Littlepage: Room to hope for dramatic improvements at Shipyards

[ChriswUfGator]

If they misappropriated money why didn't the grand jury indict them?

Blame our likely future mayor, Rick Mullaney, for that one.

He royally screwed up drafting the contract, and Trilegacy fully exploited it. Even though what they did was clearly wrong by anyone's standard, the language in the contract was so ambiguous as to leave some question about whether it was criminal.

Way to go COJ! Where do I sign up for my free $40 million?

[vicupstate]

Your accusation was that they spent NO money on the Shipyards project at all.  That they basically took the money and hit the road.  You haven't provided ONE SHRED of evidence that they have spent ANY of that MONEY in Atlanta, or Alaska or ANYWHERE outside the 45 acre boundaries of the project.

Linking one article about the controversy surrounding the situation, which makes NO MENTION of ANY MONEY spent on outside projects of TriLegacy does NOT prove your point in any way.

I have listed several things that collectively prove that millions have been spent on the site and/or project while TriLegacy owned it.  Are you suggesting that the architects, engineers, realtors, newspapers, magazines, marketing companies, earthmovers, etc. all just DONATED their materials and services.  I'm sorry I can't provide you with receipts, but many people saw the same ads, marketing materials,etc.

The link below mentions that the building and regulatory permits were obtained for the first building, something which could not have happened without a signifcant amount of professional fees being spent.  Your own link referred to the mortgage payoff, so unless someone donated that too, that is multi-millions in itself.

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/062603/bus_12883407.shtml

This link discusses the sales center and landscaping that was done for it.

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/111502/bus_10973921.shtml
             

[ChriswUfGator]

Your accusation was that they spent NO money on the Shipyards project at all.  That they basically took the money and hit the road.  You haven't provided ONE SHRED of evidence that they have spent ANY of that MONEY in Atlanta, or Alaska or ANYWHERE outside the 45 acre boundaries of the project.

Linking one article about the controversy surrounding the situation, which makes NO MENTION of ANY MONEY spent on outside projects of TriLegacy does NOT prove your point in any way.

I have listed several things that collectively prove that millions have been spent on the site and/or project while TriLegacy owned it.  Are you suggesting that the architects, engineers, realtors, newspapers, magazines, marketing companies, earthmovers, etc. all just DONATED their materials and services.  I'm sorry I can't provide you with receipts, but many people saw the same ads, marketing materials,etc.

The link below mentions that the building and regulatory permits were obtained for the first building, something which could not have happened without a signifcant amount of professional fees being spent.  Your own link referred to the mortgage payoff, so unless someone donated that too, that is multi-millions in itself.

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/062603/bus_12883407.shtml

This link discusses the sales center and landscaping that was done for it.

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/111502/bus_10973921.shtml
             

Vic, quit putting words in my mouth, it's getting ridiculous. My point was that they misappropriated public money.

If you re-read my posts, that is readily obvious. I was in fact correct, as even your own sources indicate. Let it go...

[ProjectMaximus]

Sorry Chris. I'd like to agree with a fellow gator but I have to side with the others. Go reread your first post. You might think we're nitpicking on a minor issue, but this was the entire substance of your original statement, which prompted Vic's first rebuttal. I'd say that you haven't proven a single claim from your original post. it is from that point that YOU began to backtrack from your initial statement.

I'll also acknowledge that I have a strong bias against exaggerations. For future reference, when you're making a bold assertion, be sure it's grounded fully in reality and don't overstate the truth when trying to make your point. In my eyes, even if your premise is correct, this only serves to weaken your argument.

[ChriswUfGator]

Sorry Chris. I'd like to agree with a fellow gator but I have to side with the others. Go reread your first post. You might think we're nitpicking on a minor issue, but this was the entire substance of your original statement, which prompted Vic's first rebuttal. I'd say that you haven't proven a single claim from your original post. it is from that point that YOU began to backtrack from your initial statement.

