Metro Jacksonville

This is from the TU website today:
Mayor John Peyton is championing new downtown jobs and a new parking garage near The Jacksonville Landing in a final legislative drive that began Tuesday.

“It is key. Bringing jobs and housing to downtown is essential to our post-recession recovery,” Peyton said shortly before a package of legislation was filed with the City Council.

The main pieces of the agreements, each cast in separate legislation, were:

• Financial powerhouse EverBank would move about 1,000 jobs into the downtown business district, many of them relocated from Southside office parks. The city would give EverBank $2.75 million to help with moving costs.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/business/2011-05-24/story/peyton-pitches-deals-move-everbank-jobs-downtown-add-parking-near-landing#ixzz1NKAHxlyY

There is so much going on at one time I cant take it all in. It seems everything weve waited so patiently are all coming to fruitation at one time. I commended Peyton right now. ( and thats the first time Ive ever said that in eight years) I think he understands Brown's vision and want to lay some ground work for him.

apparently some folks at Everbank were less than pleased that this was made public...the deal may not be done

and I think it is really interesting that Peyton got a garage deal worked out such that Sleiman likely doesn't get any $...it sure has a been a bad couple weeks for him.

They are pissed is my understanding. Even though we have reporting it here for weeks if not months cryptically.

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 24, 2011, 10:03:35 PM
apparently some folks at Everbank were less than pleased that this was made public...the deal may not be done

Yeah I did not think it was. Because if they decide to choose another location, it will reflect bad on them. So I could understand them not being happy he publicized it.

Wonders never cease

Great to get the jobs downtown, but do we really need to build another parking garage?  This is a band-aid solution.  I would much prefer a more functional transit system linking the empty parking garages we already have with the employment areas.

It's not adding 1000 jobs.  It adding around 200 jobs and a deal that they have to maintain 1000 jobs if they move downtown.  Anyways it's great news!  One step at a time

I'm glad Peyton published it, EverBank should now (rightly) feel a sense of civic duty to support its hometown.

They really want to get this done they want that big "Everbank" sign in the downtown skyline.

Quote from: dougskiles on May 25, 2011, 04:56:06 AM
Great to get the jobs downtown, but do we really need to build another parking garage?  This is a band-aid solution.  I would much prefer a more functional transit system linking the empty parking garages we already have with the employment areas.

The parking garage situation is mainly to solve the Landing Parking issue that has been going on for decades. It really had nothing to do with just adding more parking downtown.

Don't forget that Greg Anderson, a vice-president of Everbank, is going to be on the Council after July.  That might be influencing things a bit.

So what building would they be moving into and is that building currently without signage?

Is this article saying that if Sleiman gives up his plans to purchase his own lot for "dedicated" short term parking spaces, legislation is included in the garage proposal that would allow those short term spaces to be used as dedicated parking for the Landing?  If so, great way to tackle multiple birds with one stone.  Just make sure that garage has street level retail on Forsyth, Hogan and Independent Drive.  Also, the short term number mentioned in this garage is 200 spaces.  I thought the commitment with the Landing required at least 350?

Quote from: comncense on May 25, 2011, 08:35:38 AM
So what building would they be moving into and is that building currently without signage?

If the deal works out, they would move into the AT&T building.  However, that building already has signage.

Correct. Some people shutter at the word "parking" downtown because of past abuse of surface lots but this should be an exception. Let's be realistic here. People are not likely to commute their way to the Jacksonville Landing via some commuter rail anytime soon. Parking for the landing is a good thing.

Quote from: duvaldude08 on May 25, 2011, 08:08:51 AM

Quote from: dougskiles on May 25, 2011, 04:56:06 AM
Great to get the jobs downtown, but do we really need to build another parking garage?  This is a band-aid solution.  I would much prefer a more functional transit system linking the empty parking garages we already have with the employment areas.

The parking garage situation is mainly to solve the Landing Parking issue that has been going on for decades. It really had nothing to do with just adding more parking downtown.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 25, 2011, 08:39:30 AM

Quote from: comncense on May 25, 2011, 08:35:38 AM
So what building would they be moving into and is that building currently without signage?

If the deal works out, they would move into the AT&T building.  However, that building already has signage.

DO you think that Everbank will try to buy naming rights?

Good point Duvaldude. How much space, if any, does AT&T occupy in the building?

Quote from: comncense on May 25, 2011, 09:11:41 AM
Good point Duvaldude. How much space, if any, does AT&T occupy in the building?

I dont think they occupy much space honestly. I would think they would allow Everbank to buy the naming rights. That will save them some money. LOL

If that garage doesn't specifically dedicate a certain percentage of spaces to the Landing 24/7, its not going to address the Landing's parking issues (which have more to do with attracting national retailers than it does suburbanites parking their cars).

I can understand why Everbank would be unhappy with the release, but come on, if this ever goes forward it has to get approved by the city council. It's got to be public sometime.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 25, 2011, 09:21:48 AM
If that garage doesn't specifically dedicate a certain percentage of spaces to the Landing 24/7, its not going to address the Landing's parking issues (which have more to do with attracting national retailers than it does suburbanites parking their cars).

I thought it said there would be 200?

Quote from: Tacachale on May 25, 2011, 09:23:09 AM
I can understand why Everbank would be unhappy with the release, but come on, if this ever goes forward it has to get approved by the city council. It's got to be public sometime.

I think it may have been the fact they were unaware that he was going to annouce That would have pissed me off as well. I think he should have ran it pass them first. He kinda caught them off guard by making this grand annoucement with no deal in place.

Would there be enough space for Everbank to move to the Enterprise Center now that Wells Fargo will be vacating the building?  With the Wachovia name coming down they would have a better buidling and get naming rights.   Would seem they could have more leverage now with the announcement by Wells Fargo.  I am just not sure if there is enough available space in Enterprise Center.

Quote from: duvaldude08 on May 25, 2011, 09:28:32 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on May 25, 2011, 09:21:48 AM
If that garage doesn't specifically dedicate a certain percentage of spaces to the Landing 24/7, its not going to address the Landing's parking issues (which have more to do with attracting national retailers than it does suburbanites parking their cars).

I thought it said there would be 200?

The short term 200 aren't specifically "dedicated" for Landing retailers, so it wouldn't address the Landing's parking problem for retail recruitment.  I also thought they needed at least 350?  If so, why not make the garage large enough to accommodate them?

Quote from: thelakelander on May 25, 2011, 11:23:48 AM

Quote from: duvaldude08 on May 25, 2011, 09:28:32 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on May 25, 2011, 09:21:48 AM
If that garage doesn't specifically dedicate a certain percentage of spaces to the Landing 24/7, its not going to address the Landing's parking issues (which have more to do with attracting national retailers than it does suburbanites parking their cars).

I thought it said there would be 200?

The short term 200 aren't specifically "dedicated" for Landing retailers, so it wouldn't address the Landing's parking problem for retail recruitment.  I also thought they needed at least 350?  If so, why not make the garage large enough to accommodate them?

Yeah It shounds fishy. I hope the city council doesnt approve that without address all aspects. I mean I can deal with the 200 spaces, as long as the other 300 are open to the public after hours as well.

Quotelegislation is included in the garage proposal that would allow those short term spaces to be used as dedicated parking for the Landing?

The money that was a part of the parking validation program in the last deal would go to the Landing under this newest 'scheme'.. but still no dedicated parking

I don't understand Peyton's insistence that a parking garage be built on this lot... dating back to Cameron Kuhn's original involvement downtown.

This parking garage isn't part of the Everbank deal whatsoever, it's a way for Peyton to put more unwarranted parking downtown and circumvent Sleiman and his partner.  It does not address the contractural obligation with the Landing.  Basically he is trading out one parking lot owner for another... and that doesnt solve the issue.  It's simply a way of providing another parking lot owner with a huge gift from the city to build what is likely to be a very profitable garage.

It's simply a way to get one more 'screw you' to your family's biggest rival on his way out the door.  What's asinine is he is using the cover of the Everbank deal so no one will pay attention to what he is doing to enrich yet ANOTHER parking garage owner.

QuoteWould there be enough space for Everbank to move to the Enterprise Center now that Wells Fargo will be vacating the building?

The two buildings aren't an apples to apples comparison.  ATT&T is a much better space for Everbank's needs and the building's owners are offering some very competitive terms.. coupled with city assistance it could be a nice deal for everyone involved.  It's ashame it is playing out the way it is b/c Peyton is trying to cover up his parking garage dealings.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 25, 2011, 08:39:30 AM

Quote from: comncense on May 25, 2011, 08:35:38 AM
So what building would they be moving into and is that building currently without signage?

If the deal works out, they would move into the AT&T building.  However, that building already has signage.

that was my understanding too, but on NPR this morning, the SunTrust tower was mentioned for Everbank...that could of course have been a mistake...another possibility is that they backfill the Wachovia building when they move to tyhe fomer Modis building...and I would assume they'll take the name off the building which would allow Everbank's to go up.

as to the parking issue...I've never thought we needed more parking downtown (in fact, it is just the opposite)...that said, I have a problem giving someone public $ to buy an existing parking lot...if they were providing more parking or making significant site upgrades, it would be a different matter.

Quoteif they were providing more parking or making significant site upgrades, it would be a different matter.

The owner of the parking lot in question has a responsibility to better maintain their own facility.  This is simply replacing a wilfully neglected eyesore(cash cow) with a GIFT to another parking czar.

Note to Alvin Brown's transition team: Do not hire someone that is going to continue to play these childish games while the health of the community at large hangs in the balance.

There is no way Everbank is going to Suntrust.  That's a mistake.  AT&T building is the fit.  Enterprise Center space is too small for the amount of employees Everbank wants to bring in and the buildout is most likely not what they are looking for.

Corporate is down the road.  They are looking for operations space, and AT&T is an "operations" fitting building.

It is the AT&T building and they are trying to get the naming rights.

In any event, let's fill these buildings, see my idea in the "dump the pump" thread. That's another interesting component that no one has thought of before. Does anyone know who I need to talk to in the city to get my idea considered and (god willing) implemented?

I know it would benefit all involved.

Quote from: urbaknight on May 25, 2011, 02:55:59 PM
In any event, let's fill these buildings, see my idea in the "dump the pump" thread. That's another interesting component that no one has thought of before. Does anyone know who I need to talk to in the city to get my idea considered and (god willing) implemented?

I know it would benefit all involved.

I agree about filling the buildings. That would be the first step in turning around DT. And that can be done by luring local companies to relocate DT, Everbank as an example. We dont need to lure some big company here to turn around our DT. We have the resources.

yes... if we could get Facebook to locate here ,that would be most cool! :)

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 25, 2011, 01:16:25 PM
as to the parking issue...I've never thought we needed more parking downtown (in fact, it is just the opposite)...

Does anyone know the current parking ratio of available spaces and available office/retail square footage in the downtown central business district?  This would include public and private spaces.

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 25, 2011, 01:16:25 PM
as to the parking issue...I've never thought we needed more parking downtown (in fact, it is just the opposite)...that said, I have a problem giving someone public $ to buy an existing parking lot...if they were providing more parking or making significant site upgrades, it would be a different matter.

You are correct that downtown doesn't need more parking.  However, a retail center like the Landing needs "dedicated" parking, which is a completely different animal.  Quite simply, we can easily take an existing parking lot and dedicate them to the use of a particular retail facility 24/7.  So if a Cheesecake Factory requires that the retail center has a couple of hundred parking spots available for their use at all times, they don't have to worry about people attending something else in the area, filling them up unexpectedly.

fine...I have no problem with that...which is why having an new garage across the street with 200 short-term spaces (and hopefully more on nights/weekends) should suffice!

QuoteHowever, a retail center like the Landing needs "dedicated" parking, which is a completely different animal.

Yes, Sleiman's favorite drum to beat.  Major retailers are in the ready as soon as he gets his dedicated parking.  We have yet to the name of even one of these "major" retailers.

Quotewhich is why having an new garage across the street with 200 short-term spaces

That's not going to solve the problem.  You're not looking at it from a retailer's or a bank's perspective.  

Also, why is it we need a parking garage at that spot, and if it's so sorely needed... why isn't the current owner using their own funds to build it instead of operating a woefully inadequate dirt lot and calling it a parking facility?

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 25, 2011, 04:54:30 PM
fine...I have no problem with that...which is why having an new garage across the street with 200 short-term spaces (and hopefully more on nights/weekends) should suffice!

"Short term" and "dedicated" are two different things.  Although I don't see why a number of spaces in the garage could not be dedicated specifically for the landing.

QuoteYes, Sleiman's favorite drum to beat.  Major retailers are in the ready as soon as he gets his dedicated parking.  We have yet to the name of even one of these "major" retailers.

As soon as we stop ignoring a problem, just because someone's name is attached to it.... the better it will be for our city.

Quote from: fieldafm on May 25, 2011, 05:03:37 PM

Quotewhich is why having an new garage across the street with 200 short-term spaces

That's not going to solve the problem.  You're not looking at it from a retailer's or a bank's perspective. 

Also, why is it we need a parking garage at that spot, and if it's so sorely needed... why isn't the current owner using their own funds to build it instead of operating a woefully inadequate dirt lot and calling it a parking facility?

Since they are building a garage and all, why doesn't the city just go ahead and provide the required amount of "dedicated" parking to the Landing, in addition to the "short term" spaces?

QuoteSince they are building a garage and all, why doesn't the city just go ahead and provide the required amount of "dedicated" parking to the Landing, in addition to the "short term" spaces?

Probably b/c that would involve a partnership of some sort with Sleiman in the new parking garage ownership structure.  Further proof this is nothing more than a farewell 'screw you' to him.

well Sleiman didn't do himself any favors by suppoorting Hogan so strongly either...big OOPS!

