QuoteThe applications have been filed despite continued opposition from House leaders to such funding.
Applications submitted Monday --- the deadline to file --- were from Buccaneers Football Stadium Limited Partnership for Raymond James Stadium in Tampa and from the city of Jacksonville and the Jacksonville Jaguars for EverBank Field.
The speedway filed its application Friday, joining an earlier submission from South Florida Stadium LLC, which oversees the Miami Dolphins' home, Sun Life Stadium.
The Department of Economic Opportunity will begin reviewing the applications to determine the potential returns on investment and to rank the proposals for the 2016 stadium funding process.
Earlier this year, House leaders turned back attempts to steer state money to Sun Life Stadium, the speedway, EverBank Field and a soccer stadium in downtown Orlando.
Lately, House leaders have avoided the topic.
"This issue is not before the Legislature at this time," Michael Williams, a spokesman for House Speaker Steve Crisafulli, said Monday in an email.
Proponents of stadium funding say the money goes to projects that create jobs, attract tourists and increase regional trade.
Daytona International Speedway President Joie Chitwood III said in a release Monday that the speedway continues "to pursue all options to ensure the successful outcome of this process."
"As we move into the future, it is imperative that we continually make improvements to the facility to keep our guests, the majority of whom are visiting from outside the state of Florida, returning year after year," Chitwood said.
Critics, such as the conservative-advocacy group Americans for Prosperity, question the economic return on investment and call stadium funding "corporate welfare."
"Taxpayers' hard-earned dollars should be kept off the track, the field, or anywhere else that entails profit-seeking enterprises guzzling taxpayer gas," Americans for Prosperity-Florida spokesman Andres Malave said in an email Monday. "These projects are ongoing renovation projects that taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for."
Malave added that the "House stood up to special interests in 2015, and we hope they will stand by taxpayers again in 2016."
The Daytona speedway and South Florida Stadium are each again seeking $90 million --- $3 million a year for 30 years.
The state agency didn't immediately release how much was requested for the Jacksonville and Tampa stadiums.
The state process allows stadium backers to apply for as much as $3 million a year when projects total more than $200 million. They can seek up to $2 million a year if construction or improvements are between $100 million and $200 million. The requested amount is limited to $1 million a year when the work is below $100 million.
Jacksonville sought $1 million a year for three decades from the state during the 2015 process.
In a letter accompanying its latest application, Jacksonville Chief Administrative Officer Sam Mousa and Jaguars General Counsel Megha Parekh indicated the proposal could soon be updated.
"The city and the Jaguars are currently negotiating $90 million in additional improvements to EverBank Field and its surrounding premises, including club space improvements, a covered practice field, and an amphitheater; this will bring the total public-private investment in the stadium to $172.7 million during the application period," they wrote the state.
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who play in the Hillsborough County-owned Raymond James Stadium, have been in discussions with the county and the Tampa Sports Authority for $75 million to $100 million in upgrades to the facility.
The application submitted by Daytona International Speedway is an updated version of the paperwork filed a year ago, according to a speedway spokesman.
In the prior application, the speedway said a front-stretch expansion will in addition to auto races "attract non-sports events that bring thousands of visitors to Florida and pump millions of dollars into the economy."
The project, known as Daytona Rising, is a $400 million "reimaging" of the raceway's stands with expanded and redesigned entrances, seating and social areas. The work, started in July 2013, is expected to be completed by the 2016 Rolex 24 At Daytona and the Daytona 500.
The Tampa football stadium proposal is being reviewed before it will be released to the public, a state spokeswoman said.
South Florida Stadium, which is undergoing at least $350 million in renovations, simply refilled its earlier applications.
The phased Sun Life Stadium work, started earlier this year, will reduce seating by more than 10,000, put a canopy over 91 percent of the crowd, and include four new giant high-definition video boards. Ron Book, a lobbyist for Sun Life Stadium, has said the project is about economic development.
The Legislature created a new funding method for professional stadiums in 2014 in an attempt to reduce the lobbying from prior years for state money. Initially $7 million was set aside in potential sales-tax revenue that could go to stadium projects, with the annual pool of money growing to $13 million in 2016.
The law gives the Department of Economic Opportunity 60 days to determine if an application should go forward and to rank all the applications by Feb. 1, something the agency didn't do with the four proposals that were made for the 2015 legislative session.
