Khan, Jaguars expect Lot J development to begin early 2020

[Ken_FSU]

^Spoiler: The Jags are putting the $65 million towards renting an actual breadbox.

Another City Council meeting on Lot J just ended.

Not a lot coming out of it, besides the final seven items starting to take shape that there's no agreement on.

Lamping conceded that the Jags are fine waiting until January 7th for a vote and support the City Council taking their time to vet the deal, though I think a lot of this might stem from a realization (voiced from several of the fence-sitters at the last public meeting) that a rushed vote probably isn't advantageous to the Jags.

It's interesting to try to read into these meetings, particularly in terms of who attends and who doesn't, but right now, a couple of council members seem to be probable no votes at this point:

1) Carlucci (still beating the same drum about an independent market study and about not fleecing season ticket holders (I'd personally be more upset about the underprivileged/underserved community than NFL season ticket holders struggling to get by)
2) DeFoor (she hasn't been able to hide her bad attitude/disapproval about this thing since that first workshop she hosted with Carlucci; requested a $150 million clawback provision today, which went over with an already cranky Mark Lamping about as well as you'd expect)

The following Council members I've got as definite yes votes on my Lot J bracket:

1) Gaffney (would vote yes twice if he could)
2) Cumber
3) Bowman
4) Diamond
5) Newby
6) Freeman
7) White
8 ) Pittman

Fence-sitters feel like:
1) Becton (who's been very vocal but hard to read about which way he'll ultimately vote)
2) Salem (he seemed like more of a yes coming out of this meeting than he's been yet)
3) Dennis (he's worried about the size of the spend and where it's going to leave our borrowing capacity going into other asks)
4) Hazouri (for a guy who's constantly complaining about City Council not getting their questions answered, he's now showed up at exactly 0 of these Q&A workshops; I think he ultimately votes yes)

The other five council members, I've got no clue, but judging from the fact that most haven't attended many meetings, I'd be more inclined to think that they've been yes votes from the beginning than no votes.

IF Becton and Salem swing yes, or Becton and Hazouri vote yes, I have a hard time thinking there's much of a chance that this thing gets voted down.

Also, I know he's got his rep, but watching Paul Harden in action gives me new respect for how good this guy is at doing his thing and greasing the wheels.

[vicupstate]

Also, I know he's got his rep, but watching Paul Harden in action gives me new respect for how good this guy is at doing his thing and greasing the wheels.

Too bad no one is providing lubrication for the taxpayers that have to pay for this charade.     

[Ken_FSU]

Also, I know he's got his rep, but watching Paul Harden in action gives me new respect for how good this guy is at doing his thing and greasing the wheels.

Too bad no one is providing lubrication for the taxpayers that have to pay for this charade.   

Don't be foolish.

The lube is included in the $77 million infrastructure cost.

[Steve]

Good Analysis. Based on what you're saying (assuming you're correct about the yes votes) here's my take (in parenthesis):

District 1 (Old Arlington): Joyce Morgan (no read)
District 2 (East Arlington/Northside West of Main St): Al Ferraro (I think will end up being a yes)
District 3 (Intracoastal West): Aaron L. Bowman (yes)
District 4 (Town Center/UNF/Glynlea): Kevin Carrico (no read, too new)
District 5 (Southbank/San Marco/San Jose/St. Nicholas): LeAnna Cumber (yes)
District 6 (Mandarin): Michael Boylan (no read)
District 7 (Downtown Northbank/Northside West of Main St): Reggie Gaffney (yes)
District 8 (Moncrief Area): Ju'Coby Pittman (yes)
District 9 (Mixon Town/Woodstock/Cedar Hills/: Garrett L. Dennis (does he stick it to Curry just to do so? I actually don't think so but not sure)
District 10 (Ribault/Pickettville/Normandy): Brenda Priestly Jackson (no read)
District 11 (Far Southside): Danny Becton (I think ends up voting yes)
District 12 (Baldwin/Far Westside/Cecil): Randy White (yes)
District 13 (Beaches): Rory Diamond (yes)
District 14 (Riverside/Avondale/Ortega/Argyle): Randy DeFoor (no read, but I think she's leaning no)
At-Large Group 1: Terrance Freeman (yes)
At-Large Group 2: Ronald B. Salem (I think eventually this is a yes)
At-Large Group 3: Tommy Hazouri (I think if he wanted to sink it he would have arranged for a vote when he knew the support wasn't there. He's a yes)
At-Large Group 4: Matt Carlucci (no read)
At-Large Group 5: Samuel Newby (yes)

That's 12 right there. You'd think he's got one more but something caused Hazouri to delay.

