QuoteSleiman Enterprises released a letter Thursday morning that warns the iconic Jacksonville landmark is at a crossroads.
"We are now at a critical point in the Landing's life cycle," the letter reads. "We must either undertake a complete redevelopment of the property or enter into new long-term leases of the current facilities to maintain the Landing's economic viability. The two options are incompatible with one another."
Sleiman Enterprises bought the Jacksonville Landing in 2003 from the original developers of the property. The Landing opened in 1987. Since Sleiman Enterprises bought the property, the company has pushed for redevelopment.
However, efforts have not been successful with the most recent attempt falling apart in a legal dispute over whether proper documents were signed to transfer ownership of a Downtown parking garage. That lawsuit, brought by the city, is still in court.
Full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2017/06/15/the-landing-owners-issue-ultimatum-for-future.html
Putting the ball in the city's 'court', as it were.
I know money is perpetually tight, and Sleiman's gonna Sleiman, but it does seem like a really good time to start thinking about the future of the Landing. With the Laura Street Trio and Barnett finally entering permitting, it would be great to see movement on the Landing. These two projects combined have the potential to be truly catalytic for that entire corridor.
And around and around we go. ::)
What's full redevelopment?
A. The plan with the building/Main Street Bridge demolished and replaced with something completely new
B. Renovation of the existing configuration
Would renovation of the existing structure and change in tenant mix, like Norfolk's Waterside District, be considered full redevelopment?
Waterside Marketplace Before:
(http://l450v.alamy.com/450v/f4f8pj/usa-virginia-norfolk-waterside-festival-marketplace-f4f8pj.jpg)
(http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/pilotonline.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/c/07/c07140f3-5a69-5a00-80b5-4405a0d85251/563bf54180f42.image.jpg)
(https://s3-media4.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/QIUZBfUyzMsOZWpZlpG8eQ/o.jpg)
Waterside District Now:
(http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/pilotonline.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/ee/beef643d-2374-5f93-9f5f-f3fb68e9c256/590bc6536f44c.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C730)
(http://selbertperkins.com/wp-content/uploads/waterside_district-main.jpg)
(http://selbertperkins.com/wp-content/uploads/waterside_district-blue_moon_taphouse.jpg)
The fact that we have development quickening on both the northbank, the southbank, Brooklyn, La Villa and the stadium complex with no fucking clue on how to tie them all in tells me that we're really no better off than we were 10 years ago.
Some great ideas. A lot of money being invested. But without a plan to tie everything together and create synergy between them, we'll end up with some great ideas that never reached full potential. A lot of wasted investment money. And still no plan on what needs to be done to bring the city to life.
Sorry to be the Negative Nancy on this one, but I personally don't see any reason to be happy about the long-term. Short-term we'll do fine. What happens when some of the new wears off?
Lakelander is right that there are ways to redevelop the current set up that would be cost effective in the short term. The blue print is out there already across the country. Let's get the dirt churning on Laura St. and then we can talk convention center and Landing. One thing is certain: there needs to be a major facelift/rebranding of the venue one way or another.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 15, 2017, 02:52:52 PM
The fact that we have development quickening on both the northbank, the southbank, Brooklyn, La Villa and the stadium complex with no fucking clue on how to tie them all in tells me that we're really no better off than we were 10 years ago.
Some great ideas. A lot of money being invested. But without a plan to tie everything together and create synergy between them, we'll end up with some great ideas that never reached full potential. A lot of wasted investment money. And still no plan on what needs to be done to bring the city to life.
Sorry to be the Negative Nancy on this one, but I personally don't see any reason to be happy about the long-term. Short-term we'll do fine. What happens when some of the new wears off?
Right now i think we just need to concentrate on making sure Riverside, Brooklyn and La Villa continue to link. I live in Avondale and we are in Brooklyn all the time anchored by use of the YMCA. Dinner in 5 points and a trip to the Hyppo is not uncommon. We have a few items we hit Fresh Market for though most of the shopping is Publix.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 15, 2017, 02:06:58 PM
What's full redevelopment?
A. The plan with the building/Main Street Bridge demolished and replaced with something completely new
B. Renovation of the existing configuration
Would renovation of the existing structure and change in tenant mix, like Norfolk's Waterside District, be considered full redevelopment?
Personally, I don't think the existing Landing needs the wrecking ball. It's iconic, structurally sound, and full of potential with a little TLC.
I really do love the idea of opening up Laura Street to the water, and converting the Landing into a food hall & market, hyper-focused on local foods. You're not going to draw many people down to the Landing with a Hooters, American Cafe, or even something like a Cheesecake Factory. But if you make the Landing a showcase space for the best local or semi-local restaurants (think Safe Harbor, Taco Lu, M Shack, 4 Rivers, Hawkers, Clark's, Metro Diner, Maple Street, etc.), coffee shops (Brew, Vagabond, Urban Grind, Bold Bean), breweries (Bold City, Engine 15, Intuition, Ardwolf, Veterans United, etc.) and other artisans (Peterbrooke, etc.), I genuinely think it gives the place an actual value proposition. Throw in tons of outside seating and balcony space overlooking the river and allow open containers anywhere on Landing property, and I think you create a unique space exclusive to downtown that is worth traveling to while we ride downtown's continued residential growth.
Further, the Landing is typically one of the first places that tourists visit when they come to Jacksonville and I really think a local food hall concept makes it representative of our city. Lori Boyer is also pushing for a first-class visitor center and museum to showcase Jacksonville (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2017-06-14/tourism-council-wants-visitor-center-jacksonville), what better spot than the Landing? Emphasize the water taxi tours. Program the courtyard with local musicians. Really make the Landing a literal landing for tourists to get a feel for Jacksonville and instill pride in locals.
There's also plenty of room for expansion even with the existing structure in place. Residential can be added on both sides as the market dictates, preferably with ground level restaurants (even better with rooftop bars).
I wonder what specifically Sleiman is looking for from the city. I know Alvin Brown's Landing redevelopment called for a $12 million taxpayer subsidy for a total redesign.
Quote from: JeffreyS on June 15, 2017, 03:41:09 PM
Right now i think we just need to concentrate on making sure Riverside, Brooklyn and La Villa continue to link. I live in Avondale and we are in Brooklyn all the time anchored by use of the YMCA. Dinner in 5 points and a trip to the Hyppo is not uncommon. We have a few items we hit Fresh Market for though most of the shopping is Publix.
And I agree with you, but there's a bigger picture that no one seems to be paying any attention to. And even in our own backyard (I live in Murray Hill) there seems to be so much disconnect. When things happen, it appears to be by chance as opposed to a guided decision.
And regarding Brooklyn, how many years ago did they take all of that land in order to provide a wider thoroughfare through the area? 12? 15 years ago? And now that there is a spark of development, what's the current discussion? Let's have a discussion about narrowing the corridor to make it a more walkable area... I'm seriously just WTF... WTF with all of this let's rip shit out so that we can go back 20 years later and rip more shit out again. Which points back to my feeling that there is no long-term plan.
Quote from: KenFSU on June 15, 2017, 04:08:03 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 15, 2017, 02:06:58 PM
What's full redevelopment?
A. The plan with the building/Main Street Bridge demolished and replaced with something completely new
B. Renovation of the existing configuration
Would renovation of the existing structure and change in tenant mix, like Norfolk's Waterside District, be considered full redevelopment?
Personally, I don't think the existing Landing needs the wrecking ball. It's iconic, structurally sound, and full of potential with a little TLC.
I really do love the idea of opening up Laura Street to the water, and converting the Landing into a food hall & market, hyper-focused on local foods. You're not going to draw many people down to the Landing with a Hooters, American Cafe, or even something like a Cheesecake Factory. But if you make the Landing a showcase space for the best local or semi-local restaurants (think Safe Harbor, Taco Lu, M Shack, 4 Rivers, Hawkers, Clark's, Metro Diner, Maple Street, etc.), coffee shops (Brew, Vagabond, Urban Grind, Bold Bean), breweries (Bold City, Engine 15, Intuition, Ardwolf, Veterans United, etc.) and other artisans (Peterbrooke, etc.), I genuinely think it gives the place an actual value proposition. Throw in tons of outside seating and balcony space overlooking the river and allow open containers anywhere on Landing property, and I think you create a unique space exclusive to downtown that is worth traveling to while we ride downtown's continued residential growth.
Further, the Landing is typically one of the first places that tourists visit when they come to Jacksonville and I really think a local food hall concept makes it representative of our city. Lori Boyer is also pushing for a first-class visitor center and museum to showcase Jacksonville (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2017-06-14/tourism-council-wants-visitor-center-jacksonville), what better spot than the Landing? Emphasize the water taxi tours. Program the courtyard with local musicians. Really make the Landing a literal landing for tourists to get a feel for Jacksonville and instill pride in locals.
There's also plenty of room for expansion even with the existing structure in place. Residential can be added on both sides as the market dictates, preferably with ground level restaurants (even better with rooftop bars).
I wonder what specifically Sleiman is looking for from the city. I know Alvin Brown's Landing redevelopment called for a $12 million taxpayer subsidy for a total redesign.
Agreed here. I have thought a long time that a museum of some sort would make a lot of sense in there or a nice welcome center and the food hall would also make a lot of sense which you can also mix with other funky Jacksonville based artisan stores.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 15, 2017, 02:52:52 PM
The fact that we have development quickening on both the northbank, the southbank, Brooklyn, La Villa and the stadium complex with no fucking clue on how to tie them all in tells me that we're really no better off than we were 10 years ago.
Some great ideas. A lot of money being invested. But without a plan to tie everything together and create synergy between them, we'll end up with some great ideas that never reached full potential. A lot of wasted investment money. And still no plan on what needs to be done to bring the city to life.
Sorry to be the Negative Nancy on this one, but I personally don't see any reason to be happy about the long-term. Short-term we'll do fine. What happens when some of the new wears off?
The Landing itself is a very good example of this very problem. It was a good idea when conceived, but lost a lot of its allure very quickly and has been struggling ever since due to poor foresight and integration with its surroundings. Bayside Marketplace in Miami and New Orleans Riverwalk, both built by the same developer (Rouse Co.) and opened in '86 and '87 respectively have been thriving ever since. Why is that?
Quote from: BenderRodriguez on June 15, 2017, 04:58:43 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 15, 2017, 02:52:52 PM
The fact that we have development quickening on both the northbank, the southbank, Brooklyn, La Villa and the stadium complex with no fucking clue on how to tie them all in tells me that we're really no better off than we were 10 years ago.
Some great ideas. A lot of money being invested. But without a plan to tie everything together and create synergy between them, we'll end up with some great ideas that never reached full potential. A lot of wasted investment money. And still no plan on what needs to be done to bring the city to life.
Sorry to be the Negative Nancy on this one, but I personally don't see any reason to be happy about the long-term. Short-term we'll do fine. What happens when some of the new wears off?
The Landing itself is a very good example of this very problem. It was a good idea when conceived, but lost a lot of its allure very quickly and has been struggling ever since due to poor foresight and integration with its surroundings. Bayside Marketplace in Miami and New Orleans Riverwalk, both built by the same developer (Rouse Co.) and opened in '86 and '87 respectively have been thriving ever since. Why is that?
I would say for those two cities tourism plays a much more significant role
The landmark directly across the river on the Southbank is just as bad. I had a convention for work last fall at the Hyatt and I decided to take my wife and stay at the Double Tree on the Southbank for a "staycation", and go to the Jags game. We have been season ticket holders for years and always tailgate with friends in the parking lot. We decided to get up and go to River City Brewing Company for brunch and to pre-game in the core. RCBC was a joke and is completely outdated. That place has so much potential, its insane. The landing was dead and there wasn't even a single sign for our hometown team anywhere on the property. The whole area just seems so disconnected and completely dated. It's a shame that I tell every person I know who is coming to visit Jacksonville to stay at the beaches and avoid downtown.
I have some of the best memories of boating with my parents down there while growing up in the late 80's and early 90's. The landing was always packed. There were tons of boats lining the docks and people partying at Fat Tuesdays and kids playing in the Ostrich Arcade. I can remember RCBC hosting the Jags Tuesday night show in the late 90's and there always being a big crowd for that. The core is lost.
Miami and New Orleans are flooded with tourist, they keep those places going. The Landing is a holiday spot for locals only, ie 4th July, Christmas and so on when it should be packed every weekend. There's a huge gap between Brooklyn to DT core and DT core to stadium district where you have nothing in between. But until the residents of Jax and surrounding areas see DT as a destination filled with things to do, not much will change.
Quote from: edjax on June 15, 2017, 07:11:22 PM
Quote from: BenderRodriguez on June 15, 2017, 04:58:43 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 15, 2017, 02:52:52 PM
The fact that we have development quickening on both the northbank, the southbank, Brooklyn, La Villa and the stadium complex with no fucking clue on how to tie them all in tells me that we're really no better off than we were 10 years ago.
Some great ideas. A lot of money being invested. But without a plan to tie everything together and create synergy between them, we'll end up with some great ideas that never reached full potential. A lot of wasted investment money. And still no plan on what needs to be done to bring the city to life.
Sorry to be the Negative Nancy on this one, but I personally don't see any reason to be happy about the long-term. Short-term we'll do fine. What happens when some of the new wears off?
The Landing itself is a very good example of this very problem. It was a good idea when conceived, but lost a lot of its allure very quickly and has been struggling ever since due to poor foresight and integration with its surroundings. Bayside Marketplace in Miami and New Orleans Riverwalk, both built by the same developer (Rouse Co.) and opened in '86 and '87 respectively have been thriving ever since. Why is that?
