Lot J - 5 Years Later

[Jax_Developer]

I literally can't believe what I'm reading in this thread. Congrats for the news outlets & city officials for selling that the Stadium Deal was a good deal. Let's please not act like the previous Lot J deal was a bad deal compared to every other existing deal we have right now and compared to what will be ultimately requested.

They will:
A). Not Pay for the Land - they will use a Credit
B). Be allowed every incentive that every other project has gotten
C). Have a perfect use case to build structured parking to then "magically fix" the city's parking agreement debacle

Pretty ideal situation if you ask me & can easily envision a $230M+ incentive package here.

Every Existing Stadium Deal
Jacksonville: $1.4B with a 60/40 (arguably 65/35) public/private split - with land restrictions & extras
Bills: Originally $1.4B, with a 60/40 split, and now $2.1B 40/60 split - with no land restrictions or extras
Titans: $2.2B with a 60/40 split (public side mostly being paid by stadium revenue bonds) - with no land restrictions (go look at whats going on there)
Commanders: $3.7B with a 30/70 public/private split - with land restrictions & extras
Bears (Arlington Heights): $2.8B with a 30/70 split - with land restrictions (already had purchase said land for $150M+)
Chiefs: $3B with a 60/40 public/private split - without land restrictions but promise of $1B adjacent district (lured away from Missouri)

If Lot J was under construction debt with public incentives when the Stadium Negotiation came up, do you think that conversation would have gone any differently? Obviously yes.

[Ken_FSU]

Every Existing Stadium Deal
Jacksonville: $1.4B with a 60/40 (arguably 65/35) public/private split - with land restrictions & extras
Bills: Originally $1.4B, with a 60/40 split, and now $2.1B 40/60 split - with no land restrictions or extras
Titans: $2.2B with a 60/40 split (public side mostly being paid by stadium revenue bonds) - with no land restrictions (go look at whats going on there)
Commanders: $3.7B with a 30/70 public/private split - with land restrictions & extras
Bears (Arlington Heights): $2.8B with a 30/70 split - with land restrictions (already had purchase said land for $150M+)
Chiefs: $3B with a 60/40 public/private split - without land restrictions but promise of $1B adjacent district (lured away from Missouri)

Will start by saying that the vast majority of all NFL stadium deals are bad deals for the taxpayers. The league is making money hand-over-fist with it's $12 billion in television deals each year. And, to me, building and maintaining the stadiums necessary to stage these very lucrative games should be a cost of doing business for NFL owners. But it's not. So cities have to make a choice as to whether they believe that the positive externalities and quality of life enhancements associated with having a team are worth playing a universally unfair game with taxpayer dollars. I happen to think that the Jags are the glue that binds this 800-square mile city together, and without them, we'd be just another faceless mid-sized market struggling to attract corporate relocations, tourists, and young professionals.

So, if we do make that collective choice that it's worth it, the best we can hope for is a fair stadium deal, relative others in the league.

The breakout you provided is accurate, but I do think there are more elements than just public/private split, particularly when the "private" numbers can be so easily manipulated with things like PSLs that pass that cost back to the taxpayers on the back end, and particularly when Jacksonville is a very unique, much smaller market versus Chicago, or DC, or even Nashville that doesn't have the population base and large-market infrastructure to make our NFL stadium a 40-event a year revenue driver.

A few reasons why I think our stadium deal was particularly fair, relatively speaking.

#1) Everbank Field is one of the oldest stadiums in the league, with parts of the stadium going back nearly 50 years. It's not modern by NFL standards. The Jags could have EASILY pushed for a brand new stadium in line with new stadiums built everywhere else in the league. I genuinely believe they made a good faith, mutually beneficial effort to keep costs down with a major upgrade, versus new construction.

#2) Even though it's only upgrades to the existing stadium, versus new stadium, the Jags agreed to a THIRTY YEAR lease extension. To me, this is huge, and needs to be factored into the cost equation. I think almost everyone was expecting 15-20 years, with a new stadium ask and another fun round of relocation speculation coming when that expired. I am still shocked that the Jags agreed to stay in town until nearly 2060 absent a new stadium. That is a HUGE win for the community.

