Five City-Owned Properties that Should be Sold Now!
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-4552-img_0270__large_.jpg)
With the economic slowdown and Florida's Property Tax Amendments, Jacksonville is in a bit of a budget crunch. The city owns a lot of property downtown that is not contributing the the revitalization effortor the tax rolls Today, Metro Jacksonville takes a look at five city-owned properties that should be sold to the provate sector as soon as possible.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/769
Excellent idea for a topic. I bet it wouldn't be too hard to find another 5 sites either. Look for smaller parcels that would make great infill projects.
I would hold on to at least one block of the courthouse parcel, for expansion or to sell once the courthouse project is done. In fact it might be best to build the courthouse first then sell the extra blocks.
The State/Union parcel will not get much attention IMO from private sector though. The traffic is a high-speed freeway configuration. Unless that can be changed, it has limited appeal for much of anything. That is not a retail destination, and it will take more than one retailer to make it one. Still, it doesn't hurt to try.
I don't know why we continue to sit on these properties. Another one that should be immediately sold is the Snyder Memorial Church on Hemming Plaza. It should be immediately sold "as is" and let the private sector deal with its renovation.
As for the block on Union Street, I believe the city has issued an RFP for it. It was mentioned a week or two ago that some developers and retailers have been interested in it. However, I would assume we would see something like a gas station, CVS or fast food restaurant go up there surrounded by surface parking, based on Sax Seafood's approved layout.
Quote from: vicupstate on April 23, 2008, 08:06:05 AMI bet it wouldn't be too hard to find another 5 sites either.
No, it wouldn't. I could probably have made the list 10 without much work at all.
The city isn't interested in selling the property they are sitting on. I have friends that have made multiple offers on city owned buildings in the downtown area. These building would not only have been restored to their former glory. They would have created a live/work for the new owners bringing not only much needed retail, but also full time and fully vested residents to the urban core.
All these offers were at and above current market value and were made within the last 6 months.
Offers were also made on city owned lots in Springfield that they refuse to sell (or maintain).
Quote from: Bike Jax on April 23, 2008, 11:23:27 AM
The city isn't interested in selling the property they are sitting on. I have friends that have made multiple offers on city owned buildings in the downtown area. These building would not only have been restored to their former glory. They would have created a live/work for the new owners bringing not only much needed retail, but also full time and fully vested residents to the urban core.
All these offers were at and above current market value and were made within the last 6 months.
This does not surprise me at all, I have first hand knowledge of similiar occurances. I don't understand the logic at all. If there is a decent reason, I wish they would share it.
Quote from: vicupstate on April 23, 2008, 11:53:00 AM
If there is a decent reason, I wish they would share it.
My friends offers were rejected with the statements from the city that their intended projects didn't fit in with the city's vision. They (the city) were unwilling to expound on what exactly their plan was/is. All we can assume is that single family residential, art and food is not part of whatever plan they have.
One friend by the way proposed a fine art gallery/studio in a couple of different buildings and the other a full service bakery.
If they do have a vision, its probably to let these buildings decay to the point where they fall in on themselves, leaving expensive overpriced dirt for large scale developers. Although, this does not explain why they refuse to sell isolated single family lots in Springfield.
It is much easier to transfer land to your political cronies or business associates when the time is right than to siphon off cash from the city treasury.
In real estate deals there are a lot of grey areas that no one thinks to look at, while if you steal cash, that's very easily spotted. So there is really no advantage in converting these properties into cash that the citizens of Jacksonville will only just demand spent on things like "parks" or "schools" or "police".
When the Mayor runs the city for the benefit and amusement of his family, selling that land suddenly does not look so good, from his standpoint.
So, just consider these properties as "patronage banks", that at some future time will grease the wheels of business. Unfortunately, it probably won't be the city's business.
Quote from: Bike Jax on April 23, 2008, 12:16:05 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on April 23, 2008, 11:53:00 AM
If there is a decent reason, I wish they would share it.
One friend by the way proposed a fine art gallery/studio in a couple of different buildings and the other a full service bakery.
In that case, I can understand why the city didn't bite. The homeless don't have much use for such things.
who would buy??? we cant even get a stadium name?
If City of Jax needs an example of why you don't hold out for big developers they need look no further than Jax Beach. Downtown development began to take off there when the city backed off from big redevelopments after several failures and just improved infrastructure. At that point individual property owners began their own redevelopment. Also you can't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
Quote from: raheem942 on April 24, 2008, 03:55:28 PM
who would buy??? we cant even get a stadium name?
Well, buying property is a bit different than buying a stadium name. With the stadium name, you are essentially buying a billboard for 10-20 years that will be shown on national TV a couple times a year. Buying real estate is different because you are doint it to make money directly off of the property.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on April 25, 2008, 04:56:49 PM
Also you can't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
That is the most amazing line --
Why must we have a courthouse in a central location downtown yet not a supervisor of elections? Honestly I might lean towards we need neither and find the cheapest property possible for a court warehouse/strip mall redo
So they can be accessible to most citizens in the county?
Downtown is more accessible than some abandon strip mall or warehouse elsewhere in the county. The bus system may not be the best, but most of the routes do go downtown. Riding the bus to some other part of the county would be more difficult - if the new location were even on a bus route. Or would we then have to extend - and improve - bus service to the new, non-downtown location?
I know it is cliche but... What about the Jail or the School Board building? Doesn't the School board own abandoned or closed schools across the city that could be restored for a historic school board site? Also, with the boom of private jail contractors, the city could award a long term jail contract and avoid up-front construction costs. The proceeds from the sale of the Jail property could help offset current budget shortfalls. Thoughts? I completely agree with the other properties on the list, except my feeling is that selling the lavilla property will just encourage another il-advised stripmall project that is too close to the urban core.
Quote from: sheclown on April 25, 2008, 05:37:57 PM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on April 25, 2008, 04:56:49 PM
Also you can't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
That is the most amazing line --
2014-560
A new Authority
Embrace It
Or
It will Embrace Us
An amendment to 2014-305?