I'll also acknowledge that I have a strong bias against exaggerations. For future reference, when you're making a bold assertion, be sure it's grounded fully in reality and don't overstate the truth when trying to make your point. In my eyes, even if your premise is correct, this only serves to weaken your argument.

B.S.

These were my first posts on page 1 of this thread, I'll even highlight the relevant portions to be helpful. The Atlanta thing was a minor sub-point. As you can clearly see from my own words, the developer's taking of public money was my primary point.

Call me old-fashioned, but if LandMar has spent $19 million on street/walkway/bulkhead improvements for COJ, then maybe we can cut them a break on a $400k tax bill?

I mean, this is still worlds better than the last go-around at the shipyards, where we paid $40 million to an Atlanta developer who literally just stole the money and used it to build a subdivision in Atlanta, and didn't so much as move a shovelful of dirt here. Worst part is, a loophole in their contract let them get away with it.

And I clearly proved my point way back on page 1:

The original developer, TriLegacy, was local and had nothing to do with Atlanta to my knowledge.  They spent the money on the bulkheads as I remember.

Yeah, well, you remembered wrong.

Most of the money got transferred to the corporate accounts, and used for other non-related projects.

If you still disagree, you're welcome to go argue with the Times-Union:

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/091207/met_198799990.shtml

And...

Did you even bother to read the article before spouting off?

This is a direct quote:

"The condo, retail and office project was halted in 2004 after the city determined TriLegacy had spent $22 million of city money on development other than public improvements, Mullaney said."

I don't see much ambiguity there, do you? They got $$$$$, and didn't spend it where they were supposed to. Specifically, they spent it on other development (not at that site), as is clearly mentioned in the article. End of story.

If you have any further problems, as I said before, go argue with the Times-Union.

So quit trying to put words in my mouth.

My point was clearly regarding regarding the misappropriation of public money, right from the beginning. Vic is trying to conveniently re-frame the debate around a minor sub-point/comment, in order to avoid acknowledging that he was wrong about TriLegacy misappropriating public money.

What I said was clear. If you can read all of my comments, which were posted way back on page 1 of this thread, and really believe that my point was about Atlanta, then I don't know what to tell you, except that you have clearly misunderstood my comments, and that the misunderstanding certainly didn't originate on my end. That clearly was never my point or primary concern.

[JaxNole]

I'm confused.  If the main point is the money was misappropriated, yet the grand jury failed to indict, then that means, in the eyes of the courts, that Trilegacy did not misappropriate the funds, regardless of other opinions.

Regardless of a shaky contract, both parties agreed to it and the grand jury could not indict.  If the contract language allows for so-called loopholes, then it means it is open to interpretation and Trilegacy acted within the bounds of the contract since there was no ruling of wrongdoing.

[ChriswUfGator]

I'm confused.  If the main point is the money was misappropriated, yet the grand jury failed to indict, then that means, in the eyes of the courts, that Trilegacy did not misappropriate the funds, regardless of other opinions.

Regardless of a shaky contract, both parties agreed to it and the grand jury could not indict.  If the contract language allows for so-called loopholes, then it means it is open to interpretation and Trilegacy acted within the bounds of the contract since there was no ruling of wrongdoing.

More people commit crimes than are actually convicted, I think we can all agree on that one. Look at OJ.

COJ clearly didn't intend to just hand over a free $22 million. That was not the purpose or intent of the contract.

Also, even though they tried to get an indictment and failed, COJ did wind up suing TriLegacy civilly, though I'm not sure whatever happened with it. You can have civil misappropriation that isn't necessarily criminal. Two different standards of proof, civil is preponderance of the evidence and criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt. That they weren't convicted criminally doesn't mean they didn't misappropriate.

[JaxNole]

Help a fellow Gator Nole out here: Does the contract state explicitly how Trilegacy could use the funds?

[ChriswUfGator]

Help a fellow Gator Nole out here: Does the contract state explicitly how Trilegacy could use the funds?