I may be the only pro-Sleiman member of MJ. He's trying to make the Landing a draw to downtown Jacksonville. When I moved here a couple of years ago I remember driving over the Acosta Bridge for the first time and seeing the Landing on the Riverwalk. It captured my attention immediately. It can be a big part of getting downtown some legitimate retail.

I hope he gets his parking area. I know he's not popular, but letting the Landing rot to spite someone just hurts us all. Let's get this thing done and I'm confident it will draw some high profile tennants. It has the potential to be one of the premier venues in the city.

Personally, I'm still annoyed at Sleiman as one of his people gave me the 55-45 Hogan numbers in the leadup to the elction, which made me look like quite the fool on MJ. Nevertheless, I'm with him 100% on the parking issue. I can't finance it, but I can get a shovel.

Quote from: BigGuy219 on May 26, 2011, 12:12:55 AM
I may be the only pro-Sleiman member of MJ. He's trying to make the Landing a draw to downtown Jacksonville. When I moved here a couple of years ago I remember driving over the Acosta Bridge for the first time and seeing the Landing on the Riverwalk. It captured my attention immediately. It can be a big part of getting downtown some legitimate retail.

I hope he gets his parking area. I know he's not popular, but letting the Landing rot to spite someone just hurts us all. Let's get this thing done and I'm confident it will draw some high profile tennants. It has the potential to be one of the premier venues in the city.

The Landing was the first thing I remembered from my first visit to Jacksonville, and it was not our primary destination. We walked across "that blue bridge over there" to get to it. My amazement may be because I grew up in the Ocala National Forest, not being used to city things, but after years of being well-traveled and moving here later, I still am very fond of the Landing. I hope it stays put and only gets better from here on out--whatever it takes for it to get there.

That's a perspective of someone who doesn't know any of the politics involved.

I am not sure the Landing has really gotten any better since he took it over.  In fact it looks, feels and downright smells worse.  Sleiman is a really talented developer. He can make the Landing work, but so far he hasn't.  It has become an eyesore and an embarrassment to the city.

In regards to visitors who stay downtown: If an empty, yucky orange building blasting cheap 70s music was my main impression of my visit, I can guaranty you I would not be returning to that city.

Quote from: chipwich on May 26, 2011, 12:43:53 AM
I am not sure the Landing has really gotten any better since he took it over.  In fact it looks, feels and downright smells worse.  Sleiman is a really talented developer. He can make the Landing work, but so far he hasn't.  It has become an eyesore and an embarrassment to the city.

In regards to visitors who stay downtown: If an empty, yucky orange building blasting cheap 70s music was my main impression of my visit, I can guaranty you I would not be returning to that city.

The tree lighting and fireworks shows they do throughout the year are huge draws. He's put on some great free concerts too. He's doing the best he can with what he's been given. He's lost tennants (Blue Martini for one) and is trying to recruit, but he needs the parking.

If it smells, perhaps you went during Yappy Hour?  :D

Quote from: chipwich on May 26, 2011, 12:43:53 AMIn regards to visitors who stay downtown: If an empty, yucky orange building blasting cheap 70s music was my main impression of my visit, I can guaranty you I would not be returning to that city.

X2.  The building could use a makeover for sure and the music is aweful.

Quote from: chipwich on May 26, 2011, 12:43:53 AM
I am not sure the Landing has really gotten any better since he took it over.  In fact it looks, feels and downright smells worse.  Sleiman is a really talented developer. He can make the Landing work, but so far he hasn't.  It has become an eyesore and an embarrassment to the city.

It was worse before he took it over.  Around 2002-2003, it was really empty.  Things improved a bit during the boom years and things have began to decline again with the Laura Street construction limiting access, downtown losing thousands of jobs and the poor economy.  Nevertheless, out of all the fixes downtown needs, I think the Landing is one of the easiest to do.  However, it's going to require getting away from partisan politics and leaving personal feelings about certain individuals out of it to move forward.

I think it should be a priority to get the Landing the dedicated spots it needs if for no other reason than so Sleiman can stop using it as an excuse for why he can't get tenents. Once thats done we will see who he draws in and I hope they are game changers for downtown- but we won't know till he has the spots.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 26, 2011, 06:31:20 AM
However, it's going to require getting away from partisan politics and leaving personal feelings about certain individuals out of it to move forward.

sure..but that is a two-way street

and the reality is the parking thing is somewhat of a cop-out excuse...I know retailers want dedciated parking...and guess what....the Landing has it!

Fact is that lot is only full on weekend nights and that's usually only if something special (like a concert) is going on...and again, the lease agreement in effect with the City requires payment WHEN the Landing CONSTRUCTS additional parking.

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 26, 2011, 07:51:42 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on May 26, 2011, 06:31:20 AM
However, it's going to require getting away from partisan politics and leaving personal feelings about certain individuals out of it to move forward.

sure..but that is a two-way street

and the reality is the parking thing is somewhat of a cop-out excuse...I know retailers want dedciated parking...and guess what....the Landing has it!

Fact is that lot is only full on weekend nights and that's usually only if something special (like a concert) is going on...and again, the lease agreement in effect with the City requires payment WHEN the Landing CONSTRUCTS additional parking.

The Landing does not have enough dedicated parking for a center its size, if the goal is to fill it with a couple of national chains as anchors.  The amount of people parking in the small lot they do have to visit a half empty retail center has nothing to do with the "dedicated" parking situation.  Parking availability on nights and weekends in regular short term lots also has nothing to do with dedicated parking.  Its been this way since the Rouse days.  Its time to free ourselves of giving blame (on all sides) and work to develop a resolution that leaves downtown as the winner.

I knew this Landing Issue was going to strike up an old nerve. The topic went from Everbank to the Landing.   :D

Well, I think the two issues are quite connected.  Bringing 1,000 daytime workers to downtown is a really big deal for downtown.  Now, the City is looking at a portion of the parking lot they promised Sleiman as a place to park them.  This may set up a bit to a tussle as Sleiman keeps saying he needs the lot for the Landing (in order to draw in tenants).  I do not doubt he actually needs the parking and Sleiman is correct when he says that the dedicated lots are needed to bring in national retailers. 

However, it is time to address the real elephant in the room.  The Landing is functionally and structurally obsolescent.  A good part of it needs to be demolished or significantly reworked if anyone hopes to draw in new, desirable retailers.  ....and Sleiman knows this.  That is probably why he isn't putting any money into the place.

My honest opinion is that in its current state, the Landing is just aweful.  I work across the street and won't even go there for lunch (except for Village Bread).  The Landing's leasing staff has a nearly impossible task of trying to lure in good tenants into blighted mall with nothing better than a river view. 

Here is the litmus test I propose to anyone trying to analyze this situation.  In you mind, move the Landing into Regency Square with a big parking lot.  What kind of retailers will go in then? I think you will find that no amount of parking in the world could bring in the crowd pleasing tenants that we all so desperately want.

...Meanwhile, A growing local company is coming in to inject downtown with an unheard of 1,000 jobs and they need to be able to park them.  Do you chase a pipe dream in an obsolete mall whose owner is purposefully withholding improvements (for good or bad reasons) or do you go with the company that wants to bring in 1,000 jobs now?

Retail follows rooftops and daytime traffic.  Bring in the jobs and you will stimulate demand for housing and both will stimulate the need for new retail.  "Build it and they will come" simply  doesn't work for the Landing at this time.

It has never been a "build and they will come" thing with the landings parking issue. The issue is that the city has not honored a 20 year old obligation to the Landing, and that is very sad. And I am sure parking is an issue for luring major teanets. They want to make sure their patrons have somewhere to park. Being that we owe them parking, we cant argue about that. What we can argue about is how they are BS'ing about the situation. The new proposed garage solves nothing in regards to the parking we owe the Landing. I am actually shocked that is has been such a tough issue. Its as simple as this. We owe them parking for 20 years ago and and we need to give it to them. PERIOD. They need to figure something out. Because the plan thats on the table right now is not going to work.

Good point duvaldude, but if you owned the Landing, I think you would want to faciliate a huge wave of employees coming into downtown and let someone else operate your dedicated parking spaces.  You could land a whole lot more tenants and make more money that way than nickel and diming in a parking lot.  

Let's not get this confused, Everbank Relocation and the proposed parking Garage are not linked. They are two seperate items. The landing parkings issue surfaced some years ago now. There is PLENTY of parking DT for Everbank to relocate 1000 employees. The AT&T building has never had a parking issue so Im sure they have that covered.

However, the Landing parking issue is a beast of its own. If done correctly, this injection of of employees DT and DETICATED Landing parking will be a thumbs up for the Landing. But the City has been playing patty cake with this for too long. I bet you one thing, they will never make a promise they cant keep ever again, thats for sure.

Quote from: duvaldude08 on May 26, 2011, 12:11:23 PM
The issue is that the city has not honored a 20 year old obligation to the Landing, and that is very sad.

not entirely true...as has been stated here ad naseum, the agreement between the City and Landing owners has been amended several times...the version currently in effect requires the City to pay JLI $3.5 million WHEN they CONSTRUCT additional parking.

Quote from: stephendare on May 26, 2011, 01:25:16 PM

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 26, 2011, 01:16:53 PM

Quote from: duvaldude08 on May 26, 2011, 12:11:23 PM
The issue is that the city has not honored a 20 year old obligation to the Landing, and that is very sad.

not entirely true...as has been stated here ad nauseum, the agreement between the City and Landing owners has been amended several times...the version currently in effect requires the City to pay JLI $3.5 million WHEN they CONSTRUCT additional parking.

So screw sleiman and the Landing?

What are you talking about TUFSU?

I think you are going to have to put aside your dislike of him---as are a bunch of people if we want the whole city to move forward together.

nope...as I've said Stephen, this is a two-way street....the City AND Sleiman need to come together and find a solution both parties can agree on

Quote from: chipwich on May 26, 2011, 11:31:59 AM
However, it is time to address the real elephant in the room.  The Landing is functionally and structurally obsolescent.  A good part of it needs to be demolished or significantly reworked if anyone hopes to draw in new, desirable retailers.  ....and Sleiman knows this.  That is probably why he isn't putting any money into the place.

Sleiman actually proposed doing what you've stated when he first purchased the Landing.  However, he wanted to actually own the land underneath the buildings before spending millions in them.  Unfortunately, he and the city could never come to an agreement and so it sits.  I'm hoping with a new mayor, this issue can be revisited and resolved.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 26, 2011, 01:29:54 PM
Sleiman actually proposed doing what you've stated when he first purchased the Landing.  However, he wanted to actually own the land underneath the buildings before spending millions in them.  Unfortunately, he and the city could never come to an agreement and so it sits.  I'm hoping with a new mayor, this issue can be revisited and resolved.

I remember that Lake. If I recall orrectly, he was proposing a $250 million redevelopment that looked amazing, except for the fact that he was asking for about $200 million in incentives and for the land to be sold to him.   Not exactly fair for the public to subsidize a millionaire's pet project.  The citizens wouldn't exactly reap too many benefits from his windfall.

Also, I am ok with selling the land as long as we a put 300 page list of covenants and restrcitions on it.  I am sure Sleiman is a nice enough guy, but I wouldn't trust any private entity with owning that land outright.  He could easily block access to the riverwalk, charge for entry, fail to up keep the space, etc.  In all fairness, the only tangalable differences between the current 99 yr lease and owning the property are: future salability of the asset and perfromance clauses that can be enforced in a lease.  It seems he wants neither of those to bother him and that makes me question his true intentions.

I am not trying to attack the guy.  He is a good suburban developer.  He seems like a nice enough guy who is trying to run a legitimate center downtown.  I just don't think he is taking care of the property well enough nor does he have any real plan to fix it at this time.  To belabor the Everbank deal with the Landing's parking issue seems unfair and downright backwards to me.

^^ If memory serves, the original lease was 49 or 50 years and has not been extended to my knowledge.  That would leave 24-25 years left on it. No one would spend 10 million, let alone $100 million on a project that they would have to potentially surrender in 25 odd years.

If I have the details wrong, someone please chime in.   

QuoteIn all fairness, the only tangalable differences between the current 99 yr lease and owning the property are: future salability of the asset and perfromance clauses that can be enforced in a lease.  It seems he wants neither of those to bother him and that makes me question his true intentions.

See, and this boils down to not having a true understanding of the reality of the situation.

One of the problems is with the lease structure and the language in the lease.  It's not a 99 year lease.  If a bank is to finance a project under a leasehold agreement, typically they want the lease to extend x number of years past the financing terms(or at least run through the duration of the financing terms).  Some of the language is also less than favorable.  If you want to meet me downtown sometime this weekend, I'll explain it in more detail.

For that type of expansion originally envisioned, he's got to own the land... plain and simple.

Quotehe was proposing a $250 million redevelopment that looked amazing, except for the fact that he was asking for about $200 million in incentives

That is an exageration, and I'm sure you know that(amount of incentives)... but some other people around here are going to take that figure and run with it to fuel their hatred of someone they more than likely have not had any personal or business dealings with(but have sure spent money or perhaps worked at one of his properties).

QuoteI totally agree.  But it cant be a solution to 'who is the real asshole?'.

It has to be 'What works best for the downtown, keeps our commitments, and leaves something better for the next generation.'

Bingo, and this newest parking garage fiasco was just not done in good faith to the overall welfare of the urban core and the agreement the city is charged to keep.  This administration can't be over quick enough.  I'll give credit where credit is due... and Peyton deserves credit for certain things downtown.  But the city has had enough of this childish crap.