#3) The KEY difference between the Jags new stadium deal and every other stadium that you referenced (Bills, Bears, Commanders, Titans, Chiefs) is that every single one of those other markets will be clawing back a huge chunk of that "private" investment by selling PSLs. Before any member of the public can buy a season ticket in any of these other new stadiums, they'll need to purchase a license for their seat, ranging from $750 for the top row of the nosebleeds to $75,000+ for club seats.

It makes the above private/public splits much muddier when taxpayers will ultimately be contributing hundreds of millions of dollars per market for the right to attend games at the stadium, offsetting the owners "private investments."

Estimated PSL revenues for the owners from each market:
Bills: $300 million+
Titans: $350 million
Commanders: $400 million
Bears: $500 million
Chiefs: $500 million
Jaguars: $0

By not selling PSLs (confirmed by Mark Lamping in community huddles), the math changes significantly versus other markets.

I don't know what else the city could have done to get a better deal, short of demanding that Shad Khan pay full price for a publicly owned stadium, that doesn't generate much revenue outside of Jags games, in a market that he doesn't even live in.

[Jankelope]

I think we have to wear multiple hats when we comment on anything like this. I am someone who has certain values that I do believe strongly, and sometimes they do come into nuanced context where they contradict each other. There is so much that is in the grey.

I believe strongly that these billionaire owners, who make hundreds of millions of dollars of pure profit every single season (and sometimes more) should be responsible for financing the construction and maintenance of their coliseums. That is something I believe extremely strongly when I think purely of ethics and how things "ought to be." It is absurd that in a country where housing, groceries, insurance, transportation costs have grown far faster than wages...the taxpayer should be expected to pay for a fancy venue where the bulk of the utilization will be from people who do not live paycheck to paycheck.

At the same time, there are several other factors that I do ultimately result in me being tipped towards "this is a good deal, and I'm glad we negociated and took it."

1. We have a renovation that will make our stadium look shiny and new with just a "renovation." I put that in quotes because I think the vast majority of everything other than concrete will be brand new. This renovation is sometimes less than half of the cost of peer cities stadium deals.

2. We are not responsible for overruns. It is entirely possible that this stadium project ends up costing $2 billion. I think that is totally plausible. When it is all said and done, I could imagine something more like a 40/60 public/private split, which does feel unbeatable in the context of NFL stadium deals.

3. The Community Benefits Agreement, although ultimately a much smaller total number than the cost of the renovation, funds several extremely important city priorities that benefit the public in ways that would otherwise come from the treasury. Our Riverfront Parks projects will be the single most transformative project in 100 years in Jacksonville, imo. I think that we have yet to see just how radically transformative they will be in terms of perception of the city internally and externally.

4. The 30 year lease...for a city like Jacksonville that hasn't proved yet that we can reach the "world class city" label that we all want...is quite a risk on the owners part. I do believe that it is a good faith pledge that shows confidence in Jacksonville as an NFL city, in an age where every commentator looks at us with disdain as not "deserving" a team. If you divide $775 million by 30 years...you get $25.8 million per year. If you just looked at this as a line item that was "Having an NFL team" and spending $25.8 million a year on it...I think you would be hard pressed to find another "incentive package" that was more valuable. How many deals do we give away $25.8 million on through completion grands and incentives per year? How many of them contribute more to the fabric and "glue" and identity of the cities like the Jaguars?

5. There is much talk about that having an NFL team doesn't actually improve the local economy of a city enough to justify the cost of having it. I think that there are some less tangible benefits that don't get mentioned. I do believe that the Jaguars provide a type of legitimacy to the optics of our city to those who have never been here that do benefit us, especially if we become a wonderful place to visit over the coming decades. This absolutely impacts things like visibility for business deals, high level discussions, etc. I fully admit this may not "add up" to $775 million over 30 years...but I think it is worth including because it does contribute to the story.

6. What would "losing the team" have felt like to the city as a whole? This question doesn't get considered enough. Getting the team in the first place was a "Cinderella Story." and Jacksonville is a working class town with a chip on it's shoulder. The citizens here don't feel like we deserve nice things. There is an inferiority complex that many of us are working desperately on changing over the course of a generation. What would happen if we lost our NFL team right as we were starting to heat up on many other fronts? You could argue it may not have impacted the economics that much, but it would have absolutely hurt badly to hundreds of thousands of residents here and impacted their quality of life and perception of their own city.

So with all of that said...I am glad we got a 30 year lease and will spend the equivalent of $25.8 million for 30 years to remain an NFL city. This is despite me believing the fact we have to subsidize a billionaire is wrong.