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/blog/morning-edition/2015/11/jaguars-seek-3-million-and-maybe-more-in-state.html?s=print
(http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/blog/morning-edition/2015/11/jaguars-seek-3-million-and-maybe-more-in-state.html?s=print)
Interesting headline.
Click bait headline
Thanks!
Ooohhh, so controversial...
^^^State tax dollars, not local; That's a big difference.
I'm failing to understand the complaint or debate here. Seems like groups that have stadiums are applying for a funding process the state has created. From the article:
QuoteThe state process allows stadium backers to apply for as much as $3 million a year when projects total more than $200 million. They can seek up to $2 million a year if construction or improvements are between $100 million and $200 million. The requested amount is limited to $1 million a year when the work is below $100 million.
QuoteThe Legislature created a new funding method for professional stadiums in 2014 in an attempt to reduce the lobbying from prior years for state money. Initially $7 million was set aside in potential sales-tax revenue that could go to stadium projects, with the annual pool of money growing to $13 million in 2016.
I'd be kind of pissed if we didn't apply for some of this set aside. That's the game the state officially credited. Might as well bring some of those dollars to Jax.
^^^Exactly. Something is being made outta nothing here. This is very old news too.
Stephen, seriously: why do you keep beating this dead horse? The billionaire -- named Shad Khan, by the way -- is about to spend millions more in the immediate vicinity and is in position to bring serious development to The Shipyards (whether you want to acknowledge that fact or not):
Quote"The city and the Jaguars are currently negotiating $90 million in additional improvements to EverBank Field and its surrounding premises, including club space improvements, a covered practice field, and an amphitheater; this will bring the total public-private investment in the stadium to $172.7 million during the application period," they wrote the state.
So, the problem is . . . what, precisely ? ? ?
Quote from: thelakelander on November 05, 2015, 07:00:28 AM
I'd be kind of pissed if we didn't apply for some of this set aside. That's the game the state officially credited. Might as well bring some of those dollars to Jax.
That was my thought as well
Amphitheater??? Is this new news?
Quote from: stephendare on November 04, 2015, 10:48:31 PM
So thats the response of people? The headline is 'interesting'?
Why does the billionaire need any local tax dollars again?
If you don't want your headlines to draw attention in and of themselves, don't write them that way.
Should there be a moratorium of sorts on tax spending on stadiums?
Quote from: Jason on November 05, 2015, 09:39:43 AM
Amphitheater??? Is this new news?
Some cool details in here
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=546450
Quote from: TheCat on November 05, 2015, 10:24:50 AM
Should there be a moratorium of sorts on tax spending on stadiums?
Why? This looks pretty nice. I can see an economic benefit going far beyond sporting events.
(http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/storyimages/1446735588SD-Renders-reduced-8.jpg)
QuoteThe city and Jacksonville Jaguars are proposing $90 million in upgrades to EverBank Field, investments that would replace the facility's club seating while building an indoor practice facility and amphitheater.
Under the latest round of improvements, the city and team would split the cost evenly at $45 million each.
"It really is a cool project," said Sam Mousa, Mayor Lenny Curry's chief administrative officer.
(http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/slideshow_image_sizer.php?img=storyimages/1446735588SD-Renders-reduced-9.jpg) (http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/slideshow_image_sizer.php?img=storyimages/1446735587SD-Renders-reduced-4.jpg)
more renderings here: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=546450
Quote from: TheCat on November 05, 2015, 10:24:50 AM
Should there be a moratorium of sorts on tax spending on stadiums?
No
Wow, that does look like a cool project. The price tag seems like a reasonable split for what it involves.
Khan certainly live by "go big or go home".
This looks like a cool project. And the good thing is it is not football specific. That amphitheater is an interesting addition.
I love that the headline is "Billionaire Khan Wants $3M in Tax $$$ for Jaguars" but it turns out the real story is that Khan and the city have announced a massive new project.
Better luck next time, guys.
Quote from: Jason on November 05, 2015, 09:39:43 AM
Amphitheater??? Is this new news?
I don't remember hearing about an amphitheater as part of this until the last week or so.
From the renderings, it's the only thing that feels a little out of place to me, like it was designed separately and just shoved in between the practice facility and the stadium.
Quote from: stephendare on November 05, 2015, 10:45:29 AM
Quote from: edjax on November 05, 2015, 10:29:32 AM
Quote from: TheCat on November 05, 2015, 10:24:50 AM
Should there be a moratorium of sorts on tax spending on stadiums?
