Littlepage: Room to hope for dramatic improvements at Shipyards

[ProjectMaximus]

I'm not the one who's "not getting it". I backed up my point just fine. Did you even read the second article I posted?

So for you to be correct, then I suppose you really believe that vacations to Bermuda and NFL Skyboxes were legitimate project expenses? And that they are consistent with the intended purpose of a public bond offering? Gimme a break...

And yes, you are both being disingenuous AND arguing semantics. How exactly am I wrong, when they clearly misappropriated at least $22 million dollars? The silly counterpoints you've introduced, mainly that I was wrong about where they spent the money they stole (e.g. not in Atlanta...sorry, was going off memory on that one), or slightly off on the actual amount (and stealing $22 million of public money is no less wrong than stealing $40 million), are plainly myopic and silly. My point from the beginning was CLEARLY that they misappropriated public funds. And guess what: They did.

We've already been through this, and you've already tried to re-frame the debate to suit your convenience. You tried pulling Vic's B.S. trick and saying the misappropriation of money wasn't 'really' my point, so I went through my first 3 posts on this topic way back on page 1 of this thread (before you ever posted) and highlighted the relevant portions for you, establishing that this was indeed my point. So I guess if you still have issues with that, go back and re-read Reply #34 in this thread. I've already shot this crap down once, I'm not going through it piece-by-piece again.

You keep stating that I haven't backed up my point, when in reality I've posted two different articles, showing that they misappropriated at least $22 million dollars in public money, and spent it on ridiculous things that even their lawyers were scrambling to come up with lame excuses for. You, meanwhile, have posted absolutely nothing but your own opinion.

So for me to be "wrong" as you say, then wouldn't you need to demonstrate that they didn't take money? Where exactly have you done that? You haven't. You want to sit here with your blinders on like a 3 year old who wants its rattle, saying "you haven't proven your point", when I've already posted sources that indeed DO prove my point, and you meanwhile have posted nothing of your own.

So if you really want to debate whether I'm wrong, then let's hear you justify how NFL Skyboxes and flights to Bermuda are somehow legitimate uses of public money...

And the only part of your statement I'm in agreement with you on is that, yes, we are clearly two very different people. And of course, I loved your classic message-board tactical 101 trick with "Oh I have nothing further to say and I'm not going to participate in this anymore blah blah blah, but wait...here...let me write 17 more paragraphs and get the last word in first...". Really dredging the bottom of barrel on that one. That's an oldie-goldie...did you sneeze when you dusted that one off?

lol...you can have the last word. Go ahead and respond to this...I promise I won't reply to you on this topic again unless something completely new is brought to the table. But I just want to tell you that I was not and am not being disingenuous, and it's becoming rather offensive that you keep saying that. I told you exactly how I reacted to your posts...nothing is fabricated, and I could care less about trying to win an argument with you. As far as the message board tactic you're referring to...I'm hardly a veteran of message boards and have never once thought about how to get the last word in. I simply stated that I had nothing more to say because I (anticipating you would continue to argue facts that I had already said I agreed with) didn't want you to call me out for disappearing. Again, I won't respond after this, but it's because I don't feel like going in circles, not because I'm running away. (BTW...i wrote 17 paragraphs after I said that? That was my conclusion...if my eyes work properly there were just 4 more sentences after that)

How bout working on your reading comprehension? I haven't debated any of your facts. I just disputed your first post, and the fact that I was supposed to know what you really meant just from reading that first post.

Here's my last paragraph again from earlier. It's still entirely applicable, and I'll highlight the part that (for the sake of this thread and our civility) I will say is the most important sentence.

Anyway, I'm stepping away from this debate now cause there's nothing more for me to say. I have no dispute with your modified allegations. This seems very legit and essentially what everyone has been crying about for so long. And I accept that you may not agree with my view of exaggerations, since I have said time and time again that this might just be my personality. But do not tell me I'm being disingenuous or arguing semantics.

EDIT: I included a personal attack that, in retrospect I don't think belongs in a thoughtful discussion. Sorry.

[ChriswUfGator]

the fact that you greatly exaggerated the situation weakened your argument in my mind. And from now on, when I read what you say I can no longer trust it. Doesn't mean you won't be right most of the time, it just means I'm hesitant to believe you.

