and I thought Sleiman needed the additional parking to attract new retailers!
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-02-06/story/council-bill-would-mix-monthly-hourly-spaces-landing-parking-deal
Wow. I thought this deal was done eight months ago. Can't really comment on attracting retailers until some deal for dedicated parking is in place.
Quote from: tufsu1 on February 06, 2011, 03:36:01 PM
and I thought Sleiman needed the additional parking to attract new retailers!
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-02-06/story/council-bill-would-mix-monthly-hourly-spaces-landing-parking-deal
And I thought he (and prior owners) had a contract for the spaces, regardless of what he does with them.
Silly me, I always thought we should honor our agreements...
the agreement was amended six previous times...and agreed to by both the City and Landing owners....the City was not in violation of the latest agreement
Quote from: tufsu1 on February 06, 2011, 10:27:28 PM
the agreement was amended six previous times...and agreed to by both the City and Landing owners....the City was not in violation of the latest agreement
So you're saying the current agreement doesn't call for a City contribution to the constructuon of Landing parking?
this has been hashed out on this site many times...the current signed agreement requires the City to contribute WHEN a parking garage is built adjacent to the SunTrust building.
Quote from: tufsu1 on February 07, 2011, 08:48:04 AM
this has been hashed out on this site many times...the current signed agreement requires the City to contribute WHEN a parking garage is built adjacent to the SunTrust building.
I agree, this has been hashed out before, mainly in the "Landing Parking: Myth vs. Reality" thread here;
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-may-the-jacksonville-landing-parking-myths-vs-reality
That's why I was a little surprised to see you disingenuously regurgitating the "Myth" and ignoring reality.
Chris...I stand by my statement that the City is not in violation of the current agreement.
I know you like to spin things around, so please explain why my view is incorrect....and while you're at it, please explain how the provision of dedicated monthly parking helps retail establishments.
Quote from: tufsu1 on February 07, 2011, 10:04:44 AM
Chris...I stand by my statement that the City is not in violation of the current agreement.
I know you like to spin things around, so please explain why my view is incorrect....and while you're at it, please explain how the provision of dedicated monthly parking helps retail establishments.
Strawman.
Your post;
Quote from: tufsu1 on February 06, 2011, 03:36:01 PM
and I thought Sleiman needed the additional parking to attract new retailers!
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-02-06/story/council-bill-would-mix-monthly-hourly-spaces-landing-parking-deal
Obviously, and as was already discussed in the "Myth vs. Reality" thread (with your disinginuous comments belonging to the former category), the main reason the landing needs attached parking is so Sleiman can market it to large tenants who won't even look at a potential location unless it has X amount of parking. What happens to the spaces that aren't in use, or during off-hours, is totally irrelevant to that goal.
So what's your suggestion? Knowing the Landing can't attract major tenants with its current parking situation, you'd like to permanently eliminate the possibility of doing so? Sweet idea Tufsu, that's bound to fix the problem!
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on February 07, 2011, 10:25:54 AM
So what's your suggestion? Knowing the Landing can't attract major tenants with its current parking situation, you'd like to permanently eliminate the possibility of doing so? Sweet idea Tufsu, that's bound to fix the problem!
my suggestion is quite simple...if the Landing needs additional dedicated parking to attract retailers, then don't sell/lease it to monthly users!
Quote from: tufsu1 on February 07, 2011, 04:38:21 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on February 07, 2011, 10:25:54 AM
So what's your suggestion? Knowing the Landing can't attract major tenants with its current parking situation, you'd like to permanently eliminate the possibility of doing so? Sweet idea Tufsu, that's bound to fix the problem!
my suggestion is quite simple...if the Landing needs additional dedicated parking to attract retailers, then don't sell/lease it to monthly users!
So what if Sleiman builds a 1,000 space garage and dedicated parking for tenants takes up 500 spaces. Why shouldn't Sleiman be able to do whatever he wants with the remaining spaces? How would that possibly negate the need for dedicated parking to attract tenants? The two aren't related, let alone mutually exclusive.
agreed....but in this case, he bought a parking lot that has roughly 300 spaces...about the same he said The Landing needed to support filling the retail spaces.
He bought the lot to build a garage on, not to leave it as a vacant lot, tufsu...so your point about present capacity is irrelevant. We all know the city is obligated to chip in for a garage, and we all know Sleiman isn't going to leave that money on the table, so talking about how many spots the lot has in it isn't going to accomplish much since it isn't going to stay a lot.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on February 07, 2011, 10:11:24 PM
He bought the lot to build a garage on, not to leave it as a vacant lot
really...did he tell you that?