No
Yes, I think so. Not just locally, but nationally.
Its a private club of billionaires who draw the majority of their profit off of this sport from tax subsidies.
Are you confusing "stadiums" with the National Football League? There's stadiums of various sizes (many publicly owned) in hundreds of cities all across the state.
Quote from: hiddentrack on November 05, 2015, 10:53:22 AM
From the renderings, it's the only thing that feels a little out of place to me, like it was designed separately and just shoved in between the practice facility and the stadium.
I like it. A small step in making the sports district more walkable in the long run.
Everbank Field:
QuoteThe city and Jacksonville Jaguars are proposing $90 million in upgrades to EverBank Field, investments that would replace the facility's club seating while building an indoor practice facility and amphitheater.
Shipyards:
Quotefeaturing multilevel indoor practice fields where the Jaguars would practice, an amphitheater and a public park.
How many indoor practice facilities and amphitheaters do we need?
Quote from: stephendare on November 05, 2015, 11:07:47 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on November 05, 2015, 11:05:56 AM
Quote from: stephendare on November 05, 2015, 10:45:29 AM
Quote from: edjax on November 05, 2015, 10:29:32 AM
Quote from: TheCat on November 05, 2015, 10:24:50 AM
Should there be a moratorium of sorts on tax spending on stadiums?
No
Yes, I think so. Not just locally, but nationally.
Its a private club of billionaires who draw the majority of their profit off of this sport from tax subsidies.
Are you confusing "stadiums" with the National Football League? There's stadiums of various sizes (many publicly owned) in hundreds of cities all across the state.
Don't forget the ones in Europe, Asia, and Africa while your at it. Or the giant stadiums in South America.
Is this a real question? Or do you think something is being discussed other than the ones used by Major Sports Franchises?
It was a real question.
Quote from: finehoe on November 05, 2015, 11:09:53 AM
Everbank Field:
QuoteThe city and Jacksonville Jaguars are proposing $90 million in upgrades to EverBank Field, investments that would replace the facility's club seating while building an indoor practice facility and amphitheater.
Shipyards:
Quotefeaturing multilevel indoor practice fields where the Jaguars would practice, an amphitheater and a public park.
How many indoor practice facilities and amphitheaters do we need?
Sounds like it's being moved from the shipyards proposal to the surface lots next to the stadium. They have a need they want addressed now, instead of 10 to 20 years down the road, which is Jax's traditional timeline for moving forward on things. Good move, IMO.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 05, 2015, 11:12:47 AM
Quote from: finehoe on November 05, 2015, 11:09:53 AM
Everbank Field:
QuoteThe city and Jacksonville Jaguars are proposing $90 million in upgrades to EverBank Field, investments that would replace the facility's club seating while building an indoor practice facility and amphitheater.
Shipyards:
Quotefeaturing multilevel indoor practice fields where the Jaguars would practice, an amphitheater and a public park.
How many indoor practice facilities and amphitheaters do we need?
Sounds like it's being moved from the shipyards proposal to the surface lots next to the stadium. They have a need they want addressed now, instead of 10 to 20 years down the road, which is Jax's traditional timeline for moving forward on things. Good move, IMO.
Yes, that's what I assumed. I can't imagine they'd pursue both this practice field proposal and the one on the River, let alone that the city would ever go for it.
Now that I think of it, I remember hearing that Sam Mousa wasn't happy with the Brown-Khan Shipyards deal for several reasons, and that was one of them. Now I guess we're seeing a deal that he does like.
Quote from: stephendare on November 05, 2015, 11:14:29 AM
Well I assume that the context of Arash's original question, and the spirit in which my own response was given, would only include the stadiums primarily used by private major sports franchises. The ones getting the most national attention happen to be Football stadium, but I would assume that there is something similar, on a smaller scale going on with the other sports.
I was just asking because the largest stadium applying for funding mentioned in the article Arash cut and pasted is a racing track.
Does anyone know if the city owns the current fairgrounds property? I just had this thought...
Now that the Jaguars no longer have a need for the area between Hogans Creek and Metropolitan Park (the site for the previous practice facility that was proposed), what if the city takes everything from Hogans Creek east to the present-day amphitheater, makes some adjustments, and turns it into Metropolitan Park and Fairgrounds. This would provide extra space that could be used for the fair, but also be a flexible space that could still be used for any concerts/festivals that exceed the capacity of the new amphitheater built next to the stadium. It would also meant that, at least once a year, we'd get that riverfront Ferris wheel everyone seems to want. ;)
Once that's moved, if the city owns the current fairgrounds property, they can turn around sell it. Maybe Mark Frisch would like it so he can build a new home for the Armada?