Yup. http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/print.html&client=printer&f=123&t=6106

This is the best part:

As their lawyers had argued to the city, the Spences told the Times-Union there had been no misuse of public money. They said money from a city bond issue was pooled with their private funds but that nothing in their arrangement with the city prohibited that.

A contract that the city and TriLegacy signed in 2001 said city money should be spent "for purposes consistent with the expenditures of proceeds of tax exempt bonds."

They said expenses that were listed in the draft lawsuit, including travel to Bermuda and buying an NFL skybox, were legitimate business costs that TriLegacy would cover with private funds. The men said Hamilton Traylor, TriLegacy's president, flew to Bermuda to examine docks built by a contractor who wanted to build The Shipyards' marina. Skybox seats were marketing tools, they said, used to woo or reward customers signing up for the project's $750,000 condominiums.

The developers said they don't understand why, in April, City Hall began questioning their work. Carlton Spence said his first hint of trouble was when Mayor John Peyton called and said the city wanted to perform a financial review. City officials have said the Jacksonville Economic Development Commission was reviewing grants to developers and asked TriLegacy for information about how it had spent public money, then had city lawyers follow up when the company provided information that was too general.

I suppose you have to give their lawyers credit for being so creative in coming up with those utterly laughable bull$h!t excuses for how Bermuda vacations and NFL skyboxes were somehow legitimate expenditures, but nevertheless I think anyone with 3 brain cells can see through that veil.

So you really going to try and argue that jetting to Bermuda and buying NFL skyboxes were legitimate project expenses?

Or would you want to argue that vacations and NFL skyboxes are consistent with the purposes of public bond issues?

Pick your poison...

[ProjectMaximus]

Sorry Chris. I'd like to agree with a fellow gator but I have to side with the others. Go reread your first post. You might think we're nitpicking on a minor issue, but this was the entire substance of your original statement, which prompted Vic's first rebuttal. I'd say that you haven't proven a single claim from your original post. it is from that point that YOU began to backtrack from your initial statement.

I'll also acknowledge that I have a strong bias against exaggerations. For future reference, when you're making a bold assertion, be sure it's grounded fully in reality and don't overstate the truth when trying to make your point. In my eyes, even if your premise is correct, this only serves to weaken your argument.

B.S.

These were my first posts on page 1 of this thread, I'll even highlight the relevant portions to be helpful. The Atlanta thing was a minor sub-point. As you can clearly see from my own words, the developer's taking of public money was my primary point.

Call me old-fashioned, but if LandMar has spent $19 million on street/walkway/bulkhead improvements for COJ, then maybe we can cut them a break on a $400k tax bill?

I mean, this is still worlds better than the last go-around at the shipyards, where we paid $40 million to an Atlanta developer who literally just stole the money and used it to build a subdivision in Atlanta, and didn't so much as move a shovelful of dirt here. Worst part is, a loophole in their contract let them get away with it.

Wow...I'm not sure what to make of you. Maybe you need to just pause for a moment and try and take an overview of the situation? Can you be objective or is your entire existence on these boards to work on your lawyer skills and debate from whatever position you're handed?

You have proven a point throughout this thread which I can fully agree with, and which the facts support. All I am saying is that you can't possibly stand by your initial post. And to think you highlighted what was relevant is a joke, seeing as you are now choosing "what was relevant." The notion that your subsequent posts should indicate what you meant is also silly...when I read your first post there werent any subsequent posts. In any case, lets go through your highlighted portions:
1) they stole $40 million: wrong (you later revised that to 22 mill)
2) didnt so much as move a shovel of dirt here: wrong (if you meant public property you should have said that)
3) loophole in the contract let them get away with it: wrong (since this is based on the above premise being correct. There may have been a loophole, but it didnt allow them to get away with what you specifically said they did.)

Then there's the other two comments you made...
1) Atlanta developer: wrong
2) used the money to build a subdivision in ATL: wrong.