5.

[Fallen Buckeye]

^ Those are all good questions. There are a lot of logistical issues regarding how we as a city have thought about this area. Especially with MOSH and parking needs. At the same time, I would not be surprised if Cordish trying to revive that project as-is-ish given post-pandemic inflation and whatnot means that it's somehow $600 million or more to build. That doesn't mean not doing it, but maybe questioning how we do it.

Here's a thought:
What if, right now, itself, the City decided to do the retention pond parking garage. Deal with the antenna anchors, relocate the retention pond, and build a... I dunno, 1500-or-so-space garage, perhaps with retail space on the ground. That gives you extra parking for the stadiums, arena, and MOSH, possibly some early space for bars, I guess in theory could integrate with NAVI (not that it'll matter), and most importantly gives us the flexibility to reposition Lot J with no worries about parking availability in the meantime. If there's so much parking demand anyway, then that means revenue we can then turn towards the site work and incentives for a new Lot J development. And then the development itself won't have to worry about integrating parking directly into it because it'll be right there. Surely this city is capable of building one parking garage, right? It pains me because I am a big fan of transit but obviously our transit agency has soiled that goodwill so let's at least address the parking problem.

Love this line of thinking, and I think it makes an overall Lot J deal much more palatable to the public as well if you decouple something that the city needs to build anyway (a parking solution) from the perceived "incentives" that Cordish/Iguana would receive for the project.

As someone who skews conservative, I can tell you I love this idea. Clear public benefit. City isn't picking favorites or encumbering itself with long term risk. Just a solid base hit that moves the area into scoring position.

[Jax_Developer]

@Ken, I'm more so responding to your original point on Lot J. It was absolutely a mistake to not approve it when it was proposed for the simple reason that we will:

A). Pay more for the same outcome down the road
B). Have negotiated a Stadium deal WITHOUT the BS parking agreement & development credits

It's very simple. If Iguana had another $500M in projects directly adjacent to the stadium - his threat of relocation becomes laughable. It removes it from any "negotiation." Yet, the basis of many people's defense being "were a small market & he was going to relocate" - so we give them a crazy good deal. Even though there's already a ton of doubt a team in London is even feasible, people still bring that up a point as if there's no context to that & as if he has no other business interests. Is it a coincidence the Four Seasons started when it did? No. Lol.

I goto the Jags games, I am happy they are staying. I will enjoy the new Stadium. I can also acknowledge that we arguably got the worst Stadium Deal of the bunch. PSL's are not public revenue dollars so that's really a mute point for me. Most of these deals have the teams earning all the game-day revenue anyway. The only deal that even comes close is using game day revenues to pay bonds. The point on cost increases would be relevant but the city purposely stepped in to help there... so again, not really the same thing as what's going on in Buffalo with a $400M overage that the team is 100% covering.

[Jax_Developer]

^ Those are all good questions. There are a lot of logistical issues regarding how we as a city have thought about this area. Especially with MOSH and parking needs. At the same time, I would not be surprised if Cordish trying to revive that project as-is-ish given post-pandemic inflation and whatnot means that it's somehow $600 million or more to build. That doesn't mean not doing it, but maybe questioning how we do it.

Here's a thought:
What if, right now, itself, the City decided to do the retention pond parking garage. Deal with the antenna anchors, relocate the retention pond, and build a... I dunno, 1500-or-so-space garage, perhaps with retail space on the ground. That gives you extra parking for the stadiums, arena, and MOSH, possibly some early space for bars, I guess in theory could integrate with NAVI (not that it'll matter), and most importantly gives us the flexibility to reposition Lot J with no worries about parking availability in the meantime. If there's so much parking demand anyway, then that means revenue we can then turn towards the site work and incentives for a new Lot J development. And then the development itself won't have to worry about integrating parking directly into it because it'll be right there. Surely this city is capable of building one parking garage, right? It pains me because I am a big fan of transit but obviously our transit agency has soiled that goodwill so let's at least address the parking problem.

My point from years ago would be proven true with this. A 1,500 space parking garage is a cool $100M. That doesn't include any costs for the retention pond, or antenna relocation.

[marcuscnelson]

^ Somehow the airport is getting a 2,000 space garage for $92 million. Have concrete costs risen 50% since April?