I completely agree...

mainly that I was wrong about where they spent the money they stole (e.g. not in Atlanta...sorry, was going off memory on that one), or slightly off on the actual amount

And if you had something similar to this immediately no one would be questioning your arguments.  The main point may very well be valid... the method with which you portrayed them was not.

I didn't exaggerate the situation, I was just going off memory in the beginning, and this thing happened 5 years ago. Considering the elapsed time, I'd say I did pretty darn good. I said they misappropriated public money, and indeed they did.

And as to to the rest of your comment, I can count many more examples of exaggerated rhetoric, useless twisting of words, and childish argument tactics in the comments of the two other posters in this discussion than I can find in my own.

And even then, my Atlanta misstatement was just me trying to go off memory, it wasn't some 'attempt' to achieve anything in the discussion...unlike the other two with their crusade to re-frame the debate around a minor non-issue to avoid acknowledging they were incorrect.

[ChriswUfGator]

I'm not the one who's "not getting it". I backed up my point just fine. Did you even read the second article I posted?

So for you to be correct, then I suppose you really believe that vacations to Bermuda and NFL Skyboxes were legitimate project expenses? And that they are consistent with the intended purpose of a public bond offering? Gimme a break...

And yes, you are both being disingenuous AND arguing semantics. How exactly am I wrong, when they clearly misappropriated at least $22 million dollars? The silly counterpoints you've introduced, mainly that I was wrong about where they spent the money they stole (e.g. not in Atlanta...sorry, was going off memory on that one), or slightly off on the actual amount (and stealing $22 million of public money is no less wrong than stealing $40 million), are plainly myopic and silly. My point from the beginning was CLEARLY that they misappropriated public funds. And guess what: They did.

We've already been through this, and you've already tried to re-frame the debate to suit your convenience. You tried pulling Vic's B.S. trick and saying the misappropriation of money wasn't 'really' my point, so I went through my first 3 posts on this topic way back on page 1 of this thread (before you ever posted) and highlighted the relevant portions for you, establishing that this was indeed my point. So I guess if you still have issues with that, go back and re-read Reply #34 in this thread. I've already shot this crap down once, I'm not going through it piece-by-piece again.

You keep stating that I haven't backed up my point, when in reality I've posted two different articles, showing that they misappropriated at least $22 million dollars in public money, and spent it on ridiculous things that even their lawyers were scrambling to come up with lame excuses for. You, meanwhile, have posted absolutely nothing but your own opinion.

So for me to be "wrong" as you say, then wouldn't you need to demonstrate that they didn't take money? Where exactly have you done that? You haven't. You want to sit here with your blinders on like a 3 year old who wants its rattle, saying "you haven't proven your point", when I've already posted sources that indeed DO prove my point, and you meanwhile have posted nothing of your own.

So if you really want to debate whether I'm wrong, then let's hear you justify how NFL Skyboxes and flights to Bermuda are somehow legitimate uses of public money...

And the only part of your statement I'm in agreement with you on is that, yes, we are clearly two very different people. And of course, I loved your classic message-board tactical 101 trick with "Oh I have nothing further to say and I'm not going to participate in this anymore blah blah blah, but wait...here...let me write 17 more paragraphs and get the last word in first...". Really dredging the bottom of barrel on that one. That's an oldie-goldie...did you sneeze when you dusted that one off?

lol...you can have the last word. Go ahead and respond to this...I promise I won't reply to you on this topic again unless something completely new is brought to the table. But I just want to tell you that I was not and am not being disingenuous, and it's becoming rather offensive that you keep saying that. I told you exactly how I reacted to your posts...nothing is fabricated, and I could care less about trying to win an argument with you. As far as the message board tactic you're referring to...I'm hardly a veteran of message boards and have never once thought about how to get the last word in. I simply stated that I had nothing more to say because I (anticipating you would continue to argue facts that I had already said I agreed with) didn't want you to call me out for disappearing. Again, I won't respond after this, but it's because I don't feel like going in circles, not because I'm running away. (BTW...i wrote 17 paragraphs after I said that? That was my conclusion...if my eyes work properly there were just 4 more sentences after that)

Good luck with law, man. Your stubborn attitude and narrow-mindedness should serve well, eh? How bout also learning to read? I haven't debated any of your facts. I just disputed your first post, and the fact that I was supposed to know what you really meant just from reading that first post. And sorry for the cheap shots up there...but if you're gonna dish it, I hope you can take it too.