I would say for those two cities tourism plays a much more significant role
Norfolk's Waterside District (former Waterside Festival Marketplace) is a better comparison. Similar scaled MSA with an economy that's not exactly based on tourism. Like the Landing, Waterside went down the tubes. However, instead of tearing it down, it was recently remodeled into a food hall.
I'd let him go ahead and negotiate some long term leases. If the city invests properly (Laura Trio-type partnerships) and follows a comprehensive plan then there will be a reason to redevelop. We'll cross that bridge when we get there.
That Norfolk property does look like a LOT like the Landing.
Random question:
Is there another major city in the country, particularly in the sunbelt, that enjoys our same combination of riverfront and beaches?
New Orleans (Mississippi River) and Tampa (Hillsborough River) would be the closest comparisons. Tampa has more beaches nearby, but the Mississippi is a more "connected" river.
Does anyone else feel that Sleiman Enterprises should begin considering trying to sell the Landing to a new developer? Maybe one that is willing to redevelop it without city help, or at least minimal help? I imagine there is at least one company out there that would do anything for such prime real estate.
I know Tony Sleiman wants to hold on to the property, but at the same time he seems to be growing more and more frustrated with the city. Hopefully there is some progress on this issue over the next year or so, but we'll see.
Quote from: KenFSU on June 15, 2017, 09:45:27 PM
That Norfolk property does look like a LOT like the Landing.
Random question:
Is there another major city in the country, particularly in the sunbelt, that enjoys our same combination of riverfront and beaches?
The Hampton Roads...(Norfolk/Virginia Beach). DT Norfolk is on the Elizabeth River and Virginia Beach serves as Norfolk's version of Jacksonville Beach and the Southside. Others to consider include Houston/Galveston, Savannah, Charleston, Tampa Bay...
Quote from: thelakelander on June 15, 2017, 11:05:06 PM
Quote from: KenFSU on June 15, 2017, 09:45:27 PM
That Norfolk property does look like a LOT like the Landing.
Random question:
Is there another major city in the country, particularly in the sunbelt, that enjoys our same combination of riverfront and beaches?
The Hampton Roads...(Norfolk/Virginia Beach). DT Norfolk is on the Elizabeth River and Virginia Beach serves as Norfolk's version of Jacksonville Beach and the Southside. Others to consider include Houston/Galveston, Savannah, Charleston, Tampa Bay...
Outside of the sunbelt, NYC springs to mind...
I think, and believe, based on their letter, that their request is "real" and legitimate; not unreasonable at all. Don't know what the problem is with the city, or even if Sleiman is not doing something right, but the two really need to sit down at the table and come to a plausible solution that will benefit not only all concerned with the success of the landing, but for the city and area as a whole.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 15, 2017, 02:52:52 PM
The fact that we have development quickening on both the northbank, the southbank, Brooklyn, La Villa and the stadium complex with no fucking clue on how to tie them all in tells me that we're really no better off than we were 10 years ago.
Some great ideas. A lot of money being invested. But without a plan to tie everything together and create synergy between them, we'll end up with some great ideas that never reached full potential. A lot of wasted investment money. And still no plan on what needs to be done to bring the city to life.
Sorry to be the Negative Nancy on this one, but I personally don't see any reason to be happy about the long-term. Short-term we'll do fine. What happens when some of the new wears off?
"Negative Nancy," I like that. What about "Drop the ball" Debra? Or "Loser Linda?" LOL...just kidding. You are right and I agree with you "Non Red Neck." You've got to tie it all in somehow relative to transportation especially, to keep the vibrancy humming downtown (and other relevant items as well).
Quote from: KenFSU on June 15, 2017, 04:08:03 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 15, 2017, 02:06:58 PM
What's full redevelopment?
A. The plan with the building/Main Street Bridge demolished and replaced with something completely new
B. Renovation of the existing configuration
Would renovation of the existing structure and change in tenant mix, like Norfolk's Waterside District, be considered full redevelopment?
Personally, I don't think the existing Landing needs the wrecking ball. It's iconic, structurally sound, and full of potential with a little TLC.
I really do love the idea of opening up Laura Street to the water, and converting the Landing into a food hall & market, hyper-focused on local foods. You're not going to draw many people down to the Landing with a Hooters, American Cafe, or even something like a Cheesecake Factory. But if you make the Landing a showcase space for the best local or semi-local restaurants (think Safe Harbor, Taco Lu, M Shack, 4 Rivers, Hawkers, Clark's, Metro Diner, Maple Street, etc.), coffee shops (Brew, Vagabond, Urban Grind, Bold Bean), breweries (Bold City, Engine 15, Intuition, Ardwolf, Veterans United, etc.) and other artisans (Peterbrooke, etc.), I genuinely think it gives the place an actual value proposition. Throw in tons of outside seating and balcony space overlooking the river and allow open containers anywhere on Landing property, and I think you create a unique space exclusive to downtown that is worth traveling to while we ride downtown's continued residential growth.
Further, the Landing is typically one of the first places that tourists visit when they come to Jacksonville and I really think a local food hall concept makes it representative of our city. Lori Boyer is also pushing for a first-class visitor center and museum to showcase Jacksonville (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2017-06-14/tourism-council-wants-visitor-center-jacksonville), what better spot than the Landing? Emphasize the water taxi tours. Program the courtyard with local musicians. Really make the Landing a literal landing for tourists to get a feel for Jacksonville and instill pride in locals.
There's also plenty of room for expansion even with the existing structure in place. Residential can be added on both sides as the market dictates, preferably with ground level restaurants (even better with rooftop bars).
I wonder what specifically Sleiman is looking for from the city. I know Alvin Brown's Landing redevelopment called for a $12 million taxpayer subsidy for a total redesign.
Bravo; excellent post. I think Sleiman is looking for money; however, I question whether he has a definitive plan and focus relevant to the redevelopment of the landing, to bring the people, tourists, and others in for the Landing to be a resounding success. We can't answer that, but we can wonder and ask these questions. It's all about money; and then when the money comes, nothing happens.
Perhaps I'm being unreasonable or unrealistic. But I don't see why the future of Sleiman's property is anyone's problem but his. Why should the City have to help pay so this guy can make money?
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2017, 09:25:48 AM
Perhaps I'm being unreasonable or unrealistic. But I don't see why the future of Sleiman's property is anyone's problem but his. Why should the City have to help pay so this guy can make money?
The city owns the land. Sleiman owns the buildings. In other words, if you want to see the courtyard, green areas, riverwalk, etc. improved, which would help the viability of leasing the buildings, you'll need city involvement.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 16, 2017, 09:32:38 AM
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2017, 09:25:48 AM
Perhaps I'm being unreasonable or unrealistic. But I don't see why the future of Sleiman's property is anyone's problem but his. Why should the City have to help pay so this guy can make money?
The city owns the land. Sleiman owns the buildings. In other words, if you want to see the courtyard, green areas, riverwalk, etc. improved, which would help the viability of leasing the buildings, you'll need city involvement.
Then maybe he should buy the land from the city (he probably doesn't have deep pockets to do it); then he'll have more leeway to do what he wants with HIS property that will benefit HIM and of course the city as a whole in the long run. "Pouty Patricia."
Quote from: Jax-Nole on June 15, 2017, 10:09:50 PM
Does anyone else feel that Sleiman Enterprises should begin considering trying to sell the Landing to a new developer? Maybe one that is willing to redevelop it without city help, or at least minimal help? I imagine there is at least one company out there that would do anything for such prime real estate.
I know Tony Sleiman wants to hold on to the property, but at the same time he seems to be growing more and more frustrated with the city. Hopefully there is some progress on this issue over the next year or so, but we'll see.
That's a great question. There are definitely national developers that specialize in that type of redevelopment and could execute better. The problem is that due to Jacksonville's demographics, its difficult to attract some of the major national retailers, restaurants, and entertainment that would make the project desirable to a big development group. I'm working on a somewhat similar project elsewhere in Florida with a large national developer, and they are throwing a ton of money into redeveloping a property that was built more recently than The Landing and is somewhat successful currently (but does have design flaws). The big difference though, is that the project has a few key anchor tenants, and is centered in the middle of one of the heaviest concentrations of wealth in Florida. Due to those factors, they are having a very easy time lining up national restaurants, hotels, and entertainment groups, to go along with the anchor tenants they intend to keep. A large component is also new residential and office, which are both in strong demand. With those factors in mind and easy money to be made from redevelopment, it makes it much easier for them to dump a lot of money into the project with no government assistance.
The Landing, on the other hand has no key anchor tenants, and has demographic challenges, with a substantial amount of upper middle to high income residents (HH Income of 75k and up) in Jax living at the Beaches/PVB, SJC, Amelia Island, and Fleming Island. For a project like The Landing, I've seen a 20 minute drive used as the trade area for a project. This excludes all of the aforementioned areas. I would guess that the average HH within a 20 minute drive of The Landing is less than $50k, which makes it a major challenge to attract national tenants. For comparison, the average HH within a 20 minute drive of City Place in WPB is $79k.
With that in mind, in my opinion the easiest path towards redevelopment is something similar to what Ken described earlier in the thread (and something I think I've also mentioned in the past). Basically a Best of Jax type project. Getting all of those successful businesses under one roof is also a challenge, with Intuition/Bold City both opening up DT, many of the others already being located close by, and what's potentially going on at the Shipyards and Doro.
In other words, it isn't a desirable project for a national developer and Sleiman either has to take a huge risk and throw a lot of money at the project, and/or COJ needs to step up to the plate. Otherwise, I don't see anything happening soon.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 16, 2017, 09:32:38 AM
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2017, 09:25:48 AM
Perhaps I'm being unreasonable or unrealistic. But I don't see why the future of Sleiman's property is anyone's problem but his. Why should the City have to help pay so this guy can make money?
The city owns the land. Sleiman owns the buildings. In other words, if you want to see the courtyard, green areas, riverwalk, etc. improved, which would help the viability of leasing the buildings, you'll need city involvement.
Thanks. I think, if I were the City, I'd want to see firm plans from Sleiman before I'd invest a dime. Why bother spending a lot of money if the Landing is just going to sit empty?
Quote from: heights unknown on June 16, 2017, 09:38:15 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 16, 2017, 09:32:38 AM
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2017, 09:25:48 AM
Perhaps I'm being unreasonable or unrealistic. But I don't see why the future of Sleiman's property is anyone's problem but his. Why should the City have to help pay so this guy can make money?
The city owns the land. Sleiman owns the buildings. In other words, if you want to see the courtyard, green areas, riverwalk, etc. improved, which would help the viability of leasing the buildings, you'll need city involvement.
Then maybe he should buy the land from the city (he probably doesn't have deep pockets to do it); then he'll have more leeway to do what he wants with HIS property that will benefit HIM and of course the city as a whole in the long run. "Pouty Patricia."
He has the money, easily, it's the city that will not sell the land.
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2017, 09:51:48 AM
Thanks. I think, if I were the City, I'd want to see firm plans from Sleiman before I'd invest a dime. Why bother spending a lot of money if the Landing is just going to sit empty?
He's provided redevelopment plans at least 4 times since buying the Landing.
Quote from: heights unknown on June 16, 2017, 09:38:15 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 16, 2017, 09:32:38 AM
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2017, 09:25:48 AM
Perhaps I'm being unreasonable or unrealistic. But I don't see why the future of Sleiman's property is anyone's problem but his. Why should the City have to help pay so this guy can make money?
The city owns the land. Sleiman owns the buildings. In other words, if you want to see the courtyard, green areas, riverwalk, etc. improved, which would help the viability of leasing the buildings, you'll need city involvement.
Then maybe he should buy the land from the city (he probably doesn't have deep pockets to do it); then he'll have more leeway to do what he wants with HIS property that will benefit HIM and of course the city as a whole in the long run. "Pouty Patricia."
If the city would sell it, he probably would.
Quote from: Jim on June 16, 2017, 10:02:17 AM
Quote from: heights unknown on June 16, 2017, 09:38:15 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 16, 2017, 09:32:38 AM
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2017, 09:25:48 AM
Perhaps I'm being unreasonable or unrealistic. But I don't see why the future of Sleiman's property is anyone's problem but his. Why should the City have to help pay so this guy can make money?
The city owns the land. Sleiman owns the buildings. In other words, if you want to see the courtyard, green areas, riverwalk, etc. improved, which would help the viability of leasing the buildings, you'll need city involvement.
Then maybe he should buy the land from the city (he probably doesn't have deep pockets to do it); then he'll have more leeway to do what he wants with HIS property that will benefit HIM and of course the city as a whole in the long run. "Pouty Patricia."
He has the money, easily, it's the city that will not sell the land.
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2017, 09:51:48 AM
Thanks. I think, if I were the City, I'd want to see firm plans from Sleiman before I'd invest a dime. Why bother spending a lot of money if the Landing is just going to sit empty?
He's provided redevelopment plans at least 4 times since buying the Landing.
I don't just mean plans - I mean firm commitments for tenants. I'd want to know that the place is going to be either full or close to capacity before I'd put any money towards redevelopment. Perhaps that's not possible - or maybe he's done that. But I don't like the idea of paying for a massive redevelopment and then letting it sit empty.
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2017, 10:06:59 AM
Quote from: Jim on June 16, 2017, 10:02:17 AM
Quote from: heights unknown on June 16, 2017, 09:38:15 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 16, 2017, 09:32:38 AM
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2017, 09:25:48 AM
Perhaps I'm being unreasonable or unrealistic. But I don't see why the future of Sleiman's property is anyone's problem but his. Why should the City have to help pay so this guy can make money?