Every Existing Stadium Deal
Jacksonville: $1.4B with a 60/40 (arguably 65/35) public/private split - with land restrictions & extras
Bills: Originally $1.4B, with a 60/40 split, and now $2.1B 40/60 split - with no land restrictions or extras
Titans: $2.2B with a 60/40 split (public side mostly being paid by stadium revenue bonds) - with no land restrictions (go look at whats going on there)
Commanders: $3.7B with a 30/70 public/private split - with land restrictions & extras
Bears (Arlington Heights): $2.8B with a 30/70 split - with land restrictions (already had purchase said land for $150M+)
Chiefs: $3B with a 60/40 public/private split - without land restrictions but promise of $1B adjacent district (lured away from Missouri)

If Lot J was under construction debt with public incentives when the Stadium Negotiation came up, do you think that conversation would have gone any differently? Obviously yes.

The Panthers deal (which is probably closer to what we could have ended up with, being a renovation and not a new stadium like everything on your list) is a lot worse than we got: $800M with an 80/20 public/private split, and not even getting a roof for the trouble.

It's also worth noting that the initial stadium proposals in 2023 had proposed bundling Lot J into the renovations, and that at least would have been a $75-100 million city investment in a $500-668 million project, but with (seemingly) no community benefits agreement and a larger share paid on the stadium itself, while also expecting to bundle the UF campus into it. I really hesitate to say that either that or taking the deal in 2021 would have been a better deal than where we are today. I recognize that the parking agreement and credits aren't ideal but I still think they appear to beat the reasonably likely alternatives, especially on top of resetting the overall relationship.

[Jax_Developer]

^ Somehow the airport is getting a 2,000 space garage for $92 million. Have concrete costs risen 50% since April?

Every Existing Stadium Deal
Jacksonville: $1.4B with a 60/40 (arguably 65/35) public/private split - with land restrictions & extras
Bills: Originally $1.4B, with a 60/40 split, and now $2.1B 40/60 split - with no land restrictions or extras
Titans: $2.2B with a 60/40 split (public side mostly being paid by stadium revenue bonds) - with no land restrictions (go look at whats going on there)
Commanders: $3.7B with a 30/70 public/private split - with land restrictions & extras
Bears (Arlington Heights): $2.8B with a 30/70 split - with land restrictions (already had purchase said land for $150M+)
Chiefs: $3B with a 60/40 public/private split - without land restrictions but promise of $1B adjacent district (lured away from Missouri)

If Lot J was under construction debt with public incentives when the Stadium Negotiation came up, do you think that conversation would have gone any differently? Obviously yes.

The Panthers deal (which is probably closer to what we could have ended up with, being a renovation and not a new stadium like everything on your list) is a lot worse than we got: $800M with an 80/20 public/private split, and not even getting a roof for the trouble.

It's also worth noting that the initial stadium proposals in 2023 had proposed bundling Lot J into the renovations, and that at least would have been a $75-100 million city investment in a $500-668 million project, but with (seemingly) no community benefits agreement and a larger share paid on the stadium itself, while also expecting to bundle the UF campus into it. I really hesitate to say that either that or taking the deal in 2021 would have been a better deal than where we are today. I recognize that the parking agreement and credits aren't ideal but I still think they appear to beat the reasonably likely alternatives, especially on top of resetting the overall relationship.

You mean 30%? Yeah I'd bake that in.

Concrete material alone is up 10% since they purchased their concrete & pre-fabs. By the time this is meaningfully done, there's an easy 10%-15% baked in for inflation/material increase. There a few thousand loads of dirt needed too. A month or more for just compaction easily... it's not an easy site like the Airport with infrastructure adjacent to it. It's an inevitable that a garage is put up at or near Lot J for a very strong public incentive offering because the city will be in a bind from the agreement to make it happen. It will be used with the credit negotiated with a strong private use offering.

Its obvious to see at this point that the original deal was the best deal - as they sometimes say. I agree the UF deal was not it.. but I'd strongly argue the Jags Stadium deal would have been a lot more straightforward with Lot J already completed & most importantly underway prior to the Stadium deal conversation being forced. I also don't see construction costs somehow losing pace with inflation anytime soon & I don't think I'm the only one here that would say that, especially materials required for dense housing.