[Steve]

Also, I know he's got his rep, but watching Paul Harden in action gives me new respect for how good this guy is at doing his thing and greasing the wheels.

Too bad no one is providing lubrication for the taxpayers that have to pay for this charade.     

No issue with Paul Harden - he's an attorney doing what's he's paid to do; advocate for his client.

And yes Ken.....he is AMAZING in action. Lamping would be best to shut up and let Harden talk.

[Steve]

Side note....I think almost all of the 19 know this is a terrible financial deal. I think they'd love to have something insurmountable evidence to either vote yes or vote no. Absent that, I think most vote yes anyway but don't sleep particularly well.

Strangely, I actually feel for many of the council members (not all of them). This is a tough situation. Curry (purposely) put them in an awful position on this, framing this as a "no" vote is a no vote on the Jaguars. Who actually wants to be in that position?

The person who since this term started (2019) that I've really learned to appreciate is Randy DeFoor. I thought she's be a Curry "yes-person". How wrong I was. She's very intelligent and asks excellent questions. That was a tough battle with Sunny Gettinger in that election, but District 14 should be extremely happy with her representing them.

[vicupstate]

Anytime you are not in a position to walk away from a deal, you are not going to get a good deal. The only question is how bad of a deal will it be.  In this case it is really, really bad. The city is literally building this project 100% while  shielding the city from any means of recouping its investment.

The very person that should be looking out for the taxpayer, is actually looking out for the Jags. That he has any credibility at all after the JEA fiasco is testament to how gullible the council and the city as a whole are.

[Fallen Buckeye]

^San Diego estimated 1,600 jobs lost equating to $67 million in annual labor income, with small businesses most directly tied to the Chargers (bars, restaurants, memorabilia and merch retailers, etc.) taking the brunt of the damage.

I do think Jax is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison however, as Oakland, San Diego, and St. Louis all have Major League Baseball franchises as well, and St. Louis also has an NHL team. I think the economic impact would be more severe in Jacksonville, but more importantly, I think the quality of life impact would be even greated in an only-game-in-town type city like Jacksonville.

The damage to the quality of life argument is weak imo. A relatively small segment of Jax currently enjoys any boost to their quality of life as a result of the Jags (i.e. - Those with the disposable income to attend games.) Even for those who do attend games, there are only a few game days a year where they get to enjoy this asset.

We have several better options for investing in our quality of life in Jacksonville that actually affect the day-to-day experiences of the general public. Just off the top of my head, schools, sidewalks, parks, public art, libraries, transit, and public utilities come to mind.

People will find other ways to entertain themselves if the Jags leave. For most of Jax, it just means that they turn on a different game on Sundays. We absolutely should be willing to walk away if the deal doesn't get better.

[marcuscnelson]

Spoke at public comment tonight:

Let's cut to the chase. The results of the DIA's rushed review of Lot J have been damning. It demonstrates a lack of detail of what would be built, puts an immense burden on taxpayers for reasons they can't discern, and will adversely affect any free market for downtown development. The scope of the project has shrunk repeatedly, and yet the demands of taxpayers has remained the same. Meanwhile other cities are building equivalent or larger developments for the same reported price of Lot J. It's time to admit that Lenny Curry made a bad deal for Jacksonville taxpayers, and wasted our hometown team's time in the process. His neglect of his duty to be responsible for the conduct of his administration has been irresponsible. And sorry to Mr. Lamping, but this deal, in its current form, is clearly and simply unacceptable for Jacksonville taxpayers.

I'm wearing this shirt because I do love this team. I want them to stay. But I love this city more. An object of city pride is worthless if we can no longer afford anything to have pride in. Tonight or January do not have to be the end of this project. You on City Council have the power to make this work. You can sign off solely to undertake the remediation and site work at Lot J, as well as constructing the new surface lot. Perhaps do the same at the Shipyards.

In the meantime, the Jaguars can build a great team and bring home some big wins next season. Or they can talk about free agency and offers from St. Louis. The city can master plan a dense and active museum district with MOSH, the USS Orleck, and the Fire Museum. And we can build an iconic urban park at the Shipyards and Hogan Creek.