Quote from: hiddentrack on November 05, 2015, 10:53:22 AM
Quote from: Jason on November 05, 2015, 09:39:43 AM
Amphitheater??? Is this new news?
I don't remember hearing about an amphitheater as part of this until the last week or so.
From the renderings, it's the only thing that feels a little out of place to me, like it was designed separately and just shoved in between the practice facility and the stadium.
Maybe to entice the city, they added it as a non-football potential revenue generator
Quote from: stephendare on November 05, 2015, 11:11:58 AM
Quote from: finehoe on November 05, 2015, 11:09:53 AM
Everbank Field:
QuoteThe city and Jacksonville Jaguars are proposing $90 million in upgrades to EverBank Field, investments that would replace the facility's club seating while building an indoor practice facility and amphitheater.
Shipyards:
Quotefeaturing multilevel indoor practice fields where the Jaguars would practice, an amphitheater and a public park.
How many indoor practice facilities and amphitheaters do we need?
no shit?
Good catch, fine hoe.
Tacachale. anyone? any reason why we need two of each, partially paid for by taxpayers?
As far as the practice facilty is concerned, we have multiple practice fields now. That's in order to prepare our team for different playing surfaces (turf, grass, etc.) The ablility to practice on a surface different from your home field makes a massive difference in away game preparation.
I don't understand Finehoe's second point. How many amphitheaters do we have downtown now? It's my understanding that the proposal for The Shipyards is scrapped for now due to the city's unwillingness to pay for necessary environmental cleanup. I think that's why the amphitheater is added into this plan.
It was mentioned in an article a few months back.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 05, 2015, 11:08:42 AM
Quote from: hiddentrack on November 05, 2015, 10:53:22 AM
From the renderings, it's the only thing that feels a little out of place to me, like it was designed separately and just shoved in between the practice facility and the stadium.
I like it. A small step in making the sports district more walkable in the long run.
Good for you, Ennis.
Reasonableness!
Quote from: RattlerGator on November 06, 2015, 07:22:32 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on November 05, 2015, 11:08:42 AM
Quote from: hiddentrack on November 05, 2015, 10:53:22 AM
From the renderings, it's the only thing that feels a little out of place to me, like it was designed separately and just shoved in between the practice facility and the stadium.
I like it. A small step in making the sports district more walkable in the long run.
Good for you, Ennis. Reasonableness!
So, when are you going to start exhibiting some of this
reasonableness - or is it only "reasonable" when people to agree with your opinion?
And . . . some of these questions, honestly, are laughable because they assume stupidity on the part of those proposing but in fact exhibit stupidity on the part of those making assumptions. Two practice fields? Two amphitheaters? Why wasn't the situation obvious from the simple facts presented? Shad has clearly said they want to move forward and The Shipyards cleanup has them in stasis -- so they are jump-starting the process.
Millions of dollars in new investment downtown, and it's just bitch, bitch, bitch -- as if only those bitching are interested in asking questions or curious about public investment. Hell no, but this is a clearly stupid time to be bitching.
Adam, you show me where I've been unreasonable and I'll address it. Clearly I've upset you.
Quote from: RattlerGator on November 06, 2015, 07:35:52 AM
And . . . some of these questions, honestly, are laughable because they assume stupidity on the part of those proposing but in fact exhibit stupidity on the part of those making assumptions. Two practice fields? Two amphitheaters? Why wasn't the situation obvious from the simple facts presented? Shad has clearly said they want to move forward and The Shipyards cleanup has them in stasis -- so they are jump-starting the process.
Millions of dollars in new investment downtown, and it's just bitch, bitch, bitch -- as if only those bitching are interested in asking questions or curious about public investment. Hell no, but this is a clearly stupid time to be bitching.
Adam, you show me where I've been unreasonable and I'll address it. Clearly I've upset you.
I think some of your language - the whole 'politburo' thing, for example - is a bit unreasonable. I can appreciate you not liking someone or not agreeing with that person's opinion, but still...
Anyway - I don't think it's unreasonable to have different principles. I'm not saying you are unreasonable for having a particular view, I'm just saying that it's not unreasonable for two people to have two different sets of values. So saying Ennis is being reasonable because you agree with him is an easy thing to say.
