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

[Snaketoz]

Sleiman should win his lawsuit.  I think the city is more to blame than Sleiman.  1. They (COJ) agreed to "continuously operate and manage, a parking garage with 800 spaces, for short term parking for the Landing".  2. The city is responsible for all exterior common areas, including labor, materials, and equipment.  3. The city is responsible for the docks, within what is required by state and federal laws.

Now tell me how, Tony is supposed to attract and keep 1st class tenants when the city has failed so miserably in maintaining the Landing?  This should be a slam dunk for Sleiman in an impartial court.

[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.

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~!

Both were highly underwhelming. The DIA's version was never going to significantly differ from Sleiman's because the general design parameters were basically the same. It's the same product, just slightly packaged and rendered differently. At the end of the day, both take what should be a unique destination in the heart of downtown and transform the site into a 220 Riverside, hotel, etc. with limited street level retail and a more centered Unity Plaza.

In reality, the architecture, the shape, orange roof, illuminated signage, location, etc. make the place iconic. It's warts can be fixed without throwing the baby out with the bath water and extra millions of tax dollars. Both Norfolk and Baltimore have recently taken similar self contained Rouse buildings and repurposed them for present times. Jax can do the same if it stops itself from overcomplicating the situation.

[jaxnyc79]

Sleiman should win his lawsuit.  I think the city is more to blame than Sleiman.  1. They (COJ) agreed to "continuously operate and manage, a parking garage with 800 spaces, for short term parking for the Landing".  2. The city is responsible for all exterior common areas, including labor, materials, and equipment.  3. The city is responsible for the docks, within what is required by state and federal laws.

Now tell me how, Tony is supposed to attract and keep 1st class tenants when the city has failed so miserably in maintaining the Landing?  This should be a slam dunk for Sleiman in an impartial court.

The Landing has lost many of its tenants, and while the City owns underlying real estate, Sleiman is responsible for the buildings and tenant recruitment and retention.  In the course of the litigation, the current tenants' opinions of Sleiman and the reasons for non-renewal by pre-existing tenants will probably be relevant.  Also, if the City is asserting that Sleiman has failed to recruit world-class retailers, I would be interested to understand how world-class retailers are defined, what retailers meet that definition, and their documented reasons for not doing a deal with the Landing.  If those reasons are of the type that would be addressed or managed by Sleiman Enterprises based on its description of responsibilities in the Lease, then perhaps the City has a point.  I can't imagine retailers citing a lack of boat docks - no one is expecting patronage from that.  I feel like that's been missing in all the coverage - what do the current and FORMER tenants think of the situation with the Landing.  Has Sleiman been managing in good faith, or engaging in sub-par management to force the City's hand in working out an incentive deal.

[thelakelander]

The Landing was dated and largely vacant before Sleiman purchased it. It would be interesting to see how a world class retailer is defined. Depending on that definition, market dynamics come into play. It's not like world class retailers are beating down Downtown's door to get into all the other vacant storefronts outside of the Landing.

[jaxnyc79]

I'd like to explore the idea that Sleiman really isn't putting his all into making this work.  I'm thinking of all the retailers in his strip malls all around this city.  I feel if Sleiman came to the city with lease commitments from, say,"Dollar Tree," or "Ross Dress for Less," or "JoAnn's Fabric," or "TJ Maxx," I feel the city would have worked with him on dedicated parking and publicizing that parking for shoppers.  I'm mentioning those names as examples...not sure whether they already have a presence in the core.  My point is that Sleiman isn't leveraging his existing retail network to bring his own brand of vibrancy to the Landing, and is instead letting it go to the dogs to secure a major incentives package from the City, and do something very different with the Landing to expand his repertoire.

[thelakelander]

You can't get lease commitments from retailers requiring dedicated parking when the promised dedicated parking has never been provided. You also can't get lease commitments for an existing facility when both parties have promoted redevelopment plans that call for the center's razing. To get lease commitments, razing would have to be off the table and a dedicated parking solution figured out. In general, these things would seem pretty simple but all hell breaks loose when politics, bad blood and poor relationships get involved.