[marcuscnelson]

^ I guess really 45%. 2,000 spaces for $92 million is $46,000 per space. 1,500 for $100 million is $66,667 per space, so a ~45% increase.

Plenty more varying possibilities to whether we had gone ahead in 2021. Maybe prices go up and Cordish asks for more incentives like with the Shipyards, maybe Khan sees it as as job well done on community benefits and we forgo the CBA, maybe it eats the funds that would have gone to incentives in the Downtown core, maybe they downscale the project again like they kept doing during negotiations and we have to fund a second phase that's really just the full initial phase, so on and so forth. That's why I note the value of saying no for making it clear to the Jaguars that we are capable of it. We've gotten multiple better deals done since, including the Miller Electric Center, Shipyards, and the stadium itself, and now this can still be one of them.

Maybe the difference here is that I'm not sure it's the end of the world that the Live! might be a few more years behind. Orleck visitors and concert-goers and game-attendees and out-of-town fans and Florida-Georgia attendees already have nothing to do there right now and would still have nothing to do for a few more years even if we had approved it. I don't think a few more will totally kill Downtown, especially when in the meantime we've made at least some progress with Downtown proper (even if NAVI has already closed for the day or is done for the weekend). That's not to say we should put it off forever or that the idea of a Live! is a bad idea, but it's also not to say that I totally buy it being the complete lynchpin to everything that we should have approved at any cost.

Which brings me back to suggesting the City just start with the garage right now. It seems like whether we did the deal or not, there needs to be more parking in that area, so what's the benefit to going to beg someone for the privilege of paying them incentives to build it? If the parking demand is already enough then the revenues from it will go great to making the apparently bitter pill of having waited go down easier.

[jaxlongtimer]

While we are talking about cars at the Stadium, something needs to be done to improve traffic management.  I have seen cars held all the way down Bay Street or at game ends, backed up in the parking lots, while JSO gives a stream of ones, twos and threes at a time up to several minutes to leisurely approach and cross the crosswalks rather than build up a large number and let them cross stampede-style in a minute or two. The game ends are the worst. I have spent over an hour waiting to exit a parking lot due to pedestrian conflicts and JSO not fairly rotating traffic movements.

One thing that should be considered if we build a garage (or not) is building some pedestrian overpasses so cars are not held up every time a handful of people straggle into the stadium lots. 

[Jax_Developer]

^ I guess really 45%. 2,000 spaces for $92 million is $46,000 per space. 1,500 for $100 million is $66,667 per space, so a ~45% increase.

Plenty more varying possibilities to whether we had gone ahead in 2021. Maybe prices go up and Cordish asks for more incentives like with the Shipyards, maybe Khan sees it as as job well done on community benefits and we forgo the CBA, maybe it eats the funds that would have gone to incentives in the Downtown core, maybe they downscale the project again like they kept doing during negotiations and we have to fund a second phase that's really just the full initial phase, so on and so forth. That's why I note the value of saying no for making it clear to the Jaguars that we are capable of it. We've gotten multiple better deals done since, including the Miller Electric Center, Shipyards, and the stadium itself, and now this can still be one of them.

Maybe the difference here is that I'm not sure it's the end of the world that the Live! might be a few more years behind. Orleck visitors and concert-goers and game-attendees and out-of-town fans and Florida-Georgia attendees already have nothing to do there right now and would still have nothing to do for a few more years even if we had approved it. I don't think a few more will totally kill Downtown, especially when in the meantime we've made at least some progress with Downtown proper (even if NAVI has already closed for the day or is done for the weekend). That's not to say we should put it off forever or that the idea of a Live! is a bad idea, but it's also not to say that I totally buy it being the complete lynchpin to everything that we should have approved at any cost.

Which brings me back to suggesting the City just start with the garage right now. It seems like whether we did the deal or not, there needs to be more parking in that area, so what's the benefit to going to beg someone for the privilege of paying them incentives to build it? If the parking demand is already enough then the revenues from it will go great to making the apparently bitter pill of having waited go down easier.

Yes you are right Marcus. My math was incorrect. So lets agree on $90M. There is zero meaningful change in my argument. The CBA is a distraction so that the "community" feels good about the (near) 50/50 city match when you account for NPV. There are already some serious questions about the CBA anyway but the CBA in absolutely no shape or form was a "net gain" for the city. The City would have been much better off allocating funds outside of any stadium agreement. Also the idea that these funds will help the actual residents is still a massive reach. I'm sure we will get a few very expensively produced promo videos for a handful of folks.

