Ouch!
http://jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=545603
What is it with that building along with the Laura Street Trio. Grand Plans keep coming up but then they default on payments. Wasn't this supposed to be One Spark Headquarters and a Law School?
Dang, that really puts a damper on things but then again there hasn't been any momentum on the project...
Another reason I take all the proposed updates downtown with a grain of salt until they're finished.
There could be a silver lining in this... If Khan obtains the building outright he might actually get things moving with it since it'll be a hard sell as is. For once my fingers are crossed that something good will actually happen with this building.
Bad medicine.
With 23% vacancy rates in downtown and the downtown growth rates not moving very fast, developers cant get/find tenants to pay the bills. So just another foreclosure.
Need more new tenants in downtown. Lots of good intentions but not enough paying clients.
Need more business downtown. Need an urban minded CEO who has no qualms locating downtown.
Quote from: TPC on June 09, 2015, 02:48:21 PM
Dang, that really puts a damper on things but then again there hasn't been any momentum on the project...
Another reason I take all the proposed updates downtown with a grain of salt until they're finished.
+1,000,000
I take no pleasure in putting on my cynic or skeptic hat, but there have been way too many false starts that give me false hope for downtown. Whenever an announcement is made about a major plan for downtown, I can't help but take out my grain of salt. Here is one example. Remember the Intermodal Transportation Center? It's a dirty shame that we have such trouble getting things off the ground in Jacksonville.
So I guess they are finally going to turn off the lights in the building? It was at least nice to have it lit up at night.
Ugh.
Quote from: jaxjaguar on June 09, 2015, 03:12:32 PM
There could be a silver lining in this... If Khan obtains the building outright he might actually get things moving with it since it'll be a hard sell as is. For once my fingers are crossed that something good will actually happen with this building.
Maybe... those are some rosey glasses your wearing, but I like it.
Another false start...great.
Quote from: Dapperdan on June 09, 2015, 02:45:28 PM
What is it with that building along with the Laura Street Trio. Grand Plans keep coming up but then they default on payments. Wasn't this supposed to be One Spark Headquarters and a Law School?
I feel like One Spark as we know it is probably gone.... unless they start making money...
I think the plans for Barnett were pretty wishy-washy the whole time. Honestly, it should be retail on the first floors and apartments.
QuoteNeed more new tenants in downtown. Lots of good intentions but not enough paying clients.
No......we need more residents to show developers that there are people willing to live down there. Get the Residents, you can then get the businesses.
Wonder what Scottie is going to do in the Marble Building....
Ahh, very disappointing! This building and the Laura Street Trio make up the most important block in all of Jacksonville. These are two projects that need to get off the ground. They mean so much to this city and they've been dead for so long. When they come back to life, so will Downtown Jax.
I'm wondering, with the lack of a catalyst right downtown, if the best strategy would be to work inwards from the surrounding neighborhoods that are showing progress? Keep the momentum going from Riverside/Brooklyn and continue filling in the north San Marco area and maybe with residents getting closer and closer to downtown that will create enough push to get some of these major downtown projects to turn the corner.
So that is investment #2 of Stache that has failed. (Edgewood Bakery being the other)
Interesting.
The owners always made it clear they would need public investment to pull it off. Sadly the city never made it happen under the current mayor and council. Stache issued notice in December. I'll wager this has been coming for some time, and just Khan held off until after the election, as he was supporting Brown.
Unfortunately, with a new crunch budget and a 90 day audit coming, the city is unlikely to change its tune in the amount of time that would be needed. Things look very dark for this whole project, and these buildings.
Does anyone think Khan would have more pull than someone like Atkins (who apparently lacks a website detailing his past development successes) when it comes to bringing in the amount of capital and credit needed to rehab this structure?
Also, Laura Street looks dead to me. At least according to this. I highly doubt it could line up the financing needed... wasn't there some imaginary "NYC Investor" going to make these happen? I know I heard that from multiple sources. In the end, these projects need money. And being dependent on this broke town ain't gonna cut it and most investors don't see much reason to invest in a very second-tier city like JAX.
Sheesh, all this positive PR we've had shoved down our throats the past couple "One Spark" years has been a joke.
Lenny Peyton will turn it around. Sad, sad days.
Retail/Restaurant on ground floor.
Maybe some mixed use commercial for UNF like they had agreed, but mostly residential would be good because you need to create a great entertainment corridor on Laura with restaurants and bars leading to the Landing and you need more residents downtown to do it.
Hopefully, once the Brooklyn area sees high residency rates, maybe this begins to translate here.
Sad though. This is THE PROJECT for DT. The Elbow sucks. Downtown is dead. And this is the historic heart of DT ready to come alive.
Quote
Actually there is a way more involved background on this. It would be hard to convince the average person, once the details are publicized that Khan has acted in good faith.
Stephen, You are very correct, although "the average person" may never gets all the information, you're right. I'm attuned to a little more background and its ugly.
Quote from The Daily Record:
"Stache Investments, led by President Shad Khan, filed the foreclosure complaint May 22, saying Barnett Tower has not made a single payment on two notes issued in 2013 and 2014. The complaint was served on Barnett on May 27."
I'd say that is pretty ugly, too.
Quote from: Jax native on June 09, 2015, 07:43:10 PM
Quote
Actually there is a way more involved background on this. It would be hard to convince the average person, once the details are publicized that Khan has acted in good faith.
Stephen, You are very correct, although "the average person" may never gets all the information, you're right. I'm attuned to a little more background and its ugly.
He loans 1mm dollars of his money and never gets one payment? What could be uglier than that.
Quote from: Tacachale on June 09, 2015, 05:01:20 PM
The owners always made it clear they would need public investment to pull it off. Sadly the city never made it happen under the current mayor and council.
I'm not sure that is a sad thing. I had major reservations about a private project that wanted $20+ million in cash from the city
Quote from: Houseboat Mike on June 09, 2015, 04:56:26 PM
So that is investment #2 of Stache that has failed. (Edgewood Bakery being the other)
Interesting.
His biggest investment in town has increased in value over 200 million dollars in 3 years.
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 09, 2015, 10:18:11 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on June 09, 2015, 05:01:20 PM
The owners always made it clear they would need public investment to pull it off. Sadly the city never made it happen under the current mayor and council.
I'm not sure that is a sad thing. I had major reservations about a private project that wanted $20+ million in cash from the city
Did you have reservations about Sleiman's Landing project and Khan's Shipyards? Those are/would have been a lot more city money than the Trio.
Quote from: stephendare on June 09, 2015, 10:54:13 PM
deliberately screwing outside financing deals so that you can foreclose on the property and take your partners investments away from them. It gets much much uglier.
Stephen, do you have a full story on Khan "deliberately screwing outside deals" that you can report/share or is that another one of your "secrets"? That is a pretty heavy accusation to make and most would consider it unfounded without a proper story to back it up.
Quote from: stephendare on June 09, 2015, 10:54:13 PMdeliberately screwing outside financing deals so that you can foreclose on the property and take your partners investments away from them. It gets much much uglier.
Can you consider something that a payment was never made on an investment? I'm sure there are a number of sides to this story.
That's the answer...everything is Khans fault. Let's not hold the city administrations over the last 35 years (Democrat or Republican) responsible for the citys shortcomings and outright failures. Let's blame the guy who's only been on the scene for the last 5. Whether you favor or disapprove of Stache dealings, the fact that nothing of substantial value has occured downtown is not due to Shad Khan. It rests on the shoulders of the officials we have elected.
Quote from: Tacachale on June 09, 2015, 05:01:20 PM
The owners always made it clear they would need public investment to pull it off. Sadly the city never made it happen under the current mayor and council. Stache issued notice in December. I'll wager this has been coming for some time, and just Khan held off until after the election, as he was supporting Brown.
Unfortunately, with a new crunch budget and a 90 day audit coming, the city is unlikely to change its tune in the amount of time that would be needed. Things look very dark for this whole project, and these buildings.