Quote from: vicupstate on May 26, 2011, 02:56:44 PM
^^ If memory serves, the original lease was 49 or 50 years and has not been extended to my knowledge.  That would leave 24-25 years left on it. No one would spend 10 million, let alone $100 million on a project that they would have to potentially surrender in 25 odd years.

If I have the details wrong, someone please chime in.   

I'm sure there are options.  :)

The ground lease is not the hindrance and not an excuse.  Ground leases are a common occurrence and everybody deals with them.  Parts of strip malls are on ground leases, too.  They're everywhere.  I think it is good that the city owns the land along the riverfront for reasons already discussed.  A ground lease is less complicated for that property than a land sale involving serious covenants and easements and licenses.

And in all fairness, who honestly thinks Sleiman will even own the Landing for another decade?  Come on.

Quote from: simms3 on May 26, 2011, 04:19:42 PM

Quote from: vicupstate on May 26, 2011, 02:56:44 PM
^^ If memory serves, the original lease was 49 or 50 years and has not been extended to my knowledge.  That would leave 24-25 years left on it. No one would spend 10 million, let alone $100 million on a project that they would have to potentially surrender in 25 odd years.

If I have the details wrong, someone please chime in.   

I'm sure there are options.  :)

The ground lease is not the hindrance and not an excuse.  Ground leases are a common occurrence and everybody deals with them.  Parts of strip malls are on ground leases, too.  They're everywhere.  I think it is good that the city owns the land along the riverfront for reasons already discussed.  A ground lease is less complicated for that property than a land sale involving serious covenants and easements and licenses.

And in all fairness, who honestly thinks Sleiman will even own the Landing for another decade?  Come on.

Again, you are proving my point.  There is reality.  Then there are those that just don't care for the person behind the deal.

As far as river access(you will find very few people on this board more in tune with public access to the river then me)... one needs to look no further to the type of deal the city struck with Fidelity.  Selling the land will not close down the Riverwalk.  Again reality vs Operation Fox Sleiman strikes again.

Meanwhile, the core hangs in the balance.  It's time for everyone to grow up and start fixing our broken downtown.

I agree with fieldafm on this one.  Selling the land underneath the Landing would be no different than selling the Shipyards property to entities like LandMar.  Also, I have no problem with Sleiman selling the property and making a profit as long as the retail center is put in a position to actually generate one.

OK, selling the land is not a problem, per se.  That's not what I was saying.  It would be legally more complicated to sell the land and enjoy the same situation, that's what I was saying.

Also, not owning the land is not really a problem.  Everyone would love to see a better center there from Sleiman to the city to all of us, but now owning the land is not prohibiting it.  If ground leases were a problem in real estate, hardly any deals would get done.  Better the city owns the land than another private developer because at least the city is guaranteed to be largely on the same page as far as what they want for the property rather than two developers who have not entered into a JV.

To add onto what Simms stated.  Ground leases are common and I am sure Slieman has options in his lease (or at least can get some added into the lease).  This may be easier said than done when dealing with the city.

Field- I honestly can't find the article regarding how much incentives Sleiman was asking for the last go around, so I will back off my ~$200 million number.  I don't want to spread false information (though I do remember that number (or something near it) really sticking out at me back in 2003.  

Also, I am not so sure anyone on here is really out here trying to outfox Sleiman.  I for one hope he suceeds and has a really successful development.  It would benefit everyone (the city, residents, tenants, tourists, and himself as LL).  I am not sure I want any developer benefiting from too many city incentives.  For goodness sake though, let's not let this parking garage stand in the way of a big company moving its operations to downtown.

QuoteIf ground leases were a problem in real estate, hardly any deals would get done.

Ground leases AREN'T a problem in commercial real estate and are quite common.. provided they meet certain conditions.  I can assure you, the world of commercial finance is not conspiring in Operation Fox Sleiman.  That world very much likes Sleiman Enterprises.

QuoteIt would be legally more complicated to sell the land and enjoy the same situation, that's what I was saying.

I don't follow you.  With all due respect, you're over your head on this one.

QuoteFor goodness sake though, let's not let this parking garage stand in the way of a big company moving its operations to downtown.

Peyton's good b/c he is distracting you with this smoke and mirrors stuff.  The parking garage is seperate than the incentives package for Everbank.

QuoteThis may be easier said than done when dealing with the city.

Come down to the jazz fest this weekend, I'll explain it in better details.

Quote from: fieldafm on May 26, 2011, 04:48:09 PM

QuoteIf ground leases were a problem in real estate, hardly any deals would get done.

Ground leases AREN'T a problem in commercial real estate and are quite common.. provided they meet certain conditions.  I can assure you, the world of commercial finance is not conspiring in Operation Fox Sleiman.  That world very much likes Sleiman Enterprises.

QuoteIt would be legally more complicated to sell the land and enjoy the same situation, that's what I was saying.

I don't follow you.  With all due respect, you're over your head on this one.

I don't think I'm in over my head on this one, field.  Contracts would have to be completely renegotiated with a land sale, and with the complications of this particular land it would be a big drawn out thing.  Covenants, restrictions, easements, and licensing agreements would all come into play and certain local lawyers would have a field day.  That in itself makes it more complicated than the current situation.  Also, if I'm not mistaken, the city has run into issues with CSX and Fidelity in the past regarding the Riverwalk, especially CSX.  Those landowners and others really held up the process of expanding the Riverwalk in the early 2000s.  CSX is still really hostile towards the Riverwalk.

The only thing that makes the sale of the land under the Landing easier is the fact that the city already owns it, making setting up the easements and regulations easier.  Sleiman does not seem like the kind of guy who will deal happily with the city, though.  It's one thing for two developers to duke it out, and it's another thing when it's the city versus Sleiman.

You're really talking so far around the issue now.  It's nice to throw around words like 'easement', 'licensing agreements'(not sure how that applies to financing) and 'covenants', but that doesn't have a thing to do with the price of tea in China... nor the issues surrounding the Landing.

Fidelity, had a land swap deal with the city to finish the Riverwalk, worked an agreement(with many other parties) for RAM to exist and worked hand in hand with the city to open a public floating dock on the Riverwalk.  They do not restrict access to the river in any way.  Btw, the impact of driving down the pilings when building the dock almost caused much of the country's back end mortgage operations to be temporarily suspended b/c it was effecting the computers/servers in the building. 

The say it is easier/better for Sleiman to continue with a lease vs. owning the land, does not make sense to me. 

In Sleiman's original plans, there were going to be condos included.  There is no way I would buy a condo in which the Condo Association did not own the land the building was on.  I doubt that such a thing could even legally be created.


To get an extention on his lease, the city would have to approve it.  What would be the chances of that happening with Peyton in office? Zilch, I would say.   

ANYTHING Downtown is already subject to design and zoning controls, reagrdless of who owns it.

While public access and easements would still have to be worked out, I find it very difficult to believe financing for something that has a ground lease expiring in 25 years is easier or preferable to getting financing when the property is owned outright.  That dog won't hunt.

How many parking spaces are in the surface lot serving the Landing?  How many more do they need to be attractive to national retailers?

from what I can tell, a little less than 200.

The Landing is around 125,000 sqaure feet...so using generic suburban suburban parking ratios of 4-5 spaces per 1000 square feet of retail, the Landing would "need" at least 600 spaces (400 more).

That said, how many street spaces are within a block of the center?  How many spaces are in the lots across the street that are advertised on nights/weekends as parking for the Landing?

One of the best things about downtowns is how parking for office workers during the day can be used by those going to dinner, theaters, stadiums, etc. at night and on weekends...this is exactly what happens with the TUPAC, Florida Theatre, etc.

And I saw it first hand in the early 1990's in Baltimore when the Orioles moved downtown and skeptics worried about a lack of parking...the team sold out every game for several years and folks parked in garages and lots nearby...and guess what....they walked to/from the stadium and brought street life to the area!

A quick search indicates costs for an urban parking garage can be around $25,000 per space.  So if we were to build an additional 400 spaces for the Landing, we are talking about a $10,000,000 project.  Not worth it.  I would rather see us building a streetcar that connects the Landing to the many half empty public garages around town and dedicate those spaces.

We don't need more parking downtown.  We need a better plan for connecting people to what we already have.

I think you guys are underestimating, ignoring or simply don't understand the importance of "dedicated" parking for the national retailer's site selection process. You don't need new parking, you need to take existing parking and dedicate it for a specific use.

From what I have heard about parking downtown, Everbank would use the garage that workers in Enterprise Center use, at least at first.  When Wells leaves that frees up that many more spots, and those spots will go to Everbank.  This is the garage between the Omni and the Wachovia building, which is owned separately from Enterprise Center.  This will make it hard to backfill the space that will soon be available in the building.

Sleiman has apparently been trying to get his hands on the parking lot in front of Enterprise Center for a while.  Nobody wants that to happen and nobody, at least that I know, wants to deal with Sleiman.  It seems like he has a bad reputation in the local real estate community.  The whole parking garage deal was also explained to me today, but I can't remember all the details.

Field, I know Fidelity has been very cooperative and accomodating with the RAM dock and RAM itself.  I was just going back to the early 2000s when the 17 or so landowners along the "at the time" proposed Northbank Riverwalk weren't all very cooperative.  Why should we trust Sleiman with that land?  He hasn't actually done anything to build trust and he hasn't actually done anything to really improve downtown to show that he has a history of that.  Also, if the Landing land is about as prime as it gets here in Jacksonville, let's equate it to prime land in other cities.  Ben Carter himself injected over $20 million of his own personal cash to help assemble land for the Streets of Buckhead in Atlanta.  The total plottage cost about $200 million just for the land, but required no city incentives, just a lot of moral support.  The land that the Landing sits on is prime enough to not require city incentives for anything.  If the city can get its act together, I can guarantee a real developer will come in and swoop up the Landing with or without the land and get something going.  Does anyone even know if Sleiman has the wherewithal to put something up?  Clearly he can get financing for a neighborhood center, but without any major mixed-use development experience can he get financing for such a project in today's economic climate?  That remains to be seen.  I think at the very least he would need to enter into a joint venture with a bigger fish, one that can bring some money to the table itself.

Also, my whole point has been that a ground lease does not have much of an effect on a deal.  My other point was that because the current situation is uncomplicated and does not affect the actual Landing itself, it would be more complicated to orchestrate a land sale.  Why change the current situation?  Sleiman is constantly postering.  It's what he does best.  If he says that he can't do anything without owning the land, then the opposite is true.

Lake, dedicated parking is a big deal.  That's true.  Usually there are actual regulations for how many spaces per unit or square feet of commercial space, and it depends on use, zoning, and other factors.  Anyone care to look it up for the Landing?  Retailers in every large city outside of NYC, Boston, Seattle, and San Fran require extensive parking, even in dense business districts.  That raises the cost of putting in these retailers because garages are so expensive.  It's usually necessary to put something on top that will produce income because in most cities the retailers are already taking a gamble on locating in a downtown and they won't pay for those spaces themselves.  Sadly, in Jacksonville there isn't much of a market for anything to be built on a garage...no condos, no apartments, no hotels, no office.

QuoteIf the city can get its act together, I can guarantee a real developer will come in and swoop up the Landing with or without the land and get something going.

The Landing has NEVER made money, and the city is 20 years behind it's peers in DT redevelopment.  You are dreaming. Considering the economy, you aren't just dreaming but under the influence. 

Sleiman bought the center for a song, because nobody else wanted it.   

I may be dreaming about the city, but the economy has largely come back in many ways and development is picking up.  There are large scale things going on in other cities.

All downtown needs is a little bit of momentum, which it seems like we are almost getting.

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 26, 2011, 09:47:13 PM
from what I can tell, a little less than 200.

The Landing is around 125,000 sqaure feet...so using generic suburban suburban parking ratios of 4-5 spaces per 1000 square feet of retail, the Landing would "need" at least 600 spaces (400 more).

That said, how many street spaces are within a block of the center?  How many spaces are in the lots across the street that are advertised on nights/weekends as parking for the Landing?

One of the best things about downtowns is how parking for office workers during the day can be used by those going to dinner, theaters, stadiums, etc. at night and on weekends...this is exactly what happens with the TUPAC, Florida Theatre, etc.

And I saw it first hand in the early 1990's in Baltimore when the Orioles moved downtown and skeptics worried about a lack of parking...the team sold out every game for several years and folks parked in garages and lots nearby...and guess what....they walked to/from the stadium and brought street life to the area!

Except that's only on weekends. During the week, regardless of the severe glut of parking downtown, COJ tickets the $h!t out of anyone using street parking during normal hours. Which is kind of a buzz-kill when you are running a business that depends on customer flow being steady for more than 2 days a week.

Parking policies need to be revisited, if you are going to deny the Landing its garage. The parking situation has been an issue for the Landing from the beginning. Yes, there is plenty of parking. No, you can't use it, unless you 1) Remembered to bring quarters (who carries change anymore?), then 2: Are 100% sure you'll be back in exactly XX amount of minutes or else enjoy your nice ticket, or else 3: Want to pay out the ass and enrich Mark Rimmer to park in one of his 1,000 space garages that might have 3 other cars in it on a good day. Not that this, of course, will stop you from paying out the ass anyway, since his empty garages have their operating losses subsidized by the taxpayers.

Or, back in reality-land, people immediately realize this is ridiculous and everybody will just continue going to one of the other dozen Hooters restaurants and getting their $10 burger without a $15 side of parking ticket and a charitable contribution to Mark Rimmer. Just like they do now.