Hence, my problem with your original post. I sincerely hope you get my point about not exaggerating. It's just me and there are other people who arent gonna be bothered by it, but when I read something like your first post, which I knew nothing about, and my reaction is to accept what you say at face value and all the emotions that go with it...when I later realize that it isn't completely true, you automatically lose a bit of credibility. It's one thing to exaggerate and make it clear youre being over the top, but another thing entirely if you're not.

As for the rest of what you've said since, I think it's clear the city lost out in this deal and there were plenty of misappropriated funds (though, sadly, some of these tactics probably arent unique to trilegacy) I agree with this and am definitely no trilegacy sympathizer as Vic seems to be.

[ChriswUfGator]

Sorry Chris. I'd like to agree with a fellow gator but I have to side with the others. Go reread your first post. You might think we're nitpicking on a minor issue, but this was the entire substance of your original statement, which prompted Vic's first rebuttal. I'd say that you haven't proven a single claim from your original post. it is from that point that YOU began to backtrack from your initial statement.

I'll also acknowledge that I have a strong bias against exaggerations. For future reference, when you're making a bold assertion, be sure it's grounded fully in reality and don't overstate the truth when trying to make your point. In my eyes, even if your premise is correct, this only serves to weaken your argument.

B.S.

These were my first posts on page 1 of this thread, I'll even highlight the relevant portions to be helpful. The Atlanta thing was a minor sub-point. As you can clearly see from my own words, the developer's taking of public money was my primary point.

Call me old-fashioned, but if LandMar has spent $19 million on street/walkway/bulkhead improvements for COJ, then maybe we can cut them a break on a $400k tax bill?

I mean, this is still worlds better than the last go-around at the shipyards, where we paid $40 million to an Atlanta developer who literally just stole the money and used it to build a subdivision in Atlanta, and didn't so much as move a shovelful of dirt here. Worst part is, a loophole in their contract let them get away with it.

Wow...I'm not sure what to make of you. Maybe you need to just pause for a moment and try and take an overview of the situation? Can you be objective or is your entire existence on these boards to work on your lawyer skills and debate from whatever position you're handed?

You have proven a point throughout this thread which I can fully agree with, and which the facts support. All I am saying is that you can't possibly stand by your initial post. And to think you highlighted what was relevant is a joke, seeing as you are now choosing "what was relevant." The notion that your subsequent posts should indicate what you meant is also silly...when I read your first post there werent any subsequent posts. In any case, lets go through your highlighted portions:
1) they stole $40 million: wrong (you later revised that to 22 mill)
2) didnt so much as move a shovel of dirt here: wrong (if you meant public property you should have said that)
3) loophole in the contract let them get away with it: wrong (since this is based on the above premise being correct. There may have been a loophole, but it didnt allow them to get away with what you specifically said they did.)

Then there's the other two comments you made...
1) Atlanta developer: wrong
2) used the money to build a subdivision in ATL: wrong.

Hence, my problem with your original post. I sincerely hope you get my point about not exaggerating. It's just me and there are other people who arent gonna be bothered by it, but when I read something like your first post, which I knew nothing about, and my reaction is to accept what you say at face value and all the emotions that go with it...when I later realize that it isn't completely true, you automatically lose a bit of credibility. It's one thing to exaggerate and make it clear youre being over the top, but another thing entirely if you're not.

As for the rest of what you've said since, I think it's clear the city lost out in this deal and there were plenty of misappropriated funds (though, sadly, some of these tactics probably arent unique to trilegacy) I agree with this and am definitely no trilegacy sympathizer as Vic seems to be.

Clearly, you see my main point was in fact about misappropriation of funds, correct?

Though you're still nit-picking, it's evidently not doing you much good, since you've already had to acknowledge that much in your latest post.

It's clear from my posts that Atlanta was simply a side-comment, if I'm wrong on that then great, it doesn't affect the point I made. You are being ridiculous and disingenuous in your interpretation.