So I take it that the city has made a decision not to be a public partner on the Barnett and the Trio? I thought a decision was supposed to be made back by early 2015? It's summer now....
Quote from: thelakelander on June 10, 2015, 09:16:43 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on June 09, 2015, 05:01:20 PM
The owners always made it clear they would need public investment to pull it off. Sadly the city never made it happen under the current mayor and council. Stache issued notice in December. I'll wager this has been coming for some time, and just Khan held off until after the election, as he was supporting Brown.
Unfortunately, with a new crunch budget and a 90 day audit coming, the city is unlikely to change its tune in the amount of time that would be needed. Things look very dark for this whole project, and these buildings.
So I take it that the city has made a decision not to be a public partner on the Barnett and the Trio? I thought a decision was supposed to be made back by early 2015? It's summer now....
It certainly doesn't seem like the kind of behavior one would expect from the 'Bold New City of the South". How much cash did Jacksonville expend on that marketing campaign?
Quote from: Tacachale on June 09, 2015, 11:00:49 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 09, 2015, 10:18:11 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on June 09, 2015, 05:01:20 PM
The owners always made it clear they would need public investment to pull it off. Sadly the city never made it happen under the current mayor and council.
I'm not sure that is a sad thing. I had major reservations about a private project that wanted $20+ million in cash from the city
Did you have reservations about Sleiman's Landing project and Khan's Shipyards? Those are/would have been a lot more city money than the Trio.
I did...and I do
That said, at least both of those developments are on city-owned property
Quote from: marty904 on June 10, 2015, 07:06:45 AM
Quote from: stephendare on June 09, 2015, 10:54:13 PM
deliberately screwing outside financing deals so that you can foreclose on the property and take your partners investments away from them. It gets much much uglier.
Stephen, do you have a full story on Khan "deliberately screwing outside deals" that you can report/share or is that another one of your "secrets"? That is a pretty heavy accusation to make and most would consider it unfounded without a proper story to back it up.
SOP for Stevie. But let me see if I can follow the evil plan. Khan loans 3+MILLION dollars and never received any repayment. He "screwed" outside deals so he could go through the cost and pain of foreclosing. At best he receives a decrepit building with no tenants. He then either sells the property or develops it. But either scenario would be a horrible investment without massive public monies.
This ruse was set up by his investing(and losing a lot of money) with Buffoons at Edgewood Bakery and charlatans of One spark Very shrewd.
Quote from: stephendare on June 10, 2015, 12:39:17 PM
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on June 10, 2015, 12:19:44 PM
Quote from: marty904 on June 10, 2015, 07:06:45 AM
Quote from: stephendare on June 09, 2015, 10:54:13 PM
deliberately screwing outside financing deals so that you can foreclose on the property and take your partners investments away from them. It gets much much uglier.
Stephen, do you have a full story on Khan "deliberately screwing outside deals" that you can report/share or is that another one of your "secrets"? That is a pretty heavy accusation to make and most would consider it unfounded without a proper story to back it up.
I'd love to hear whatever story there is. I don't doubt your sources or that this is true, it just seems far fetched to me that Khan would do that-- why not just buy the building out right and save himself time, energy, bad PR and lots of attorneys' fees? Admittedly, I dont know jack about real estate, so maybe i am missing something? I'd really just like to hear what caused all this as it sucks that such a building is just totally falling into further disrepair.
a million dollar loan + foreclosure costs that gives you a giant commercial downtown building? Not a bad gamble.
3.9 mm for a building that needs 30mm of work=terrible return
SOP=Standard Operating Procedure
Do not know where you get anything homophobic out of that but you are always the smartest guy in the room.
It feels as if what Jax dealmakers lack is a sense of urgency. That sounds like the basis for the mojo comments Khan made.
A cheap way to get real estate that you already paid for? Khan loaned them the money for the buildings. If he loaned them the money he certainly could have just used it to buy them himself, no? I don't follow.
Quote from: stephendare on June 10, 2015, 12:59:22 PM
Quote from: ben america on June 10, 2015, 12:57:57 PM
It feels as if what Jax dealmakers lack is a sense of urgency. That sounds like the basis for the mojo comments Khan made.
Or its a good reason why he should personally own a lions share of a city's downtown in his own view.
and btw, 3.9 for all four buildings. Not for the single building. If you are going to get something wrong, try not to fudge a fact that is literally on the front page of the daily newspaper.
Not according to the LP filing, but you are the smartest guy in the room.
Maybe this could have been resolved by the developer PAYING his mortgage, just saying.
Any thoughts on wether the lawsuit is just a back-handed way of forcing they city's hand on subsidies for the buildings? This story is so intriguing and heartbreaking all the same.
Quote from: stephendare on June 10, 2015, 01:15:17 PM
Quote from: Apache on June 10, 2015, 01:12:47 PM
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on June 10, 2015, 01:04:30 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 10, 2015, 12:39:17 PM
If the locals are that dumb, why not take advantage of them?
because you know: football.
there is a larger story here and its been going on for about 18 months. Steve Atkins has mortgaged his entire life in order to develop this building, family home, savings and all.
Khan is racking up quite a reputation as a fatal business partner or backer.
First One Spark and now this.
I don't know how public the various individuals are going to make this, and I haven't been given permission to discuss the details, but they aren't savory.
But, again, why not buy the buildings out right instead of loaning the money to someone and tanking him on purpose? I don't follow.
You know, because it's much more fun to spend 700mm to buy a NFL team (cash), then deceitfully destroy locals entrepreneurs (whose support you must have for your primary local investment) rather than just buy (which you have the cash for) local real estate.
Or...the noobs at Edgewood Bakery were just that... noobs and perhaps Atkins has done nothing with the building since taking the loan 2 years ago, and has nothing lined up in the near future (other than press releases that we all know are useless) for the building which he has been trying to do something with since 2010.
Big bad billionaire. At least we won't have any more issues of this sort, my money is on the bet that says Shad loans zero more dollars to Jacksonville entrepreneurs thanks to these two dolts.
ah. Im sure your right apache. the common denominator is the idiots that khan inexplicably financed, not khan.
In fact, I think Elton, Steve Atkins (and others) and the bakery people were all from the same factory lot.
Im not sure how much more financial backing from Khan the City (or its entrepreneurs) can afford to have bestowed on them.
You do know the difference between an investment/loan and a gift?
Jacksonville's entrepreneurs will be fine, it is the charlatans, grifters and those not paying their debts that Khan should be done with.
Quote from: stephendare on June 10, 2015, 01:36:57 PM
Quote from: JaxJersey-licious on June 10, 2015, 01:34:25 PM
Any thoughts on wether the lawsuit is just a back-handed way of forcing they city's hand on subsidies for the buildings? This story is so intriguing and heartbreaking all the same.
if so, he's kept it a closely held secret. even from atkins and others.
Keeping it a closely-held secret would seem like a smart decision to me, with how freely some things are being shared here.
I rarely take facts and figures related to real estate deals in news outlets at face value. At best these facts and figures were sourced internally by a PR person/department to begin with, passed to an agent in well-crafted quotes, then passed on to the news, in a game of numbers telephone.
If someone read an LP Filing that presented something else, then the original LP Filing is either out of date and has been amended/restated (or canceled with new filing in place), or the media never did their homework. Either case could be just as likely.
Anyone on these boards knows I am not a Khan worshiper (nor am I a hater). I don't have any facts and I certainly don't trust all the southern gossip queens on a site like this. But I highly doubt that Khan is trying to become the city's most hated man by screwing all the poor mom and pops. Unfortunately, even at higher ends of sophistication in Jacksonville, Khan is dealing with mom and pops. I don't quite know enough, but in what I have read and what I can garner, I would even call Atkins a mom and pop developer. Based on the City's experience, I would call the City a mom and pop city.