So that once negotiations conclude with an equitable agreement between the city and the Jaguars for construction of Lot J and the Shipyards, and we have more blueprints to renovate and improve TIAA Bank Field so that we know exactly what this city must do in order to remain an NFL city, we can let the people decide. Remember that we are already talking about the largest public subsidy in the history of this city. Without your action, without your leadership, all you will do is prepare to spend even more. You do not have to reject any possibility of developing this new neighborhood, but you can not and should not approve a deal that is unfair for taxpayers, local businesses, and the future of Jacksonville. As I've said before, I do want to see development like this, I want to see it succeed. But I don't want my generation, or any future generation, to be left with the burden of paying for bad deals and bad decisions. So let the people decide. Thank you.

[jaxlongtimer]

Side note....I think almost all of the 19 know this is a terrible financial deal. I think they'd love to have something insurmountable evidence to either vote yes or vote no. Absent that, I think most vote yes anyway but don't sleep particularly well.

Strangely, I actually feel for many of the council members (not all of them). This is a tough situation. Curry (purposely) put them in an awful position on this, framing this as a "no" vote is a no vote on the Jaguars. Who actually wants to be in that position?

The person who since this term started (2019) that I've really learned to appreciate is Randy DeFoor. I thought she's be a Curry "yes-person". How wrong I was. She's very intelligent and asks excellent questions. That was a tough battle with Sunny Gettinger in that election, but District 14 should be extremely happy with her representing them.

Agree 100% with the comments about DeFoor.  I leaned to Gettinger with the same concern that DeFoor would be in Curry's camp.  What a pleasant surprise to see her stand up for the citizens of Jacksonville against a no-good Mayor and his henchmen.  Along with Carlucci and Dennis, we have a few diamonds in the rough.  Unfortunately, we need at least 7 more to control the Council.  Not sure they are there or where will they come from?  This vote may show us some truer colors.

One thing is for sure:  Any council member voting for this deal as is will be having to live it down in their next election if they draw opposition.  They can thank Curry for hanging them out to dry.  Like Trump, he only cares about his own ambitions and doesn't hesitate to trounce others to get what he wants.

Spoke at public comment tonight:

Let's cut to the chase. The results of the DIA's rushed review of Lot J have been damning. It demonstrates a lack of detail of what would be built, puts an immense burden on taxpayers for reasons they can't discern, and will adversely affect any free market for downtown development. The scope of the project has shrunk repeatedly, and yet the demands of taxpayers has remained the same. Meanwhile other cities are building equivalent or larger developments for the same reported price of Lot J. It's time to admit that Lenny Curry made a bad deal for Jacksonville taxpayers, and wasted our hometown team's time in the process. His neglect of his duty to be responsible for the conduct of his administration has been irresponsible. And sorry to Mr. Lamping, but this deal, in its current form, is clearly and simply unacceptable for Jacksonville taxpayers.

I'm wearing this shirt because I do love this team. I want them to stay. But I love this city more. An object of city pride is worthless if we can no longer afford anything to have pride in. Tonight or January do not have to be the end of this project. You on City Council have the power to make this work. You can sign off solely to undertake the remediation and site work at Lot J, as well as constructing the new surface lot. Perhaps do the same at the Shipyards.

In the meantime, the Jaguars can build a great team and bring home some big wins next season. Or they can talk about free agency and offers from St. Louis. The city can master plan a dense and active museum district with MOSH, the USS Orleck, and the Fire Museum. And we can build an iconic urban park at the Shipyards and Hogan Creek.

So that once negotiations conclude with an equitable agreement between the city and the Jaguars for construction of Lot J and the Shipyards, and we have more blueprints to renovate and improve TIAA Bank Field so that we know exactly what this city must do in order to remain an NFL city, we can let the people decide. Remember that we are already talking about the largest public subsidy in the history of this city. Without your action, without your leadership, all you will do is prepare to spend even more. You do not have to reject any possibility of developing this new neighborhood, but you can not and should not approve a deal that is unfair for taxpayers, local businesses, and the future of Jacksonville. As I've said before, I do want to see development like this, I want to see it succeed. But I don't want my generation, or any future generation, to be left with the burden of paying for bad deals and bad decisions. So let the people decide. Thank you.

Well put, Marcus.  You were eloquent, spoke truth to power, offered a dignified and appropriate way to move forward and bottom lined it succinctly.  I hope the Council took your comments to heart as they should.