The city owns the land. Sleiman owns the buildings. In other words, if you want to see the courtyard, green areas, riverwalk, etc. improved, which would help the viability of leasing the buildings, you'll need city involvement.
Then maybe he should buy the land from the city (he probably doesn't have deep pockets to do it); then he'll have more leeway to do what he wants with HIS property that will benefit HIM and of course the city as a whole in the long run. "Pouty Patricia."
He has the money, easily, it's the city that will not sell the land.
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2017, 09:51:48 AM
Thanks. I think, if I were the City, I'd want to see firm plans from Sleiman before I'd invest a dime. Why bother spending a lot of money if the Landing is just going to sit empty?
He's provided redevelopment plans at least 4 times since buying the Landing.
I don't just mean plans - I mean firm commitments for tenants. I'd want to know that the place is going to be either full or close to capacity before I'd put any money towards redevelopment. Perhaps that's not possible - or maybe he's done that. But I don't like the idea of paying for a massive redevelopment and then letting it sit empty.
The City could definitely make their financial commitments contingent upon firm agreements from prospective tenants.
I question the timeline of such a proposal (the last one COJ paid for), considering it included demolishing FDOT bridge ramps, etc. Nothing happens overnight when you get entities like COJ and FDOT involved. They don't operate in a manner that's conducive to free market dynamics. Considering the city filed a lawsuit that's still active, he should probably go ahead and negotiate long term leases with the existing structure. Doing such, means the existing structure stays for a while, but it doesn't mean the existing structure can't be renovated or upgraded. With that in mind, I think ProjectMaximus pretty much sums it up.
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on June 15, 2017, 09:34:55 PM
I'd let him go ahead and negotiate some long term leases. If the city invests properly (Laura Trio-type partnerships) and follows a comprehensive plan then there will be a reason to redevelop. We'll cross that bridge when we get there.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 15, 2017, 11:05:06 PM
Quote from: KenFSU on June 15, 2017, 09:45:27 PM
That Norfolk property does look like a LOT like the Landing.
Random question:
Is there another major city in the country, particularly in the sunbelt, that enjoys our same combination of riverfront and beaches?
The Hampton Roads...(Norfolk/Virginia Beach). DT Norfolk is on the Elizabeth River and Virginia Beach serves as Norfolk's version of Jacksonville Beach and the Southside. Others to consider include Houston/Galveston, Savannah, Charleston, Tampa Bay...
Thanks!
Reason I ask is because our beaches are packed on weekend mornings, and our riverfront is usually very, very quiet. If the St. Johns River and Atlantic Ocean are competing with each other in terms of recreation and entertainment, clearly the beach is winning (at least during temperate months). I was wondering what some of these other cities with more successful, active riverfronts might be doing differently beyond just a higher concentration of residential.
Quote from: KenFSU on June 16, 2017, 01:26:53 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 15, 2017, 11:05:06 PM
Quote from: KenFSU on June 15, 2017, 09:45:27 PM
That Norfolk property does look like a LOT like the Landing.
Random question:
Is there another major city in the country, particularly in the sunbelt, that enjoys our same combination of riverfront and beaches?
The Hampton Roads...(Norfolk/Virginia Beach). DT Norfolk is on the Elizabeth River and Virginia Beach serves as Norfolk's version of Jacksonville Beach and the Southside. Others to consider include Houston/Galveston, Savannah, Charleston, Tampa Bay...
Thanks!
Reason I ask is because our beaches are packed on weekend mornings, and our riverfront is usually very, very quiet. If the St. Johns River and Atlantic Ocean are competing with each other in terms of recreation and entertainment, clearly the beach is winning (at least during temperate months). I was wondering what some of these other cities with more successful, active riverfronts might be doing differently beyond just a higher concentration of residential.
Entry fee to enjoying the river is much higher. You really need a boat to get on the river vs just driving out to the beach. Other than some scattered parks and the riverwalk public access to River shoreline is pretty limited.
^Bingo. They don't really compete. The general public can play in one while the other requires an upgrade to a higher economic bracket for full utilization.
Due to the SJR flowing north and looking like chocolate milk, its not the most ideal spot for recreational boating. Then with the strong current its not ideal for waterskiing, wakeboarding, and rafting near downtown.
You really can't compare Jax to riverfront/waterfront cities out of state due to the fact that boaters have much better options nearby. St. Augustine routinely has clearer water and has many options for boaters to eat, drink, and be merry; plus downtown St. A is more accessible from the ICW. Then an hour and 15 minute or so drive from Jax gets you to New Smyrna, which is one of the best boating spots in the state (see Disappearing Island). People in Jax also have the ability to drive to the numerous springs around Lake George (some of the best in the state, imo), Ginnie, Ichnetucknee, etc; and many frequently do.
If Jax really wants to activate its river downtown, it needs to throw some serious $$$'s at creating a unique experience.
The St. Johns and tributaries are widely used, but the downtown area isn't a terrific place for small craft or what most people do. Fishing is better and easier around the river mouth, the Timucuan Preserve is more scenic, the Intracoastal and other waterways are slower moving and easier to navigate, and people with their own docks on, say, the Trout, Arlington, or Ortega Rivers are more likely just to stay in those areas when they just want to tool around. I am not really sure what Downtown could do to attract more recreational boaters than it gets now, except maybe a better public marina on the northbank. I'd put other improvements like a (legal) fishing pier and better public access from the land side ahead of trying to attract boaters.
Well, the thing working against DT being a more activated river, in addition to what's already been mentioned, is just the lack of tourism downtown that would support businesses that would generate money from the river.
Like Taca broke down, for the residents, there are plenty of options that are not only better, but closer to home, so why bother going DT in the first place?
Some things that would require a much higher % of tourism would be bringing the gambling boats back downtown. But they have 45-75 minute steam just to get to the mouth of the St. Johns from the Landing? Locals just drive to Mayport and are hitting the tables in 45 mintues. Not enough tourists in hotels to support docking downtown.
Same with boat rentals (motorized, paddle and sail), and the current sucks.
Same with dinner cruises - not enough to really cruise around and see.
I personally think a para-sailing trip would be cool near the core, but I'm not sure where you would actually do it and since there's not one here, the $$$ probably doesn't work anyhow.
So as much as we'd like to see the river through downtown activated, it's not really a good place for it IMO.
I disagree. I was pretty impressed by what Montreal had done along the St. Lawrence River (which has a current stronger than anything I've witnessed in downtown Jax) in terms of increasing public access. I think there's a ton of things we can do. I've got to run but I'll comment in greater detail when I get some free time this weekend.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 16, 2017, 02:45:59 PM
Well, the thing working against DT being a more activated river, in addition to what's already been mentioned, is just the lack of tourism downtown that would support businesses that would generate money from the river.
Like Taca broke down, for the residents, there are plenty of options that are not only better, but closer to home, so why bother going DT in the first place?
Some things that would require a much higher % of tourism would be bringing the gambling boats back downtown. But they have 45-75 minute steam just to get to the mouth of the St. Johns from the Landing? Locals just drive to Mayport and are hitting the tables in 45 mintues. Not enough tourists in hotels to support docking downtown.
Same with boat rentals (motorized, paddle and sail), and the current sucks.
Same with dinner cruises - not enough to really cruise around and see.
I personally think a para-sailing trip would be cool near the core, but I'm not sure where you would actually do it and since there's not one here, the $$$ probably doesn't work anyhow.
So as much as we'd like to see the river through downtown activated, it's not really a good place for it IMO.
Gambling river boats on the actual St. Johns could be pretty cool. They have those in Cincinnati. It could probably be done without opening the floodgates for on-shore casinos and all that. Dinner cruises at such haven't generally worked super well here, but I think that has a lot to do with Downtown's depressed state. It would probably work when Downtown gets in a stronger state.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 16, 2017, 02:52:27 PM
I disagree. I was pretty impressed by what Montreal had done along the St. Lawrence River (which has a current stronger than anything I've witnessed in downtown Jax) in terms of increasing public access. I think there's a ton of things we can do. I've got to run but I'll comment in greater detail when I get some free time this weekend.
Looking forward to it. Are these things that attract recreational boaters, or what?
Taca, agreed on the boating point, I suppose I left out that most of the desirable places to boat within Duval County are also away from Downtown. Despite its constraints, there is still a lot that could be done to activate the river for both boaters and land users.
For one, its insane that the City has done nothing with Exchange Island. I'm sure there are challenges with water, sewer, and electric, but if there is a way to get a waterfront bar/restaurant there, it would kill. Creating a unique environmental/outdoor experience would draw quite a few boaters and kayakers as well. Its kayakable from DT, JU, Arlington, and quite a few residential areas as well.
Downtown proper could use improvement to Hogan's/McCoy's creek's, a large free marina, fishing piers, actually programming the riverwalks with entertainment/music/vendors, having kayak/jet ski/boat rentals, and I'm sure numerous other things. Its ridiculous that COJ thinks you just build a riverwalk and they will come.
The North Florida Regional Council was recently working on creating a waterfront masterplan for Duval County, that would largely create projects for COJ and other governments to use for FIND Grants. Anyone know how that is going?
Quote from: Tacachale on June 16, 2017, 02:58:45 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 16, 2017, 02:52:27 PM
I disagree. I was pretty impressed by what Montreal had done along the St. Lawrence River (which has a current stronger than anything I've witnessed in downtown Jax) in terms of increasing public access. I think there's a ton of things we can do. I've got to run but I'll comment in greater detail when I get some free time this weekend.
Looking forward to it. Are these things that attract recreational boaters, or what?
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Next-City-Montr%C3%A9al-2017-Alumni-Track/i-8Lbwvtr/0/1bd87748/XL/20170601_112336-XL.jpg)
I found it to be a creative mix offering a little bit of something for everyone, within a compact setting that takes advantage of the river and old industrial infrastructure. Here's more detail and images:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,34116.msg470340.html#msg470340
High speed boating DT (ie, jet skis and para sailing) may be a problem due to speed limits. At one time I remember these due to manatees and the bridges. Not sure if this is still the case.
Did anyone notice the City's comments to Sleiman's latest tantrum? They ended that due to the pending lawsuit, by Sleiman, they could not comment further.
I remember you catch way more bees with honey than vinegar. Drop the silly lawsuits and warm up to the people who hold the future of your investment.
I was under the impression the city filed the suit against Sleiman.
QuoteHowever, efforts have not been successful with the most recent attempt falling apart in a legal dispute over whether proper documents were signed to transfer ownership of a Downtown parking garage. That lawsuit, brought by the city, is still in court.
^The city is the one who sued Sleiman (with good cause). The earlier statement that if anyone else owned the Landing we'd have struck a deal by now is unfortunately pretty accurate. The city seems to vacillate between fighting him on everything, to breaking the bank to give him what he wants, depending on who's in the mayor's office.
The Landing needs a creative, high energy developer, which is something Tony Sleiman IS NOT.
If properly done it could be a money maker right now. Imagine some free concerts or boating events. A tie in with the Springfield Cruise and some of the local breweries. At least one monthly special event so people get into the habit of going to The Landing. Right now it's blase at best.
As I've said before, bring Starbucks back even if you have to give them a space. Place it on the inside with a great view of the water and you will have constant foot traffic into and out of The Landing.
The thing about the Landing is that there have been so many redevelopment plans and unresolved issues with the parking over the years that no one actually thinks it will ever happen. At least that is my take, and I don't plan on wasting more energy expecting it to happen this time.
It seems nothing will ever happen, I blame the city more the owner as it is their responsibility for a thriving DT.
Quote from: CityLife on June 16, 2017, 02:18:14 PM
Due to the SJR flowing north
How exactly is that detrimental? In fact, it's somewhat of a bullet point for attraction simply for the unique factor.
Quote from: Jim on June 17, 2017, 06:27:29 PM
Quote from: CityLife on June 16, 2017, 02:18:14 PM
Due to the SJR flowing north
How exactly is that detrimental? In fact, it's somewhat of a bullet point for attraction simply for the unique factor.
The water is chocolate milk partially due to it flowing north into the ocean, not from the ocean.
Quote from: CityLife on June 18, 2017, 08:22:09 AM
Quote from: Jim on June 17, 2017, 06:27:29 PM
Quote from: CityLife on June 16, 2017, 02:18:14 PM
Due to the SJR flowing north
How exactly is that detrimental? In fact, it's somewhat of a bullet point for attraction simply for the unique factor.
The water is chocolate milk partially due to it flowing north into the ocean, not from the ocean.
Rivers flow to the ocean, not vice versa. Well, the ones that empty into the ocean do. That said, the estuary of the river is brackish and affected by the ocean (as is the case with estuaries).
The fact that the St Johns flows north has nothing to do with this. It would look how it does if it flowed south to the ocean and Jax was located near the mouth.
TBH I don't think either the river flowing north, nor the color, are stopping people from using it.
Quote from: Tacachale on June 18, 2017, 09:04:56 AM
TBH I don't think either the river flowing north, nor the color, are stopping people from using it.
Yeah - lots of rivers are dingy-looking. The Mississippi is a great example. As is the Thames (at least as it moves through London). People use both.
The Mississippi and Thames don't have towns like St. Auggie and NSB nearby, and they certainly don't have areas like Tampa Bay to Naples and South Florida that are more desirable to boaters. Sure, the average long time resident that grew up here has no problem with it, but if someone moves to Florida to fish/boat, Jax generally isn't on the radar.
Quote from: CityLife on June 18, 2017, 09:23:41 AM
The Mississippi and Thames don't have towns like St. Auggie and NSB nearby, and they certainly don't have areas like Tampa Bay to Naples and South Florida that are more desirable to boaters. Sure, the average long time resident that grew up here has no problem with it, but if someone moves to Florida to fish/boat, Jax generally isn't on the radar.