I think Atkins, Edgewood Bakery, the City of Jacksonville, DIA, etc etc should all go on Shark Tank. I think Khan should be one of the sharks. They should all work together to pitch some idea. See if it gets bought and at what price. Hahahaha
I'm for as much downtown development as possible, but it seems too much at one time for the city/demand to absorb. I agree that Laura Street should be top priority and I'd like to see the "Landing redevelopment" combine with the Laura Street somehow where it may work for everyone. That is, maybe move some the Landing retail and restaurants to Laura Street project while the Landing is being "redeveloped". Where will the Hooter's go when the Landing is demolished? Someone needs to introduce Kahn and Sleiman.
To borrow from the Jaguars recent history, the London games and stadium renovations have helped the team with its local revenue. Development downtown needs a similar nudge to get going. Even without enough demand to absorb all of the projects being talked about, if there can be movement on 1 or 2, and people can see progress happening, there might be a greater willingness to take on a little extra risk if we can see a reward in sight. Right now, these projects are just sitting there with no apparent movement. Maybe it's that lack of movement, compared to what Khan has seen happen with the Jaguars, that has him less-willing to wait it out, that's what motivated this action.
I'm still not following the Khan hate...
He loaned SEHoldings $3M that they used to purchase the buildings:
QuoteHe bought the four buildings with a loan from Stache Investments Corp., headed by Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shad Khan[/b].
Quote
The $3 million mortgage for the sale was provided by Stache Investments Corp. Records filed with the Florida Department of State show that Khan is the president of Stache Investments.
And SEHoldings has apparently defaulted on said loan. Where's the nefariousness? There may have been a wink-wink, nudge-nudge regarding the actual payment terms, but there's always a line in the sand.
What happened to the 'in-place financing'?
Quote
Total price tag: $30 million to restore the exterior to its historical beginning and to create the living and working spaces inside. But Atkins said he won't be asking for any city money. Financing is in place, he said, but didn't say where it's coming from. He bought the four buildings with a loan from Stache Investments Corp., headed by Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shad Khan.
Which story makes more sense? Rich, industrial, self-made immigrant success story buys NFL team in the second smallest market in the country. Hires a guy to vet and make investments on his behalf locally. Guy does a poor job vetting (IMO), makes poor choices, investments don't produce, guy gets fired, investments get called.
OR
Evil Kahn spends $700 million so that he can then destroy a family's dreams of owning a bakery, swindle a man out of have a buildings (that he wasn't paying any interest or taxes on) and then have the city help finance the largest TVs in the world for his own private viewing pleasure when he happens to be in Northeast Florida.
This Atkins guy didn't have a prayer in hell and he only was able to borrow from Kahn because Kahn was the only person to loan him money in the first place.
Quote from: stephendare on June 10, 2015, 08:17:07 PM
apache people would describe this as sharp and opportunistic business practices. That doesn't make someone 'evil'. It means that you have to carefully consider how you do business with them.
In the words of a frequent poster on this site, "meh".
From my vantage point (behind my keyboard), he was a successful business person long before he floated into town; He has put together a team that has pulled an absolute 180 with the perception of the jaguars franchise.; And the other moves Khan has made that I've read about, on the local scene and including those that are non-Jaguar specific, have had the look and feel of being genuine. He has fronted money that, in many cases, the banks have or would decline. The only ones that we continually read about in the [sarcasm]news[/sarcasm] are the deals that have gone sour: Edgewood Bakery, KYN & (now) the Trio. All 3 cases have one similar theme
Khan has pulled the plug and cut ties after non-performance.
That doesn't seem 'sharp and opportunistic' as much as it seems common sense. He's given a few people the rope they asked for; what they've done with it has been totally on them.
So far, local businesses and projects Khan has invested in:
- US Culinary and Beverage LLC
Casework of America Inc
Heritage Farms Jacksonville
L&J Diesel Service Inc
KYN
Edgewood Bakery
Barnett Bank Building and the Laura Street Trio
Looks like those last three have soured. Any updates on the rest? Things quietly going smoothly?
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on June 10, 2015, 11:31:28 PM
So far, local businesses and projects Khan has invested in:
- US Culinary and Beverage LLC
Casework of America Inc
Heritage Farms Jacksonville
L&J Diesel Service Inc
KYN
Edgewood Bakery
Barnett Bank Building and the Laura Street Trio
Looks like those last three have soured. Any updates on the rest? Things quietly going smoothly?
I was mistaken in my post earlier, as have most everyone else here regarding Edgewood.
We're omitting the fact that the funding from Stache (technically) went to US Culinary, LLC. Who then bought out Edgewood Bakery and then fired the lead baker, against the wishes of the investment company.
US Culinary represented a startup from 1* that was supposed to produce healthy-veggie treats.
Edit: Apache and I were posting about the same time. I also wanted to add that the legal issues started when the managing partners, the Rykalsky's, started making poor decisions and failing to realize that they were minority partners in the business. It wasn't 'their way' as they believed and totally ended up as 'the highway' in the end.
Casework of America used to be Commercial Casework, on Wells Rd just as you get into Orange Park. They have been a bane to all the local millworkers in the area for about a decade due to their pricing structure, or lack thereof.
In the world of competitive bidding, when the lowest bid is awarded, they were routinely 25%-30% below most of their competition and survived for many years robbing Peter to pay Paul. I had a GC send me their winning quote, just to compare the two, and their selling price, including installation labor, was lower than my cost on material.
I haven't done any millwork estimating for close to 5 years now, so I really don't have any insight into the new operation. Needless to say, it can't be worse. With proper management, they would be able to competitively raise the prices for all shops across the board while still destroying their previous margins.
QuoteI don't have any facts and I certainly don't trust all the southern gossip queens on a site like this.
Well said sir, well said!
Keeping with the rampant and juicy speculation of this story.......Sleiman, Khan, both have a common denominator, like the sun and the moon, Alvin Brown. Both big supporters of the last four year "photo op man" and both now stand to have to go to the back of the line with a new administration.
Too bad, so sad....
Atkins was lucky enough to get financing from anyone, but not paying your bills, come on man. No sympathy here.
My only questions is... would this "story" have racked up 5 pages of comments if Atkins had gone conventional and gotten a mortgage from a bank rather than from Khan? And would people be calling the bank "evil" and "shrewd" because the bank foreclosed after non-payment for over 2 years? Of course not... it would have been a quick story about another failed project that wasn't properly funded before purchasing the properties.
One Enterprise Center was foreclosed on (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=24525.0) and it received a whopping total of 2 comments. Why wasn't the lender in that foreclosure ran through the wringer like Khan is being in this post?
^Amen.
There seems to be a lot of unfounded, jealous rage on this subject.
Quote from: marty904 on June 11, 2015, 07:30:45 AM
My only questions is... would this "story" have racked up 5 pages of comments if Atkins had gone conventional and gotten a mortgage from a bank rather than from Khan? And would people be calling the bank "evil" and "shrewd" because the bank foreclosed after non-payment for over 2 years? Of course not... it would have been a quick story about another failed project that wasn't properly funded before purchasing the properties.
One Enterprise Center was foreclosed on (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=24525.0) and it received a whopping total of 2 comments. Why wasn't the lender in that foreclosure ran through the wringer like Khan is being in this post?
THAT is an excellent observation! Kudos.
Quote from: spuwho on June 09, 2015, 03:31:44 PM..................... Need an urban minded CEO who has no qualms locating downtown.
Need urban landlords willing to
compete with suburban landlords.
Quote from: marty904 on June 11, 2015, 07:30:45 AM
My only questions is... would this "story" have racked up 5 pages of comments if Atkins had gone conventional and gotten a mortgage from a bank rather than from Khan? And would people be calling the bank "evil" and "shrewd" because the bank foreclosed after non-payment for over 2 years? Of course not... it would have been a quick story about another failed project that wasn't properly funded before purchasing the properties.
One Enterprise Center was foreclosed on (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=24525.0) and it received a whopping total of 2 comments. Why wasn't the lender in that foreclosure ran through the wringer like Khan is being in this post?
But come on, Khan is soooo easy to villainize!