Here's my last paragraph again from earlier. It's still entirely applicable, and I'll highlight the part that (for the sake of this thread and our civility) I will say is the most important sentence.

Anyway, I'm stepping away from this debate now cause there's nothing more for me to say. I have no dispute with your modified allegations. This seems very legit and essentially what everyone has been crying about for so long. And I accept that you may not agree with my view of exaggerations, since I have said time and time again that this might just be my personality. But do not tell me I'm being disingenuous or arguing semantics.

Thanks, but my allegations aren't 'modified'. My point from the beginning was they misappropriated public money, and indeed they did. You and Vic keep trying to paint me into some corner by re-framing the debate around a minor and unimportant sub-issue that was at most an ancillary side comment, and was never my point to begin with.

I think this whole thing is excessively silly. I may have been wrong about them spending their stolen money in Atlanta, but I certainly wasn't wrong about them stealing the money! I mean, come on, are you really trying to tell me you didn't get my point there? Pfffft! What's next? If I get shot, are the cops going to sit around arguing with me for 3 days instead of calling me an ambulance because I said the robber used a .38 and it was really a .45? Gimme an effin' break man, that's preposterous.

That whole line of argument is nothing but disingenuous semantic games. This issue only started when Vic tried arguing with me about the misappropriation issue, wound up being wrong, and then tried to fall to back on my Atlanta side-comment to save face. It now seems to have side-tracked the entire discussion, which was never about that to begin with. And you jumped right on the bandwagon.

And nobody's going to call you out for 'disappearing', but by the same token your 3rd-grade argument tactic of whining "I won't participate in this anymore..." while then writing 47 more paragraphs explaining why you think you're right and trying to get the last word in is just plain childish. Come on, that's not you 'anticipating' anything, it's just an inane attempt to make me look like the bad guy if I responded to your post. In what twilight-zone episode does that actually work? Evidently you still haven't learned a lesson, since you tried pulling the same old B.S. again in your latest post.

But anyway, I'll let it drop if that's what you want. I think this whole thing is pretty stupid. You and Vic's disingenuous attempt to conveniently re-frame the debate aside, my point was clear from the beginning, and TriLegacy clearly misappropriated public funds. I hope the next developer won't pull the same stunt. That is all I was trying to say.

[BridgeTroll]

Ask him about pizza parlor service...

[mtraininjax]

TRL did knock down the music shed, clean up the site and yes, they were best known for building cold storage warehouses, not multi-million dollar residential buildings. The mayor, the general counsel, City Council, the JEDC (and mostly DDA) all had a large hand in this debacle.

After all the finger pointing and back slapping, even though nothing is on the site, it still looks better now, than it did when it was the dumpy Music Shed.

[ChriswUfGator]

it still looks better now, than it did when it was the dumpy Music Shed.

$22 million dollars better? LOL

[vicupstate]

I have yet to hear ONE example of a misappropriation.  Everything mentioned has been related to the Shipyards site (the private part, or the public part). 

If money was spent on something OTHER than marketing or developng the 45 acre Shipyards site, then yes, THAT would have been a misappropriation.


As I mentioned before, the key disagreement is 'what was Trilegacy allowed to spend the money on?'  The city thought the PUBLIC improvements were the only thing allowed, period.  The Spences thought that it was proper to spend money on any aspect of the Shipyards project, provided the public improvements were eventually funded to the level of the public investment.  The city did not win it's case because it's expectations were not in the contract.

Considering that a key selling point of the condos was their proximity to an NFL stadium, and that  an NFL TEAM OWNER agreed to buy one of the units, the NFL Skybox does NOT seem unreasonable.   These condos were marketing at a price level where 'wining and dining' is expected and typical. Having Weaver live in the building made the other units more marketable.  If you don't believe 'prestige' and hob-knobbing matter in business deals, you are mistaken.     

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/022704/bus_14933108.shtml?jump=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsjobs.com%2F&IMAGE.x=0&IMAGE.y=0

A Marina was part of the Shipyards project and getting permission to build one is no simple task.  If you can prove that Spence did not inspect a marina while in Bermuda, then that would indeed be a  misappropriation, but hardly a $22 million one.