It's time to revisit downtown parking policies.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 27, 2011, 08:35:46 AM
Except that's only on weekends. During the week, regardless of the severe glut of parking downtown, COJ tickets the $h!t out of anyone using street parking during normal hours. Which is kind of a buzz-kill when you are running a business that depends on customer flow being steady for more than 2 days a week.

that is pretty much 8a-5p weekdays...after 5pm, they don't ticket....now the meters says 6pm, so a simple change would be fix that.

as for daytime, as it is in most downtowns, the answer is to have a built-in customer base from the nearby office workers....part of the reason downtown dining and retail work in cities is that people either don't travel to downtown in a car or they leave it parked and walk around...most downtown office workers walk around a bit on lunch break.

QuoteI may be dreaming about the city, but the economy has largely come back in many ways and development is picking up

Yes, you are dreaming then.

QuoteNobody wants that to happen and nobody, at least that I know, wants to deal with Sleiman

Simms, I like you... but reality has not entered your arguments in this thread.
The only 'nobody' you are referring to is Peyton.  Council passed an overwhelming seal of approval for a parking deal last year until the two sides starting acting like children again.

QuoteI can guarantee a real developer will come in and swoop up the Landing with or without the land and get something going.

I didn't realize Sleiman Enterprises wasn't a 'real' developer?  I also missed the huge auction where all these 'real' developers bid up the price of the Landing when Rouse pulled out?  You're digging your hole deeper.  Once again you just don't like the person behind the deal. 

Quotebut without any major mixed-use development experience can he get financing for such a project in today's economic climate?

Commercial financing is very strong right now for well qualified firms like his that have zero liquidity problems.  The issue is not 'experience'.  It's clear you don't understand this. 

Your entire post revolves around the dislike of a certain developer.  Once people in this city grow up, we'll be a better place for it. 

I have to get some actual work accomplished today.  You all have fun spewing out your misconceptions, negative thought processes and unbridled dislike for certain people around town.  I have to be productive instead.  Jazz Fest is this weekend, try enjoying the moment.

JAX DAILY RECORD:

EverBank deal to move Downtown draws concern
06/06/2011

Karen Brune Mathis

A pair of local radio hosts concerned about the City’s proposed incentives to move EverBank jobs from the suburbs to Downtown said Sunday they plan to attend the Jacksonville Economic Development Commission meeting Thursday and that dozens more people might join them there.

The commission is scheduled to consider two EverBank action items to support the move to relocate 1,000 employees to Downtown’s inner core and to create 200 jobs.

Commercial real estate broker Chuck White, president and CEO of NAI Commercial Jacksonville, said he and his wife, lawyer Colleen White, will attend. They host the “Just Speak Up!” radio show noon-1 p.m. weekdays on WBOB AM-600.

White said he wanted to attend as “a concerned citizen that is an expert in deals like this.”

“Colleen and I will be there as radio hosts that know the vast majority of our residents don’t want our taxes spent to the benefit of so few and to the detriment of so many,” he said Sunday.

He called the deal for City assistance to relocate jobs from the suburbs to Downtown “unheard of.”

“I will be inquiring tomorrow morning to insure I follow proper channels to make a public comment,” he said Sunday night.

White said his blog at www.fctpcommunity.org, which is the First Coast Tea Party website, has been up since Friday. “Many of those people (over 50 comments) say they are coming,” he said.

The commission, which operates as part of the mayor’s office, will meet at 9 a.m. Thursday in the mayor’s large conference room in City Hall to consider several projects to recommend to City Council for approval.

Among them are deals to move the 1,000 EverBank jobs from the suburbs to Downtown and construction of a parking garage by the SunTrust building.

Mayor John Peyton announced several of the projects two weeks ago. If the commission approves them, they will be sent to Council committees and could be voted on by the full Council before Peyton leaves office June 30.

A JEDC agenda and project summaries distributed Friday include detailed project summaries for most of the Downtown-related projects.

Two action items are for a parking lease for the Churchwell Lofts, which are at Bay and Market streets, and a proposed expansion of the Bay Street entertainment zone.

Two others concern parking. One is a settlement agreement with Project Riverwatch LLC over construction of a parking garage in a much-amended deal that dates back to 1985. The other is a deal with Parador Partners LLC of Ponte Vedra Beach to build a multistory parking garage next to the SunTrust building, of which Parador is the majority owner.

The two EverBank projects are:

• EverBank QTI, also called “Project Plaza. Jacksonville-based EverBank requests Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund and Quick Response Training Program assistance of up to $2.4 million from the City and state to add 200 new, full-time jobs at an average wage of $49,000, creating a payroll of $9.8 million and an investment of about $1.6 million in capital for technology, infrastructure and furniture.

If EverBank locates within the Enterprise Zone, which includes the urban core, it could qualify for the $2.4 million, consisting of $420,000 in tax refunds from the City and $1.98 million from the state. The state total would consist of $1.68 million in tax refunds and $300,000 for quick response training. If EverBank chooses a site outside the Enterprise Zone, the incentives are $1.3 million, consisting of tax refunds of $200,000 from the City and $800,000 from the state, along with the $300,000 training assistance.

• EverBank Relocation. The City proposes to provide $2.75 million to help EverBank relocate a minimum of 1,000 jobs by Sept. 30, 2012, from the suburbs to Downtown. EverBank has negotiated to lease more than 225,000 square feet of space and 1,400 parking spaces Downtown and said it will spend more than $26.5 million in tenant improvements.

No site was specified in the summary except to say it is within the urban core bounded by Jefferson, State and Main streets and the St. Johns River. The Daily Record has reported that AT&T Tower 301 is a likely site. Also, EverBank must maintain at least 1,350 jobs among its Riverside Avenue area headquarters and the urban core site for at least five years.

The project summary says EverBank currently has about 1,200 employees and leases of more than 225,000 square feet in two suburban Southside locations, at the Quadrant II and Cypress Plaza.

It says EverBank’s leases there are coming up for renewal and the company wants to evaluate the next steps for its corporate growth.


http://jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=533741

Booo!!!! They are at it already. I dont follow their logic. So they are saying it is a bad idea to create jobs? Because this proposal is two fold. Brining 1,000 plus worker to an half empty DT AND creating jobs. This is just the beginning of what is to come. Much more resistance will follow once the Brown Administration takes over.

I don't understand how this is to the "detriment of so many". Is he talking about the city funds used to facilitate the incentives?

Quote from: Tacachale on June 06, 2011, 11:34:01 AM
I don't understand how this is to the "detriment of so many". Is he talking about the city funds used to facilitate the incentives?

It is only a detriment to the Local Tea Party is what they meant. lol

So how much will the garage cost? My best guess is about twice the price that a direct Skyway link from the Southbank Garage to the Landings 2Nd Floor level!  But of course darling, we only built it for looks...

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: Ocklawaha on June 06, 2011, 12:17:23 PM
So how much will the garage cost? My best guess is about twice the price that a direct Skyway link from the Southbank Garage to the Landings 2Nd Floor level!  But of course darling, we only built it for looks...

OCKLAWAHA

Now Im definately not to happy about the garage thing either. It solves absolutely nothing. But I think Everbank deal is a plus. The parking garage situation needs to be re looked at.

Quote from: duvaldude08 on June 06, 2011, 12:07:33 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on June 06, 2011, 11:34:01 AM
I don't understand how this is to the "detriment of so many". Is he talking about the city funds used to facilitate the incentives?

It is only a detriment to the Local Tea Party is what they meant. lol

I don't understand how it's a detriment of any magnitude. By my math we're talking about 5 million in local and state aid, including tax refunds, to pull the EverBank deals off. Is there something the article is missing, or is that really what they're worried about?

Quote from: Tacachale on June 06, 2011, 01:30:47 PM

Quote from: duvaldude08 on June 06, 2011, 12:07:33 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on June 06, 2011, 11:34:01 AM
I don't understand how this is to the "detriment of so many". Is he talking about the city funds used to facilitate the incentives?

It is only a detriment to the Local Tea Party is what they meant. lol

I don't understand how it's a detriment of any magnitude. By my math we're talking about 5 million in local and state aid, including tax refunds, to pull the EverBank deals off. Is there something the article is missing, or is that really what they're worried about?

As well all know, the Tea Party always trys to make something out of nothing. And this is prime example. Just like when Brown won the election, the tea party was demanding a recount. I am really starting to think they have nothing else better to do.

Quote from: Jdog on June 06, 2011, 11:26:18 AM

The two EverBank projects are:

• EverBank QTI, also called “Project Plaza. Jacksonville-based EverBank requests Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund and Quick Response Training Program assistance of up to $2.4 million from the City and state to add 200 new, full-time jobs at an average wage of $49,000, creating a payroll of $9.8 million and an investment of about $1.6 million in capital for technology, infrastructure and furniture.

If EverBank locates within the Enterprise Zone, which includes the urban core, it could qualify for the $2.4 million, consisting of $420,000 in tax refunds from the City and $1.98 million from the state. The state total would consist of $1.68 million in tax refunds and $300,000 for quick response training. If EverBank chooses a site outside the Enterprise Zone, the incentives are $1.3 million, consisting of tax refunds of $200,000 from the City and $800,000 from the state, along with the $300,000 training assistance.

• EverBank Relocation. The City proposes to provide $2.75 million to help EverBank relocate a minimum of 1,000 jobs by Sept. 30, 2012, from the suburbs to Downtown. EverBank has negotiated to lease more than 225,000 square feet of space and 1,400 parking spaces Downtown and said it will spend more than $26.5 million in tenant improvements.

No site was specified in the summary except to say it is within the urban core bounded by Jefferson, State and Main streets and the St. Johns River. The Daily Record has reported that AT&T Tower 301 is a likely site. Also, EverBank must maintain at least 1,350 jobs among its Riverside Avenue area headquarters and the urban core site for at least five years.

http://jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=533741

So basically Everbank is bringing 200 jobs to Jacksonville.  If those jobs are located downtown; Everbank will receive 1.1 million more in tax incentives than if they are located in the suburbs?

And to sweeten the deal if Everhome locates the 200 jobs downtown, Jacksonville will offer 2.75 million in relocation assistance to bring another 1000 jobs from the suburbs to downtown?

Do I have this right?

Quote from: A-Finnius on June 06, 2011, 10:27:12 PM

Quote from: Jdog on June 06, 2011, 11:26:18 AM

The two EverBank projects are:

• EverBank QTI, also called “Project Plaza. Jacksonville-based EverBank requests Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund and Quick Response Training Program assistance of up to $2.4 million from the City and state to add 200 new, full-time jobs at an average wage of $49,000, creating a payroll of $9.8 million and an investment of about $1.6 million in capital for technology, infrastructure and furniture.

If EverBank locates within the Enterprise Zone, which includes the urban core, it could qualify for the $2.4 million, consisting of $420,000 in tax refunds from the City and $1.98 million from the state. The state total would consist of $1.68 million in tax refunds and $300,000 for quick response training. If EverBank chooses a site outside the Enterprise Zone, the incentives are $1.3 million, consisting of tax refunds of $200,000 from the City and $800,000 from the state, along with the $300,000 training assistance.

• EverBank Relocation. The City proposes to provide $2.75 million to help EverBank relocate a minimum of 1,000 jobs by Sept. 30, 2012, from the suburbs to Downtown. EverBank has negotiated to lease more than 225,000 square feet of space and 1,400 parking spaces Downtown and said it will spend more than $26.5 million in tenant improvements.

No site was specified in the summary except to say it is within the urban core bounded by Jefferson, State and Main streets and the St. Johns River. The Daily Record has reported that AT&T Tower 301 is a likely site. Also, EverBank must maintain at least 1,350 jobs among its Riverside Avenue area headquarters and the urban core site for at least five years.

http://jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=533741

So basically Everbank is bringing 200 jobs to Jacksonville.  If those jobs are located downtown; Everbank will receive 1.1 million more in tax incentives than if they are located in the suburbs?

And to sweeten the deal if Everhome locates the 200 jobs downtown, Jacksonville will offer 2.75 million in relocation assistance to bring another 1000 jobs from the suburbs to downtown?

Do I have this right?

Kind of. There are relocating the 1000 jobs downtown. The city if offering to pay for the relocation for those jobs, and incentives to create 200 more jobs (I know it gets confusing).

Quote from: duvaldude08 on June 06, 2011, 10:32:27 PM

Quote from: A-Finnius on June 06, 2011, 10:27:12 PM

Quote from: Jdog on June 06, 2011, 11:26:18 AM

The two EverBank projects are:

• EverBank QTI, also called “Project Plaza. Jacksonville-based EverBank requests Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund and Quick Response Training Program assistance of up to $2.4 million from the City and state to add 200 new, full-time jobs at an average wage of $49,000, creating a payroll of $9.8 million and an investment of about $1.6 million in capital for technology, infrastructure and furniture.

If EverBank locates within the Enterprise Zone, which includes the urban core, it could qualify for the $2.4 million, consisting of $420,000 in tax refunds from the City and $1.98 million from the state. The state total would consist of $1.68 million in tax refunds and $300,000 for quick response training. If EverBank chooses a site outside the Enterprise Zone, the incentives are $1.3 million, consisting of tax refunds of $200,000 from the City and $800,000 from the state, along with the $300,000 training assistance.

• EverBank Relocation. The City proposes to provide $2.75 million to help EverBank relocate a minimum of 1,000 jobs by Sept. 30, 2012, from the suburbs to Downtown. EverBank has negotiated to lease more than 225,000 square feet of space and 1,400 parking spaces Downtown and said it will spend more than $26.5 million in tenant improvements.

No site was specified in the summary except to say it is within the urban core bounded by Jefferson, State and Main streets and the St. Johns River. The Daily Record has reported that AT&T Tower 301 is a likely site. Also, EverBank must maintain at least 1,350 jobs among its Riverside Avenue area headquarters and the urban core site for at least five years.

http://jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=533741

So basically Everbank is bringing 200 jobs to Jacksonville.  If those jobs are located downtown; Everbank will receive 1.1 million more in tax incentives than if they are located in the suburbs?