[Ken_FSU]

Side note....I think almost all of the 19 know this is a terrible financial deal. I think they'd love to have something insurmountable evidence to either vote yes or vote no. Absent that, I think most vote yes anyway but don't sleep particularly well.

Strangely, I actually feel for many of the council members (not all of them). This is a tough situation. Curry (purposely) put them in an awful position on this, framing this as a "no" vote is a no vote on the Jaguars. Who actually wants to be in that position?

100% agree, Steve.

Total rock and a hard place situation here.

Seems to be a misconception that City Council is responsible for renegotiating this deal with the Jags when at the end of the day, what they're really tasked with is voting the deal that Hughes, Curry, and Mousa made up or down.

I think they're doing their best to get whatever concessions they can, but this deal ultimately falls on the mayor's office, not on Council.

I do feel slightly less awful, however, for the Council Members that appeared at the initial press conference in support of the project (and Hazouri who sent a letter of support for the legislation). I know for a fact that at least one of them (and I'd imagine most) bought the Curry yarn that the deal was $65 million more favorable to the taxpayers than the 2019 term sheet without fully understanding the terms of the "loan," but probably not a great idea to essentially come out as a yes before the development agreement is even available.

The person who since this term started (2019) that I've really learned to appreciate is Randy DeFoor. I thought she's be a Curry "yes-person". How wrong I was. She's very intelligent and asks excellent questions. That was a tough battle with Sunny Gettinger in that election, but District 14 should be extremely happy with her representing them.

I've actually got mixed feelings on Randy DeFoor. She's a tough negotiator, but I also think her bedside manner leaves a bit to be desired, so to speak. To me, she come across as disrespectful and not debating in good faith at times. I'm all for questioning the deal, and Lord knows we need that balance on Council, but I'm not a fan of the repeated accusations at every meeting that the team is going to leave Jacksonville. Most of these dire comments from Paul Harden and Lamping about the status of the lease and other suitors have come from a somewhat defensive position after DeFoor has, in my opinion, insinuated that the Jags were operating under some evil plan to build a Buffalo Wild Wings and then move the franchise. Some of her requests have been a little outlandish too (particularly the demand for a lease extension through 2065 for Lot J and the demands yesterday for a $150 million cash payment from the Jags if they left Jacksonville).

To be fair though, could say the same thing about Lamping during some of these debates.

[Steve]

Side note....I think almost all of the 19 know this is a terrible financial deal. I think they'd love to have something insurmountable evidence to either vote yes or vote no. Absent that, I think most vote yes anyway but don't sleep particularly well.

Strangely, I actually feel for many of the council members (not all of them). This is a tough situation. Curry (purposely) put them in an awful position on this, framing this as a "no" vote is a no vote on the Jaguars. Who actually wants to be in that position?

100% agree, Steve.

Total rock and a hard place situation here.

Seems to be a misconception that City Council is responsible for renegotiating this deal with the Jags when at the end of the day, what they're really tasked with is voting the deal that Hughes, Curry, and Mousa made up or down.

I think they're doing their best to get whatever concessions they can, but this deal ultimately falls on the mayor's office, not on Council.

I do feel slightly less awful, however, for the Council Members that appeared at the initial press conference in support of the project (and Hazouri who sent a letter of support for the legislation). I know for a fact that at least one of them (and I'd imagine most) bought the Curry yarn that the deal was $65 million more favorable to the taxpayers than the 2019 term sheet without fully understanding the terms of the "loan," but probably not a great idea to essentially come out as a yes before the development agreement is even available.

The person who since this term started (2019) that I've really learned to appreciate is Randy DeFoor. I thought she's be a Curry "yes-person". How wrong I was. She's very intelligent and asks excellent questions. That was a tough battle with Sunny Gettinger in that election, but District 14 should be extremely happy with her representing them.

I've actually got mixed feelings on Randy DeFoor. She's a tough negotiator, but I also think her bedside manner leaves a bit to be desired, so to speak. To me, she come across as disrespectful and not debating in good faith at times. I'm all for questioning the deal, and Lord knows we need that balance on Council, but I'm not a fan of the repeated accusations at every meeting that the team is going to leave Jacksonville. Most of these dire comments from Paul Harden and Lamping about the status of the lease and other suitors have come from a somewhat defensive position after DeFoor has, in my opinion, insinuated that the Jags were operating under some evil plan to build a Buffalo Wild Wings and then move the franchise. Some of her requests have been a little outlandish too (particularly the demand for a lease extension through 2065 for Lot J and the demands yesterday for a $150 million cash payment from the Jags if they left Jacksonville).