You're joking, right? The Thames has all of Essex (including Southend, which boasts the longest pleasure pier in the world) and Kent.
I can't vouch for the Mississippi.
The river is brown due to naturally occurring tannins... not the ocean or pollution.
QuoteSleiman said he's been using the Jacksonville Landing to help business owners like Tony Ryals, who is paralyzed and paints pictures by holding a brush in his mouth.
"He's one of the most detailed artist I've ever seen. Guess what? We charge him zero money for rent," said Sleiman.
Sleiman said if he gets the opportunity to rebuild this area, he will ensure all his current tenants who don't pay will have a spot at the Jacksonville Landing.
http://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/local/jacksonville-landing-owners-now-is-critical-point-in-the-landings-life-cycle/533978873 (http://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/local/jacksonville-landing-owners-now-is-critical-point-in-the-landings-life-cycle/533978873)
Why do I get the feeling that this doesn't help sell the place to new potential tenants? Like it is a good gesture and all, but Sleiman has so many properties. I don't think he should be giving free rent to anyone in such a high profile location. I wouldn't want to be paying premium rent and have a number of my fellow businesses getting their place for free.
That's just my opinion though. I'm not a business owner, so I don't really know what businesses look for when choosing a location. It just doesn't seem right for the Landing.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 18, 2017, 05:57:54 PM
The river is brown due to naturally occurring tannins... not the ocean or pollution.
Of course. I think the argument he was making was that it wouldn't be this color if it were flowing south
from the ocean or something. Which doesn't make sense.
I wonder what the city's offer and solution was?
QuoteAction News Jax contacted the city about the business partnership and they provided us with this statement:
Since taking office, Mayor Lenny Curry has continued to demonstrate his commitment to the development and improvement of downtown Jacksonville. As a notable and recognized landmark, the Landing should be flourishing and contributing to the area's economic growth and success. The mayor and his administration have met with Mr. Sleiman on several occasions to discuss opportunities and options for improvement. Sleiman Enterprises has demonstrated no interest in our offer and solution. Sleiman Enterprises is the obstacle. It is clear that the Landing is being mismanaged. The Mayor will not ask taxpayers to bail out a mismanaged development. Because there is pending litigation, there is no additional information to provide at this time." - Marsha Oliver, Director, Public Affairs
Quote from: thelakelander on June 19, 2017, 06:03:01 AM
I wonder what the city's offer and solution was?
QuoteAction News Jax contacted the city about the business partnership and they provided us with this statement:
Since taking office, Mayor Lenny Curry has continued to demonstrate his commitment to the development and improvement of downtown Jacksonville. As a notable and recognized landmark, the Landing should be flourishing and contributing to the area's economic growth and success. The mayor and his administration have met with Mr. Sleiman on several occasions to discuss opportunities and options for improvement. Sleiman Enterprises has demonstrated no interest in our offer and solution. Sleiman Enterprises is the obstacle. It is clear that the Landing is being mismanaged. The Mayor will not ask taxpayers to bail out a mismanaged development. Because there is pending litigation, there is no additional information to provide at this time." - Marsha Oliver, Director, Public Affairs
That is a strong statement. I like it though. It shows they have exhausted their conversations at this time so Sleiman is going to the media to try and strong arm them. The Mayor did not back down. Depending on the solution, I agree with his sentiments.
Quote from: Adam White on June 19, 2017, 01:49:40 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 18, 2017, 05:57:54 PM
The river is brown due to naturally occurring tannins... not the ocean or pollution.
Of course. I think the argument he was making was that it wouldn't be this color if it were flowing south from the ocean or something. Which doesn't make sense.
The point that I was trying to make (not clearly), is that as a massive river it dumps a substantial amount of water into the ocean and does not allow for the type of salt water intrusion that other water bodies do throughout the state. The Jupiter Inlet, Ft. Pierce Inlet, Ponce Inlet, etc have very low flow water bodies going into the ocean, and thereby have clear water upriver from the mouth, particularly at high tide. Semantics and root causes aside, the water in the SJR is about as dark as it gets and does affect usage...There's a reason people travel around the world to visit the Caribbean and South Pacific, and not Mississippi. There's a reason Destin is a huge tourist spot and Wakulla County isn't.
Jax is at a competitive disadvantage from many other coastal areas of the state from a boating perspective. IF the city wants to really activate the river, imo it needs to do something special. If I was wrong, we wouldn't be having this discussion.....
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 18, 2017, 05:57:54 PM
The river is brown due to naturally occurring tannins... not the ocean or pollution.
Most of the waterways in Florida that people actually use look pretty much like that, too. The Gulf and the ocean in much of SE Florida are clearer, but the inland waterways (where most people boat) all have pretty much that same dark, tea-stain color because the same dynamics are at play. Not all are as dark as the St. Johns, but the Intracoastal, for instance, looks like that all the way down to Miami. So do the Caloosahatchee River, the Hillsborough River, and the Everglades. I don't think that the color of the St. Johns (or the fact that it flows north) has much, if any, impact on how many people boat on it compared to other factors.
When I made my initial comment, I was speaking to the fact that the St. Johns in Downtown Jax specifically isn't as widely used as other parts of the river and some other waterways in our region (and elsewhere). Most people who do use the St. Johns do it for either fishing or boating (typically in pretty small craft), and Downtown isn't the ideal place for that. In fact you aren't supposed to fish there at all from the land and there aren't many place to even tie a boat up - there's a 2 pier marina at River City Brewing Company, another at Berkman that's presumably private, some slips along the Riverwalk, and that's pretty much it. There's no launch.
On a similar note, Ennis' stuff from Montreal is great, but most of them aren't about either fishing or boating. It's mainly boat tours, places for paddleboarding and kayaking, and creative use of space on land, etc. If the river is wide and fast moving in that area, it wouldn't be surprising if there aren't a ton of small boats out there. I'm sure some of those things are things we could do here in Jax, and others (like jet boating and tours) will be more viable as downtown becomes more of a destination.
Quote from: Tacachale on June 19, 2017, 09:39:46 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 18, 2017, 05:57:54 PM
The river is brown due to naturally occurring tannins... not the ocean or pollution.
Most of the waterways in Florida that people actually use look pretty much like that, too. The Gulf and the ocean in much of SE Florida are clearer, but the inland waterways (where most people boat) all have pretty much that same dark, tea-stain color because the same dynamics are at play. Not all are as dark as the St. Johns, but the Intracoastal, for instance, looks like that all the way down to Miami. So do the Caloosahatchee River, the Hillsborough River, and the Everglades. I don't think that the color of the St. Johns (or the fact that it flows north) has much, if any, impact on how many people boat on it compared to other factors.
You might want to leave Jax a bit more if you think the Intercoastal looks like it does in Jax all the way to Miami....
Quote from: Tacachale on June 19, 2017, 09:39:46 AMOn a similar note, Ennis' stuff from Montreal is great, but most of them aren't about either fishing or boating. It's mainly boat tours, places for paddleboarding and kayaking, and creative use of space on land, etc. If the river is wide and fast moving in that area, it wouldn't be surprising if there aren't a ton of small boats out there. I'm sure some of those things are things we could do here in Jax, and others (like jet boating and tours) will be more viable as downtown becomes more of a destination.
Yes, recreational boating isn't an amenity that the majority of the local population has access too. Thus, interaction with the river (at least in downtown), should consider the importance of social equity and access. This essentially means, finding creative ways to enhance access and interactivity with the river and the land adjacent to it. For example, even with a current, there are areas that may be suitable to fishing and other uses, such as interactive family friendly playscapes and plazas in green space adjacent to or on the riverwalk. Also, instead of us determining what the market should be, we should let the market and private enterprise to have more input on downtown's future. This can happen through easing up on some of our regulations and through the use of clustering improvements and development together, in a manner that builds synergy for this we assume downtown can't support. From my travels, cities with vibrant waterfronts have found a way to do this.
Quote from: CityLife on June 19, 2017, 09:55:36 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on June 19, 2017, 09:39:46 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 18, 2017, 05:57:54 PM
The river is brown due to naturally occurring tannins... not the ocean or pollution.
Most of the waterways in Florida that people actually use look pretty much like that, too. The Gulf and the ocean in much of SE Florida are clearer, but the inland waterways (where most people boat) all have pretty much that same dark, tea-stain color because the same dynamics are at play. Not all are as dark as the St. Johns, but the Intracoastal, for instance, looks like that all the way down to Miami. So do the Caloosahatchee River, the Hillsborough River, and the Everglades. I don't think that the color of the St. Johns (or the fact that it flows north) has much, if any, impact on how many people boat on it compared to other factors.
You might want to leave Jax a bit more if you think the Intercoastal looks like it does in Jax all the way to Miami....
LOL, nice try, but that isn't what I said. I said the inland waterways have the dark tea color across the state because the same processes are at work. "Not all are as dark as the St. Johns", but even in places where the ocean is clearer, the Intracoastal et al are generally noticeably darker, and yes, that's true pretty much down to Miami. Hence you can get shots like this stock photo of Hollywood Lakes where the Intracoastal is dark even though the ocean is crystal blue one block across the barrier island. I can guarantee you that more people are boating on the left side of this photo than the right side.
(https://st3.depositphotos.com/1007980/14772/v/380/depositphotos_147724915-stock-video-hollywood-lakes-neighborhood.jpg)
The point you appear to be making, at least retroactively, is that there are places where there the clearer ocean water comes in and makes inland waterways clearer, which is accurate. It's easy to see the difference in the tannin-colored Oleta River (https://www.floridastateparks.org/sites/default/files/styles/big_gallery_image/public/Division%20of%20Recreation%20and%20Parks/gallery/Oleta%20River.jpg?itok=jQ4FTfCs) in North Miami, for instance, and the much clearer Biscayne Bay (https://www.floridastateparks.org/sites/default/files/styles/big_gallery_image/public/Division%20of%20Recreation%20and%20Parks/gallery/Oleta%20River%20SP.JPG?itok=wfz0X8Uc) where it flows out. The impact that has on boating is an open question.
Quote from: Tacachale on June 19, 2017, 10:49:16 AM
Quote from: CityLife on June 19, 2017, 09:55:36 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on June 19, 2017, 09:39:46 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 18, 2017, 05:57:54 PM
The river is brown due to naturally occurring tannins... not the ocean or pollution.
Most of the waterways in Florida that people actually use look pretty much like that, too. The Gulf and the ocean in much of SE Florida are clearer, but the inland waterways (where most people boat) all have pretty much that same dark, tea-stain color because the same dynamics are at play. Not all are as dark as the St. Johns, but the Intracoastal, for instance, looks like that all the way down to Miami. So do the Caloosahatchee River, the Hillsborough River, and the Everglades. I don't think that the color of the St. Johns (or the fact that it flows north) has much, if any, impact on how many people boat on it compared to other factors.
You might want to leave Jax a bit more if you think the Intercoastal looks like it does in Jax all the way to Miami....
LOL, nice try, but that isn't what I said. I said the inland waterways have the dark tea color across the state because the same processes are at work. "Not all are as dark as the St. Johns", but even in places where the ocean is clearer, the Intracoastal et al are generally noticeably darker, and yes, that's true pretty much down to Miami. Hence you can get shots like this stock photo of Hollywood Lakes where the Intracoastal is dark even though the ocean is crystal blue one block across the barrier island. I can guarantee you that more people are boating on the left side of this photo than the right side.
(https://st3.depositphotos.com/1007980/14772/v/380/depositphotos_147724915-stock-video-hollywood-lakes-neighborhood.jpg)
The point you appear to be making, at least retroactively, is that there are places where there the clearer ocean water comes in and makes inland waterways clearer, which is accurate. It's easy to see the difference in the tannin-colored Oleta River (https://www.floridastateparks.org/sites/default/files/styles/big_gallery_image/public/Division%20of%20Recreation%20and%20Parks/gallery/Oleta%20River.jpg?itok=jQ4FTfCs) in North Miami, for instance, and the much clearer Biscayne Bay (https://www.floridastateparks.org/sites/default/files/styles/big_gallery_image/public/Division%20of%20Recreation%20and%20Parks/gallery/Oleta%20River%20SP.JPG?itok=wfz0X8Uc) where it flows out. The impact that has on boating is an open question.
But none of that has anything to do with the St Johns river flowing north!
Quote from: thelakelander on June 19, 2017, 10:27:50 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on June 19, 2017, 09:39:46 AMOn a similar note, Ennis' stuff from Montreal is great, but most of them aren't about either fishing or boating. It's mainly boat tours, places for paddleboarding and kayaking, and creative use of space on land, etc. If the river is wide and fast moving in that area, it wouldn't be surprising if there aren't a ton of small boats out there. I'm sure some of those things are things we could do here in Jax, and others (like jet boating and tours) will be more viable as downtown becomes more of a destination.
Yes, recreational boating isn't an amenity that the majority of the local population has access too. Thus, interaction with the river (at least in downtown), should consider the importance of social equity and access. This essentially means, finding creative ways to enhance access and interactivity with the river and the land adjacent to it. For example, even with a current, there are areas that may be suitable to fishing and other uses, such as interactive family friendly playscapes and plazas in green space adjacent to or on the riverwalk. Also, instead of us determining what the market should be, we should let the market and private enterprise to have more input on downtown's future. This can happen through easing up on some of our regulations and through the use of clustering improvements and development together, in a manner that builds synergy for this we assume downtown can't support. From my travels, cities with vibrant waterfronts have found a way to do this.
