plan that called for flipping the mall retail to face Independent Drive. I don't know what changed with that one because it was the most realistic.

[Tacachale]

If you were in Sleiman's shoes and had spent millions on the Landing with the understanding you would get parking, Riverwalk upkeep, etc., how much would you spend on upkeep?  That would be throwing good money after bad.  Sleiman didn't get where he is being a fool.  He is a shrewd businessman.  If Curry is able to outlast him in court and is able to oust him from the landing, I bet someone out of the politically connected sect that put him in office will get a parking lot, get maintenance to dock, and lots of help from the city.  So predictable.

Well, Sleiman's interest isn't in upkeep or maintenance. He wants a payday to renovate it (ie, to tear it down). The bigger issue is that ever since Sleiman has owned the building, the plans of the day depend entirely on Sleiman's relationship with the sitting mayor. He doesn't get along with one mayor, so nothing happens; then he gets along great with the next mayor, so we almost give away the farm to pay for the Landing; then he really doesn't get along with the next mayor, and we're in the current situation.

All of Sleiman's plans have not involved demolition. Back in Peyton's day, the plan was to expand around the existing structure until people complained about blocking viee corridor. However, Peyton's big ideas plan had a new center on the Southbank and the Landing shown as green space with a merry go round in it. A few years later Sleiman had a plan that called for flipping the mall retail to face Independent Drive. I don't know what changed with that one because it was the most realistic.

Presumably it got washed away by the dream of demolishing the entire building with a big subsidy, as that's all he's pitched for a lot of years now.

[thelakelander]

He along with every other major politico and DT advocate.  If it were anyone else owning that place, it would have been torn down with city money years ago. This whole thing is less about economics, what's best for the site, etc. and more about bad blood, and deciding winners and losers in the game of DT redevelopment.

[KenFSU]

If you were in Sleiman's shoes and had spent millions on the Landing with the understanding you would get parking, Riverwalk upkeep, etc., how much would you spend on upkeep?  That would be throwing good money after bad.  Sleiman didn't get where he is being a fool.  He is a shrewd businessman.  If Curry is able to outlast him in court and is able to oust him from the landing, I bet someone out of the politically connected sect that put him in office will get a parking lot, get maintenance to dock, and lots of help from the city.  So predictable.

Well, Sleiman's interest isn't in upkeep or maintenance. He wants a payday to renovate it (ie, to tear it down). The bigger issue is that ever since Sleiman has owned the building, the plans of the day depend entirely on Sleiman's relationship with the sitting mayor. He doesn't get along with one mayor, so nothing happens; then he gets along great with the next mayor, so we almost give away the farm to pay for the Landing; then he really doesn't get along with the next mayor, and we're in the current situation.

All of Sleiman's plans have not involved demolition. Back in Peyton's day, the plan was to expand around the existing structure until people complained about blocking viee corridor. However, Peyton's big ideas plan had a new center on the Southbank and the Landing shown as green space with a merry go round in it. A few years later Sleiman had a plan that called for flipping the mall retail to face Independent Drive. I don't know what changed with that one because it was the most realistic.

Presumably it got washed away by the dream of demolishing the entire building with a big subsidy, as that's all he's pitched for a lot of years now.

I don't think it's entirely fair to characterize Sleiman as the main proponent for complete demolition.

He's pitched ideas in the past that involved expansion of the current Landing, or removal of the north structure only.

Yes, he's advocated a complete demo, but the city has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on multiple studies and redevelopment plans of their own for the Landing, particularly in the last five years, and all have come back with the recommendation to demolish the existing structure as well.

It's actually kind of ironic, considering where we now find ourselves with the Landing, that Sleiman and the city haven't been too far off, conceptually, in recent years.

Sleiman's last major action was to spend $150k of his own money to commission a redevelopment study from Bergmann Associates. Bergmann suggested scrapping the current Landing, opening up a new Landing to the river, and focusing on two main structures on each side of Laura. The rightmost structure would be primarily residential and garage.



The DIA wasn't entirely sold, and decided to spend $100k of city money to conduct their own independent redevelopment study through Wakefield Beasley. Sleiman had nothing to do with the city's study, and Wakefield came back with a shockingly similar recommendation to the Bergmann plan (albeit much improved in terms of river interaction).



Different administration, we'd probably be seeing construction right now.

But hey, at least Hooters is getting some new high-tops~!