Quote from: stephendare on June 10, 2015, 01:25:38 PM
Quote from: bill on June 10, 2015, 01:22:34 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 10, 2015, 12:59:22 PM
Quote from: ben america on June 10, 2015, 12:57:57 PM
It feels as if what Jax dealmakers lack is a sense of urgency. That sounds like the basis for the mojo comments Khan made.
Or its a good reason why he should personally own a lions share of a city's downtown in his own view.
and btw, 3.9 for all four buildings. Not for the single building. If you are going to get something wrong, try not to fudge a fact that is literally on the front page of the daily newspaper.
Not according to the LP filing, but you are the smartest guy in the room.
Maybe this could have been resolved by the developer PAYING his mortgage, just saying.
Im sure everyone else is wrong, including the paper and stache investments then. Everyone stands corrected. back under the gay free bridge with you.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=539140
QuoteA development company led by Stephen Atkins, with financing from a company led by Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shad Khan, has bought the old Barnett Bank Building and the three Laura Street Trio buildings in Downtown Jacksonville, according to City records.
Property records filed Tuesday at the Duval County Clerk's office show two affiliated companies bought the four buildings for a total of $3 million.
A company called Barnett Tower LLC acquired the Barnett building from JDI Adams Street LLC of Chicago. Documents list Atkins as the manager of Barnett Tower. The nearby Florida Life Building, Bisbee Building and the Marble Bank Building, collectively known as the Laura Street Trio, were acquired by a company called Laura Trio LLC.
There is no document filed showing Atkins' role with Laura Trio LLC, but the deeds filed for Barnett Tower and Laura Street Trio show that both sales were "part of one transaction."
The $3 million mortgage for the sale was provided by Stache Investments Corp. Records filed with the Florida Department of State show that Khan is the president of Stache Investments.
In a separate announcement Tuesday, Atkins and general contractors Woody Garner and David Searcy announced a merger of their related interest in multiple real estate companies. Atkins Group Inc., AGI Equities, Dav-Lin Construction Co. and Linea LLC have consolidated to create Southeast Development Group LLC.
Atkins said Wednesday morning that Khan has loaned Southeast Development $3 million, which was used to purchase the buildings.
Through all your typical bloviating and muckraking it turns out you were wrong(shocking). Amazing because of all of your "inside" sources you could not get the basic facts correct, or even look them up.
As I have mentioned to you many times before do not try to fit stories to your agenda. It does not work and makes you look stupid again.
Fetishistic hero worship(sounds kinky)? I think that's a stretch even for you.
And, quite honestly, you citing undisclosed facts as the justification for the validity of your position .. would make me naive for listening to anything you are saying.
Its a real estate deal turned bad. Its far from over and I am sure all the parties continue to communicate even if through their lawyers.
Quote from: stephendare on June 11, 2015, 12:46:26 PM
Apparently there is some fetishistic hero worship going on here, and questioning his business practices in any way is like challenging a personal religion.
There are more details to this story, as I mentioned earlier, they will eventually come out, so by all means get yourselves nice and committed to a position before you know anything else.
I think that its abundantly obvious by now that Khan is not like Wayne and Delores Weaver. There doesn't appear to have been much private philanthropy going on. Just a string of business 'investments' that have gone south and a shit load of public money and benefits being showered on the guy.
Quote from: stephendare on June 11, 2015, 12:46:26 PM
There are more details to this story, as I mentioned earlier, they will eventually come out, so by all means get yourselves nice and committed to a position before you know anything else.
You've committed yourself to your position - that this is an ugly dispute where Khan acted in bad faith and deliberately interfered in financing deals - based only on the details you've heard. So far we haven't seen anything other than your word to support that. Don't forget that you may be in the dark about several other sides to the story.
Most of the comments I've read from other posters in this thread are simply taking the position that we don't have enough information to start labeling this as anything more than a standard foreclosure. The comments that go beyond that seem based on frustration that you're insisting it's more than that despite the lack of verifiable information to support it.
Quote from: stephendare on June 11, 2015, 12:46:26 PM
I think that its abundantly obvious by now that Khan is not like Wayne and Delores Weaver. There doesn't appear to have been much private philanthropy going on. Just a string of business 'investments' that have gone south and a shit load of public money and benefits being showered on the guy.
That's not really a surprise. When Khan started Stache Investments he was clear, at least from what I can remember, that the investments by Stache would be his contribution to the community, with the Jaguars Foundation handling the philanthropic contributions to the community. Maybe if people stopped thinking of Stache Investments as a charity, we wouldn't have so many hurt feelings.
[/quote]
meh. this doesn't make being a sharpie any more commendable.
[/quote]
yes well the documented facts are against you there my friend. some people are just better in business than others, but it doesn't make them dishonest.
Why weren't any counterclaims filed if there's validity to any of these allegations? Seems pretty stupid to waive that right and only tell people of these bad acts.
Quote from: bill on June 11, 2015, 01:03:21 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 10, 2015, 01:25:38 PM
Quote from: bill on June 10, 2015, 01:22:34 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 10, 2015, 12:59:22 PM
Quote from: ben america on June 10, 2015, 12:57:57 PM
It feels as if what Jax dealmakers lack is a sense of urgency. That sounds like the basis for the mojo comments Khan made.
Or its a good reason why he should personally own a lions share of a city's downtown in his own view.
and btw, 3.9 for all four buildings. Not for the single building. If you are going to get something wrong, try not to fudge a fact that is literally on the front page of the daily newspaper.
Not according to the LP filing, but you are the smartest guy in the room.
Maybe this could have been resolved by the developer PAYING his mortgage, just saying.
Im sure everyone else is wrong, including the paper and stache investments then. Everyone stands corrected. back under the gay free bridge with you.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=539140
QuoteA development company led by Stephen Atkins, with financing from a company led by Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shad Khan, has bought the old Barnett Bank Building and the three Laura Street Trio buildings in Downtown Jacksonville, according to City records.
Property records filed Tuesday at the Duval County Clerk's office show two affiliated companies bought the four buildings for a total of $3 million.
A company called Barnett Tower LLC acquired the Barnett building from JDI Adams Street LLC of Chicago. Documents list Atkins as the manager of Barnett Tower. The nearby Florida Life Building, Bisbee Building and the Marble Bank Building, collectively known as the Laura Street Trio, were acquired by a company called Laura Trio LLC.
There is no document filed showing Atkins' role with Laura Trio LLC, but the deeds filed for Barnett Tower and Laura Street Trio show that both sales were "part of one transaction."
The $3 million mortgage for the sale was provided by Stache Investments Corp. Records filed with the Florida Department of State show that Khan is the president of Stache Investments.
In a separate announcement Tuesday, Atkins and general contractors Woody Garner and David Searcy announced a merger of their related interest in multiple real estate companies. Atkins Group Inc., AGI Equities, Dav-Lin Construction Co. and Linea LLC have consolidated to create Southeast Development Group LLC.
Atkins said Wednesday morning that Khan has loaned Southeast Development $3 million, which was used to purchase the buildings.
Through all your typical bloviating and muckraking it turns out you were wrong(shocking). Amazing because of all of your "inside" sources you could not get the basic facts correct, or even look them up.
As I have mentioned to you many times before do not try to fit stories to your agenda. It does not work and makes you look stupid again.
Perhaps he is just trying to take over the Top 50 list all in one thread?? He good.
Quote from: stephendare on June 11, 2015, 03:53:05 PM
Quote from: SunKing on June 11, 2015, 03:43:16 PM
Quote
meh. this doesn't make being a sharpie any more commendable.
yes well the documented facts are against you there my friend. some people are just better in business than others, but it doesn't make them dishonest.
oh the documented facts eh? and what are those in this case, sunking?
Or are you weighing in to express some platitude on a pretty complex situation involving the single biggest taxpayer financed individual in Jacksonville?
Why does this guy deserve free land, taxpayer financed billboards, naming rights to the stadium, and apparently an environmental cleanup exactly?