Quote from: tufsu1 on February 08, 2011, 08:21:14 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on February 07, 2011, 10:11:24 PM
He bought the lot to build a garage on, not to leave it as a vacant lot
really...did he tell you that?
Nah, silly me, he just told Channel 4 news that;
Quote
Jacksonville Landing and City Reach a Parking Deal
By Lindy Thackston First Coast News
JACKSONVILLE, FL -- Mayor John Peyton announced an agreement with the Jacksonville Landing Thursday afternoon.
Mayor Peyton and Tony Sleiman of the Jacksonville Landing call it, "a good day for Jacksonville."
"A couple of years ago I didn't care about downtown because I did all my shopping out of the city," said Sleiman. "Since I've been here, I've fallen in love with downtown."
The City has agreed to sell the East Parcel to the Landing for the fair market value.
Sleiman has plans to put in a parking garage that looks nothing like a parking garage.
It could also have room for retail, office, and condominium spaces.
"Outside developers, people looking to invest downtown, are seeing now that we're serious, we're going forward, we're moving, and I think we're going to get more people excited about it," said Sleiman.
A final plan is expected within the next month.
Construction should begin this summer. It will take 18 months to finish.
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/money/news-article.aspx?storyid=54361
QuoteSleiman has plans to put in a parking garage
And incidentally, look at the date on that article. 2006. That's how long COJ has been promising him parking.
One thing I also did not realize was that, as part of the 2006 deal discussed in that prior article I posted, COJ already collected the $3.5mm they were supposed to give Sleiman during the sale of the Humana building, AND KEPT THE MONEY! COJ is acting like this would cause a budget problem, but the truth is that they got the money to give Sleiman from a deal with another party, and basically are trying to steal it and not give it to him;
http://www.news4jax.com/news/23104850/detail.html
Quote
Landing Owner Upset Over Parking
City Says It Won't Sell Nearby Lot Because It's In Use
POSTED: Friday, April 9, 2010
UPDATED: 9:49 pm EDT April 9, 2010
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Toney Sleiman, the owner of the Jacksonville Landing, said he's angry the city hasn't delivered on its promise of new parking it made more than three years ago.
"All I am asking the city to do is to release my money so I can get my parking and go after national tenants and make the Landing successful," Sleiman said.
Sleiman said now he's demanding the parking. He said the city was given $3.5 million for Landing parking by another company in a settlement agreement in 2006, money Sleiman said he's yet to see.
Sleiman wants that money to buy a nearby parking lot that he would control and use just for the Landing.
Video: The Landing's Parking Controversy
The mayor's office said the city won't sell that lot because the parking spaces are already being used and no new spaces can be added.
"As we understand it, what (Sleiman) is proposing is using city dollars to purchase an existing surface lot and continue operating it as an existing surface lot, not adding to the capacity of parking downtown at all," said Misty Skipper, a spokeswoman for the mayor's office.
Sleiman said "it's not going to be good" if he's unable to use the parking for the Landing's businesses.
"These mom and pops are in trouble, and until I can get what I need and what was promised, and what 23 years of promises have been, there is a problem," Sleiman said. "There is a problem, and I don't want to talk about it, but there will be a problem."
The city said it doesn't believe there is a problem with parking, pointing to a lot the Landing already owns.
"We believe there are a number of parking options available to individuals," Skipper said. "If you go down to the Landing today, you will see the east lot has a surplus of parking spots available."
Glad to see that tufsu is on the side of truth and virtue, as usual...
dude...that first article refers to the east lot...Sleiman has owned that for several years...
Then there was also talk about the dirt lot next to the SunTrust building...that's the Humana one referred to in the April 2010 article...as discussed as nausem, the City's responsibility there was to pay $3.5 million WHEN the garage was built there by another entity....there's still no garage, so the City is not in violation of the agreement.
But you'll also notice the article mentions an adjacent lot....the one on the Omni block...that's the one in question these days....and I've heard no proposals for a garage on that site (the article says that too btw).
maybe you should do some research before diving too deep into an argument!
Quote from: tufsu1 on February 08, 2011, 12:52:49 PM
dude...that first article refers to the east lot...Sleiman has owned that for several years...