True, but worth point out that jet boats, tours, etc. aren't something the local population has much access to or interest in, either. That stuff is mainly for tourists. Though building up spots for fishing, sight seeing, play places, etc. would attract both locals and visitors.
Quote from: Tacachale on June 19, 2017, 10:49:16 AM
Quote from: CityLife on June 19, 2017, 09:55:36 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on June 19, 2017, 09:39:46 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 18, 2017, 05:57:54 PM
The river is brown due to naturally occurring tannins... not the ocean or pollution.
Most of the waterways in Florida that people actually use look pretty much like that, too. The Gulf and the ocean in much of SE Florida are clearer, but the inland waterways (where most people boat) all have pretty much that same dark, tea-stain color because the same dynamics are at play. Not all are as dark as the St. Johns, but the Intracoastal, for instance, looks like that all the way down to Miami. So do the Caloosahatchee River, the Hillsborough River, and the Everglades. I don't think that the color of the St. Johns (or the fact that it flows north) has much, if any, impact on how many people boat on it compared to other factors.
You might want to leave Jax a bit more if you think the Intercoastal looks like it does in Jax all the way to Miami....
LOL, nice try, but that isn't what I said. I said the inland waterways have the dark tea color across the state because the same processes are at work. "Not all are as dark as the St. Johns", but even in places where the ocean is clearer, the Intracoastal et al are generally noticeably darker, and yes, that's true pretty much down to Miami.
You said, "but the inland waterways (where most people boat) all have pretty much that same dark, tea-stain color because the same dynamics are at play. Not all are as dark as the St. Johns, but the Intracoastal, for instance, looks like that all the way down to Miami."
I don't need to use a stock photo to know what I'm talking about. I currently live part time in South Florida, grew up visiting family all over South Florida and have a mother in law that lives 5 miles south of Ponce Inlet on the Indian River. The water is significantly clearer in all of these areas here than it is in Jax. I'm sure there are some discharge areas where water is murky, but there are many clear spots (and certainly many non-chocolate milk spots). Google Peanut Island and Disappearing Island, look at the amount of boats there on a weekend and get back to me about water quality not impacting boating....
I think we get too much into the weeds when trying to pinpoint what every specific activity and option engage the river is (although accommodating tourism activities should play an important role as well).
The Montreal example of jet boat tours was a creative use that worked within their local urban context and river current conditions. I did not mean to imply that this particular use would be feasible for Jacksonville. In Jax, there may be a variety of uses well beyond our limited understanding of what's feasible within our local context. I actually don't believe its our place to decide or micro manage every use that may be feasible within our setting.
My perspective places more focus on clustering the investments we do make and stripping down the regulatory barriers that stop synergy and individual creativity to having an impact on the downtown setting. When market rate forces are allowed to have an impact on downtown's future, I believe we'll discover things we've never known were even possible in Jacksonville. However, this approach means taking our hands out of the cookie jar and allowing others to have some crumbs, letting things evolve organically a bit more than they do today. For whatever reasons, since the Haydon Burns era, politically we've struggled with situations that allow more citizens and market forces to come to the table. Unfortunately, this results in us wasting millions of tax dollars being spent on the name of revitalization.
Quote from: CityLife on June 19, 2017, 11:26:36 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on June 19, 2017, 10:49:16 AM
Quote from: CityLife on June 19, 2017, 09:55:36 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on June 19, 2017, 09:39:46 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 18, 2017, 05:57:54 PM
The river is brown due to naturally occurring tannins... not the ocean or pollution.
Most of the waterways in Florida that people actually use look pretty much like that, too. The Gulf and the ocean in much of SE Florida are clearer, but the inland waterways (where most people boat) all have pretty much that same dark, tea-stain color because the same dynamics are at play. Not all are as dark as the St. Johns, but the Intracoastal, for instance, looks like that all the way down to Miami. So do the Caloosahatchee River, the Hillsborough River, and the Everglades. I don't think that the color of the St. Johns (or the fact that it flows north) has much, if any, impact on how many people boat on it compared to other factors.
You might want to leave Jax a bit more if you think the Intercoastal looks like it does in Jax all the way to Miami....
LOL, nice try, but that isn't what I said. I said the inland waterways have the dark tea color across the state because the same processes are at work. "Not all are as dark as the St. Johns", but even in places where the ocean is clearer, the Intracoastal et al are generally noticeably darker, and yes, that's true pretty much down to Miami.
You said, "but the inland waterways (where most people boat) all have pretty much that same dark, tea-stain color because the same dynamics are at play. Not all are as dark as the St. Johns, but the Intracoastal, for instance, looks like that all the way down to Miami."
I don't need to use a stock photo to know what I'm talking about. I currently live part time in South Florida, grew up visiting family all over South Florida and have a mother in law that lives 5 miles south of Ponce Inlet on the Indian River. The water is significantly clearer in all of these areas here than it is in Jax. I'm sure there are some discharge areas where water is murky, but there are many clear spots (and certainly many non-chocolate milk spots). Google Peanut Island and Disappearing Island, look at the amount of boats there on a weekend and get back to me about water quality not impacting boating....
Well, you've changed your tack so many times in this discussion that it's hard to reckon what you're trying to say ;) Your initial point was that due to the dark water and the fact that the river flows north, local boaters have better options nearby. I don't believe either of those are significant factors, for the reasons I and others gave, but it does seem obvious that in Downtown Jax at least, there are a lot fewer boaters (and people in general) than in other parts of the region or elsewhere. Your subsequent argument that the water color contributes to fewer people boating in the Jax area compared to other parts of the state may well be true, but I don't know what your point is. Jacksonville isn't the vacationing hotspot that other parts of Florida are, either. We wouldn't have to compete with those places to build a working waterfront.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 19, 2017, 11:35:16 AM
I think we get too much into the weeds when trying to pinpoint what every specific activity and option engage the river is (although accommodating tourism activities should play an important role as well).
The Montreal example of jet boat tours was a creative use that worked within their local urban context and river current conditions. I did not mean to imply that this particular use would be feasible for Jacksonville. In Jax, there may be a variety of uses well beyond our limited understanding of what's feasible within our local context. I actually don't believe its our place to decide or micro manage every use that may be feasible within our setting.
My perspective places more focus on clustering the investments we do make and stripping down the regulatory barriers that stop synergy and individual creativity to having an impact on the downtown setting. When market rate forces are allowed to have an impact on downtown's future, I believe we'll discover things we've never known were even possible in Jacksonville. However, this approach means taking our hands out of the cookie jar and allowing others to have some crumbs, letting things evolve organically a bit more than they do today. For whatever reasons, since the Haydon Burns era, politically we've struggled with situations that allow more citizens and market forces to come to the table. Unfortunately, this results in us wasting millions of tax dollars being spent on the name of revitalization.
You're right when it comes to the tourist stuff, but I doubt most of the rest (piers, green space, playgrounds, kayaking spots) could or would be done without the public sector taking the lead and fronting most of the costs. Probably why more of it hasn't been done.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 19, 2017, 06:03:01 AM
I wonder what the city's offer and solution was?
QuoteAction News Jax contacted the city about the business partnership and they provided us with this statement:
Since taking office, Mayor Lenny Curry has continued to demonstrate his commitment to the development and improvement of downtown Jacksonville. As a notable and recognized landmark, the Landing should be flourishing and contributing to the area's economic growth and success. The mayor and his administration have met with Mr. Sleiman on several occasions to discuss opportunities and options for improvement. Sleiman Enterprises has demonstrated no interest in our offer and solution. Sleiman Enterprises is the obstacle. It is clear that the Landing is being mismanaged. The Mayor will not ask taxpayers to bail out a mismanaged development. Because there is pending litigation, there is no additional information to provide at this time." - Marsha Oliver, Director, Public Affairs
That is pretty straight forward. I would say its going to court.
Hopefully people wont fall for the media blitz like the Rockville promoter pulled.
Quote from: spuwho on June 19, 2017, 12:44:23 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 19, 2017, 06:03:01 AM
I wonder what the city's offer and solution was?
QuoteAction News Jax contacted the city about the business partnership and they provided us with this statement:
Since taking office, Mayor Lenny Curry has continued to demonstrate his commitment to the development and improvement of downtown Jacksonville. As a notable and recognized landmark, the Landing should be flourishing and contributing to the area's economic growth and success. The mayor and his administration have met with Mr. Sleiman on several occasions to discuss opportunities and options for improvement. Sleiman Enterprises has demonstrated no interest in our offer and solution. Sleiman Enterprises is the obstacle. It is clear that the Landing is being mismanaged. The Mayor will not ask taxpayers to bail out a mismanaged development. Because there is pending litigation, there is no additional information to provide at this time." - Marsha Oliver, Director, Public Affairs
That is pretty straight forward. I would say its going to court.
Hopefully people wont fall for the media blitz like the Rockville promoter pulled.
Wow, that's a pretty strong statement. I guess we can rule out anything happening until Sleiman sells (or changes), or another Sleiman-friendly mayor takes office.
Quote from: Tacachale on June 19, 2017, 12:39:41 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 19, 2017, 11:35:16 AM
I think we get too much into the weeds when trying to pinpoint what every specific activity and option engage the river is (although accommodating tourism activities should play an important role as well).
The Montreal example of jet boat tours was a creative use that worked within their local urban context and river current conditions. I did not mean to imply that this particular use would be feasible for Jacksonville. In Jax, there may be a variety of uses well beyond our limited understanding of what's feasible within our local context. I actually don't believe its our place to decide or micro manage every use that may be feasible within our setting.
My perspective places more focus on clustering the investments we do make and stripping down the regulatory barriers that stop synergy and individual creativity to having an impact on the downtown setting. When market rate forces are allowed to have an impact on downtown's future, I believe we'll discover things we've never known were even possible in Jacksonville. However, this approach means taking our hands out of the cookie jar and allowing others to have some crumbs, letting things evolve organically a bit more than they do today. For whatever reasons, since the Haydon Burns era, politically we've struggled with situations that allow more citizens and market forces to come to the table. Unfortunately, this results in us wasting millions of tax dollars being spent on the name of revitalization.
You're right when it comes to the tourist stuff, but I doubt most of the rest (piers, green space, playgrounds, kayaking spots) could or would be done without the public sector taking the lead and fronting most of the costs.
COJ should lead by making sure its public investments are inclusive of the general population and clustered together, within a pedestrian scale setting, in order to build synergy. Yes, this would mean making public investments in the heart of a designated area a priority over those on the fringe. Yes, it would mean identifying areas for green space, playgrounds, kayaking spots, etc. It would mean taking a lead on reviewing and modifying regulations that slow the market or ridding itself of key sites and buildings at a discount to encourage greater and quicker redevelopment. However, it does not necessarily mean having to front the majority of capital costs or attempting to pinpoint how spaces should be used at the minute level. It also doesn't mean making a determination of the feasibility of a private sector business, like a tour or charter fishing operation.
QuoteProbably why more of it hasn't been done.
CW Boyer has been pretty successful in coordinating this type of funding and activity during her term with the private sector. For example, San Marco is going to end up with a nice shared use path that Baptist Health and the infill project at Hendricks will foot most of the bill for. Another riverwalk segment is being built as a part of another apartment development in Riverside. Then FDOT is footing the bill for the shared use path across I-95 as a part of that roadway expansion project. These are all examples of public improvements being funded by the private sector and other existing funding pots, through coordination of projects. When complete, the use of the facility will end up helping stimulate more mixed-use infill development in Northern San Marco and the Southbank. These options have always been around, it just took someone like CW Boyer to utilize the tool of coordination.
Quote from: Tacachale on June 19, 2017, 12:32:36 PM
Quote from: CityLife on June 19, 2017, 11:26:36 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on June 19, 2017, 10:49:16 AM
Quote from: CityLife on June 19, 2017, 09:55:36 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on June 19, 2017, 09:39:46 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 18, 2017, 05:57:54 PM
The river is brown due to naturally occurring tannins... not the ocean or pollution.
Most of the waterways in Florida that people actually use look pretty much like that, too. The Gulf and the ocean in much of SE Florida are clearer, but the inland waterways (where most people boat) all have pretty much that same dark, tea-stain color because the same dynamics are at play. Not all are as dark as the St. Johns, but the Intracoastal, for instance, looks like that all the way down to Miami. So do the Caloosahatchee River, the Hillsborough River, and the Everglades. I don't think that the color of the St. Johns (or the fact that it flows north) has much, if any, impact on how many people boat on it compared to other factors.
You might want to leave Jax a bit more if you think the Intercoastal looks like it does in Jax all the way to Miami....
LOL, nice try, but that isn't what I said. I said the inland waterways have the dark tea color across the state because the same processes are at work. "Not all are as dark as the St. Johns", but even in places where the ocean is clearer, the Intracoastal et al are generally noticeably darker, and yes, that's true pretty much down to Miami.
You said, "but the inland waterways (where most people boat) all have pretty much that same dark, tea-stain color because the same dynamics are at play. Not all are as dark as the St. Johns, but the Intracoastal, for instance, looks like that all the way down to Miami."
I don't need to use a stock photo to know what I'm talking about. I currently live part time in South Florida, grew up visiting family all over South Florida and have a mother in law that lives 5 miles south of Ponce Inlet on the Indian River. The water is significantly clearer in all of these areas here than it is in Jax. I'm sure there are some discharge areas where water is murky, but there are many clear spots (and certainly many non-chocolate milk spots). Google Peanut Island and Disappearing Island, look at the amount of boats there on a weekend and get back to me about water quality not impacting boating....