You were for generosity to him, weren't you? Back when the taxpayers handed over 30 million for his video screen, plus all rights to the income from the screen itself, not to mention paying for the electricity to run that giant revenue producer for Khan.
But you don't feel he should be expected to show any generosity or support at all back to the community?
Because: Hey Profit!
The documented facts that I am referring to are outlined in both court and foreclosure proceedings that you obviously refuse to give any credit to. They substantiate that the man made deals (through a representative company) with people that didn't follow the terms of their agreements so he took appropriate actions to try to correct them.
The stadium deal has nothing to do with what we are talking about but now that you mention it, I believe the consensus would be against you there. It has been and will continue to be a substantial, taxpayer funded success.
But stay on point, one has nothing to do with the other. Or does it? HMMM. I actually do know all the sides, documented or not, and I know where you are coming from as well. What you are suggesting sir is that Kahn gave the old Laura Trio a cock block and took that money for his stadium. From a practical matter let me just say that the stadium is city property and he put his own in as well. Laura Trio is privately held. Different strokes.
Oh yes and then there is that shipyard deal....vedy interrestink!
This message board is full of whiners complaining about progress in this city. I for one am impressed with how this guy operates. Bring on the Bold New City!
Quote from: stephendare on June 11, 2015, 05:52:34 PM
yawn. so ed. did khan loan Steve 3.9 for the Barnett? Or 3 mil for all four buildings? That was the original point after all. Simply redefining it doesn't make it true.
But hey, since you clearly haven't been paying attention here is what you are referring to.
Quote
Quote from: stephendare on June 10, 2015, 12:39:17 PM
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on June 10, 2015, 12:19:44 PM
Quote from: marty904 on June 10, 2015, 07:06:45 AM
Quote from: stephendare on June 09, 2015, 10:54:13 PM
deliberately screwing outside financing deals so that you can foreclose on the property and take your partners investments away from them. It gets much much uglier.
Stephen, do you have a full story on Khan "deliberately screwing outside deals" that you can report/share or is that another one of your "secrets"? That is a pretty heavy accusation to make and most would consider it unfounded without a proper story to back it up.
I'd love to hear whatever story there is. I don't doubt your sources or that this is true, it just seems far fetched to me that Khan would do that-- why not just buy the building out right and save himself time, energy, bad PR and lots of attorneys' fees? Admittedly, I dont know jack about real estate, so maybe i am missing something? I'd really just like to hear what caused all this as it sucks that such a building is just totally falling into further disrepair.
a million dollar loan + foreclosure costs that gives you a giant commercial downtown building? Not a bad gamble.
3.9 mm for a building that needs 30mm of work=terrible return
QuoteQuote from: stephendare on June 10, 2015, 12:59:22 PM
Quote from: ben america on June 10, 2015, 12:57:57 PM
It feels as if what Jax dealmakers lack is a sense of urgency. That sounds like the basis for the mojo comments Khan made.
Or its a good reason why he should personally own a lions share of a city's downtown in his own view.
and btw, 3.9 for all four buildings. Not for the single building. If you are going to get something wrong, try not to fudge a fact that is literally on the front page of the daily newspaper.
Not according to the LP filing, but you are the smartest guy in the room.
Maybe this could have been resolved by the developer PAYING his mortgage, just saying.
Meh
At the 6/10/15 Jacksonville Waterways Commission meeting there was a CRA/DIA update presentation. The Northbank TIF is broke to the tune of $10,000,000 subsidized by the general fund each year till 2020. So with Khan now controlling the Shipyards and the Trio it gives him more leverage and control when asking and getting more taxpayer money.
Quote from: stephendare on June 11, 2015, 06:09:59 PM
In fact, sun king. Whats the case number?
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2095736/shad-khans-barnett-building-foreclosure.txt
Edit:
Still digging, but the above may just be the rest of the filing that may or may not have been filed with the clerk.
The only actual filing I've found so far is the Lis Pendens which I believe is just the notice that you are being foreclosed on.
http://oncore.duvalclerk.com/showdetails.aspx?id=13662554&rn=4&pi=0&ref=search
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 11, 2015, 10:27:20 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 11, 2015, 06:09:59 PM
In fact, sun king. Whats the case number?
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2095736/shad-khans-barnett-building-foreclosure.txt
Some excerpts:
6. On or about March 29, 2013, Barnett executed and delivered to Stache a Promissory
Note in the original principal amount of Three Million Dollars (113,000,000) (the ?2013 Note?). A
true and correct copy of the 2013 Note is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit B.
Stache is in possession of the original March 19, 2013 note.
The Mortgage was recorded on April 2, 2013 in Of?cial RecordsBook 16312 at Page 785 in the public records of Duval County, Florida.
http://oncore.duvalclerk.com/showdetails.aspx?Book=16312&Page=785&BookType=OR
8. On or about June 13, 2014, Barnett executed and delivered to Stache a second
Promissory Note in the original principal amount of One Hundred Sixtwaive Thousand Seven
Hundred Sixty-Four Dollars and Twenty?Nine Cents (the ?2014 Note?). A true and
correctcopy of the 2014 Note is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
18. On December 5, 2014, Stache noti?ed Barnett that it had failed to make any
payments under the terms of the 2013 Note and demanded immediate payment of the amounts due
and owing at that time $3,765,038.15. A true and correct of the December 5, 2014 demand letter is
attached hereto as Exhibit E.
43. On December 5, 2014, Stache noti?ed Barnett that it had failed to make any
payments under the terms of the 2014 Note and demanded inmlediate payment of the amounts due
and owing at that time $169,978.87. A true and correct of the December 5, 2014 demand letter is
attached hereto as Exhibit F.
Stache needs to be stashed. (no pun intended).
Quote from: Apache on June 09, 2015, 05:31:03 PM
Quote from: Houseboat Mike on June 09, 2015, 04:56:26 PM
So that is investment #2 of Stache that has failed. (Edgewood Bakery being the other)
Interesting.
All Stache did was loan money. The only thing they failed (to date) on was making a return on their loans.
Just my opinion, but I suspect Stache new both these ideas weren't home runs or no brainers, but rather they really wanted to buy some goodwill more than anything. Showing that they are (or were) willing to invest their money in Jax.
I'll bet Stache stashed most of that money.
Quote from: Apache on June 10, 2015, 11:43:23 PM
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on June 10, 2015, 11:31:28 PM
So far, local businesses and projects Khan has invested in:
- US Culinary and Beverage LLC
Casework of America Inc
Heritage Farms Jacksonville
L&J Diesel Service Inc
KYN
Edgewood Bakery
Barnett Bank Building and the Laura Street Trio
Looks like those last three have soured. Any updates on the rest? Things quietly going smoothly?
US Culinary and Beverage is the same people/company as Edgewood Bakery. That was the veggie smoothie/muffin/healthy school lunch part of it. If I'm not mistaken.
Never heard of the other three.
I just culled this list from the bizjournal articles. Dont really know the story behind most of them. L&J Diesel I do remember though. I think was Khan's first investment, unsolicited, because he was "interested in new tech." L&J was working on some revolutionary sort of fuel injection in car engines...of some sort. I'm not a car guy.
Quote from: stephendare on June 11, 2015, 06:05:56 PM
hmm. really? So which part of the court proceedings, that you have read are you referring to exactly?
And you are incorrect about my take on it. I have simply said that this is a complicated issue and that Khan doesn't seem to be the kind of guy whose good faith you should take for granted.
So much public money going to this one guy. In return, not so nice to the locals. I find it strange that you admire this.
I wouldn't think you've actually read any of the court 'proceedings'. (there haven't been, there has been a filing) btw.
Nice try. The court proceeding was the preliminary hearing held over the bakery dispute(Judge Daniel presiding). You have your lis pending for Barnett which is the foreclosure proceeding that I was referring to. I suggest that you read them yourself and then explain to everyone why Kahn should stop being so mean.