QuoteThe Legislature created a new funding method for professional stadiums in 2014 in an attempt to reduce the lobbying from prior years for state money. Initially $7 million was set aside in potential sales-tax revenue that could go to stadium projects, with the annual pool of money growing to $13 million in 2016.
The law gives the Department of Economic Opportunity 60 days to determine if an application should go forward and to rank all the applications by Feb. 1, something the agency didn't do with the four proposals that were made for the 2015 legislative session.
Sounds to me the city would be stupid to pass up this process. Some municipality is going to be awarded money for some projects... we should try for that money...
This is a witch hunt pure and simple, the democrats, still bitter over the loss of Alvin Brown are the ones muck-raking, asking for accountability on the Jaguars and comparing what is spent for football to what could be spent for Education. When their white knight was making stupid comments about video boards that they, yes, the video boards, would take Jacksonville to the next level.
I can only hope Curry does not make such stupid comments. But I get it, its payback, but let's all hope Curry is a bit smarter with his comments than Brown was.
Quote from: Adam White on November 06, 2015, 07:42:31 AM
Quote from: RattlerGator on November 06, 2015, 07:35:52 AM
And . . . some of these questions, honestly, are laughable because they assume stupidity on the part of those proposing but in fact exhibit stupidity on the part of those making assumptions. Two practice fields? Two amphitheaters? Why wasn't the situation obvious from the simple facts presented? Shad has clearly said they want to move forward and The Shipyards cleanup has them in stasis -- so they are jump-starting the process.
Millions of dollars in new investment downtown, and it's just bitch, bitch, bitch -- as if only those bitching are interested in asking questions or curious about public investment. Hell no, but this is a clearly stupid time to be bitching.
Adam, you show me where I've been unreasonable and I'll address it. Clearly I've upset you.
I think some of your language - the whole 'politburo' thing, for example - is a bit unreasonable. I can appreciate you not liking someone or not agreeing with that person's opinion, but still...
Anyway - I don't think it's unreasonable to have different principles. I'm not saying you are unreasonable for having a particular view, I'm just saying that it's not unreasonable for two people to have two different sets of values. So saying Ennis is being reasonable because you agree with him is an easy thing to say.
Understood, and I agree (I think). This is my philosophy, and I admit I may imperfectly follow it -- I don't
introduce insult to the board. But I will respond to insult on the board in-kind. Why is Orange Park ugly was a very clear attempt to insult -- was it not? And the attempt, it seemed to me, emanated from a Politburo-like mindset: one aesthetic is the correct aesthetic. One way is the correct way. Beauty is what I say it is.
Stephen gladly pronounced his extreme narrowness when it comes to beauty. Having baited the conversation, he deserved whatever mild "insult" that came back at him, IMHO. And (I thought) it was all in good fun. No big deal. Maybe I was wrong (as I was when not initially seeing his gulag nonsense was in response to my Politburo nonsense).
Quote from: RattlerGator on November 06, 2015, 08:58:38 AM
Quote from: Adam White on November 06, 2015, 07:42:31 AM
Quote from: RattlerGator on November 06, 2015, 07:35:52 AM
And . . . some of these questions, honestly, are laughable because they assume stupidity on the part of those proposing but in fact exhibit stupidity on the part of those making assumptions. Two practice fields? Two amphitheaters? Why wasn't the situation obvious from the simple facts presented? Shad has clearly said they want to move forward and The Shipyards cleanup has them in stasis -- so they are jump-starting the process.
Millions of dollars in new investment downtown, and it's just bitch, bitch, bitch -- as if only those bitching are interested in asking questions or curious about public investment. Hell no, but this is a clearly stupid time to be bitching.
Adam, you show me where I've been unreasonable and I'll address it. Clearly I've upset you.
I think some of your language - the whole 'politburo' thing, for example - is a bit unreasonable. I can appreciate you not liking someone or not agreeing with that person's opinion, but still...
Anyway - I don't think it's unreasonable to have different principles. I'm not saying you are unreasonable for having a particular view, I'm just saying that it's not unreasonable for two people to have two different sets of values. So saying Ennis is being reasonable because you agree with him is an easy thing to say.