But here we very clearly have identified another minimum of $90M that the city is expected to take on to "solve" the parking problem they created! How fun & certainly changes the city investment figure to the "deal".

A parking garage next to the stadium will not be profitable without consistent programming & complementary uses. It is not a profitable endeavor in this context. Otherwise, the city wouldn't be losing money on virtually every parking solution it has been apart of. Jags know that otherwise they'd probably have built it already. If you take the JIA parking garage as a bit of an example, that will be used every day of the year at very good pricing. Just not achievable in a sports district without a serious buildup of retail & living.

[tufsu1]

I can also acknowledge that we arguably got the worst Stadium Deal of the bunch. 

what many continue to ignore / forget is that, unlike many others, the state won't put any $ into new stadiums / arenas.

[marcuscnelson]

The CBA is a distraction so that the "community" feels good about the (near) 50/50 city match when you account for NPV. There are already some serious questions about the CBA anyway but the CBA in absolutely no shape or form was a "net gain" for the city. The City would have been much better off allocating funds outside of any stadium agreement. Also the idea that these funds will help the actual residents is still a massive reach. I'm sure we will get a few very expensively produced promo videos for a handful of folks.

Well if you don't buy that the CBA will benefit the Eastside, I don't see why I have to buy that we should have signed off on Lot J with what a mess those negotiations were, or that it was such a critical lynchpin to Downtown that it should have been approved at any cost.

But here we very clearly have identified another minimum of $90M that the city is expected to take on to "solve" the parking problem they created! How fun & certainly changes the city investment figure to the "deal".

A parking garage next to the stadium will not be profitable without consistent programming & complementary uses. It is not a profitable endeavor in this context. Otherwise, the city wouldn't be losing money on virtually every parking solution it has been apart of. Jags know that otherwise they'd probably have built it already. If you take the JIA parking garage as a bit of an example, that will be used every day of the year at very good pricing. Just not achievable in a sports district without a serious buildup of retail & living.

Now I'm confused. Were the parking spots "badly needed" (your words starting this thread) or not? You're the one who brought up a parking solution for Shipyards West and MOSH. You're the one who said "I can't see a universe where the ROI isn't there for the city long-term from a parking[...] perspective." If those things are true, then there's no reason the ROI wouldn't still be there for the city taking on the parking element itself ASAP to support the whole Sports & Entertainment Complex while also facilitating a new Lot J deal to move forward (which then doesn't have to include paying incentives for someone else to build that same parking while also focusing on their own profit motive).

[Jax_Developer]

I can also acknowledge that we arguably got the worst Stadium Deal of the bunch. 

what many continue to ignore / forget is that, unlike many others, the state won't put any $ into new stadiums / arenas.

What many continue to deny / ignore / forget with our stadium deal is that there are terms in the deal outside of the just the stadium funding.

[Jax_Developer]

Marcus your first response is classic politics & why this city continues to lag behind the big players. The CBA is a distraction so that you don't care to understand the remaining terms of the deal. Your logic suggests that you are okay with the CBA even though it is an obvious net negative to the city compared to the idea of separating the CBA & the Stadium deals all together. So, your first statement doesn't make any sense & discredits several other points I've made up to this point about the poor finances in the deal (behind the big flashy numbers).

Your second response also makes no sense to what I am saying - Ken started this thread. The ~1,200 parking spots are *NOW* badly needed because the MOSH & Shipyards West have parking quotas per the Jaguars Stadium Agreement. That didn't exist back when Khan was proposing Lot J. Now, in 2026, there IS a parking issue that WILL occur in the next several years if all those projects develop as-is. The City WILL be in a legal obligation to fill the gap in provided parking & the city will almost certainly incentive the future project at Lot J. Which, will include a large amount of structured parking because it is more economical to build in scale AND he has the right to REMOVE parking spaces from Lot J FOR HIS OWN DEVELOPMENT.

The City will now be paying, all-in, much more than the negotiated split originally had because the City is NOW obligated to be in compliance with the agreement. The CBA is a net negative, cash wise, versus, separating that out & doing that entirely with city funds WITHOUT a mandatory parking agreement & development credits in place. The previous Lot J deal would have 100% prevented this mess the city now finds itself in.