Well, you've changed your tack so many times in this discussion that it's hard to reckon what you're trying to say ;) Your initial point was that due to the dark water and the fact that the river flows north, local boaters have better options nearby. I don't believe either of those are significant factors, for the reasons I and others gave, but it does seem obvious that in Downtown Jax at least, there are a lot fewer boaters (and people in general) than in other parts of the region or elsewhere. Your subsequent argument that the water color contributes to fewer people boating in the Jax area compared to other parts of the state may well be true, but I don't know what your point is. Jacksonville isn't the vacationing hotspot that other parts of Florida are, either. We wouldn't have to compete with those places to build a working waterfront.
My initial statement was that the river near Jax is dark partially because it flows north (also partially due to tannin). Because of the sheer size and volume of the river flow, it does not allow salt water intrusion (clear water) into the river as much as other water bodies in the state that have less volume. Therefore, there aren't things like Peanut Island, Disappearing Island, and the numerous clear water sandbar hangouts that line the east coast of Florida. Whether or not we can agree on the root cause of the water quality differences, they are absolute and undisputable.
Due to the aforementioned water quality diferences, Jax is not a weekend destination for boaters (as NSB, St. Auggie, and South Florida are). Additionally, locals are less likely to own boats based on my experiences.
The entire point was that Jax is at a competitive disadvantage from a boating/water activation perspective in comparison to other parts of the state, and needs to do something unique and substantial to drive more users if it ever wants to activate the river...And as Lake has pointed out, all efforts don't need to be tailored to boaters to due accessibility reasons.
Quote from: Tacachale on June 19, 2017, 12:53:57 PM
Quote from: spuwho on June 19, 2017, 12:44:23 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 19, 2017, 06:03:01 AM
I wonder what the city's offer and solution was?
QuoteAction News Jax contacted the city about the business partnership and they provided us with this statement:
Since taking office, Mayor Lenny Curry has continued to demonstrate his commitment to the development and improvement of downtown Jacksonville. As a notable and recognized landmark, the Landing should be flourishing and contributing to the area's economic growth and success. The mayor and his administration have met with Mr. Sleiman on several occasions to discuss opportunities and options for improvement. Sleiman Enterprises has demonstrated no interest in our offer and solution. Sleiman Enterprises is the obstacle. It is clear that the Landing is being mismanaged. The Mayor will not ask taxpayers to bail out a mismanaged development. Because there is pending litigation, there is no additional information to provide at this time." - Marsha Oliver, Director, Public Affairs
That is pretty straight forward. I would say its going to court.
Hopefully people wont fall for the media blitz like the Rockville promoter pulled.
Wow, that's a pretty strong statement. I guess we can rule out anything happening until Sleiman sells (or changes), or another Sleiman-friendly mayor takes office.
Yeah, this pretty much sums up the Landing's situation. Sleiman should maintain/paint/pressure wash the existing structure and sign long term leases for the space. No $12 million incentive to demolish and rebuild will be coming anytime soon.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 19, 2017, 01:24:15 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on June 19, 2017, 12:53:57 PM
Quote from: spuwho on June 19, 2017, 12:44:23 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 19, 2017, 06:03:01 AM
I wonder what the city's offer and solution was?
QuoteAction News Jax contacted the city about the business partnership and they provided us with this statement:
Since taking office, Mayor Lenny Curry has continued to demonstrate his commitment to the development and improvement of downtown Jacksonville. As a notable and recognized landmark, the Landing should be flourishing and contributing to the area's economic growth and success. The mayor and his administration have met with Mr. Sleiman on several occasions to discuss opportunities and options for improvement. Sleiman Enterprises has demonstrated no interest in our offer and solution. Sleiman Enterprises is the obstacle. It is clear that the Landing is being mismanaged. The Mayor will not ask taxpayers to bail out a mismanaged development. Because there is pending litigation, there is no additional information to provide at this time." - Marsha Oliver, Director, Public Affairs
That is pretty straight forward. I would say its going to court.
Hopefully people wont fall for the media blitz like the Rockville promoter pulled.
Wow, that's a pretty strong statement. I guess we can rule out anything happening until Sleiman sells (or changes), or another Sleiman-friendly mayor takes office.
Yeah, this pretty much sums up the Landing's situation. Sleiman should maintain/paint/pressure wash the existing structure and sign long term leases for the space. No $12 million incentive to demolish and rebuild will be coming anytime soon.
What should our downtown priorities be that require incentives/subsidies from the city?
1) Laura Street
2) Convention Center?
3) What else?
3. Residential development on the Northbank.
4. More residential development on the Northbank.
Quote from: FlaBoy on June 19, 2017, 01:33:55 PM
What should our downtown priorities be that require incentives/subsidies from the city?
I agree 100% with most of Ennis's suggestions and it requires very little in the way of subsidy from the government.
1.) COJ needs to get and stay the hell out of the way of trying to dictate private market business. i.e. Food Trucks
2.) Departments that are supposed to be stewards for smart growth need to grow a spine and actually do their job in ensuring 'smart' growth as opposed to building for the sake of building something. i.e. Paramore Garage, Mobility Plan
3.) The city needs to stop funding pie in the sky developement dreams up front. I"m ok with back-end, performance backed incentives, but cash up front is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. i.e. Shipyards I, II
4.) There needs to be a better (if there's one at all) plan in place to start putting so many of their properties back on the tax rolls. If they would stop trying to make an immediate profit (trying to sell dilapidated properties at market rates) and allow for a moderate, long-term income then they wouldn't still be stuck with so much under/non-performing property on the tax rolls. i.e. See #1
Quote from: CityLife on June 19, 2017, 09:31:17 AM
Quote from: Adam White on June 19, 2017, 01:49:40 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 18, 2017, 05:57:54 PM
The river is brown due to naturally occurring tannins... not the ocean or pollution.
Of course. I think the argument he was making was that it wouldn't be this color if it were flowing south from the ocean or something. Which doesn't make sense.
The point that I was trying to make (not clearly), is that as a massive river it dumps a substantial amount of water into the ocean and does not allow for the type of salt water intrusion that other water bodies do throughout the state. The Jupiter Inlet, Ft. Pierce Inlet, Ponce Inlet, etc have very low flow water bodies going into the ocean, and thereby have clear water upriver from the mouth, particularly at high tide. Semantics and root causes aside, the water in the SJR is about as dark as it gets and does affect usage...There's a reason people travel around the world to visit the Caribbean and South Pacific, and not Mississippi. There's a reason Destin is a huge tourist spot and Wakulla County isn't.
Jax is at a competitive disadvantage from many other coastal areas of the state from a boating perspective. IF the city wants to really activate the river, imo it needs to do something special. If I was wrong, we wouldn't be having this discussion.....
Duval does pretty well with regards to boat registrations... 26,764
https://www.flhsmv.gov/pdf/vessels/vesselstats2016.pdf
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 19, 2017, 03:42:30 PM
Quote from: CityLife on June 19, 2017, 09:31:17 AM
Quote from: Adam White on June 19, 2017, 01:49:40 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 18, 2017, 05:57:54 PM
The river is brown due to naturally occurring tannins... not the ocean or pollution.
Of course. I think the argument he was making was that it wouldn't be this color if it were flowing south from the ocean or something. Which doesn't make sense.
The point that I was trying to make (not clearly), is that as a massive river it dumps a substantial amount of water into the ocean and does not allow for the type of salt water intrusion that other water bodies do throughout the state. The Jupiter Inlet, Ft. Pierce Inlet, Ponce Inlet, etc have very low flow water bodies going into the ocean, and thereby have clear water upriver from the mouth, particularly at high tide. Semantics and root causes aside, the water in the SJR is about as dark as it gets and does affect usage...There's a reason people travel around the world to visit the Caribbean and South Pacific, and not Mississippi. There's a reason Destin is a huge tourist spot and Wakulla County isn't.
Jax is at a competitive disadvantage from many other coastal areas of the state from a boating perspective. IF the city wants to really activate the river, imo it needs to do something special. If I was wrong, we wouldn't be having this discussion.....
Duval does pretty well with regards to boat registrations... 26,764
https://www.flhsmv.gov/pdf/vessels/vesselstats2016.pdf
Did a quick comparison of boat ownership in coastal counties around the state, but excluded PBC to Monroe, because they are a different world. I also excluded Class A boats, which are smaller than 15' and Class 3, which are larger than 40'. So basically compared ownership rates of 15-40' boats by percentage of county population. Some boats in these classes likely do offshore fishing, but many also likely frequent waterfront dining and entertainment. When you consider that these boats may carry 8-20+ people, they can obviously make a large dent in activating waterways.
Duval 1.7%
Charlotte(Punta Gorda)-9.6%
Martin-8%
Bay (PC Beach) 5.5%
Okaloosa (Destin/FWB)-5.5%
Lee (Ft Myers)-5%
Collier-4.4%
SJC-4.3%
Brevard-3.4%
Volusia-3.2%
Manatee-3.4%
Sarasota-3.8%
Pinellas-3.2%
Escambia-3%
There is obviously an offshore fishing factor (see Martin and Charlotte) at play, but Jax doesn't compare well with SJC, Volusia, and Brevard, which have similar offshore conditions. Jax has the same median/HH income as Brevard, and is substantially higher than Volusia, so it isn't a wealth issue....
Quote from: CityLife on June 19, 2017, 05:28:04 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 19, 2017, 03:42:30 PM
Quote from: CityLife on June 19, 2017, 09:31:17 AM
Quote from: Adam White on June 19, 2017, 01:49:40 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 18, 2017, 05:57:54 PM
The river is brown due to naturally occurring tannins... not the ocean or pollution.
Of course. I think the argument he was making was that it wouldn't be this color if it were flowing south from the ocean or something. Which doesn't make sense.
The point that I was trying to make (not clearly), is that as a massive river it dumps a substantial amount of water into the ocean and does not allow for the type of salt water intrusion that other water bodies do throughout the state. The Jupiter Inlet, Ft. Pierce Inlet, Ponce Inlet, etc have very low flow water bodies going into the ocean, and thereby have clear water upriver from the mouth, particularly at high tide. Semantics and root causes aside, the water in the SJR is about as dark as it gets and does affect usage...There's a reason people travel around the world to visit the Caribbean and South Pacific, and not Mississippi. There's a reason Destin is a huge tourist spot and Wakulla County isn't.
Jax is at a competitive disadvantage from many other coastal areas of the state from a boating perspective. IF the city wants to really activate the river, imo it needs to do something special. If I was wrong, we wouldn't be having this discussion.....
Duval does pretty well with regards to boat registrations... 26,764
https://www.flhsmv.gov/pdf/vessels/vesselstats2016.pdf
Did a quick comparison of boat ownership in coastal counties around the state, but excluded PBC to Monroe, because they are a different world. I also excluded Class A boats, which are smaller than 15' and Class 3, which are larger than 40'. So basically compared ownership rates of 15-40' boats by percentage of county population. Some boats in these classes likely do offshore fishing, but many also likely frequent waterfront dining and entertainment. When you consider that these boats may carry 8-20+ people, they can obviously make a large dent in activating waterways.
Duval 1.7%
Charlotte(Punta Gorda)-9.6%
Martin-8%
Bay (PC Beach) 5.5%
Okaloosa (Destin/FWB)-5.5%
Lee (Ft Myers)-5%
Collier-4.4%
SJC-4.3%
Brevard-3.4%
Volusia-3.2%
Manatee-3.4%
Sarasota-3.8%
Pinellas-3.2%
Escambia-3%
There is obviously an offshore fishing factor (see Martin and Charlotte) at play, but Jax doesn't compare well with SJC, Volusia, and Brevard, which have similar offshore conditions. Jax has the same median/HH income as Brevard, and is substantially higher than Volusia, so it isn't a wealth issue....
You are correct, it's not a wealth issue. But it certainly isn't a north flowing, tannin color issue either.
ALL of those counties either integrate their water systems into public and private life or advertise them for retirement/tourism on levels way beyond Duval. Further, each one of those counties has 90% of their population within 3 miles of their ocean/bay/river, etc... Start at St Johns Town Center and you are 6 miles to the Intracoastal and 7 to the St Johns River (west or north). Many of those counties even have canals built into their communities.
The St Johns River is a blackwater river. You cannot change that unless you remove all vegetation nearby the entire river and its tributaries and significantly alter the chemical composition of about 2 dozen elements that naturally occur in it.
I think the stats pretty clearly show that it is a water quality/clarity issue. The distance to waterways excuse is not a good one. The SJR and its numerous tributaries, as well as Intercoastal have enough land to accommodate hundreds of thousands of residents within 3 miles. People that recreationally boat generally will choose to live on or near the water. If boat ownership was as high in Jax as it is in poor Volusia county, there would be an additional 15,000 15-40' boats in Duval.
I never said Jax should or even could do anything to change the water color. That is obviously not an option. Merely have been pointing out that Jax is at a competitive disadvantage from the rest of the state and has to go above and beyond in terms of waterfront placemaking/dining/entertainment IF it wants to activate the waterfront for boaters. To argue otherwise is foolish.
Quote from: CityLife on June 19, 2017, 05:28:04 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 19, 2017, 03:42:30 PM
Quote from: CityLife on June 19, 2017, 09:31:17 AM
Quote from: Adam White on June 19, 2017, 01:49:40 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 18, 2017, 05:57:54 PM
The river is brown due to naturally occurring tannins... not the ocean or pollution.
Of course. I think the argument he was making was that it wouldn't be this color if it were flowing south from the ocean or something. Which doesn't make sense.