And to sweeten the deal if Everhome locates the 200 jobs downtown, Jacksonville will offer 2.75 million in relocation assistance to bring another 1000 jobs from the suburbs to downtown?

Do I have this right?

Kind of. There are relocating the 1000 jobs downtown. The city if offering to pay for the relocation for those jobs, and incentives to create 200 more jobs (I know it gets confusing).

So they are moving the 1000 jobs downtown regardless? 

I heard Chuck White ranting about this on a Saturday morning radio show.  He was complaining that the city's assistance was a waste of tax payers' money and the move would create vacancy in an already established business location (maybe the suburbs are starting to know how downtown has felt over the past 50 years) but basically he called in to promote his show.

If Jacksonville offered the 2.75 in assistance to help sway Everbank on their decision to locate the 200 new jobs Downtown then this a great plan for reinvestment in the core.  I feel the relocation and the 200 new jobs should go hand in hand though.   

The city wants it to go hand in hand. It's two separate incentives they're trying to pull off together. One incentive is to bring 1000 current jobs downtown (2.75 million). The other incentive is to create 200 new jobs. They get a higher tax refund (2.4 mil) if they put them in the Enterprise Zone, which includes downtown. Conceivably they could add 200 jobs in a different location and they'd get the lower tax refund, but yes, the city's plan is for both to happen together.

Okay, so from the sound of it White's complaint is about spending the money to shuffle employees from an established location in the city to downtown. I'd like to know more about EverBank's current suburban locations.

Where was the Tea Party when JTA put $40 million into the Atlantic/Kernan overpass or FDOT pouring $100 million into the Collins/Blanding/I-295 projects?  At least this much cheaper investment has an ROI that will stimulate indirect jobs and the tax rolls in the form of a better downtown environment for small business growth.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 06, 2011, 11:14:47 PM
Where was the Tea Party when JTA put $40 million into the Atlantic/Kernan overpass or FDOT pouring $100 million into the Collins/Blanding/I-295 projects?  At least this much cheaper investment has an ROI that will stimulate indirect jobs and the tax rolls in the form of a better downtown environment for small business growth.

I know, right? This seems like a relatively small amount of money for what would clearly be a substantial impact downtown. The dollar amount itself can hardly be the reason for the fuss.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 06, 2011, 11:14:47 PM
Where was the Tea Party when JTA put $40 million into the Atlantic/Kernan overpass or FDOT pouring $100 million into the Collins/Blanding/I-295 projects?  At least this much cheaper investment has an ROI that will stimulate indirect jobs and the tax rolls in the form of a better downtown environment for small business growth.

Let me tell you the Tea Party is even more concerned that some single mother is getting $100 tax payer money to buy infant formula than if we spent mega millions on a wasteful road project that subsidizes another county like Collins does.  Talk to them see what gets them red face mad faster.  Their is hope for the Tea Party but they are still years away from being useful to society.

For decades, essentially no one questioned spending for highways. Not citizens, not bureacrats, not elected officials.

Only recently has that started to change, and the contrarians are few and far between.  The vast majority of folks NEVER consider building or expanding a road or highway, to be a waste of money.

and I  wonder if these 'concerned developers' have something to loose from this?  And yeah we have money just pouring in from the private sector.  I agree to Peyton's strategy, but most of these people don't think an inch in front of their faces.  Either they are extremely short sighted or greedy. 

There's more in the FTU this morning:

http://jacksonville.com/business/2011-06-07/story/everbank-incentives-move-southside-downtown-opposed

White's stated concern is over using taxpayer money to shuffle EverBank from one part of town to another. The article notes he's president of NAI Commercial, which has interest in one of EverBank's current Southside sites. White's firm represents ING, which currently subleases space in the building it's not using to EverBank.

Quote from: Tacachale on June 07, 2011, 09:08:39 AM
There's more in the FTU this morning:

http://jacksonville.com/business/2011-06-07/story/everbank-incentives-move-southside-downtown-opposed

White's stated concern is over using taxpayer money to shuffle EverBank from one part of town to another. The article notes he's president of NAI Commercial, which has interest in one of EverBank's current Southside sites. White's firm represents ING, which currently subleases space in the building it's not using to EverBank.

Humm. Sounds like to me there is a alot of personal interest in this. The thing is, EVERBANK WANTED TO MOVE DOWNTOWN. We did not convince them, they were already looking. We just sweeten the deal for them. Thats it. Its a plus for downtown and will create jobs. White needs to find something to do with his time.

Quote from: Tacachale on June 07, 2011, 09:08:39 AM
White's stated concern is over using taxpayer money to shuffle EverBank from one part of town to another. The article notes he's president of NAI Commercial, which has interest in one of EverBank's current Southside sites. White's firm represents ING, which currently subleases space in the building it's not using to EverBank.

GO FIGURE!

-Josh

Quote from: wsansewjs on June 07, 2011, 09:42:33 AM

Quote from: Tacachale on June 07, 2011, 09:08:39 AM
White's stated concern is over using taxpayer money to shuffle EverBank from one part of town to another. The article notes he's president of NAI Commercial, which has interest in one of EverBank's current Southside sites. White's firm represents ING, which currently subleases space in the building it's not using to EverBank.

GO FIGURE!

-Josh

Josh this truely amazes. However, the JEDC has already made it clear that they are all about the redevelopment of downtown so this will pass with flying colors anyways. So right now White is just blowing a bunch of hot air and no one is listening.

Quote from: duvaldude08 on June 07, 2011, 09:44:48 AM

Quote from: wsansewjs on June 07, 2011, 09:42:33 AM

Quote from: Tacachale on June 07, 2011, 09:08:39 AM
White's stated concern is over using taxpayer money to shuffle EverBank from one part of town to another. The article notes he's president of NAI Commercial, which has interest in one of EverBank's current Southside sites. White's firm represents ING, which currently subleases space in the building it's not using to EverBank.

GO FIGURE!

-Josh

Josh this truely amazes. However, the JEDC has already made it clear that they are all about the redevelopment of downtown so this will pass with flying colors anyways. So right now White is just blowing a bunch of hot air and no one is listening.

In fairness to White, by his account his firm has no direct stake in EverBank staying in the building. His firm deals with ING, and he says that if EverBank were to stay put, they'd be signing a new lease, rather than subleasing from ING.

Now to be fair personal interest is often the alarm that rings to point out problems.  This guy may not have seen the problem had he not been involved.  His ideas should be scrutinized knowing he has a person stake but not summarily dismissed because of it. btw I am happy to get the employees downtown.

These guys are not out for the greater good, but what is best FOR THEM.  His personal interest is at stake and he is making it a political issue.  If the scale was tipped in his benefit you would not here a word. 

Its just funny to me how he says that "The money should not be used to relocate Everbank, but to create jobs." Part of the proposal IS the creation of 200 jobs!! I also was speaking with a co worker of that opposed it, BUT she was not aware that it was going to create jobs. Its funny how that part is so easily left out depending on what article you read. After I explained the deal to her, she was all for it.

Quote from: duvaldude08 on June 07, 2011, 09:44:48 AM

Quote from: wsansewjs on June 07, 2011, 09:42:33 AM

Quote from: Tacachale on June 07, 2011, 09:08:39 AM
White's stated concern is over using taxpayer money to shuffle EverBank from one part of town to another. The article notes he's president of NAI Commercial, which has interest in one of EverBank's current Southside sites. White's firm represents ING, which currently subleases space in the building it's not using to EverBank.

GO FIGURE!

-Josh

Josh this truely amazes. However, the JEDC has already made it clear that they are all about the redevelopment of downtown so this will pass with flying colors anyways. So right now White is just blowing a bunch of hot air and no one is listening.

Don't be so sure no one is listening...

This is great idea though and of course any move with political implications will face some sort of opposition. The tea party'rs are the ones currently filling that role. 

Quote from: A-Finnius on June 07, 2011, 07:07:50 PM

Quote from: duvaldude08 on June 07, 2011, 09:44:48 AM

Quote from: wsansewjs on June 07, 2011, 09:42:33 AM

Quote from: Tacachale on June 07, 2011, 09:08:39 AM
White's stated concern is over using taxpayer money to shuffle EverBank from one part of town to another. The article notes he's president of NAI Commercial, which has interest in one of EverBank's current Southside sites. White's firm represents ING, which currently subleases space in the building it's not using to EverBank.

GO FIGURE!

-Josh

Josh this truely amazes. However, the JEDC has already made it clear that they are all about the redevelopment of downtown so this will pass with flying colors anyways. So right now White is just blowing a bunch of hot air and no one is listening.

Don't be so sure no one is listening...

LOL!!

LOL!! +1

How is our $400,000 dollar study to move the fair coming?

Has another offer or anyone been allowed to check the $300,000 estimate for the fire station at kids campus?

Will the council just give  taxpayer money $175,000 I believe that is the amount to develop plans for a project. May be ready for a council vote Tues.6/14

How does this move compare to the recent departure of MPS? What was there cost to move out?
$2,750,000- more or less? Has anyone asked. What can be learned. MPS how many estimates did they get? Who did they use? Are the numbers similar.

Did they call Hertz,  Ryder, someone else and do the move in house?
Taxpayer subsidized-one cost
Private money-one cost

Shipyards-$36,500,000 taxpayer money gone.
Palms Creek Fish Camp
2010-604 Promised 680' Downtown Public Pier
2010-675 USS Adams and one finance amendment

DIA
DDA
DEA
will be possibly created with Mayor elect Alvin Brown and a total Govt. takeover of an expanding Downtown boundry. Part of the $29,000,000 Authority will be control of the parking revenue. Is this good or bad?

Unless the parking garage resolves the Landing parking issue then it should not move forward.






In one week the latest release of the newest JCCI study Recession, Recovery and Beyond. Anybody going? Has anyone on this forum participated in this study? Is this legislation an emergency? No.

Today in the Daily Record, Brown more or less expresses support for the EverBank deal, in a politispeak kind of way.

http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=533767

Quote from: Tacachale on June 08, 2011, 11:29:41 AM
Today in the Daily Record, Brown more or less expresses support for the EverBank deal, in a politispeak kind of way.

http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=533767

And Im glad he made it clear that it will create 200 jobs. Leave it up to Mr. White, we are just spending money on helping them relocate and NOT creating jobs. (idiot)

From the FTU:

http://jacksonville.com/business/2011-06-09/story/jedc-approves-275m-subsidy-everbank-move-downtown

This definately shed some light on the whole parking garage issue.  This really explains why suntrust is invovled as well. Looks like its been a legal diaster. Thanks Kuhn! LOL

http://jacksonville.com/business/2011-06-14/story/jacksonville-landing-garage-caught-legal-woes-federal-charges

You know the more I read over this deal, the more I realize the details people were over looking. I have had people ask me " Where are all those people going to park". Well the project summary states that they will be leasing 1,400 parking spaces DT. I hope everything gets final approval this week.

**Side Note*** The JTA land transfer deal has been rejected by the rules committee. And Im glad it was. That entire project needs to be re-looked at (including the design.) The council felt that it was being rushed. And I tend to agree. We need to get this done right or the transportation center is going to be a bust.

Parking?  They can use some of the several thousand spaces that have been vacated by companies leaving DT for the Southside over the last few decades.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 20, 2011, 03:43:04 PM
Parking?  They can use some of the several thousand spaces that have been vacated by companies leaving DT for the Southside over the last few decades.

RIGHT! My co worker asked that silly question. And I was like, "really???" lol

I would assume they will contract for spaces in the Water St. garage.....or possibly the garage attached to the Omni

1000 unhappy people moving downtown who will now have to pay for formerly free parking. Or will the city give those away too, using taxpayer dollars to pay the lot owners so a thousand people get a perk no one else gets.

Quote from: Ralph W on June 20, 2011, 09:25:28 PM
1000 unhappy people moving downtown who will now have to pay for formerly free parking. Or will the city give those away too, using taxpayer dollars to pay the lot owners so a thousand people get a perk no one else gets.

Why are these 1,000 people going to be unhappy? Because their cars won't be 104 degrees in the afternoon? Or is it because they can walk to lunch? Maybe they will be upset to have gorgeous views of downtown instead of hedges and endless parking lots, I'm not sure.  Did you talk to all 1,000 of them Ralph?

I worked in the Southside and Ponte Vedra six years before working downtown.  I'll take working downtown over sitting in traffic on JTB and A1A or having to drive to get lunch any day of the week.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 20, 2011, 09:40:44 PM
I worked in the Southside and Ponte Vedra six years before working downtown.  I'll take working downtown over sitting in traffic on JTB and A1A or having to drive to get lunch any day of the week.

Same here. I worked here in Baymedows at BCBS before I began at Prudential six years ago. I LOVE working downtown. I dont miss the burbs at all. It really makes you feel like your going to WORK. Downtown is always the mid-point regardless where you stay in town.

Per the Daily Record, the Everbank deal was approved with ease and is on to the full council meeting next week. One thing I do agree with, the article stated that Peyton was trying to rush things to be approved. IMO, he wanted as much to put on his resume as possiable. The JTA bill, in particular, is a big project and the council is not comfortable approving that so quickly, which I totally agree with.

I'm cool with the JTA bill being deferred as well.  The JRTC should not be allowed to break ground under the current proposed configuration or without the City knowing what its going to do with the convention center, imo.  What's the status of the Suntrust parking garage?  That one really seemed to be a last minute throw in that does little to resolve the Landing's dedicated parking issue.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 21, 2011, 01:05:30 PM
I'm cool with the JTA bill being deferred as well.  The JRTC should not be allowed to break ground under the current proposed configuration or without the City knowing what its going to do with the convention center, imo.  What's the status of the Suntrust parking garage?  That one really seemed to be a last minute throw in that does little to resolve the Landing's dedicated parking issue.

