Landing bill moves forward without preservation funds, but mayor may veto

[thelakelander]

You could see this one coming a mile away.

Jacksonville Landing bill moves forward without preservation funds, but mayor considers a veto

By Tia Mitchell

The Jacksonville Landing moved one step closer to getting $6 million from the city to try to solve its parking problem, but Mayor John Peyton is considering a rare use of his veto pen.

The City Council’s Finance Committee approved the project Monday. The bill was amended so that $3.5 million to help finance the land for a parking lot doesn’t come from the Downtown Historic Preservation and Revitalization trust fund but instead to what committee members considered a more palatable source: money set aside in February for renovations at Metropolitan Park.

Finance Committee members pointed out that the Metro Park money was slated for Landing parking anyway, until it was diverted three months ago.

Ron Barton, executive director of the Jacksonville Economic Development Commission, argued during Monday’s committee meeting that there is no imminent need for the city to pay for Landing parking and that both the historic preservation and Metro Park money should not be touched.

Though the bill was approved by the Finance Committee, it faces another committee vote before it comes before the full council on May 25.

Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-05-17/story/jacksonville-landing-bill-moves-forward-without-preservation-funds-mayor

[Keith-N-Jax]

I give up on this place.

[Charles Hunter]

After 37 years, it isn't time to do something about the city commitment to the Landing?  Metro Park renovation (or whatever they want to do) can stand to slow down.

[thelakelander]

Needless to say, I agree 100% with taking the money from the Metropolitan Park fund and using it for what it was originally intended for.  Resolving the Landing parking obligation and saving the historic preservation fund could give DT to viable major destinations within a two block walk of each other along Laura Street.  That's how you create synergy and feeds right into DVI's most recent study.  I wonder when and if DVI will come out and take a public stand on this issue?

As for the garage talk, its really silly and overlooks the fact that the last thing DT needs is more parking and garages.  We have more than enough existing spaces.  We just need to better utilize what's already in place.  Sprucing up this existing lot, not only solves the Landing parking issue but also creates a new foot traffic pattern along Hogan Street and helps expose the restaurants and retail in the base of the Omni.

[thelakelander]

Any idea on how much money the city would make annually by finally living up to our decades old obligation?  Also, how does that ROI compare to spending the money a mile away from downtown in Metropolitan Park?

[thelakelander]

In addition to the $3.5 million payment, the city would also agree to give Sleiman’s company $2.5 million for parking validations when people shop or eat at the Landing over the next 20 years.

Also, what's the negative in validating parking for people who shop and eat at the center?  Are we afraid that such moves may actually make the center vibrant with retail shops and restaurants, thus discrediting the need for meters in general?

[stjr]

As for the garage talk, its really silly and overlooks the fact that the last thing DT needs is more parking and garages.  We have more than enough existing spaces.  We just need to better utilize what's already in place.  Sprucing up this existing lot, not only solves the Landing parking issue but also creates a new foot traffic pattern along Hogan Street and helps expose the restaurants and retail in the base of the Omni.

If the City builds or contributes to the garage, the City should retain the air rights over it and make sure the garage design facilitates the City "developing" a high rise over the garage so it can recoup its money in the future when this land is much more valuable than now.  Also, the garage should be required to have retail facing the street at ground level on all street facing sides.  With this, at least the block won't just be another garage.

[Keith-N-Jax]

You really dont have wonder now if you had in the past. I mean the Landing is the one place your going to take a visitor on their first visit here. Its gotta start there and then branch out. Peyton has been a nightmare for this city, a city already decades behind.

[Keith-N-Jax]

As for the garage talk, its really silly and overlooks the fact that the last thing DT needs is more parking and garages.  We have more than enough existing spaces.  We just need to better utilize what's already in place.  Sprucing up this existing lot, not only solves the Landing parking issue but also creates a new foot traffic pattern along Hogan Street and helps expose the restaurants and retail in the base of the Omni.

If the City builds or contributes to the garage, the City should retain the air rights over it and make sure the garage design facilitates the City "developing" a high rise over the garage so it can recoup its money in the future when this land is much more valuable than now.  Also, the garage should be required to have retail facing the street at ground level on all street facing sides.  With this, at least the block won't just be another garage.

Just get it done so we can move on to the next project,,please!!!

[thelakelander]

One problem with the garage.  In addition to the fact that we don't need more parking in DT, the city wants it built on a lot neither it or Sleiman owns.  Screw the garage, buy the lot, call it a day and start collecting rent.  Its been 23 years already.  How difficult can providing dedicated parking be?

[Keith-N-Jax]

Obviously as hard as bus shelters.

[reednavy]

what a tool Peyton is. The city should be forced to uphold it's end of the deal, yesterday.

[JeffreyS]

I bet the Mayor folds and has to do the right thing.  Now the JEDC better get the Barnett and trio deal done.

[Kay]

Call me a cynic.  Sleiman gets the City to buy him a parking lot already being used.  Then the City also has to give him $2.5 million to validate Landing patron's parking tickets!  Give me a break.  This is a way for Sleiman to make more money not improve the Landing.  Again, this is not a suburbia mall or strip center.  The extra $2.5 million is ridiculous.  I thought the problem was that people weren't coming because there is no parking.  Now people won't come unless they don't have to pay for parking. 

Unless they can tie this money to actual Landing improvements that benefit downtown as well as the Landing, I hope the Mayor vetoes it. 

[thelakelander]

Call me a cynic.  Sleiman gets the City to buy him a parking lot already being used.

We have more parking spaces than people in DT.  Is anyone willing to make a case that more parking is needed in DT to the deteriment of future projects like the streetcar or pedestrian scale walkability and connectivity?  At this point, even the JEDC hasn't presented a case for why another expensive pedestrian killing garage is needed. 

Nobody needs to invest in a new garage or spend $8.2 million in Metropolitan Park.  All the city needs to do is put personal feelings and politics aside and live up to its obligation to provide dedicated parking for the center.  How can we really expect this area to come back when the city won't even keep the promises it makes?  With this in mind, it should not matter if the Landing's owner is Sleiman, Regency Centers or Gate.  The city made a promise 23 years ago to get Rouse here and should live up to that promise.  With a goal of revitalizing DT, it also doesn't make sense for the city to keep ignoring the issue or shifting money to projects a mile outside of DT that will not benefit the area at all.

Then the City also has to give him $2.5 million to validate Landing patron's parking tickets!  Give me a break.  This is a way for Sleiman to make more money not improve the Landing.  Again, this is not a suburbia mall or strip center.  The extra $2.5 million is ridiculous.  I thought the problem was that people weren't coming because there is no parking.  Now people won't come unless they don't have to pay for parking.

That is the problem but parking validation is a great idea, imo.  Most retail centers in DT areas have them.  What's the worse that can happen?  Sleiman being successful...which means DT benefits as well?  Nevertheless, I'd like to see the overall numbers on this deal.  All we keep hearing about is what Sleiman is getting.  Assuming the deal goes through, how much money will Sleiman have to pay the city annually in rent payments?  I ask because I'm wondering what the "real" numbers are.