The point that I was trying to make (not clearly), is that as a massive river it dumps a substantial amount of water into the ocean and does not allow for the type of salt water intrusion that other water bodies do throughout the state. The Jupiter Inlet, Ft. Pierce Inlet, Ponce Inlet, etc have very low flow water bodies going into the ocean, and thereby have clear water upriver from the mouth, particularly at high tide. Semantics and root causes aside, the water in the SJR is about as dark as it gets and does affect usage...There's a reason people travel around the world to visit the Caribbean and South Pacific, and not Mississippi. There's a reason Destin is a huge tourist spot and Wakulla County isn't.
Jax is at a competitive disadvantage from many other coastal areas of the state from a boating perspective. IF the city wants to really activate the river, imo it needs to do something special. If I was wrong, we wouldn't be having this discussion.....
Duval does pretty well with regards to boat registrations... 26,764
https://www.flhsmv.gov/pdf/vessels/vesselstats2016.pdf
Did a quick comparison of boat ownership in coastal counties around the state, but excluded PBC to Monroe, because they are a different world. I also excluded Class A boats, which are smaller than 15' and Class 3, which are larger than 40'. So basically compared ownership rates of 15-40' boats by percentage of county population. Some boats in these classes likely do offshore fishing, but many also likely frequent waterfront dining and entertainment. When you consider that these boats may carry 8-20+ people, they can obviously make a large dent in activating waterways.
Duval 1.7%
Charlotte(Punta Gorda)-9.6%
Martin-8%
Bay (PC Beach) 5.5%
Okaloosa (Destin/FWB)-5.5%
Lee (Ft Myers)-5%
Collier-4.4%
SJC-4.3%
Brevard-3.4%
Volusia-3.2%
Manatee-3.4%
Sarasota-3.8%
Pinellas-3.2%
Escambia-3%
There is obviously an offshore fishing factor (see Martin and Charlotte) at play, but Jax doesn't compare well with SJC, Volusia, and Brevard, which have similar offshore conditions. Jax has the same median/HH income as Brevard, and is substantially higher than Volusia, so it isn't a wealth issue....
What is the rate in similarly sized counties such as Hillsborough or Palm Beach? What is the rate in much larger counties like Miami-Dade and Broward?
Pinellas, which is a boating destination, and similarly sized, is only at 3.2%. I don't think anyone is blaming the clear water in Pinellas for their rate being nearly half that of Lee County. It is an interesting topic to figure out some correlating factors.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 19, 2017, 03:42:30 PM
Quote from: CityLife on June 19, 2017, 09:31:17 AM
Quote from: Adam White on June 19, 2017, 01:49:40 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 18, 2017, 05:57:54 PM
The river is brown due to naturally occurring tannins... not the ocean or pollution.
Of course. I think the argument he was making was that it wouldn't be this color if it were flowing south from the ocean or something. Which doesn't make sense.
The point that I was trying to make (not clearly), is that as a massive river it dumps a substantial amount of water into the ocean and does not allow for the type of salt water intrusion that other water bodies do throughout the state. The Jupiter Inlet, Ft. Pierce Inlet, Ponce Inlet, etc have very low flow water bodies going into the ocean, and thereby have clear water upriver from the mouth, particularly at high tide. Semantics and root causes aside, the water in the SJR is about as dark as it gets and does affect usage...There's a reason people travel around the world to visit the Caribbean and South Pacific, and not Mississippi. There's a reason Destin is a huge tourist spot and Wakulla County isn't.
Jax is at a competitive disadvantage from many other coastal areas of the state from a boating perspective. IF the city wants to really activate the river, imo it needs to do something special. If I was wrong, we wouldn't be having this discussion.....
Duval does pretty well with regards to boat registrations... 26,764
https://www.flhsmv.gov/pdf/vessels/vesselstats2016.pdf
As it happened, I had a spreadsheet of the current county population, so here are the registered boats per capita per (I think) every county. Counties in our CSA are highlighted; the state average is 4.5%:
Orange County (Orlando) - 2%
Broward County (Ft. Lauderdale area) - 2.3%
Osceola (Kissimmee) - 2.3%
Miami-Dade County - 2.4%
Palm Beach - 2.6%
Duval - 2.8%Hillsborough (Tampa) - 3%
Sumter (North Central FL) - 3.7%
Alachua (Gainesville) - 3.9%
Seminole (Sanford) - 4%
Polk (Lakeland) - 4.2%
St. Lucie - 4.3%
Leon (Tallahassee) - 4.4%
Pasco (Tampa Bay area) - 4.7%
Escambia (Pensacola) - 4.9%
Gadsden (inland Panhandle) - 4.9%
Manatee (Bradenton, SW Florida) - 4.9%
Pinellas (St. Pete) - 5.1%
Flagler (Palm Coast) - 5.2%
Hernando (Tampa Bay area) - 5.2%
Volusia (Daytona) - 5.3%
Marion (Ocala) - 5.4%
Sarasota - 5.4%
Brevard (Space Coast) - 5.9%
Hardee (inland Heartland) - 5.9%
Clay County - 6.1%
Hamilton (inland Panhandle) - 6.2%
Collier (Naples) - 6.3%
Madison (inland Panhandle) - 6.3%
St. Johns - 6.3%
Suwanee (North Central Florida) - 6.3%
Columbia (North Central Florida) - 6.5%
Lee (Ft. Meyers/Cape Coral) - 6.5%
Union (North Central FL) - 6.5%
De Soto (inland Heartland) - 6.6%
Lake (Clermont; Central Florida) - 7%
Indian River - 7.3%
Hendry (inland Heartland) - 7.5%
Nassau - 8%
Santa Rosa (coastal Panhandle) - 8.4%
Bradford (Starke, North Central FL) - 8.6%
Walton (coastal Panhandle) - 8.6%
Baker - 9%
Highlands (inland Heartland) - 9%
Jefferson (Panhandle) - 9%
Glades (inland Heartland) - 9.2%
Okaloosa (Destin, coastal Panhandle) - 9.2%
Jackson (inland Panhandle) - 9.7%
Washington (inland Panhandle) - 9.7%
Bay (Panama City, Panhandle) - 9.9%
Gilchrist (North Central Florida) - 10%
Lafayette (North Central Florida) - 10.5%
Putnam (Palatka) - 10.5%
Holmes (inland Panhandle) - 10.6%
Levy (coastal "Big Bend") - 11%
Calhoun (inland Panhandle) - 11.2%
Martin (Stuart; South Florida) - 11.2%
Citrus (coastal "Big Bend") - 11.4%
Okeechobee - 12.6%
Liberty (inland Panhandle) - 13.1%
Charlotte (Punta Gorda, SW Florida) - 13.9%
Dixie (coastal Big Bend) - 15.8%
Wakulla (coastal Panhandle) - 16%
Taylor (coastal Big Bend/Panhandle) - 16.6%
Gulf (goastal Panhandle) - 19.4%
Franklin (coastal Panhandle) - 28.7%
Monroe (Florida Keys) 37.5%
Probably a few surprises for everyone here. Stray observations:
*Larger, urban counties have the lowest rate of boat ownership. Of the 7 big urban counties, Jax ranks outranks landlocked Orange (Orlando), as well as Miami-Dade, Broward (Fort Lauderdale), and Palm Beach. We just behind Tampa, and everyone is well behind Pinellas (St. Pete).
*Unsurprisingly, rural counties have the highest rate of boat ownership.
*Suburban and exurban counties around the major metros also have higher rates. Jacksonville's suburban counties have especially high rates.
*Other than the Palm Beach-Dade area, South Florida has fairly high rates of boat ownership, but the Panhandle seems to have the highest, probably because it's more rural.
*Oddly, there doesn't seem to be a strong correlation between counties being on the coast and high boat ownership. Again, this is likely because inland counties are more likely to be rural. The Orlando area does have especially low rates, and in a lot of cases rural counties on the coast have higher rates than inland rural counties nearby. Bigger boats are mostly found on the coast.
*Some places that are tourist/retirement meccas rank highly - Monroe (the Keys), Charlotte, Bay (Panama City), Okaloosa (Destin), but others (Volusia, Brevard, Sarasota) don't rank nearly as highly as might be expected. I imagine this has a lot to do with the availability of other options in a lot of tourist and retiree-heavy areas.
Taca, your data is essentially irrelevant in terms of this discussion. I took out the Class A Boats (below 15') because these are mostly Jon boats and small solo or 2 person fishing vessels. These people are hunting fish inshore and will go wherever (see ownership rates of inland county's). They also generally don't frequent waterfront dining/entertainment establishments. In other words, they aren't cruising, sand bar hopping, going to restaurants, etc.
As I said earlier, I excluded PBC to Dade, because it's not apples to apples. Many of the upper income residents here have boats registered in the northeast or keep their boats in the Keys or Caribbean.
I've never once had anybody turn down a boat ride in the St John's because the water is yucky and brown. ::)
Quote from: acme54321 on June 20, 2017, 02:10:59 PM
I've never once had anybody turn down a boat ride in the St John's because the water is yucky and brown. ::)
People don't turn down free food from McDonalds either. Doesn't mean they don't prefer M Shack.....
Quote from: CityLife on June 20, 2017, 01:23:16 PM
Taca, your data is essentially irrelevant in terms of this discussion. I took out the Class A Boats (below 15') because these are mostly Jon boats and small solo or 2 person fishing vessels. These people are hunting fish inshore and will go wherever (see ownership rates of inland county's). They also generally don't frequent waterfront dining/entertainment establishments. In other words, they aren't cruising, sand bar hopping, going to restaurants, etc.
As I said earlier, I excluded PBC to Dade, because it's not apples to apples. Many of the upper income residents here have boats registered in the northeast or keep their boats in the Keys or Caribbean.
^Methinks you're filtering based on your own preferences and experiences. As this discussion is about people using the river, I don't know why we should exclude anyone who does.
At any rate, here's the same list minus Class A boats (and canoes). The numbers are different but the patterns are mostly the same. Big cities have the lowest, suburbs/exurbs are higher, and rural counties have the highest rates. There's still not a clear difference between coastal and interior areas, although inland Panhandle counties don't usually rank as high as when small boats are included (several North Central Florida and Heartland counties rank higher). Only a few counties changed their rank more than 4 spots. More counties that are tourist/retirement meccas are higher on the list. Duval remains comparable to the other big counties (Palm Beach now outranks us), and our suburban counties remain ranked particularly high.
Orange (Orlando) - 1.1%
Osceola (Kissimmee)- 1.3%
Broward (Ft. Lauderdale) - 1.5%
Miami-Dade - 1.6%
Duval - 1.7%
Palm Beach - 1.8%
Hillsborough (Tampa) - 1.9%
Sumter (North Central Florida) - 2%
Leon (Tallahassee) - 2.3%
Seminole (Sanford) - 2.3%
Alachua (Gainesville)- 2.4%
Gadsden (inland Panhandle)- 2.4%
Polk (Lakeland)- 2.5%
Pasco (Tampa Bay Area)- 2.8%
Hamilton (inland Panhandle) – 2.8%
Sarasota - 2.8%
St. Lucie - 2.9%
Escambia (Pensacola) - 3%
Hernando (Tampa Bay area)- 3%
Flagler - 3.1%
Hardee (inland Heartland) - 3.1%
Madison - 3.2%
Manatee (Bradenton, SW Florida) - 3.2%
Marion (Ocala) - 3.2%
Volusia (Daytona) - 3.2%
Suwanee (North Central Florida) – 3.3%
Union (North Central Florida) – 3.4%
Brevard (Space Coast) - 3.5%
De Soto (inland Heartland) – 3.5%
Holmes (inland Panhandle) - 3.5%
Pinellas (St. Petersburg) - 3.5%
Columbia (North Central Florida) – 3.6%
Washington (inland Panhandle) - 3.7%
Calhoun (inland Panhandle) - 3.8%
St. Johns- 4%
Jackson (inland Panhandle) - 4.2%
Jefferson (Panhandle) – 4.2%
Lake (Clermont, Central Florida) - 4.2%
Clay-4.3%
Collier (Naples) – 4.4%
Liberty (inland Panhandle) - 4.4%
Walton (coastal Panhandle) - 4.4%
Nassau - 4.5%
Baker - 4.7%
Indian River - 4.7%
Lee (Fort Meyers/Cape Coral) - 4.7%
Santa Rosa (coastal Panhandle) – 4.7%
Hendry (inland Heartland) - 4.8%
Highlands (inland Heartland) – 5.3%
Lafayette (North Central Florida) - 5.4%
Okaloosa (Destin, coastal Panhandle) - 5.5%
Bay (coastal Panhandle) - 5.6%
Bradford (Starke, North Central Florida) - 5.7%
Gilchrist (North Central Florida) - 5.8%
Glades (inland Heartland) – 5.9%
Putnam (Palatka) - 6.6%
Levy (coastal Big Bend) - 6.8%
Citrus (coastal Big Bend) 7.4%
Martin (Stuart) - 8.4%
Okeechobee (inland Heartland) - 8.9%
Wakulla (coastal Panhandle) - 9.3%
Charlotte (Punta Gorda, SW Florida) - 9.4%
Taylor (coastal Big Bend/Panhandle) - 9.4%
Dixie (coastal Big Bend) - 9.9%
Gulf (coastal Panhandle) - 10.1%
Franklin (coastal Panhandle) - 18.4%
Monroe (Keys) - 28.7%
Quote from: CityLife on June 20, 2017, 02:27:14 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on June 20, 2017, 02:10:59 PM
I've never once had anybody turn down a boat ride in the St John's because the water is yucky and brown. ::)
People don't turn down free food from McDonalds either. Doesn't mean they don't prefer M Shack.....
What? You're proving my point. If people want to go boating the color of the river water isn't going to stop them. Just like eating a burger at McDonald's or Mshack, they're hungry and going to eat either way.