From what the article states, they flew right through the council too. But after reading previous article, theres a huge legal mess with that property from the Cameron Kuhn era. So to get around that, the city dropped a law suit that they had pending and suntrust bought the property (something crazy like that). So that is how Sun Trust became invovled. 200 spaces for pubic is cool ,but far from the 350 deticated spaces that we promised.

The 200 public spaces aren't dedicated.  So, as far as the Landing is concerned, there's no impact.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 21, 2011, 01:23:59 PM
The 200 public spaces aren't dedicated.  So, as far as the Landing is concerned, there's no impact.

RIght! Its like they are trying to be slick about the situation. Darn Johnny Boy.

Oh my @#$%$# God, now they APPROVED the JTA land swap today ugggghhhhhhhhh  :-\
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/400669/larry-hannan/2011-06-21/jta-land-swap-approved-finance-committee

It's a (sort of) different they though, looks like the 28th will be the kicker.

Write your councilman.

      You have heard this kind of thing before, but I’ll say it again.  Our city core has suffered a steady decline over five decades while the growth and sprawl of the suburbs and office parks have prospered and built anew.  Neglect has allowed our city core to become vacant in both the business and residential realms. 
     One could almost say that our neglect has allowed our city core to become ill or diseased, and as with many diseases, an injection of antibiotics is needed if there is to be a return of health and vibrancy.  The most effective part of any antibiotic compound prescribed for injection into our core is “people”, especially in the form of workers.  As the population of workers increases, more retail will survive, and the increased retail will bring more residents.   A successful effort to bring Everbank into the city core would be one of the most productive methods to “begin” bringing health back to our city core.
     Anyone opposing the Everbank’s move into our city core will, by their shortsighted and perhaps selfish motives, be perpetuating the diseased condition of our city core; a condition which also negatively affects the health of northeast Florida.  An unhealthy city core imposes ill health upon the entire area.  A mediocre city center encourages mediocrity for the entire area.         
      It is time we understand and act upon the fact that our city core is like the heart or the soul of northeast Florida.  For too many decades we have exercised the freedom of haphazard and heady growth in the suburbs; making decisions for immediate convenience and profits at the expense of the health of our city’s center.  The result is the current weak and diseased condition of our city core, the vacancies, the stagnation, and the momentum of failure.  Shame on us for allowing our city center to become so, and shame on us again if we allow it to remain so.   

^Opponents of the deal aren't necessarily against Everbank coming downtown, they mostly oppose using tax dollars to pay for a company to move from one part of town to another. Some probably don't want them to move from their current locations for their own reasons, but we wouldn't hear anything about it city money wasn't involved.

This is understandable. If they were trying to use $2.7 million relocate 1000 employees from, say, Arlington to Mandarin, I think most of us here would oppose that.

As far as I'm concerned reason to support this isn't just to get 1000 Everbank employees from other parts of the city to Downtown, it's to see it as part of a wider spectrum of things the city's trying to accomplish, including decreasing downtown vacancy, establishing the transportation center, and generating 200 new jobs.

I see the $2.7 million as a small business investment.  Getting 1,200 people walking past the front door of hundreds of small businesses on a daily basis is a very cost effective way to stimulate small business growth from a public level.

As for incentivizing private businesses to relocate from areas of town, I still wonder why no one complains when we spend billions of new highways that do just that.  For example, was there a huge cry when the Arlington Bridge and expressway were paid for by taxpayers to subsidize the development of places like Regency, which led to the relocation of major downtown anchors like Sears (topic of today's front page article)?  Where was the cry for fiscal responsibility when we dropped $2 million for landscaping the 9A/JTB interchange or created those streets to allow places like BCBS and MODIS to relocate to different areas of town?  In general, I think the whole argument against Everbank consolidating their operations downtown is a highly hypocritical one.

Quotewas there a huge cry when the Arlington Bridge and expressway were paid for by taxpayers

I agree with you on the Everbank deal and the fiasco of a parking garage(Peyton's specialty) deal that is being put together.

But the Matthews Bridge caused quite an uproar when it was built.  It was driven solely be developers and traffic engineers, and was the city's original 'road to nowhere', but sold to taxpayers as a new way to reconnect to the beach.  It didn't exactly get built quietly by any means.

In fact, the Hart Bridge/Expressway(another subject of much public debate/fanfare) was originally designed to link up to JTB... however developers forced the realignment of the Hart Expressway to terminate at Beach Blvd like it does today.

QuoteWrite your councilman.

YES!!  Several outgoing councilman are trying everything possible to get some of this garbage legislation passed through this Tuesday... notably the parking garage and the reopening of Monroe.  Both will be very big disasters for the city.

From Abel Harding:

Quote
The Jacksonville City Council is gearing up for a familiar fight this week â€" a battle over the use of incentives to lure corporate jobs downtown.

Some oppose the proposed legislation, which would give fledgling financial power EverBank $2.75 million in return for locating 1,000 jobs downtown.

The argument against the proposal, simply summarized, is that government is choosing winners and losers by pitting one neighborhood against another. Tea party activists argue that the role is not a traditional one for government.

But those objections don’t jive with history. Jacksonville has long used tax dollars to choose winners and losers.

It was done in 1953 when the John E. Matthews Bridge opened.

That span, first rejected by voters in the 1930s, was billed as the original “bridge to nowhere.” Erected at a cost of $14 million dollars ($112 million in 2010 dollars), the bridge went to empty land crisscrossed by dirt roads.
In the early days of the bridge, “You could practically walk to the top of the bridge and back without seeing a car,” Pete Signoretti, the regional toll booth supervisor, told the Times-Union in 1978.

The bridge enticed residents in downtown neighborhoods and those surrounding it to newly-created developments in Arlington. Businesses followed and within several decades, the Regency Square Mall had sucked retailers from downtown.

Then there was J. Turner Butler Boulevard in 1979. Now one of the regions major commuter routes, it was originally decried as a “road to nowhere.”
It sparked massive Southside developments, including those that eventually drew many employers that previously occupied downtown. (Incidentally, one major employer at one of those office parks, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, recently received $500,000 in city money to make road improvements. Nary an objection was raised.)

Taxpayers have shelled out tens of millions of dollars as the road has been expanded over the years, including $80 million in 2008 to build the massive interchange behind the now-booming St. Johns Town Center.

Those are just two of the numerous examples in Jacksonville history where tax dollars have designated winners and losers. There are countless others.

But the proposed EverBank deal isn’t about who loses. It’s simply a logical step after city officials, led by outgoing Mayor John Peyton and private entities like the Jacksonville Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Jacksonville Civic Council have made the case for the necessity of a vibrant downtown.

“Feet on the streets” is a pressing need for the urban core. An influx of 1,000 new employees will create a boon for restaurants, retailers and existing taxpayer-subsidized parking garages. And tax incentives, which in this case are funded by the sale of downtown real estate, are available to further this goal.

A hometown employer is willing to demonstrate its commitment to helping solve a stated community need.

The proposal makes sense.

Downtown Jacksonville needs EverBank.

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/401574/abel-harding/2011-06-24/abel-harding-everbank-deal-winner-jacksonvilles-downtown

I read that article. It pretty much sums everything up in a nutshell.

Yeah, Abel Harding rocks.

Wow.  One of the best editorials I have read in a long time.  As soon as I get off work I will enjoy reading all of the idiotic replies on the FTU website.

TU replies are really hard to read without a good laugh. 

Quote from: jcjohnpaint on June 27, 2011, 05:46:20 PM
TU replies are really hard to read without a good laugh. 

Or throwing up, or shaking head at the complete, blind idiocy of the commenters.  Like watching Fox News, reading that stuff will rot your brain.

Thank you  Metro Jacksonville. The above thread is informative and re-assuring. I now know I am not alone when I read the editorial blow back in the TU, I can't believe an editor over there prints the garbage people send them.......

I always wondered about the history of the JTB. It seems it's purpose is to allow folks who live (and pay Taxes)
in Ponte Vedra to get home ( and out of Duval County) as fast as possible.  How 'bout putting a toll booth near the end?

Quote from: MusicMan on June 27, 2011, 10:42:30 PM
Thank you  Metro Jacksonville. The above thread is informative and re-assuring. I now know I am not alone when I read the editorial blow back in the TU, I can't believe an editor over there prints the garbage people send them.......

I always wondered about the history of the JTB. It seems it's purpose is to allow folks who live (and pay Taxes)
in Ponte Vedra to get home ( and out of Duval County) as fast as possible.  How 'bout putting a toll booth near the end?

There used to be toll booths on JTB, but they came down in 1989 with those on some of the bridges after the half-percent sales tax was passed.  Good idea, though!

EverBank has signed Downtown letter of intent

Via the bizjournals:

QuoteEverBank has signed a letter of intent to lease space in the AT&T Tower in Downtown Jacksonville, according to sources.
A letter of intent in commercial real estate is a nonbinding outline of the terms of the deal â€" in this case, a lease for about 200,000 square feet of Class A office space. EverBank has said the Downtown move is one of several options it is considering, including keeping back-office employees where they are at the Cypress Point Business Park, which is along Philips Highway near J. Turner Butler Boulevard on the Southside.
In June, the Jacksonville City Council approved a multimillion-dollar incentive package to entice EverBank to move 1,000 back-office employees Downtown.
The incentive package includes $2.75 million to help with relocation expenses and up to $10,500 for each of the 200 jobs EverBank plans to create in Qualified Target Industry tax refunds.
The city’s share of that refund is 20 percent, or $2,100 per employee.
The Jacksonville Economic Development Commission    and former Mayor John Peyton originally approached EverBank about moving Downtown after learning executives had considered developing a campus on the Southbank.
The City Council approved the incentive package June 28, giving EverBank 90 days to decide whether it would relocate Downtown. The JEDC executive director has the authority to extend that deadline another 90 days at his discretion.
The deadline for EverBank physically moving the employees Downtown is Sept. 30, 2012.
EverBank’s corporate headquarters are at 501 Riverside Ave. and would remain there if the lease at the AT&T Tower is signed.

Read more at: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2011/09/12/everbank-has-signed-downtown-letter-of.html

Is EverBank Plaza fully occupied?

QuoteIs EverBank Plaza fully occupied?

No,  They have for lease signs up, but they might just be for the little retail spaces next to the sidewalk.  There is not enough room in the building to absorb the operations they are moving in from the Southside campus.

It's good to know that one of their other options is the Southbank. That would be a good location as well.

I believe they were considering a suburban style campus on the JEA site.

ehh

Quote from: thelakelander on September 12, 2011, 03:24:20 PM
I believe they were considering a suburban style campus on the JEA site.

Yeah I remember that was one of their options. Im glad they considered a strcture that already exsits and will help our occupancy rate and bring more bodys downtown.

Quote from: thelakelander on September 12, 2011, 03:24:20 PM
I believe they were considering a suburban style campus on the JEA site.

I'll bet any amount of money that they end up staying suburban when all is said and done.

^^I sure hope not.

wow, still moving with the eyesore of a bus station next door. amazing!

Quote from: mtraininjax on September 13, 2011, 07:36:51 PM
wow, still moving with the eyesore of a bus station next door. amazing!

Hey, it's good to see you again! It's been awhile.

AT&T Tower clearing space on nine floors
10/24/2011
by Karen Brune Mathis, Managing Editor

AT&T Tower 301 owners are clearing out nine floors of space at the Downtown tower, according to a City building permit issued Thursday to Auld & White Constructors LLC.

The building has been considered a leading site for a move by EverBank from the suburbs to Downtown. Site plans don’t show a tenant name, while building representatives have not returned requests for comment.

Lawyer Steve Diebenow, who represents EverBank, had no comment this morning.

The permit, with a demolition project cost of $405,000, shows that Jacksonville-based Auld & White will demolish floor coverings, interior wall partitions and acoustical ceilings of floors 7-9 and 20-25 of the building at 301 W. Bay St.

Auld & White President Ed White said Friday he did not know who the eventual tenant is for the space. The demolition is “to ready it for a potential tenant,” said White, “getting those floors back to their shell space.”

The architect for the project is Rolland, DelValle & Bradley.

Some of the space under demolition had been leased by CSX Corp., which vacated the floors earlier this year to move to space closer to its Downtown riverfront headquarters. A CSX spokesman said the company had floors 6, 8-9, 20, 24, and 27-28 and parts of floors 4 and 29.

CSX leased 240,000 square feet in the 30-floor tower, which is owned by El Ad Florida LCC of Sunrise.

AT&T also uses eight floors in the building that carries its name. AT&T spokeswoman Misty Skipper said Friday that the company does not comment on the specific location of its operations.

In June, City Council approved two incentives deals for EverBank to make the move.

One was an economic development agreement between the City and company to relocate 1,000 jobs Downtown from the Southside and create 200 new full-time jobs.

Under the agreement for a Qualified Target Industry tax refund program, the City will provide $420,000 and the state will refund $1.68 million after the company creates and verifies the 200 jobs.

The second piece of legislation would give EverBank $2.75 million to offset moving costs from the suburbs.

EverBank, based along Riverside Avenue near Downtown, said the $2.75 million would help offset the $26.5 million it said it will spend to move and improve space Downtown to house the 1,000 employees that would relocate from leased space in the Quadrant II and Cypress Plaza office centers, both in Southside. The jobs must be moved by Sept. 30.