The entire premise of your original post was that TriLegacy had no intention of doing anything other than ripping the city off, and that NO money was spent on the Shipyards project, but instead was diverted to OTHER projects.  I have listed several examples of money being spent on the project, and you have not given any examples of money being spent OUTSIDE of the project.

Had I been involved with Trilegacy, I would have wanted a clear understanding in the contract as to what the money could be spent on, and when.  The city should have wanted the same thing.  Had that taken place, this fiasco would never have happened. Given the city has a large staff of lawyers, does real estate contracts perpetually, and is a multi-billion dolllar enterprise, I personally would fault the city more than Trilegacy for that ommission.   

Given the city did not persaude either the jury nor the State's attorney that Trilegacy was in default of the contract, the accusation that TriLegacy was maliciously motivated or misappropriated funds it totally without proof.  To state otherwise is to slander them.

I think TriLegacy was in over its head and should have gone to much greater lengths to protect itself and the city from these misunderstanding.  However, the property did belong to TriLegacy to been with, and it was the city's idea to have them do a project far different than what they originally planned (ie building cold storage warehouses).   The sad part is that they were probably just a few contracts from being able to break ground on the first building.  Had that happened, things might have worked out.               

[thelakelander]

I believe they broke ground on the first building.  I could have sworn they were doing foundation work on One Shipyard Place when the dispute between the two parties heated up.

[ChriswUfGator]

I have yet to hear ONE example of a misappropriation.  Everything mentioned has been related to the Shipyards site (the private part, or the public part). 

If money was spent on something OTHER than marketing or developng the 45 acre Shipyards site, then yes, THAT would have been a misappropriation.


As I mentioned before, the key disagreement is 'what was Trilegacy allowed to spend the money on?'  The city thought the PUBLIC improvements were the only thing allowed, period.  The Spences thought that it was proper to spend money on any aspect of the Shipyards project, provided the public improvements were eventually funded to the level of the public investment.  The city did not win it's case because it's expectations were not in the contract.

Considering that a key selling point of the condos was their proximity to an NFL stadium, and that  an NFL TEAM OWNER agreed to buy one of the units, the NFL Skybox does NOT seem unreasonable.   These condos were marketing at a price level where 'wining and dining' is expected and typical. Having Weaver live in the building made the other units more marketable.  If you don't believe 'prestige' and hob-knobbing matter in business deals, you are mistaken.    

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/022704/bus_14933108.shtml?jump=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsjobs.com%2F&IMAGE.x=0&IMAGE.y=0

A Marina was part of the Shipyards project and getting permission to build one is no simple task.  If you can prove that Spence did not inspect a marina while in Bermuda, then that would indeed be a  misappropriation, but hardly a $22 million one.

The entire premise of your original post was that TriLegacy had no intention of doing anything other than ripping the city off, and that NO money was spent on the Shipyards project, but instead was diverted to OTHER projects.  I have listed several examples of money being spent on the project, and you have not given any examples of money being spent OUTSIDE of the project.

Had I been involved with Trilegacy, I would have wanted a clear understanding in the contract as to what the money could be spent on, and when.  The city should have wanted the same thing.  Had that taken place, this fiasco would never have happened. Given the city has a large staff of lawyers, does real estate contracts perpetually, and is a multi-billion dolllar enterprise, I personally would fault the city more than Trilegacy for that ommission.  

Given the city did not persaude either the jury nor the State's attorney that Trilegacy was in default of the contract, the accusation that TriLegacy was maliciously motivated or misappropriated funds it totally without proof.  To state otherwise is to slander them.

I think TriLegacy was in over its head and should have gone to much greater lengths to protect itself and the city from these misunderstanding.  However, the property did belong to TriLegacy to been with, and it was the city's idea to have them do a project far different than what they originally planned (ie building cold storage warehouses).   The sad part is that they were probably just a few contracts from being able to break ground on the first building.  Had that happened, things might have worked out.               

Are you kidding me?

Vacations to Bermuda and NFL Skyboxes? You think THOSE are legitimate expenses? ROFL

I don't care who buys a condo, that's NOT a legitimate use of public bond money. Give me a break...

I can't even believe you'd try to argue this one...

[ChriswUfGator]

I believe they broke ground on the first building.  I could have sworn they were doing foundation work on One Shipyard Place when the dispute between the two parties heated up.

They tore down the cruddy building, cut the grass, and put up a fence. No foundation work was ever done.

Go look yourself, it's an empty lot.