If you say it does, then answer this question: Did the developer misappropriate funds or not?

And is $22 million any less wrong than $40 million? Quit playing silly semantic games and dodging my point. Either they took money or they didn't.

[BridgeTroll]

I do not think Vic is a trilegacy sympathizer... we just know emotional exaggeration when we see it.  The points you have made are entirely correct.  

[ProjectMaximus]

Clearly, you see my main point was in fact about misappropriation of funds, correct?

Though you're still nit-picking, it's evidently not doing you much good, since you've already had to acknowledge that much in your latest post.

It's clear from my posts that Atlanta was simply a side-comment, if I'm wrong on that then great, it doesn't affect the point I made. You are being ridiculous and disingenuous in your interpretation.

If you say it does, then answer this question: Did the developer misappropriate funds or not?

And is $22 million any less wrong than $40 million? Quit playing silly semantic games and dodging my point. Either they took money or they didn't.

Chris, I think we're just two very different people. If you still dont get it, you never will. Which is fine...I may be very much in the minority with my mindset. But I'll just say it one last time...

there's a huge difference between 40 million and 22 million when one is the truth and one isnt. Same with Atlanta. They are minor details...but why did you choose to lie over such minor details then? You would've been very convincing had you not.

I can absolutely assure you I am not being disingenuous in my interpretation of your first post. Ridiculous is in the eye of the beholder, i suppose, but I hardly think that it's ridiculous to expect facts to be presented as they really are. This definitely isn't semantics either, and YOU have to admit that your first post did not at all make clear what your subsequent "main point" would be.

I read your first post and I thought, wow, what a terribly malicious thing they did. I read Vic's response and I thought, interesting, but what does he know? I saw your reply and I thought, BURN!! Chris got him good. Then I read the article you posted, and it became evident you couldnt back up your claims. It doesn't matter that your intentions were more or less correct, 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. And it doesn't mean everyone will think the same way I do. As I somewhat alluded to before, I have a rather personal reason for my extreme distaste for people making exaggerations (portrayed as reality) in an attempt to strengthen their arguments.

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.

[ChriswUfGator]

Clearly, you see my main point was in fact about misappropriation of funds, correct?

Though you're still nit-picking, it's evidently not doing you much good, since you've already had to acknowledge that much in your latest post.

It's clear from my posts that Atlanta was simply a side-comment, if I'm wrong on that then great, it doesn't affect the point I made. You are being ridiculous and disingenuous in your interpretation.

If you say it does, then answer this question: Did the developer misappropriate funds or not?

And is $22 million any less wrong than $40 million? Quit playing silly semantic games and dodging my point. Either they took money or they didn't.

Chris, I think we're just two very different people. If you still dont get it, you never will. Which is fine...I may be very much in the minority with my mindset. But I'll just say it one last time...

there's a huge difference between 40 million and 22 million when one is the truth and one isnt. Same with Atlanta. They are minor details...but why did you choose to lie over such minor details then? You would've been very convincing had you not.

I can absolutely assure you I am not being disingenuous in my interpretation of your first post. Ridiculous is in the eye of the beholder, i suppose, but I hardly think that it's ridiculous to expect facts to be presented as they really are. This definitely isn't semantics either, and YOU have to admit that your first post did not at all make clear what your subsequent "main point" would be.

I read your first post and I thought, wow, what a terribly malicious thing they did. I read Vic's response and I thought, interesting, but what does he know? I saw your reply and I thought, BURN!! Chris got him good. Then I read the article you posted, and it became evident you couldnt back up your claims. It doesn't matter that your intentions were more or less correct, 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. And it doesn't mean everyone will think the same way I do. As I somewhat alluded to before, I have a rather personal reason for my extreme distaste for people making exaggerations (portrayed as reality) in an attempt to strengthen their arguments.

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.

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?

[BridgeTroll]

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.