A Jacksonville Economic Development Commission project summary said EverBank negotiated to lease more than 225,000 square feet of space and 1,400 parking spaces Downtown. No site was specified in the summary except to say it is within the urban core bounded by Jefferson, State and Main streets and the St. Johns River. AT&T Tower 301 is within that area.

EverBank’s options are to renew its current leases, evaluate new sites for construction or relocate to other existing office space, either in the suburbs or Downtown, according to the commission.

Also, the City deal says that EverBank must maintain at least 1,350 jobs among its Riverside Avenue area headquarters and the urban core for at least five years. EverBank has 284 employees at its headquarters, according to the JEDC summary.

Of those 1,350 jobs, 1,000 must be maintained in the core.

The City would make the payment after EverBank moved the jobs and provided documentation.

If it creates the jobs outside of those areas, the refund would be $1.3 million. In either case, the City would pay 20 percent of the refund and the state would pay 80 percent, after the jobs are created and taxes paid.

Any tenant taking the space in A&T Tower 301 likely could affect Downtown’s office vacancy rates.

A CBRE MarketView for Jacksonville shows a 24.7 percent vacancy rate in the Downtown Central Business District for the third quarter, which ended Sept. 30. CBRE found that the total area office vacancy rate was 21.2 percent.

So this is either EverBank, or someone else leasing the same amount of space. I wonder why they're being so mum about this.

Well Everbank has be quiet about the deal since it was taking place. If you remember they were upset with peyton about making a grand annoucement about it before the deal was even done. They have been very private. The most they said about it was they would not move without the incentive. So them signing a letter of intent like a month ago (which is normal procedure), and AT &T mysteriously getting ready for a potential teanet. That all point toward Everbank. If they didnt want to move, they would have decided by now.

Still no lease has been signed.  Sounds like the property manage is being a pain in the rear to them.  Could be NeverBank if it keeps up.

I wonder what the deal is?  It's not like there's a long line of companies waiting to get into the mostly empty tower.

"Everbank proposes to lease 225,000 sq ft..................."  That is about the size of the Laura Steet Trio plus Old Barnett Bank.  How about Everbank locating into that site for their corporate Headquarters? What better than an amazing old "marble' bank??

Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 10, 2011, 10:21:05 PM
Still no lease has been signed.  Sounds like the property manage is being a pain in the rear to them.  Could be NeverBank if it keeps up.

Yes, do you know what the story is? The silence and lack of action seem pretty telling.

Weren't there rumors that the tower would be going to a servicer?

If that is the case, then I am sure the current owner, which is an Israeli group, is weighing their options.  Should it just get rid of the building?  Should it attempt to keep the tower?  If the latter, what's the benefit to them of signing the Everbank lease?  Not sure what their basis in the tower is, but considering the Everbank lease is nearly a quarter of the building, whatever the lease terms are is going to determine what happens with ownership of the building.  A servicer will do whatever necessary to ram Everbank in there because with such a crappy building in such a crappy market, they will want to sell it as soon as possible for as much as they can.  The current owners may see no value in an Everbank lease.  The only reason I can foresee them signing that lease is if with the lease and market cap rates they can then sell the tower now for more than their loan balance - which would be better for them than giving it up.  I'm sure they are not making any returns on that building and they obviously aren't cash flowing on that thing.  Downtown Jacksonville is probably in such bad shape that tenants can name their number.  "Oh, you want us in your building as the anchor tenant?  We want $50/SF in tenant buildout and we want a five year term with 4 five-year options and we want the first 6 months abated and we want parking arrangements."  I mean at this point it's going to come down to borderline charity/leadership on the part of a local firm like Everbank to make a move downtown, or it's going to be a charity on the owner's part.

There is really no reason for any firms to move downtown, and there is no reason for anyone to even own a tower downtown, except for maybe the Bank of America/Modis Towers...even in those towers there is no rent growth.

IF there were demand to come downtown and tight vacancies, AND this were the only 225,000 SF block of space, then the current owner would be super happy.  That is a Landlord's market :)  This is probably the only 225,000 block downtown, but not because of tight vacancy, but because there just aren't many options.  The entire Enterprise Center building is about 225,000 SF, and that's one of the largest buildings downtown.  It's so bad that there really isn't a tenant's market or a landlord's market.  Tenants can get what they want downtown and they still don't want to come.  Landlords obviously are not very happy with their current situations.  Nobody wins.

^Well, there are indeed reasons for moving downtown, not the least of which is the pretty substantial incentive EverBank would receive if this went through. If not for that, we probably would never be talking about this now. There's also the ability to get their people in one location - options for that much space in one building may be limited downtown, but they're even more limited in the Southside, if they even exist at all. I don't know what the deal is here, but it's hard to imagine the owner of a mostly empty building not wanting to fill it with a big tennant unless there was some ulterior issue.

This EvBk move into the core is probaby one of the biggest practical steps anyone could envision to "begin" a process of revitalization.  More retail moves into the core cannot be expected "until" more customers arrive via such projects like EvBk.  Over the five years I've been downtown, I've seen several retail operations open in the core, only to depart after a few months or a year to two; and this, because there is simply not enough people to support most types of retail.  The "only" reason by bookstore/cafe survives in the core is because of my personality. 

If EvBk does move into the core, my feeling is that we position ourselves such that one more similar type of corporate entry into the core could be the one that would produce the critical mass of people that would allow "some" interesting new retail to open and survive.  These new retail operations would then permit a more attractive environment for new residents to the core. 

Fundamentally, I'm saying that we cannot expect any new residents or retail "until" one or two more corporate operations move into the core.  Right now, there "are" negatives obstructing new residents or retail to enter the core.  However, there and "no" significant negatives obstructing new "corporate" moving into the core.  Corporate entries are the "only" viable entities that can "survive" in the core simply because they "do not" need other people in the environment to survive.  They don't need walk-in customers.  Residents hesitate to move into the area because they need retail for convenience, and they need other people to feel safe and to avoid the feeling they are not living in an urban desert.

QuoteCorporate entries are the "only" viable entities that can "survive" in the core simply because they "do not" need other people in the environment to survive.

Agreed, but do you think the downtown building owners are willing to bend over and give away their livelihood.

So the Bellsouth building was rumored to be going into servicing.  Do you know what that means?  It means the debt on the building is collateralized/securitized.  It means a bunch of bondholders hold the debt to the building.  It means the current owners are close to default...they are probably collecting an asset management fee as a percentage of Effective Gross Revenue on the building...but without tenants, there is no EGR.  It means there aren't many or maybe not any options for selling the building...the servicer can't rearrange the debt on behalf of the hundreds of investors, and it's not like El Ad can afford to pay yield maintenance on paying down the debt...where's their equity?  I have this info somewhere, but I think they bought the building between '05 and '07; I could be mistaken.  I can look it up...

There probably aren't many options here.  This is why the city needs to be aggressive in providing assistance for moves if we are to turn around downtown.  Building owners cannot afford to offer massive concessions and they likely don't have much equity in the buildings.  Tenants are all happy where they are and see no reason to make a move...outside influence is necessary.

"Rumored to be" is different from "is". Where did you get that information from? And this incentive deal is clearly an example of the city giving, well, incentives to try and get a company that's looking to move downtown.

If anyone knows what the deal is here, I think we'd all be interested to hear, especially those of us who supported the incentive.

Quote from: mtraininjax on December 12, 2011, 10:07:11 PM

QuoteCorporate entries are the "only" viable entities that can "survive" in the core simply because they "do not" need other people in the environment to survive.

Agreed, but do you think the downtown building owners are willing to bend over and give away their livelihood.

I agree that it is unrealistic, even impossible, for the building owners to give away their livelihood, but the current economy means it’s time for all to consider “giving” a little.  During the current economic climate, the three entities involved (city / bldg owners / tenant) in bringing a corporate project into the city core must give up the ultimate gains which could be expected in good times.  The building owners must accept for a time a low to moderate profit income from the tenants.  The city must offer moderate assistance for a time to bridge the gap between what the new tenant can pay, and what the building owner needs.  And the corporate entity must accept perhaps a less than optimum retail, parking, and any mass transit deficiencies until these items improve. 

All three parties realize that the corporate entry into the core is, for a time, a move that does not possess the natural and actual attributes which usually would provide optimum gain for all concerned.  It is a time for “giving up” the usual high gain objectives for a time, in order to achieve eventual permanent gain for all concerned.       

both parties are blaming the other party for it not happening yet.  last i heard the property managers were trying to back out of some of the allowances for construction that were promised up front.  both in reality, they both a probably playing hardball.  everbank trying to get the best deal possible and the property manager trying to get the highest dollar possible; and neither side is backing down.  i also heard a rumor that city incentives have a drop dead date for a least to be signed by or the city will not grant them.  not sure if it is true though.

Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 13, 2011, 05:24:45 PM
both parties are blaming the other party for it not happening yet.  last i heard the property managers were trying to back out of some of the allowances for construction that were promised up front.  both in reality, they both a probably playing hardball.  everbank trying to get the best deal possible and the property manager trying to get the highest dollar possible; and neither side is backing down.  i also heard a rumor that city incentives have a drop dead date for a least to be signed by or the city will not grant them.  not sure if it is true though.

Yup there is a drop dead date. The city has already have extended it once.

Well someone needs to compromise somewhere or everybody walks away with nothing.  I guess the only entity that does not lose is Everbank.  Does Everbank have any other considerations aside from the ATT T building? 

Guys,

I have looked as hard as I can into this today.  Here is some history on the building, as simplified as I can make it because neither I nor those around me can really tell what's going on based on 4 documents we have (1999 loan docs, '99 deed, '04 deed, and a document from '04 related to CMBS offering).

In 1999, Bellsouth sold the building to Capital Growth of Jacksonville (actually based in Greenwhich, I did not research this entity).  It was sold for $67,000,000 at a supposed 9-cap (even though it was about 95% occupied at the time).  The entity secured a $57,200,000 loan from GE Capital (about 85% LTV).  Supposedly the only vacancies were on the top two floors.  Bellsouth entered into a sale leaseback for their space, which was 443,762 SF, or about 46% of the GLA.  10 year term with three 5-year options.  So at a 9-cap with credit tenants, lots of term, 95% occupancy, the rents must have already been BELOW MARKET, even for Jacksonville.  Either that or our market was shaky at the time (fundamentals) and nobody wanted to pay up, even for stable cash flows.


Enter July, 2002.  GE Capital assigns the loan to CDC Mortgage Capital, which then modified the mortgage to securitize $49,000,000 of the remaining balance through Salomon Brothers Mortgage Securities VII, Inc, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-CDC1.  It assigned La Salle Bank National Association the role of trustee for the registered holders of the CMBS loan.

Keep in mind, at 30-year amortization and a 6.5% interest rate, the balance on the original GE Capital loan (as hereby assigned to CDC Capital) was $54,833,190, so you have a dual loan structure - $5.833M permanent (probably a 10-year term), and $49M packaged (also probably a 10-year term).

In 2004, El-Ad Florida, LLC purchased the building from Capital Growth of Jacksonville, Ltd. for $90,900,000, and "the obligations of the Mortgagor was assumed by El-Ad Florida, LLC...So Elad became responsible for assuming all debt, which probably contained a balance on the permanent portion and a balance on the CMBS portion for a total balance of around $52M.

How it paid the balance between the ~$52M and the $90.9M purchase is unbeknownst to me, but according to a BizJournal article, there is a $70M loan balance associated with the property, so if it is in special servicing (which it is...CW Capital has it), then that new loan piece must have been a mezz piece that Berkadia Capital originated and someone securitized and packaged in with the original $49M 1st Mortgage piece to create a collateralized debt obligation (CDO).  The BizJournal article states that Berkadia was the originator for the loan (I don't think they could have originated all of it, considering Berkadia is basically Capmark and Warren Buffet and was not around in 2002), but I do know that in 2004 Capmark (now Berkadia) was issuing a lot of CDOs.


Long story short, CWCapital has the loan for the building and as special servicer is supposed to represent the bondholders who invested in the loan (they are like the "lender", except not).  As part of their fiduciary agreement to represent the financial interests of the bondholders, they must prevent default on the building.  The bondholders basically have 10-year bonds packaged as debt to finance the acquisition of this building, and they won't get paid back until the bonds expire, which they have not yet.  CWCapital should find a way to prevent default, and securing a lease backed by $3M in incentives from the at least BBB+ rated City of Jacksonville would I presume be a quick and easy way to do this.

There are two to three reasons they could be holding this process up:

1) They don't know what they're doing...which some people say is a theme with special servicers like CW Capital and Lennar (my father is currently working with Lennar on a deal)

2) They don't know how bad the Jacksonville office market is, let alone the downtown submarket, and so they may have been presented a lease that seems very biased towards the tenant, and they don't think they can get the numbers to work with that lease (this may be the case, and in that case default is imminent because they aren't going to get better)


Hopefully this explains what may be happening.

Quote from: ronchamblin on December 13, 2011, 12:28:55 AM

Quote from: mtraininjax on December 12, 2011, 10:07:11 PM

QuoteCorporate entries are the "only" viable entities that can "survive" in the core simply because they "do not" need other people in the environment to survive.

Agreed, but do you think the downtown building owners are willing to bend over and give away their livelihood.

I agree that it is unrealistic, even impossible, for the building owners to give away their livelihood, but the current economy means it’s time for all to consider “giving” a little.  During the current economic climate, the three entities involved (city / bldg owners / tenant) in bringing a corporate project into the city core must give up the ultimate gains which could be expected in good times.  The building owners must accept for a time a low to moderate profit income from the tenants.  The city must offer moderate assistance for a time to bridge the gap between what the new tenant can pay, and what the building owner needs.  And the corporate entity must accept perhaps a less than optimum retail, parking, and any mass transit deficiencies until these items improve. 