[acme54321]

I have a hard time seeing a private development doing well long term with the ground lease that they are on.  That's always going to be looming over whatever's there.

[KenFSU]

I feel if Sleiman came to the city with lease commitments from, say,"Dollar Tree," or "Ross Dress for Less," or "JoAnn's Fabric," or "TJ Maxx," I feel the city would have worked with him on dedicated parking and publicizing that parking for shoppers.

It was never Sleiman's responsibility, nor should it be, to "prove" anything to the city in order to earn parking. It was the city's contractual obligation, via the letter of the lease, to provide - in perpetuity - an 800-space best-in-class garage, specifically dedicated to the Landing, that was nearby, safe, staffed, well-lit, and open from an hour before the Landing opened until an hour after the Landing closed.

It was an obligation that predated Sleiman by 16 years.

Doesn't matter if Toney Sleiman is Mother Teresa or the devil himself, the lease is the lease is the lease:







Which is what makes this whole thing so fucking maddening, pardon my language.

How can you take someone to court for breaching a lease that you've been in clear, flippant violation of for 30 years and expect to win? Rouse was promised an 800-space garage in 1987, which the city backed out on, and Sleiman was promised the same parking when he bought the landing for $5 million in 2003.

Even more importantly, how can you attempt to evict someone for failure to sign first-class tenets when your own breach of contract is the root cause of said failure. Cheesecake Factory and PF Chang's were, pre-Town Center, the prime targets for the Landing. Sleiman very publicly reached out to both. And the Landing was a non-starter for both, because of parking. The 300 dedicated spaces required for just those two restaurants to even consider opening at the Landing were 60 more spaces than Sleiman currently has for the entire Landing. Doesn't the city think this is something that might, you know, come up in court?

If you're into economic game theory, the entire situation is classic prisoner's dilemma.

The prisoner's dilemma is a paradox in decision analysis in which two individuals acting in their own self-interest pursue a course of action that does not result in the ideal outcome. The typical prisoner's dilemma is set up in such a way that both parties choose to protect themselves at the expense of the other participant. As a result of following a purely logical thought process, both participants find themselves in a worse state than if they had cooperated with each other in the decision-making process.

Everyone loses if this thing goes to trial.

Reggie Gaffney, bless his heart, has spent the week trying to mediate a resolution, and the response from the mayor's office has basically been, "see you in court."

All parties involved need to look at the full range of possible outcomes.

Outcome 1 - The city "wins" their case against Sleiman. For their efforts, they get years of legal fees and stalled downtown development, and the right to spend $10 million to buy the Landing back from Sleiman, pay out the remaining leases, and then turn around and spend millions more to knock the whole damn thing down again. Without exaggeration, it could be 2025 and $15 million by the time a new RFP is even issued for the property.

Outcome 2 - Sleiman "wins" his case against the city. Worst case for us, the judge and jury actually - you know - read the original lease, and award Toney Sleiman tens of millions of dollars in damages dating back to 2003 for our failure to provide him the infrastructure he needed to make the Landing successful. Best case scenario for us, the city gets off with *just* having to build a $60 million parking garage, the trust is irrevocably broken between Jacksonville and Sleiman, and the Landing situation remains in stalemate for another decade.

Outcome 3 - Sleiman, Curry, and the DIA sit down at a conference room table like adults, leave their egos at the door, and do what's best for the damn city by working something out that everyone can live with. Not everyone is going to love every aspect of it, but it will be better than the alternative. Work could be in the budget as soon as next year, an improved Landing could come online right alongside the Trio, and Curry and Sleiman both come out looking like champs.

There's so much more to lose than to gain for Curry in particular (and, by proxy, the city) by taking this thing to court.

Every single piece of communication related to the Landing from Curry has already been subpoenaed by Sleiman; if there's anything fishy at all, it's gonna come out in August unless this thing is settled.

And let's not forgot, Curry wants his legacy to be downtown redevelopment via private-public parternship. A convention center and Lot J development will both need to rely on leases not dissimilar to the city's lease with Sleiman/JLI. Do we really want potential investors to think that we're the type of city who backs out of our obligations before attempting hostile takeovers of private development? What does Cordish think watching this clownshow?