Oh and if I don't respond for a while its bc I am either working or paying bills. So take your time.
So, I fail to see why this is shocking for anyone. Generally, investors like Stache Investments take on riskier things than traditional banks do. If it was a slam dunk, then Atkins would just go to the nearest bank and be done with it. They approached Stache likely because a traditional bank wouldn't, and that inherently carries more risk.
Tell me this....if Wells Fargo foreclosed, would there be a backlash here? Or, if you'd rather, Shad Khan could just keep his money to himself and not invest in higher risk things.
The foreclosure action is still proceeding and Barnett hasn't even filed an Answer to the Complaint yet.
There's an Order to Show Cause scheduled for July 7, 2015, where the Court will either enter judgment at that time unless Barnett Towers files a verified Answer why judgment should not be entered.
If Stephen's innuendos prove accurate, it will be public record shortly.
Case Number is 16-2015-CA-003312-XXXX-MA.
I don't find it particularly interesting either.
Someone had posted something along the lines of 'what else has gone on that we don't know about' and I started scratching the surface a little bit and shared what I believed was relevant.
I'm pretty sure that I'm on the 'it's business as usual' side of things regarding Khan:
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 10, 2015, 09:23:31 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 10, 2015, 08:17:07 PM
apache people would describe this as sharp and opportunistic business practices. That doesn't make someone 'evil'. It means that you have to carefully consider how you do business with them.
In the words of a frequent poster on this site, "meh".
From my vantage point (behind my keyboard), he was a successful business person long before he floated into town; He has put together a team that has pulled an absolute 180 with the perception of the jaguars franchise.; And the other moves Khan has made that I've read about, on the local scene and including those that are non-Jaguar specific, have had the look and feel of being genuine. He has fronted money that, in many cases, the banks have or would decline. The only ones that we continually read about in the [sarcasm]news[/sarcasm] are the deals that have gone sour: Edgewood Bakery, KYN & (now) the Trio. All 3 cases have one similar theme
Khan has pulled the plug and cut ties after non-performance.
That doesn't seem 'sharp and opportunistic' as much as it seems common sense. He's given a few people the rope they asked for; what they've done with it has been totally on them.
Why hasn't anyone brought up the fact that if the bank had supplied the loan, they would have foreclosed long before now? It has been two full years since the initial loan without a payment. Most banks would probably foreclose in a year or less. Clearly Shad Khan waited longer than most banks and now, after two years and no visible progress, he decided to collect his money back by foreclosing.
Just imagine being in Shad Khan's shoes here. What would you do here if you had given someone that much money and you haven't received even a penny back 2 years later? The answer should be pretty obvious.
It's hard to take you seriously when all you do is insinuate some alleged bad act that hasn't come to light in the Court proceeding, or from anyone else besides yourself. But please, keep reminding everyone that you're privy to some information that no one else can confirm on the record.
Quote from: stephendare on June 12, 2015, 12:12:33 PM
just responding to the giant Whambulance sirens whenever anyone questions the moral purity of a automobile industry billionaire, duval bill. Ive said repeatedly, wait for the full story, and as Ben Davis can probably confirm, Im not going to budge on not speaking out of turn.
Have you figured out which building is getting F/C yet?
Just Barnett.
Quote from: stephendare on June 12, 2015, 11:56:59 AM
Khan was the one who publicized his good guy role in procuring the Barnett and Laura Trio, and he reaped the benefit of the positive public relations that he earned as the new guy in town shortly before asking for a metric shitload of tax payer funds.
I think you're over-estimating the people and the government of Jax. The NFL team gets what it wants, no matter the reputation of the owner. Every market that has an NFL franchise (or any pro team, for that matter) is basically held hostage by the constant prospect of that team packing up and leaving town. It's sold as an investment that has a massive return on investment, though you'll never see that proven, or as an asset with intangible benefits to the host city, like people thinking the Jags put Jax "on the map." There are plenty of examples of how poorly the Jacksonville government works, but in this case I think it is not a whole lot different than any other city. The city eventually answers to the people, and while a few people may complain about us throwing a bunch of money at some scoreboards, the mob would be out with their pitchforks if the city didn't give up the money and the franchise threatened to leave.
All that is to say, he doesn't need to do all this dealing in bad faith by investing in what are basically charitable business endeavors in order to ingratiate himself with the people. Jags get the money even if Khan kills a guy. I think you're absolutely right that there is a bit of hero worship with Khan, but we don't have many shiny new things in Jax, and just because we're dumb and the city is dumb doesn't mean he's got some evil machinations going on to sink small businesses and destroy downtown.
Quote from: stephendare on June 12, 2015, 11:56:59 AM
If any one of the banks downtown made the kinds of asks that he has made of the city you can be absolutely sure that they would be laughed off of planet earth by the same posters who cannot seem to remember just how much taxpayer money they have volunteered to this guy.
So while you are being I think a bit harsh on the city with regards to their dealings with the Jags (it is pathetic, yes, but it is common, and it is our fault, in short), I think you're giving them way too much credit on this one. The city gives out tax breaks and other incentives to banks and other businesses downtown. How much did it cost to move a couple hundred jobs from the suburbs to downtown? If Wells Fargo said they would relocate their headquarters to Jax, you can be sure Jax would be bending over backwards to throw cash at them in any form they could.
Quote from: stephendare on June 12, 2015, 11:56:59 AM
If any one of the banks downtown made the kinds of asks that he has made of the city you can be absolutely sure that they would be laughed off of planet earth by the same posters who cannot seem to remember just how much taxpayer money they have volunteered to this guy.
So while you are being I think a bit harsh on the city with regards to their dealings with the Jags (it is pathetic, yes, but it is common, and it is our fault, in short), I think you're giving them way too much credit on this one. The city gives out tax breaks and other incentives to banks and other businesses downtown. How much did it cost to move a couple hundred jobs from the suburbs to downtown? If Wells Fargo said they would relocate their headquarters to Jax, you can be sure Jax would be bending over backwards to throw cash at them in any form they could.
[/quote]
And they would have foreclosed looonnngg before Kahn did. AND they would have mortgaged and foreclosed all the buildings.
[/quote]
So are you under the impression that Steve Atkins owns a bakery? Interesting.
[/quote]
Are you ignorant or just intentionally deceptive? You should ashamed of yourself.
Quote from: stephendare on June 12, 2015, 05:13:40 PM
Quote from: SunKing on June 12, 2015, 04:49:46 PM
Quote
Quote from: stephendare on June 12, 2015, 11:56:59 AM
If any one of the banks downtown made the kinds of asks that he has made of the city you can be absolutely sure that they would be laughed off of planet earth by the same posters who cannot seem to remember just how much taxpayer money they have volunteered to this guy.
So while you are being I think a bit harsh on the city with regards to their dealings with the Jags (it is pathetic, yes, but it is common, and it is our fault, in short), I think you're giving them way too much credit on this one. The city gives out tax breaks and other incentives to banks and other businesses downtown. How much did it cost to move a couple hundred jobs from the suburbs to downtown? If Wells Fargo said they would relocate their headquarters to Jax, you can be sure Jax would be bending over backwards to throw cash at them in any form they could.
And they would have foreclosed looonnngg before Kahn did. AND they would have mortgaged and foreclosed all the buildings.
Well sure, if banks were like billionaires asking for public welfare checks, i guess.
Yeah, banks with multi-billion dollar holdings have never been bailed out before...
Quote from: stephendare on June 12, 2015, 05:13:40 PMWell sure, if banks were like billionaires asking for public welfare checks, i guess.
Alzheimer's much?
Quote from: stephendare on June 12, 2015, 05:13:40 PM
Quote from: SunKing on June 12, 2015, 04:49:46 PM
Quote
Quote from: stephendare on June 12, 2015, 11:56:59 AM
If any one of the banks downtown made the kinds of asks that he has made of the city you can be absolutely sure that they would be laughed off of planet earth by the same posters who cannot seem to remember just how much taxpayer money they have volunteered to this guy.