To be fair though, could say the same thing about Lamping during some of these debates.

DeFoor isn't always the most polished, I'll give you that. And, while I think she understands financials (clearly demonstrated through the JEA deal), I do agree that she's stretched herself when it comes to NFL economics. It's crazy to think the Jaguars would extend the lease based on Lot J. That will never happen and that's why I wasn't in love with this to begin with. Do the stadium first, because THAT would be tied to a lease extension.

I'll darn sure take her over Curry though.

Now, I think to your point the person that's come across as WAY worse is Mark Lamping. He's been way too frustrated with council here, when his frustration should be with Curry. Let Harden do his thing - I don't know of anyone in the city that can work with the council better than Paul Harden.

[thelakelander]

I may have missed it but how did we settle on Lot J being Phase 1 for the site of the proposed project? Plus, since things are still so conceptual, would the Jags  be open to considering switching the site to an adjacent parking lot?



Knowing the history of land uses south of Adams Street, would it have made any sense to put the Lot J project on Lots P, N & M? Some benefits would be:

1. Development has greater visibility to Arlington Expressway (51,500 AADT vs 16,600 AADT for Hart Bridge Expressway/Gator Bowl Boulevard) while still maintaining visibility and direct access to Gator Bowl Boulevard.

2. Leaving Lot J capped, the pond and antenna in place, significantly reducing environmental clean up/infrastructure costs ($92.7 million). This gives council a big public win and speeds up the project's completion date by three years.

3. We're turning Gator Bowl Boulevard into a race track. Adams and Duval Streets are more pedestrian friendly and infilling between them would create more cohesive synergy with the Eastside, arena, baseball grounds, Cathedral District and proposed soccer stadium, without sacrificing connectivity with TIAA Bank Field and Daily's Place. In other words, a shift north creates an opportunity for immediate clustering within the Sports District and potentially more economic spinoff in the surrounding area.

4. Allows more time to figure out the proper way to deal with Lot J in the future. Given what we know now, perhaps the practice fields should be built on top of Lot J since their present site is more suitable for infill development? Or perhaps its cleanup should be included as a part of negotiations to update the stadium and extend the lease a couple of years down the road?

[fieldafm]

and the demands yesterday for a $150 million cash payment from the Jags if they left Jacksonville

Many economic development deals with COJ have clawback language like this (whether they are enforced or not, is an entirely different question). So, its not so outlandish to raise the possibility of clawback language in the single biggest capital expense the City has undertaken in the last couple of decades.

[Steve]

I may have missed it but how did we settle on Lot J being Phase 1 for the site of the proposed project? Plus, since things are still so conceptual, would the Jags  be open to considering switching the site to an adjacent parking lot?



Knowing the history of land uses south of Adams Street, would it have made any sense to put the Lot J project on Lots P, N & M? Some benefits would be:

1. Development has greater visibility to Arlington Expressway (51,500 AADT vs 16,600 AADT for Hart Bridge Expressway/Gator Bowl Boulevard) while still maintaining visibility and direct access to Gator Bowl Boulevard.

2. Leaving Lot J capped, the pond and antenna in place, significantly reducing environmental clean up/infrastructure costs ($92.7 million). This gives council a big public win and speeds up the project's completion date by three years.

3. We're turning Gator Bowl Boulevard into a race track. Adams and Duval Streets are more pedestrian friendly and infilling between them would create more cohesive synergy with the Eastside, arena, baseball grounds, Cathedral District and proposed soccer stadium, without sacrificing connectivity with TIAA Bank Field and Daily's Place. In other words, a shift north creates an opportunity for immediate clustering within the Sports District and potentially more economic spinoff in the surrounding area.

4. Allows more time to figure out the proper way to deal with Lot J in the future. Given what we know now, perhaps the practice fields should be built on top of Lot J since their present site is more suitable for infill development? Or perhaps its cleanup should be included as a part of negotiations to update the stadium and extend the lease a couple of years down the road?

I'll try to find it but as I understood, there's a specific clause that allows the Jags to develop Lot J specifically. Like, if they wanted to take this project on 100% privately, including the environmental cleanup, they could. I don't remember the specifics though.

That said, to your point if Khan is able to exert this much leverage over the Mayor's office, then switching the parking lot should be feasible if they and the mayor wanted to.