All three parties realize that the corporate entry into the core is, for a time, a move that does not possess the natural and actual attributes which usually would provide optimum gain for all concerned.  It is a time for “giving up” the usual high gain objectives for a time, in order to achieve eventual permanent gain for all concerned.       

Mr. Chamblin,

Please refer to my above post.  In the world of real estate, no side ever considers charity.  Given the timing of going into special servicing, one had to wonder if Elad had the option of going forward with the lease or giving up control to CW Capital, the servicer.  If so, I'm sure they ran numbers and found out that they were on track to an 8% levered IRR, then that shrunk to a 2% levered IRR, and then the Everbank lease would have brought that back up to a 5% levered IRR and it just was not worth it for them to keep interest in the building any longer.  These numbers are so highly fictitious, but investors are in the business of making their money work for them at a certain return, and they can hit that return by doing various things, always having options.  Elad will exit this building and move their money elsewhere.  CW Capital has a totally different interest in the building, plus they just don't want to get sued by the bondholders of the CMBS note.  The only "give" case is economic development within the City of Jacksonville...it's up to the City to fulfill any charitable implications.

Quote from: jcjohnpaint on December 13, 2011, 05:51:52 PM
Well someone needs to compromise somewhere or everybody walks away with nothing.  I guess the only entity that does not lose is Everbank.  Does Everbank have any other considerations aside from the ATT T building? 

At least at the time the incentives were approved, they had a couple of other suburban places they were looking at, as well as possibly just staying where they are. One of the locations was the old Southside Generating Station site on the Southbank. What Everbank really stands to lose in not going with this building is the full incentive package, which should at least cover their moving expenses (which they'd have to pay wherever they go).

From the recent grapevine:

Oliver Barakat is representing Everbank, and he is very silent on the matter, but here is what people familiar with the matter are saying:

The delay is all on Everbank.  They have estimated their move-in costs at $2M, and they are not being decisive on whether they think they can justify a move in this economy, or whether it is very necessary.  It is not on the special servicer or on the city.

There was a blurb in the Daily Report about a month ago detailing a permit to do work on 9 floors in the AT&T Tower, so that is a good sign.

Nothing has officially happened yet.

They permit was probably for preliminary demolition by the building owner to make the propective floor more inviting to posible tenants (EverBank).  I am told the construction drawings were completed a few weeks ago and the issue date on them has changed a few times, but they still haven't been issued.

They spent more than $2 mill on their two floors in EverBank plaza.  Tecchnically the delay may be on EverBank, for not signing the lease yet, but the property managers are trying to play a shell game with the costs.

They guys who run Everbank are very, very smart and experienced.  They are going to squeeze every possible penny out of this move from the landlord.  Everbank is now the most heavily capitalized bank in Florida, too.  They have to be using the strong possibility of future growth and space needs as a lever.

Also, don't forget that one of their senior vice-presidents, Greg Anderson, is a City councilman representing Ortega.

Hmm... it does sound like both sides are hardballing each other to try and leverage more out of the deal. What sucks is that if this doesn't go through, the city loses too.

Sorry to be a doubting thomas but as I said earlier on this thread, they're going to stay suburban when all is said and done. No move will take place. Typical Jacksonville furfur, if the city doesn't screw something up, those working with it surely will.

Quote from: Dog Walker on December 14, 2011, 09:32:44 AM
Also, don't forget that one of their senior vice-presidents, Greg Anderson, is a City councilman representing Ortega.

While Anderson is from Ortega, he is an at-large councilman.  Just trying to clarify...

Quote from: urbaknight on December 14, 2011, 11:40:26 AM
Sorry to be a doubting thomas but as I said earlier on this thread, they're going to stay suburban when all is said and done. No move will take place. Typical Jacksonville furfur, if the city doesn't screw something up, those working with it surely will.

I can promise you Everbank is very serious about the move.  I do not doubt they are playing hardball but they want it to work out.

I would like to believe the move is serious as well.  You don't hire an architect to design nine floors of built-out and draw up a full set construction documents just to get a better deal in the suburbs.  But then again, stranger things have been done before when DT Jax is involved.

A&W (not the root beer) is the proposed CM for the job. 

Eagerly awaiting docs to bid.

Auld and White? well, i hope Everbank does it. It could be a major pendulum swing for Downtown.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on December 14, 2011, 01:05:03 PM
A&W ... is the proposed CM for the job. 

I expect negotiations to come to a head immediately.

Quote from: dougskiles on December 14, 2011, 11:51:00 AM

Quote from: Dog Walker on December 14, 2011, 09:32:44 AM
Also, don't forget that one of their senior vice-presidents, Greg Anderson, is a City councilman representing Ortega.

While Anderson is from Ortega, he is an at-large councilman.  Just trying to clarify...

(faceslap!)  Of course!  He is just so interested in historic preservation and downtown development that I automatically think of him as "one of ours".

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on December 14, 2011, 01:05:03 PM
A&W (not the root beer) is the proposed CM for the job. 

Eagerly awaiting docs to bid.

A&W has only been contracted to do the demolition of the existing space, not construct the new space.  The new work is to hit the street to start the bid process this week.  Still don't know a lease has been signed.

the new work is being bid by three contractors A&W, Brasfield and Gorre, and Conlan.  two are based out of atlanta with a small office here and the other is local.

Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 28, 2011, 01:49:23 PM
the new work is being bid by three contractors A&W, Brasfield and Gorre, and Conlan.  two are based out of atlanta with a small office here and the other is local.

Riddle me this JaxNative - as we appear to be on the opposite side of process - Why in the hell is everyone pursuing an 'aggresive schedule' all of a sudden?  How long have these plans been under wraps and now it's go, go, go, go.  I just recently finished a job with over 40 ASIs.  FORTY!  And with my part coming in the finishes, we tend to catch all the flak when it's not correct, complete, on time - from both GCs (who have the papertrail showing what was late and when) & Arch/Owner (who get the majority of their info from the GC).  I know I'm venting a little, but there's a reason I was excited to bid the job, and have concluded that it will be a waste of time.  I can't bid the overtime that will be required at the end of the job to meet the schedule and be competitve.  I'll let another company lose money on this one.

NRW the answer is a political one. The Tea Party has made noise when this has been in the media before and this conservative bank is looking for good press not political grumbling so they want the actual public process to be as short as possible.

I am not making any claims about the ideology of any of the players in this they just would like the move to be out of the spotlight asap.  Once the move is over they will be happy with being a big billboard on a big building in downtown with the spotlight.

I'm not directly related to this particular project, so I can't answer your riddle as to why they are still pursuing an aggressive schedule. It seems that they have an established lease agreement ending in their current location and they most likely have strict penalties for lease extensions if they can't move out because their new space isn't finish.  It also seems that they are not willing to let the delay in signing the new lease agreement impact their originally established move in date. To me, rushing the bid process on this job is going to create the following:

1) Inflated pricing by the general contractor to cover his rear end for items missed in the bid or presumed overtime required, or

2) Intentional low bids to get the job, assuming they can get their pound of flesh down the road in the form of change orders for omitions they have seen in the drawings during bid and haven't broought to the attention of the architect or owner.

In the end, this can make both the designers and contractor look bad.  There is also the possibility that they realize all this and have estimated the increased construction costs are cheaper than what they would have to pay in an extended lease in their current space.

Quote from: JeffreyS on December 28, 2011, 03:59:37 PM
NRW the answer is a political one. The Tea Party has made noise when this has been in the media before and this conservative bank is looking for good press not political grumbling so they want the actual public process to be as short as possible.

I am not making any claims about the ideology of any of the players in this they just would like the move to be out of the spotlight asap.  Once the move is over they will be happy with being a big billboard on a big building in downtown with the spotlight.

I would tend to agree, Jeffery, but it's not just banks.  It seems to be modis operandi for all construction going on over the past 4-5 months.   The 6 month build-outs are now expected to be complete in 4;  For less money!  And that's fine for the guys on the front end of the jobs.  If they run a few days or a week behind, there's still 2 months left to complete the project, but for those of us bidding areas on the backend - that 2 or 3 weeks lost on the front becomes a major issue for us - especially when t you start figuring in liquidated damages (basically fines for being late).

Construction has always been a deadline oriented process, and no matter how on-time things are, they're always late, it's the nature of the beast, but the schedules that are now being proposed are almost comical.  And it's gotten to a point that I look at the 'proposed' schedule before I even bother with checking out the scope.  It's a bothersome trend, and talking with some of my competitors, we're really being selective on what we bid anymore because of it.

The whole thing (recession) has been happening in stages and I was really thinking that the end was near, but this seems to be another trend that we're going to have to weather. 

Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 28, 2011, 04:04:56 PM
I'm not directly related to this particular project, so I can't answer your riddle as to why they are still pursuing an aggressive schedule....

It's not just this one, it's practically everything that I've looked at over the past 3 months.  Banks to restaurants to churches to residential.

Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 28, 2011, 04:04:56 PM
1) Inflated pricing by the general contractor to cover his rear end for items missed in the bid or presumed overtime required, or

As I'm sure you're aware, but I can guarantee you that sub-contractors don't have that priviledge. 

Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 28, 2011, 04:04:56 PM
2) Intentional low bids to get the job, assuming they can get their pound of flesh down the road in the form of change orders for omitions they have seen in the drawings during bid and haven't broought to the attention of the architect or owner.

There's always time to do it twice, but never enough to do it right the first time.

Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 28, 2011, 04:04:56 PM
In the end, this can make both the designers and contractor look bad.  There is also the possibility that they realize all this and have estimated the increased construction costs are cheaper than what they would have to pay in an extended lease in their current space.

C'mon?  It's never their fault.   ::)  (a tad biased?)

IMO, the general contractors are a big part of the reason we have been seeing such tight construction schedules.  They're just as hungry as the subcontractors they feed and are making promises they can't keep in order to stay competitive.

They also "beat up" the subs by shopping around for the best price forcing bid wars amongst the smaller contractors, many of them taking jobs at a loss just to keep the doors open.  They're also placing bids baced on incomplete designs that are sure to change and add cost before the CD's are issued and further deepening the hole they began with.  The GC's can then bully the subs into just about anything they want.

The schedules pretty much always end up slipping and the GC's just blame the subs.  Also, I haven't heard of much private sector work with liquidated damages in the contract, that's primarily government work.

NRW: it is always the designers fault when it comes to omitions in the drawings and the owner can ask the designer to pay for the added costs - and they do frequently. Right now there are many folks out there in the construction world that will do a job a cost or at a loss to keep their doors open and the developers and big GC's know it, and are taking advantage of it. It is the same on the designers side and the developers are pressing the designers as well, by squeezing our fees and time tables for completeing the construction documents.  Unfortunately the developers hold the cards right now on the limited projects that are out there.  Until the economy changes, it won't get much better out there.  Design and Construction are usually the first professions to feel the crunch of the recession, and usually the last to feel the relief of it ending.  Keep your nose to the grind stone - it can only get better from here.

J: the beating up and shopping around is also happening on the design side by the developers.  the limited amount of work in the area allows them to do so.  anything incomplete documents that get bid and in return add costs are liable to change orders by the contractors.  the contractors are compensated, whether or not they let the money trickle down to the subs...
liquidated damages are not only in government work, but have been showing up in contracts less and less these days with the advent of the construction managers that have been getting hired during the design phase of the project to provide cost estimating at different milestones before the drawings hit the street.  Unfortunately the CM roles has slowly shifted to where the stay on as the GC, which allows them to squeeze the subs a little bit more.

^ I hear ya. 

Furthermore, the proliferation of design/build contracts has empowered the GC's even more.  I'm craving a true bid/build contract, the likes of which are few and far between these days.

Quote from: Jason on December 29, 2011, 03:40:47 PM
^ I hear ya. 

Furthermore, the proliferation of design/build contracts has empowered the GC's even more.  I'm craving a true bid/build contract, the likes of which are few and far between these days.

Don't you mean build/design?   ;)

^ Of Course.  Please excuse my typo!   :)

A+W was awarded the job.

Quote from: JaxNative68 on January 06, 2012, 08:57:17 AM
A+W was awarded the job.

Root beer?  :)

Anything relevant in this thread as it relates to the 302 Everbank employee lay offs?

Quote from: Noone on December 12, 2013, 11:02:25 AM
Anything relevant in this thread as it relates to the 302 Everbank employee lay offs?

Those positions are all in the home lending division. It is due to loan declines, which is something you cant predict or control, especially this housing market.

I think corporate welfare has become standard practice and is now just a joke.  Companies are going to hire and layoff people based on demand.  Have there been any studies that show over time there is a net gain in jobs?  2 years after jobs are "created?"  5 years after jobs are "created?"   What is the return on investment for our tax dollars? 

Quote from: brainstormer on December 12, 2013, 07:48:26 PM
I think corporate welfare has become standard practice and is now just a joke.  Companies are going to hire and layoff people based on demand.  Have there been any studies that show over time there is a net gain in jobs?  2 years after jobs are "created?"  5 years after jobs are "created?"   What is the return on investment for our tax dollars?

shhhhhh, don't tell everyone

QuoteThose positions are all in the home lending division. It is due to loan declines, which is something you cant predict or control, especially this housing market.

Let's tweak that statement just a wee bit. The layoffs are due to a decline in re-fi's, or refinancing of existing mortgages. The layoffs were not for a lack of new mortgage loans. With the low rates, people had been taking advantage of refinancing old debt to a lower rate, when that slows down, no need to keep the people.

Overall loans are healthy in banking right now. And you can actually predict loan growth which is mostly dependent on rates.

EverBank has built out two more floors in EverBank Center, bringing the total up to 11.  That's 1/3 of the tower.