So while you are being I think a bit harsh on the city with regards to their dealings with the Jags (it is pathetic, yes, but it is common, and it is our fault, in short), I think you're giving them way too much credit on this one. The city gives out tax breaks and other incentives to banks and other businesses downtown. How much did it cost to move a couple hundred jobs from the suburbs to downtown? If Wells Fargo said they would relocate their headquarters to Jax, you can be sure Jax would be bending over backwards to throw cash at them in any form they could.
And they would have foreclosed looonnngg before Kahn did. AND they would have mortgaged and foreclosed all the buildings.
Well sure, if banks were like billionaires asking for public welfare checks, i guess.
Why does it have to be about his financial status? The way you use the term "billionaire" against Khan is almost some weird form of racism. How about you take the "billionaire" out of the equation and treat the situation for what it is...
If ANY developer has the right to solicit public assistance on ANY project in this city, then he or any other "billionaire" should have the same right. Just because he has a personal net worth much greater than the average bear doesn't mean that he should not be given the same opportunities that the lowly millionaires get. By stating he shouldn't be asking for incentives like every other developer does, that is discriminatory based on his personal checkbook.
Stop trying to create a villain out of Khan every time he makes (quite reasonable) business decisions that have nothing to do with you!
Quote from: stephendare on June 12, 2015, 05:42:14 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 12, 2015, 05:36:12 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 12, 2015, 05:13:40 PMWell sure, if banks were like billionaires asking for public welfare checks, i guess.
Alzheimer's much?
lack of adderall much?
It seems like the basic argument now is: 1. Since banks got bailed out, its ok to give an out of town NFL owner in excess of 100 million dollars of taxpayer money when we can't afford to pay our cops and 2. if he fucks over some of his publicity stunt good will partners as soon as he's got the tax money in the bag, that is A OK.
Because: Charity only counts when its coming from the taxpayers, and should never be extended to the little guys?
Is that the gist of it?
No. Follow closely. Its really simple. These deals weren't charity. The gist of it is that if someone loans you money, you should probably repay it. Would you agree with that one simple principle?
Quote from: stephendare on June 13, 2015, 07:57:17 PM
And do lending banks normally go to the taxpayers immediately afterwards and ask them to start writing (literally free) checks in excess of thirty million dollars at a time?
??? Who is asking for +$30 million from the city for the Barnett?
Quote from: thelakelander on June 13, 2015, 09:32:17 PM
??? Who is asking for +$30 million from the city for the Barnett?
Stephen seems to think Khan got the money for the scoreboards because of the goodwill he obtained from financing the purchase of the Barnett/Trio and Edgewood Bakery. He's using that shaky premise to conclude that Khan did not deal with these hair-brained business schemes in good faith. None of us really understands the point, but he has made the most posts and is entirely dismissive of discussion from anyone not agreeing with him, so I guess he's winning the argument? And Khan is rich, so he must be a bad guy.
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on June 15, 2015, 12:45:20 PM
I find it believable, though maybe not probable, that Khan may have invested in local ventures to stir up good will in order to get his video boards. The whole situation is interesting and I, at least, have enjoyed reading all sides' takes.
I mean, if we're speculating, there's no reason to believe that Khan wasn't loaning out the money in good faith, more or less. Knowing that some of these projects have been stagnating, mostly due to funds, why not kick in a few million to help things along? What's good for the city is good for the Jags, right?
But after kickstarting a few projects (pun intended) with an infusion of cash, there was a realization that they were stagnating more from ineptitude than they were from lack of money. Might as well try and recoup some losses.
I don't know Steve Atkins personally, but I've done quite a bit of work with his partners, and have never had these types of issue with our projects. So while I believe there's more to the story, I still think this is mostly business as usual and don't buy into any of the nefariousness talk at all.
It would have been cheaper, less stressful and have gotten more 'good will' had he just purchased the buildings outright and did the development himself if his intentions were as suggested.
Quote from: stephendare on June 15, 2015, 01:57:11 PM
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,24622.msg416201.html#msg416201
Interesting read but entirely off point .. unless you are trying to make the argument that SoutheastGroup (developer) is somehow a charity. Loaning money to help a for profit business develop a real estate project for 'profit' is simply not analogous to philanthropy.
As far as the continued references to the stadium improvements, right now, the law sets aside a percentage of tax revenue which can only be used for improvements in the stadium district. While the boards and pools are ostentatious, the tax money had to be spent on stadium improvements of some kind and absent a change in law and lease with Jaguars .. no where else.
So really what is the point of this discussion .. Khan loaned money .. didn't go as planned .. he's foreclosing ....
I'd rather hear about what Khan's plans for the building are upon taking possession in foreclosure.
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on June 15, 2015, 12:45:20 PM
I find it believable, though maybe not probable, that Khan may have invested in local ventures to stir up good will in order to get his video boards. The whole situation is interesting and I, at least, have enjoyed reading all sides' takes.
I'm sure part of it was selfish. Showing he's invested in the community definitely drums up some good will. There's also the whole catching more flies with honey thing. But I don't think his earlier investments were only about drumming up support for stadium enhancements. If that's what they were for, he's going to have to keep making them. The stadium is a little over 20 years old now and it's going to need more work to be properly maintained.
I think he believes that if Jacksonville grows, especially if that growth is downtown, the Jaguars benefit. If that happens, then the value of the team he purchased is worth a lot more money. He seems willing to make investments to help make that happen. I think the only reason we haven't seen more investments is because the ones so far haven't gone so well.
Quote from: stephendare on June 15, 2015, 02:06:22 PM
yawn. its awesome to see how fast you didn't read the actual article. you must have not understood it at least twice as fast. keep bringing the boring though. its cute. ;)
Its amazing how dismissive you are of any opinion not your own but hardly surprising at this point.
Quote from: stephendare on June 15, 2015, 01:57:11 PM
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,24622.msg416201.html#msg416201
tl;dr
I read the story you posted before my initial remark ... I'm not so disingenuous as to do otherwise but am thankfully blessed with the ability to read quickly.
Based on the articles published to date on this subject ( no alleged secret inside gossip) ... I can surmise the following:
1. Atkins' comments seem solely focused on the Laura Street Trio since the foreclosure so I would assume he doesn't hold much hope for salvaging Barnett.
2. Atkins specifically stated that the Laura Street Trio is dependent on the City making contributions and tax credits ... a "public-private" partnership.
3. Atkins stated the development vision of Stache Investments and Southeastern had diverged .. a/k/a deal gone bad .. whatever the reason. (does it really matter .. each side has a version and the truth lies somewhere in between?)
4. If the visions diverged, we are left with the obvious question as to what Stache's vision is .......
My suggestion is that instead of pillorying Khan. We focus on the facts and the future of the development of these properties. I for one care to hear more about Stache's plans and the remaining viability of the proposed development of the trio than opinions about Khan's business decision to foreclose or his moral character for doing so.
So the Barnett is Khan's now? What's his plans for the property?
Quote from: stephendare on June 15, 2015, 08:33:52 PM
And no, there isn't a plan for the property, just as there wasn't for edgewood bakery or KYN.
I have to disagree with this statement to an extent.
Each business had a plan prior to Khan financing them. On the surface it appears that all 3 failed to deliver on whatever it was they had promised.
Atkins supposedly had financing in place, Khan provided a small push and then it seems that nothing is in place after all.
The Rhykalskis had a plan to provide healthy treats for the masses, Khan helped by providing them a place to do it, then their lack of business acumen showed through.
KYN needed seed money to assist startup companies see their visions, but spent the money on themselves and cherry picked (poorly) the companies that they were to help.
I don't care how it's spun, Khan has all appearances of giving these people the rope and they chose to hang themselves with it. From what I can tell, the other 2 companies that Stache made any serious investment in are doing just fine. We can guess as to why, but my 'guess' is that the businesses that were established had a solid plan and the investment helped them get over a known hurdle and back into known waters.