Understood, and I agree (I think). This is my philosophy, and I admit I may imperfectly follow it -- I don't introduce insult to the board. But I will respond to insult on the board in-kind. Why is Orange Park ugly was a very clear attempt to insult -- was it not? And the attempt, it seemed to me, emanated from a Politburo-like mindset: one aesthetic is the correct aesthetic. One way is the correct way. Beauty is what I say it is.
Stephen gladly pronounced his extreme narrowness when it comes to beauty. Having baited the conversation, he deserved whatever mild "insult" that came back at him, IMHO. And (I thought) it was all in good fun. No big deal. Maybe I was wrong (as I was when not initially seeing his gulag nonsense was in response to my Politburo nonsense).
I didn't see that OP thread as an attempt at insult - but I'm not from OP. I grew up near Regency Mall and am not very offended by the criticism it receives.
Things can get quite heated - I know I have lowered the tone on more than one occasion. But I'd like to think we can disagree and be pretty cordial about it - with the occasional zinger thrown in for good measure.
Honestly, the same people that bitch up a storm about things like Food Stamps, see no hypocrisy or even the slightest juxtaposition. in granting full blessing on what is clearly the epitome of corporate welfare.
The city is paying $45 million for a amphitheater that seats a fraction of what the existing coliseum 50 steps away holds. There is a huge pension problem that has yet to be resolved and truly transformative projects DT and elsewhere go without. A partial funding source for a Convention Center (or something else for that matter) will be eliminated as well.
This is a terrible idea.
For the record, I never supported the Scoreboards.
Quote from: vicupstate on November 06, 2015, 10:39:24 AM
Honestly, the same people that bitch up a storm about things like Food Stamps, see no hypocrisy or even the slightest juxtaposition. in granting full blessing on what is clearly the epitome of corporate welfare.
The city is paying $45 million for a amphitheater that seats a fraction of what the existing coliseum 50 steps away holds. There is a huge pension problem that has yet to be resolved and truly transformative projects DT and elsewhere go without. A partial funding source for a Convention Center (or something else for that matter) will be eliminated as well.
This is a terrible idea.
For the record, I never supported the Scoreboards.
As I bang on about every chance I get, an amphitheater of this size is a different beast than the Arena (the Coliseum blowed up long ago). The Arena is a large scale venue that's good for large scale events (among other things), but we miss many event opportunities because we lack in mid-sized venues (this is true across the entire metro area). It's too bad we didn't build one back in the 90s but the need is still there, as traveling acts are continuing to prefer venues of this size.
As I said elsewhere, this project doesn't take away from the opportunity to resolve the pension crisis, or anything else. It doesn't even really take away a potential funding source for a convention center, as according to the current law, the bed tax is tied to venues specifically in the stadium district.
Vic ain't trying to hear it, Tacachale, and Vic ain't trying to understand it. Vic is trying to do apples and oranges. Because that's about all you to can do to attack this proposal.
^Vic is very bright and knowledgeable and I respect his opinion on these matters greatly, even if I disagree on this particular point.
Thank you Tacachale for defending me against a troll post. I respect your opinion as well.
I do realize it is called an Arena, but it is factual to refer to it as a coliseum. I just used a less appropriate word for understanding purposes, since Coliseum is what the old one was called.
'the bed tax is tied to venues specifically in the stadium district.'
I don't believe this has always been the case. When was this stipulated? With the last stadium improvements? What are the physical boundaries of the Stadium district according to the bed tax legislation?
What is the full breakdown of this 6% tax, and how much is devoted to the Stadium/Stadium district already? Obviously the tourism funds are not.
Quote from: vicupstate on November 06, 2015, 01:40:38 PM
Thank you Tacachale for defending me against a troll post. I respect your opinion as well.
I do realize it is called an Arena, but it is factual to refer to it as a coliseum. I just used a less appropriate word for understanding purposes, since Coliseum is what the old one was called.
'the bed tax is tied to venues specifically in the stadium district.'
I don't believe this has always been the case. When was this stipulated? With the last stadium improvements? What are the physical boundaries of the Stadium district according to the bed tax legislation?
What is the full breakdown of this 6% tax, and how much is devoted to the Stadium/Stadium district already? Obviously the tourism funds are not.
Here's the current ordinance (I'm pretty sure):
https://www.municode.com/library/fl/jacksonville/ordinances/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=395383
There's a 6% bed tax, of which 2% of the bed tax is debt service for previous projects and another 2% is for tourism promotion for the county. The final 2% was previously the Convention Development tax, but in 2009 it was tied specifically to capital improvements in the sports district. The ordinance specifically mentions the Stadium, Arena, and Baseball Grounds, and future projects "as may be determined from time to time by the Council consistent with state law".
