Covent Garden Market & What's Next For The Landing

[Tacachale]

This sea lion act is getting old, Wombley. Please knock it off.

[thelakelander]

I've been reading TripAdvisor reviews of the Landing. It seems to me the place should have been shut down and razed long ago. in the interest of public safety.

Maybe the city should focus it's redevelopment efforts on crime prevention and mitigating the homeless issue.

My recommendation is to try visiting the area in person. If reading, skip tripadvisor and read newspaper archives on the topic for the last 20 years. You'll have a much better perspective and understanding of the history, challenges and opportunities.

[Kiva]

Wait. Is your real name Lenny Curry?

[itsfantastic1]

How this thread feels...

[Tacachale]

How this thread feels...

[bl8jaxnative]

Since when aren't municipalities responsible for the public realm within their limits? That's one of the main reasons we have taxes.

Why should tax dollars be spent on a moribund area like the Landing?

COJ is spending $22 million in tax money there now. Way too much IMO for a vacant lot.

It's a $1M for the demo and no more than $1.5M for the leases.    For a city with a $1.4 BILLION budget, it costs less than a rounding area to remove The Landing from the riverfront.

The rest of that money was spent to deal with the bad legal situation the city had put itself in.   IMHO that's where the real issue is, having a vision along with day to day execution that ensures that things do not get to that point. 

[bl8jaxnative]

I've been reading TripAdvisor reviews of the Landing. It seems to me the place should have been shut down and razed long ago. in the interest of public safety.

Maybe the city should focus it's redevelopment efforts on crime prevention and mitigating the homeless issue.

My recommendation is to try visiting the area in person. If reading, skip tripadvisor and read newspaper archives on the topic for the last 20 years. You'll have a much better perspective and understanding of the history, challenges and opportunities.

Well said.  Thank you.

[Tacachale]

Since when aren't municipalities responsible for the public realm within their limits? That's one of the main reasons we have taxes.

Why should tax dollars be spent on a moribund area like the Landing?

COJ is spending $22 million in tax money there now. Way too much IMO for a vacant lot.

It's a $1M for the demo and no more than $1.5M for the leases.    For a city with a $1.4 BILLION budget, it costs less than a rounding area to remove The Landing from the riverfront.

The rest of that money was spent to deal with the bad legal situation the city had put itself in.   IMHO that's where the real issue is, having a vision along with day to day execution that ensures that things do not get to that point.

This is wrong no matter how many times you repeat it. It was $15 million to buy the building, which last sold for $5 million and had no one else interested in it, $1 million (if not more) for demo, $1.5 million to buy out a few tenants, and over $4 million to settle the legal issue Curry started. So $22 million to turn it into a grass field.

[bl8jaxnative]

This is wrong no matter how many times you repeat it. It was $15 million to buy the building,

Don't get all "you're wrong" when you don't know the basics.  Do real research.  It is impossible to buy something that you own.

But that would then explain the mush of anti-logic that sprins forth.

he city spent $15 million to get Sleiman out of the lease.    They did this because, all things considered, it made the most sense.   As many proponents of remodeling The Landing have pointed out, is not a cost of demolition.  You would need to do this to do what they support, remodeling and repurposing The Landing. 

It is a cost that applies to all options going forward.

[thelakelander]

^The city wouldn't necessarily have to pay to remodel the building. That's a huge inaccurate assumption you're making. Also paying Sleiman $15 million to get him out of the lease as the option making most sense is more opinion than fact based. Just for my better understanding of your perspective, what were the other options on the table that made paying Sleiman and eliminating a couple hundred downtown jobs the best option?

[fieldafm]

This is wrong no matter how many times you repeat it. It was $15 million to buy the building,

Don't get all "you're wrong" when you don't know the basics.  Do real research.  It is impossible to buy something that you own.

Did your 'real research' not turn up the fact that Sleiman Enterprises owned the buildings and everything inside of them? The cost of the acquisition also included the City purchasing the physical assets owned by Sleiman, not just a lease buyout.

[itsfantastic1]

I think you are missing the point. While you are correct that the $15 million was for buying out his 99 year lease and not physical demolition, the whole point of the buyout was to remove someone who had a legal right to operate in the space and allow the city move forward with unilateral redevelopment. If Sleiman and the city could've agreed on a development strategy, then there is no buyout cost (or at least not $15 mil).

What I think is getting mixed is that there are two factors this site has issue with;  1) Jacksonville seems to think redevelopment means demolishing and starting over and 2) the buyout amount was so large, it makes people question the City when the previous administration's development was derided as "too expensive" when in total it cost $12 million.

Right now, the city has (or will have) spent nearly $22 million and regardless of the purpose parts of that money had, all they have to show for $22 million is an empty lot (for the time being).

[bl8jaxnative]

^The city wouldn't necessarily have to pay to remodel the building. That's a huge inaccurate assumption you're making.

The building was built for retail.   It can't be used for something else without remodeling.   

Also paying Sleiman $15 million to get him out of the lease as the option making most sense is more opinion than fact based.

Insiders have stated it so.  If you can prove them wrong, please do.     

.................eliminating a couple hundred downtown jobs the best option?

A couple hundred jobs?  Since you claim to value facts, let's talk about FTEs.   HOw many FTEs were there at The Landing as of Jan 2019?  Or do facts only matter when they're consonant with your feelings?

[Tacachale]

^The city wouldn't necessarily have to pay to remodel the building. That's a huge inaccurate assumption you're making.

The building was built for retail.   It can't be used for something else without remodeling.   

Also paying Sleiman $15 million to get him out of the lease as the option making most sense is more opinion than fact based.

Insiders have stated it so.  If you can prove them wrong, please do.     

.................eliminating a couple hundred downtown jobs the best option?

A couple hundred jobs?  Since you claim to value facts, let's talk about FTEs.   HOw many FTEs were there at The Landing as of Jan 2019?  Or do facts only matter when they're consonant with your feelings?

1. It could be adapted for a variety of uses, including modern retail, for less money than we're spending to create a field.

2. The only people who have ever said that are the ones rationalizing the project. It can be easily proven wrong by the fact that we could have spent $0 and has something that's not a field.

3. LOL, moving the goalposts is a sign you don't have a real argument. At any rate, there were more jobs than there are now (none) or will be for years at least.

[thelakelander]

LOL, moving goal posts and selecting a date after years of the city working to put places out of business. Definitely a poor argument.