Again, I can only surmise that the plan Stache had was a double-digit return on their investment.
Owning the mortgage on the building is kind of a no-brainer: pay me in installments.
Owning a piece of each start-up is like getting in on the IPO to any company. It's hit and miss, but when you're only swinging 5 times instead of 50, the odds are against you.
The plan for the Rhkalski's made sense. Owning a majority of that business cost $600k up front, but selling his 54% in 5 years when the business is worth $3-4M annually...
Quote from: stephendare on June 15, 2015, 08:57:47 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 15, 2015, 08:55:57 PM
Again, I can only surmise that the plan Stache had was a double-digit return on their investment.
Owning the mortgage on the building is kind of a no-brainer: pay me in installments.
Owning a piece of each start-up is like getting in on the IPO to any company. It's hit and miss, but when you're only swinging 5 times instead of 50, the odds are against you.
The plan for the Rhkalski's made sense. Owning a majority of that business cost $600k up front, but selling his 54% in 5 years when the business is worth $3-4M annually...
omg. NRW. AFTER the businesses were foreclosed or defunded. What was the plan for AFTER.....when the first plan of funding partners and startups didn't work out?
Never mind. scratch that. Sort this out amongst yourselves. We can see in a few weeks or so what happens. Im not a betting guy, but I would kind of think icarus' reading makes sense.
Night.
Edgewood Bakery is back to being Edgewood Bakery. The old management is already back in place.
KYN... well, let's just chalk that up as a loss.
The Barnett is real wonder here. If there's a backup plan, other than waiting for another buyer, then I'm sure we'll see soon enough, but I wouldn't expect any (if) announcement until early fall - Sept / Oct.
G'nite.
Quote from: stephendare on June 15, 2015, 08:57:47 PM
Never mind. scratch that. Sort this out amongst yourselves. We can see in a few weeks or so what happens. Im not a betting guy, but I would kind of think icarus' reading makes sense.
Night.
So icarus, who was basically disagreeing with you on every point and pointed out that you are dismissive of any discussion that doesn't suit your narrative, is the one whose reading you would bet on, were you a betting man? Very interesting.
Quote from: stephendare on June 15, 2015, 04:17:43 PM
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tl%3Bdr&defid=2441863
Also, these are the top two definitions for tl;dr, which was of course used in jest both times.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tl%3Bdr&defid=359766 (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tl%3Bdr&defid=359766)
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tl%3Bdr&defid=57118 (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tl%3Bdr&defid=57118)
Your posting of that cherry-picked definition, as well as the position of its author, clearly requires addition reading:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ButtHurt (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ButtHurt)
QuoteEdgewood Bakery is back to being Edgewood Bakery. The old management is already back in place.
Whoa, Gary and Sandy Polenta came out of retirement? I thought their son was running the shop, Gary Jr?
Quote from: mtraininjax on June 17, 2015, 09:09:43 AM
QuoteEdgewood Bakery is back to being Edgewood Bakery. The old management is already back in place.
Whoa, Gary and Sandy Polenta came out of retirement? I thought their son was running the shop, Gary Jr?
Semantics. Gary Jr. was managing prior to the purchase.
Barnett Tower group said it was never supposed to repay $3.16M in loans to Shad Khan's Stache Investments
Monday, June 22, 4:20 PM EDT
By David Chapman, Staff Writer
The group that purchased the Barnett Bank building said it was never supposed to repay the $3.16 million it borrowed from Shad Khan's Stache Investments.
That's the contention made by Barnett Tower LLC in a response filed Friday afternoon to Stache's foreclosure proceedings.
Stache began the proceedings on the historic Downtown building in late May, claiming Barnett Tower hadn't made any payments on the more than $3.16 million it was loaned.
Full Story:
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=545675
This has "attorneys get rich" written all over it.
Just from the linked article this sounds very similar to the Bakery proceedings. My initial guess is thatthis will hash out similar in the foreclosure proceedings; ie the defendant (Barnett, Edgewood) is claiming the initial loan had "handshake" deals or terms that were not included in the loan docs.
I am interested to see this play out. It is good to see Barnett has hired Rogers - if there any truth or legal precedent to Barnetts claims in their response to the foreclosure - Rogers will give them more than adequate representation (maybe level the playing field a little more).
WOW!
Anyone else feeling sorry for the Baltimore guys 2014-412?
Visit Jacksonville,
Stay positive.
Quote from: dp8541 on June 22, 2015, 05:58:23 PM
Just from the linked article this sounds very similar to the Bakery proceedings. My initial guess is thatthis will hash out similar in the foreclosure proceedings; ie the defendant (Barnett, Edgewood) is claiming the initial loan had "handshake" deals or terms that were not included in the loan docs.
I am interested to see this play out. It is good to see Barnett has hired Rogers - if there any truth or legal precedent to Barnetts claims in their response to the foreclosure - Rogers will give them more than adequate representation (maybe level the playing field a little more).
I wouldn't disagree with the 'handshake' sentiment, but I'd like to add that in both cases, the party defaulting has not appeared to hold up their end of the handshake either.
Quote from: Noone on June 22, 2015, 07:02:52 PM
Anyone else feeling sorry for the Baltimore guys 2014-412?
(as someone from Baltimore)...NO!!!
Quote from: Noone on June 22, 2015, 07:02:52 PM
Anyone else feeling sorry for the Baltimore guys 2014-412?
What do the Baltimore guys have to do with the Barnett?
Their current claim appears to be that unnamed third party(s) were to finance the full purchase price of the original loan with Stache (after the original inventor, Desai - another Kahn investment it appears, backed out before closing on the original mortgage). As support of that they indicate that Stache was still willing to loan an additional 100k to Barnett even after a single mortgage payment was yet to be made.
Quote from: dp8541 on June 22, 2015, 05:58:23 PM
Just from the linked article this sounds very similar to the Bakery proceedings. My initial guess is thatthis will hash out similar in the foreclosure proceedings; ie the defendant (Barnett, Edgewood) is claiming the initial loan had "handshake" deals or terms that were not included in the loan docs.
I am interested to see this play out. It is good to see Barnett has hired Rogers - if there any truth or legal precedent to Barnetts claims in their response to the foreclosure - Rogers will give them more than adequate representation (maybe level the playing field a little more).
Handshake agreements aren't binding in the face of a signed agreement.
Quote from: stephendare on June 23, 2015, 10:11:47 AM
Quote from: duvalbill on June 23, 2015, 10:09:26 AM
Quote from: dp8541 on June 22, 2015, 05:58:23 PM
Just from the linked article this sounds very similar to the Bakery proceedings. My initial guess is thatthis will hash out similar in the foreclosure proceedings; ie the defendant (Barnett, Edgewood) is claiming the initial loan had "handshake" deals or terms that were not included in the loan docs.
I am interested to see this play out. It is good to see Barnett has hired Rogers - if there any truth or legal precedent to Barnetts claims in their response to the foreclosure - Rogers will give them more than adequate representation (maybe level the playing field a little more).
Handshake agreements aren't binding in the face of a signed agreement.
If the parties act in such a way that exceeds the four squares of the contract or other monies are disbursed in such a way that clearly delineates the presence of other agreements, then they certainly are grounds for review.
Good check I checked the new messages as I was just about to post something very similar. It will be up to Barnett to prove this in the foreclosure proceedings.
Shad lost the lawsuit. No foreclosure. Check public records for order.
So is the Barnett project still on? Any word on the status of the Trio?
Quote from: thelakelander on July 28, 2015, 11:30:38 AM
So is the Barnett project still on? Any word on the status of the Trio?
(http://www.knutsonlivebait.com/images/crickets.jpg)
Quote from: stephendare on July 28, 2015, 01:48:10 PM
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-jul-shad-khan-loses-foreclosure-bid-for-barnett
Interesting read. No summary foreclosure, and now in Round 2 of this battle, they will need to demonstrate that Khan's "Stache" engaged in misleading conduct. Was it ever reported that there were plans to put a charter school there?