Then there was also talk about the dirt lot next to the SunTrust building...that's the Humana one referred to in the April 2010 article...as discussed as nausem, the City's responsibility there was to pay $3.5 million WHEN the garage was built there by another entity....there's still no garage, so the City is not in violation of the agreement.
But you'll also notice the article mentions an adjacent lot....the one on the Omni block...that's the one in question these days....and I've heard no proposals for a garage on that site.
maybe you should do some research before diving too deep into an argument!
Actually, what happened originally is that the Humana lot was supposed to be provided for Landing parking, but the JEDC screwed the Landing and persuaded COJ to give it to Humana Corp. when they moved a regional office here, as an incentive. Humana, in return, agreed that the land was subject to a requirement to provide parking to the Landing, and had to pay $3.5mm into escrow pursuant to a negotiated deal with the Landing and COJ when they sold their building, as a setoff against the Landing's parking interests in that property.
Tufsu, for the 47th time now, COJ has ALREADY BEEN PAID THAT $3.5MM FROM HUMANA CORP. The sole purpose of that money that Humana already paid to COJ was specifically to pay Sleiman for the Landing's nearly 3-decade old parking claim. COJ then took the money, haven't given it to Sleiman, have created a series of moving targets, and then change the deal around whenever it looks like he might hit one.
COJ already collected $3.5mm from Humana that was intended specifically to pay Sleiman for Landing parking, so that the portion of the Humana property encumbered by the Landing's parking obligation could be sold to a new buyer. All this bogus crap COJ has invented after the fact, like trying to drag Kuhn into it, and changing the terms of the deal a dozen times, doesn't change the fact that they already received the $3.5mm specifically to pay Sleiman, and are trying to keep the money.
This BS about the money only being due if the Landing first buys the property and pays to build its own garage is also nonsense, the original deal was that Humana would build a 1,000 space garage and the Landing would be given the top two or three floors of it as dedicated parking, in exchange for COJ's 25 year old defaulted promise to provide parking. The Landing was never required to build its own garage from scratch first, under the agreement. I hope Sleiman sues, I don't really see how COJ would defend this one.
The reason I am having this debate with you is that you are attempting to imply this is new public money. It isn't.
COJ was already paid the $3.5mm by Humana specifically to settle with Sleiman, and are now trying to keep his money.
Quote from: tufsu1 on February 08, 2011, 12:52:49 PM
maybe you should do some research before diving too deep into an argument!
LMAO, in light of the above, I think you need to take your own advice...
just different intrepretation....sure the City has not honored previous agreements, which is partially why there have been 5 amendments...but I believe the current adopted agreement (signed by both parties) has not been violated.
It is kind of like when somebody amends theri will...previous versions become null and void....I assume you understand legal documents.
Quote from: tufsu1 on February 08, 2011, 01:56:54 PM
just different intrepretation....sure the City has not honored previous agreements, which is partially why there have been 5 amendments...but I believe the current adopted agreement (signed by both parties) has not been violated.
It is kind of like when somebody amends theri will...previous versions become null and void....I assume you understand legal documents.
The agreement doesn't require Sleiman to build a $14mm parking garage before COJ has to pay him the $3.5mm they already collected from Humana, but are trying to steal. The parking garage requirement is total nonsense, Humana was the entity required to build the garage in exchange for $6.7mm in JEDC contributions, and in exchange for those incentives, Humana was supposed to provide dedicated Landing parking in that garage.
Humana did neither, and wanted to pull out, having never built the garage. In order to be able to provide clear title for the sale, Humana agreed to a settlement between COJ and Sleiman that the Landing's parking rights would be liquidated for $3.5mm as against the property, and Humana paid that to COJ to release their easement and obtain clear title to close the sale. COJ, being the party obligated to the Landing, was then supposed to pay Sleiman. They never did, and instead spent the past 4 years trying to weasel out of the agreement and trying to figure out a way to keep the money Humana paid them, which was intended for Sleiman.
How you could possibly successfully argue that this consolation-prize for getting screwed out of his promised parking at that location somehow obligates Sleiman to build the parking garage Humana never built, when Humana was the only party obligated to build the garage, not the Landing? I'd like to see that one hold up in court! The Landing was guaranteed free parking under the agreement, without having to build a garage. This argument about Sleiman having to fulfill Humana's obligation before getting his own settlement money that COJ already collected and is trying to keep, is total bullshit tufsu.