It always sounded a bit off to me, but it's the law, and unless that changes the money is tied to this area.
There's a 6% bed tax, of which 2% of the bed tax is debt service for previous projects and another 2% is for tourism promotion for the county. The final 2% was previously the Convention Development tax, but in 2009 it was tied specifically to capital improvements in the sports district. The ordinance specifically mentions the Stadium, Arena, and Baseball Grounds, and future projects "as may be determined from time to time by the Council consistent with state law".
I know the original construction/renovation of the Stadium itself was paid in significant part by Bed Taxes. My guess is that that funding (or other Stadium renovations since then) is all or part of that first 2%. If not, I have less objections with 1/3 going to the Stadium as opposed to as much as 2/3%.
The last time a Convention Center was discussed, I remember the Bed Tax was listed a source for partial funding of it. How could that be, unless the Center was built in the Stadium District itself, which I don't remember being part of the deal.
Time flies. The last time the bed tax was seriously discussed as a potential funding source for the convention center was before 2009.
^This dude ::). Seriously.
Is Stache Investments over?
Didn't many forum members bring up the design when it was first proposed? There were multiple pictures shown, and I was one of the people that suggested no funding should be approved until a final design was in place. Does the design still have to be approved by the DDRB?
Quote from: vicupstate on November 06, 2015, 01:40:38 PM
Thank you Tacachale for defending me against a troll post. I respect your opinion as well.
So, vicupstate, now that you've had time to see what's going to be done . . . what say you ? ? ?
Quote from: brainstormer on January 27, 2016, 08:02:14 PM
Didn't many forum members bring up the design when it was first proposed? There were multiple pictures shown, and I was one of the people that suggested no funding should be approved until a final design was in place. Does the design still have to be approved by the DDRB?
You mean the group that approved this?
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/plog-content/images/neighborhoods/downtown-cathedral-district/dcp_9940.JPG)
Something tells me whatever is proposed at EverBank will pass if the typical Jax beige product does.
^ Funny, Lake. ;D That picture is awful.
The proposed plan released today is definitely different and I think more integrated with the rest of the stadium. I should have trusted that Khan has "style."
Quote from: thelakelander on January 29, 2016, 04:37:14 PM
You mean the group that approved this?
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/plog-content/images/neighborhoods/downtown-cathedral-district/dcp_9940.JPG)
Pretty sure there has been a lot of turnover on DDRB since that was approved more than 10 years ago
True. How about this urban beauty?
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Fresh-Market-Brooklyn-Station/i-VggqwLz/0/L/DSCF3745-L.jpg)
Seriously though, I doubt the DDRB is going to slow Khan's plans for EverBank Field down.
Seriously-lets not count on the DDRB to keep the urban fabric.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 30, 2016, 05:38:33 PM
True. How about this urban beauty?
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Fresh-Market-Brooklyn-Station/i-VggqwLz/0/L/DSCF3745-L.jpg)
still a different board...and given the original plans, DDRB did get some very positive modifications to that site plan
^If I recall, the major site plan modification was CVS dropping out and the developer coming back with the retail building, housing Burrito Gallery, in its place. If we're lucky, maybe the latest version of the DDRB will get a second opportunity to throw some weight around in the near vicinity.
Quote from: RattlerGator on January 29, 2016, 04:32:39 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on November 06, 2015, 01:40:38 PM
Thank you Tacachale for defending me against a troll post. I respect your opinion as well.
So, vicupstate, now that you've had time to see what's going to be done . . . what say you ? ? ?
I think there are better and more impactful projects that cost less than $45 million than this project. Property taxes will have to be raised to pay for the things now paid for by the room tax (maintenance of the Sports District).
Architecturally, I question how the wavy roof will look over time. I'm sure it will look 'cool' when it is brand new, but 20 years out it might look like the old Coliseum did before it was razed.
You make a good point, I do wonder if that wavy design will stand the test of time. It does look cool now, but it does have a look that could become dated over time.
Personally, I think it will stand the test of time as long as it's maintained. It's an expressionist design, which tend to hold their visual appeal over time. I expect within the next 5-10 years they'll want to cover the stadium as well. If it looks anything like the renderings from a few years ago, but more complimentary to the amphitheater / practice field design, we'll have our own local icon similar to the Opera House.