Work. It. Out.

[jaxnyc79]

I've never seen or read the lease, until the portion of it that you just posted.  Interestingly, in the passage you posted, "Rouse" is cited, which was the original developer, yes?  Did the City's "garage" obligation to Rouse transfer to Rouse's assignees/transferees, including Sleiman, upon acquisition?  Also, all this first-class nonsense is frustrating in the lease..."first-class garage," I mean come on.  Having said that, was the city's obligation to deliver a garage tied to Rouse/Sleiman's obligation to deliver "first-class" tenants?  At any rate, we're all conjecturing, and no goals of litigation will really be advanced by this message board.  We can just wait and see.  I'm no ardent fan of the Curry Administration, I just can't imagine them going to court if the only clear failure to perform here is the city not delivering a "first-class" garage dedicated to the Landing.

[Steve]

I've never seen or read the lease, until the portion of it that you just posted.  Interestingly, in the passage you posted, "Rouse" is cited, which was the original developer, yes?  Did the City's "garage" obligation to Rouse transfer to Rouse's assignees/transferees, including Sleiman, upon acquisition?  Also, all this first-class nonsense is frustrating in the lease..."first-class garage," I mean come on.  Having said that, was the city's obligation to deliver a garage tied to Rouse/Sleiman's obligation to deliver "first-class" tenants?  At any rate, we're all conjecturing, and no goals of litigation will really be advanced by this message board.  We can just wait and see.  I'm no ardent fan of the Curry Administration, I just can't imagine them going to court if the only clear failure to perform here is the city not delivering a "first-class" garage dedicated to the Landing.

Yes, Rouse was the original developer (as well as a lot of other festival marketplaces around the country, including the Baltimore Inner Harbor project). The garage was required to be provided to them and that transferred to Sleiman.

My honest opinion is Sleiman has done nothing, but it may not matter because of the garage.

[RatTownRyan]

Does the Baltimore inner harbor or other festival marketplace projects have similar contracts in regards to dedicated parking garage or parking lots? Did their parking garage get built and therefore they have been more successful? If so then build the garage.

Also in both renderings, one of the ramps to the main street bridge is gone. How likely is that to happen? Has there been a DOT study on that portion of any redevelopment? Is that a major sticking point between the two sides?

[KenFSU]

Does the Baltimore inner harbor or other festival marketplace projects have similar contracts in regards to dedicated parking garage or parking lots? Did their parking garage get built and therefore they have been more successful? If so then build the garage.

Also in both renderings, one of the ramps to the main street bridge is gone. How likely is that to happen? Has there been a DOT study on that portion of any redevelopment? Is that a major sticking point between the two sides?

The Baltimore Inner Harbor has a dedicated garage that opened in 1983, shortly after Rouse's festival marketplace opened there (http://harborparkgarage.com/).

On the ramps, the DOT was on board with their removal and held public workshops to get feedback on impact in 2014. But, when Landing redevelopment talk stalled, so did the ramp talks. Eventually,, the ask shifted east toward the Hart Bridge ramps as Shipyards redevelopment talks heated up.

[Downtown Osprey]

I've said time and time again there is no need to reinvent the wheel and demo anything. As Lake said, refurbish what you already have existing as it does have an iconic look to it. Give it more of a local feel with store fronts and overall programming. I believe at one point on this site someone had pitched doing a fish market, farmers market, activities that bring demand and have a local feel to it. I for one would LOVE that idea and would truly give visitors an idea of what makes Jax great. But yet here we are again, going in circles.

[jlmann]

conspiracy time:

does the judge have connections to the curry network?  does she have future political aspirations?  the city may feel like they have a good case here for a reason

[Steve]

conspiracy time:

does the judge have connections to the curry network?  does she have future political aspirations?  the city may feel like they have a good case here for a reason

The judge for the previous lawsuit is Virginia Norton. If she is given this case as well, then I can say definitely not. I'm partial here as I worked with her when we were both COJ employees (me an intern then full time in the IT department, her an Assistant General Counsel).

Not only is she intelligent, I'm confident her ruling will be fair in regard to the law.