Quote from: CityLife on June 20, 2017, 01:23:16 PM
Taca, your data is essentially irrelevant in terms of this discussion. I took out the Class A Boats (below 15') because these are mostly Jon boats and small solo or 2 person fishing vessels. These people are hunting fish inshore and will go wherever (see ownership rates of inland county's). They also generally don't frequent waterfront dining/entertainment establishments. In other words, they aren't cruising, sand bar hopping, going to restaurants, etc.
As I said earlier, I excluded PBC to Dade, because it's not apples to apples. Many of the upper income residents here have boats registered in the northeast or keep their boats in the Keys or Caribbean.
So how does everyone feel about Making a Scene and being All In with SUP and kayaking in the 2014-560 CRA/DIA zone from the Fuller Warren to the Mathews Bridge. The Landing is cool for larger Watercraft but what about the smaller Watercraft and Non Motorized?
DIA Board meeting today at 2pm. Lynwood Roberts room. Should be televised. COJ.net. Open to the Public. Public Comment is allowed.
Quote from: Noone on June 21, 2017, 06:32:40 AM
Quote from: CityLife on June 20, 2017, 01:23:16 PM
Taca, your data is essentially irrelevant in terms of this discussion. I took out the Class A Boats (below 15') because these are mostly Jon boats and small solo or 2 person fishing vessels. These people are hunting fish inshore and will go wherever (see ownership rates of inland county's). They also generally don't frequent waterfront dining/entertainment establishments. In other words, they aren't cruising, sand bar hopping, going to restaurants, etc.
As I said earlier, I excluded PBC to Dade, because it's not apples to apples. Many of the upper income residents here have boats registered in the northeast or keep their boats in the Keys or Caribbean.
So how does everyone feel about Making a Scene and being All In with SUP and kayaking in the 2014-560 CRA/DIA zone from the Fuller Warren to the Mathews Bridge. The Landing is cool for larger Watercraft but what about the smaller Watercraft and Non Motorized?
DIA Board meeting today at 2pm. Lynwood Roberts room. Should be televised. COJ.net. Open to the Public. Public Comment is allowed.
Sounds like a plan. After all, we don't want to miss the boat and end up like those Baltimore guys.
Quote from: Adam White on June 21, 2017, 06:38:30 AM
Quote from: Noone on June 21, 2017, 06:32:40 AM
Quote from: CityLife on June 20, 2017, 01:23:16 PM
Taca, your data is essentially irrelevant in terms of this discussion. I took out the Class A Boats (below 15') because these are mostly Jon boats and small solo or 2 person fishing vessels. These people are hunting fish inshore and will go wherever (see ownership rates of inland county's). They also generally don't frequent waterfront dining/entertainment establishments. In other words, they aren't cruising, sand bar hopping, going to restaurants, etc.
As I said earlier, I excluded PBC to Dade, because it's not apples to apples. Many of the upper income residents here have boats registered in the northeast or keep their boats in the Keys or Caribbean.
So how does everyone feel about Making a Scene and being All In with SUP and kayaking in the 2014-560 CRA/DIA zone from the Fuller Warren to the Mathews Bridge. The Landing is cool for larger Watercraft but what about the smaller Watercraft and Non Motorized?
DIA Board meeting today at 2pm. Lynwood Roberts room. Should be televised. COJ.net. Open to the Public. Public Comment is allowed.
Sounds like a plan. After all, we don't want to miss the boat and end up like those Baltimore guys.
Please do not feed the pigeons...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 21, 2017, 08:51:00 AM
Quote from: Adam White on June 21, 2017, 06:38:30 AM
Quote from: Noone on June 21, 2017, 06:32:40 AM
Quote from: CityLife on June 20, 2017, 01:23:16 PM
Taca, your data is essentially irrelevant in terms of this discussion. I took out the Class A Boats (below 15') because these are mostly Jon boats and small solo or 2 person fishing vessels. These people are hunting fish inshore and will go wherever (see ownership rates of inland county's). They also generally don't frequent waterfront dining/entertainment establishments. In other words, they aren't cruising, sand bar hopping, going to restaurants, etc.
As I said earlier, I excluded PBC to Dade, because it's not apples to apples. Many of the upper income residents here have boats registered in the northeast or keep their boats in the Keys or Caribbean.
So how does everyone feel about Making a Scene and being All In with SUP and kayaking in the 2014-560 CRA/DIA zone from the Fuller Warren to the Mathews Bridge. The Landing is cool for larger Watercraft but what about the smaller Watercraft and Non Motorized?
DIA Board meeting today at 2pm. Lynwood Roberts room. Should be televised. COJ.net. Open to the Public. Public Comment is allowed.
Sounds like a plan. After all, we don't want to miss the boat and end up like those Baltimore guys.
Please do not feed the pigeons...
WWTBGD?
Quote from: Jim on June 20, 2017, 09:46:37 AM
The St Johns River is a blackwater river. You cannot change that unless you remove all vegetation nearby the entire river and its tributaries and significantly alter the chemical composition of about 2 dozen elements that naturally occur in it.
Am I missing something here? I've never heard any discussion about the SJR having some sort of aesthetic issue from the perceived color of the river water. I did a quick check on Google and I'm not even sure the designation of "blackwater river" insinuates that. I've certainly never noticed any issue with the color of the river water. Black Creek in Clay County? Okay. But the Saint Johns ? ? ?
I'll also say it seems to me Sleiman may or may not quite comprehend what's about to happen down in the Sports & Entertainment District, but he is not in a position to be talking yang. That much I know. He best wake up and smell the coffee.
Toney Slieman responds to COJ:
'Truth will come out soon' Toney Sleiman vows in response to city statement
Per the JBJ:
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2017/06/21/truth-will-come-out-soon-toney-sleiman-vows-in.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2017/06/21/truth-will-come-out-soon-toney-sleiman-vows-in.html)
Less than a week after Sleiman Enterprises announced it could soon abandon any near-term plans for redevelopment of The Jacksonville Landing because of a lack of City Hall support, Toney Sleiman pushed back against the mayor's office response that the longtime landowner was at fault.
Marsha Oliver, Mayor's Office director of public affairs, dismissed a Sleiman Enterprise letter that accused the city of "lip service" to redevelopment efforts, putting blame on Sleiman Enterprises for talks stalling.
"Since taking office, Mayor Lenny Curry has continued to demonstrate his commitment to the development and improvement of downtown Jacksonville," she said in a statement. "As a notable and recognized landmark, the Landing should be flourishing and contributing to the area's economic growth and success. The mayor and his administration have met with Mr. Sleiman on several occasions to discuss opportunities and options for improvement. Sleiman Enterprises has demonstrated no interest in our offer and solution. Sleiman Enterprises is the obstacle. It is clear that the Landing is being mismanaged. The Mayor will not ask taxpayers to bail out a mismanaged development. Because there is pending litigation, there is no additional information to provide at this time."
Sleiman has said that if the city does not get "behind development right away" than he will be forced to extend long-term leases at The Landing, which would close the window on development talks for at least a decade.
"Here's the problem, the city owns the land and I own the building," he said. "I can't do anything without the city's approval. For 15 years, I have been trying to to get it done. The truth will come out soon."
Sleiman Enterprises full statement is below.
Nearly 15 years ago when Sleiman Enterprises bought the Jacksonville Landing, there was all kinds of excitement. While we're still excited about Jacksonville's iconic venue's potential, our hands are tied by politics and external forces that don't want progress.
We are now at a critical point in the Landing's life cycle. We must either undertake a complete redevelopment of the property or enter into new long-term leases of the current facilities to maintain the Landing's economic viability. The two options are incompatible with one another.
We agree with most civic leaders that a complete redevelopment of the Jacksonville Landing is best for our city and for the Landing. However, without the support of the city of Jacksonville, no redevelopment can take place. Since the city owns the land and we lease the building, we must collaborate.
For 15 years, we've worked with the city to try to make the Jacksonville Landing great. While downtown is always an administrative priority, the Landing seems to get more lip service than actual support.That lack of political support is the reason that the original developer, Rouse, sold us the Landing for pennies on the dollar.
Our company, Sleiman Enterprises, has invested more than $1.5 million in past redevelopment efforts. We even supported the city's most recent 2015 redevelopment plans.
In our company's 60 years of history, we've made significant contributions to our local retail industry and economic development. We want to do the same thing at the Landing.
If the public agrees that a full redevelopment of the Jacksonville Landing is best for the city, we ask that people communicate that to their city council representatives. If the city does not get behind redevelopment right away, the opportunity will be lost for another 10–15 years because signing new long-term leases will prevent redevelopment.
Quote from: Adam White on June 21, 2017, 10:03:53 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 21, 2017, 08:51:00 AM
Quote from: Adam White on June 21, 2017, 06:38:30 AM
Quote from: Noone on June 21, 2017, 06:32:40 AM
Quote from: CityLife on June 20, 2017, 01:23:16 PM
Taca, your data is essentially irrelevant in terms of this discussion. I took out the Class A Boats (below 15') because these are mostly Jon boats and small solo or 2 person fishing vessels. These people are hunting fish inshore and will go wherever (see ownership rates of inland county's). They also generally don't frequent waterfront dining/entertainment establishments. In other words, they aren't cruising, sand bar hopping, going to restaurants, etc.
As I said earlier, I excluded PBC to Dade, because it's not apples to apples. Many of the upper income residents here have boats registered in the northeast or keep their boats in the Keys or Caribbean.
So how does everyone feel about Making a Scene and being All In with SUP and kayaking in the 2014-560 CRA/DIA zone from the Fuller Warren to the Mathews Bridge. The Landing is cool for larger Watercraft but what about the smaller Watercraft and Non Motorized?
DIA Board meeting today at 2pm. Lynwood Roberts room. Should be televised. COJ.net. Open to the Public. Public Comment is allowed.
Sounds like a plan. After all, we don't want to miss the boat and end up like those Baltimore guys.
Please do not feed the pigeons...
WWTBGD?
+1
That's funny. You know the issues.
Quote from: RattlerGator on June 21, 2017, 05:16:58 PM
Quote from: Jim on June 20, 2017, 09:46:37 AM
The St Johns River is a blackwater river. You cannot change that unless you remove all vegetation nearby the entire river and its tributaries and significantly alter the chemical composition of about 2 dozen elements that naturally occur in it.
Am I missing something here? I've never heard any discussion about the SJR having some sort of aesthetic issue from the perceived color of the river water. I did a quick check on Google and I'm not even sure the designation of "blackwater river" insinuates that. I've certainly never noticed any issue with the color of the river water. Black Creek in Clay County? Okay. But the Saint Johns ? ? ?
It's designated as such on the St Johns River Wiki page and the list of blackwater rivers in the US Wiki page. While certainly not an official designation, I can't find any other classifications.
Mayor is definitely not backing down. From Twitter this morning:
Quote1.The Jacksonville Landing is owned by the taxpayers of Jacksonville. Sleiman Enterprises leases the landing from the city.
https://twitter.com/lennycurry/status/877874266062049280
Quote2. Taxpayers deserve better for their investment & their asset.
https://twitter.com/lennycurry/status/877874583759503361
Things are getting interesting.
Quote from: FlaBoy on June 22, 2017, 10:14:28 AM
Mayor is definitely not backing down. From Twitter this morning:
Quote1.The Jacksonville Landing is owned by the taxpayers of Jacksonville. Sleiman Enterprises leases the landing from the city.
https://twitter.com/lennycurry/status/877874266062049280
^Wait, I'm very confused.
So, to be clear, the city owns both the land under the landing
and the actual shopping center?
And Sleiman - despite being listed as the 'owner" of the Landing - owns nothing, just leases the shopping center from the city?
Is this correct? I always thought that when Sleiman purchased the Landing, he actually, you know,
purchased the Landing, with the caveat being that he leased the land underneath it from the city.
Curry can't be right.
Quote from: KenFSU on June 22, 2017, 10:34:17 AM
Quote from: FlaBoy on June 22, 2017, 10:14:28 AM
Mayor is definitely not backing down. From Twitter this morning:
Quote1.The Jacksonville Landing is owned by the taxpayers of Jacksonville. Sleiman Enterprises leases the landing from the city.
https://twitter.com/lennycurry/status/877874266062049280
^Wait, I'm very confused.
So, to be clear, the city owns both the land under the landing and the actual shopping center?
And Sleiman - despite being listed as the 'owner" of the Landing - owns nothing, just leases the shopping center from the city?
Is this correct? I always thought that when Sleiman purchased the Landing, he actually, you know, purchased the Landing, with the caveat being that he leased the land underneath it from the city.
Curry can't be right.
No. It is NOT correct. Curry is either misinformed or lying.
Sleiman owns the BUILDING, he has a long term LEASE on the LAND. The city owns the LAND.
Oh great. Just what we need. Another political leader that lies on Twitter.
(https://snag.gy/HTwI6m.jpg)
Quote from: vicupstate on June 22, 2017, 10:42:02 AM
Quote from: KenFSU on June 22, 2017, 10:34:17 AM
Quote from: FlaBoy on June 22, 2017, 10:14:28 AM
Mayor is definitely not backing down. From Twitter this morning:
Quote1.The Jacksonville Landing is owned by the taxpayers of Jacksonville. Sleiman Enterprises leases the landing from the city.
https://twitter.com/lennycurry/status/877874266062049280
^Wait, I'm very confused.
So, to be clear, the city owns both the land under the landing and the actual shopping center?
And Sleiman - despite being listed as the 'owner" of the Landing - owns nothing, just leases the shopping center from the city?
Is this correct? I always thought that when Sleiman purchased the Landing, he actually, you know, purchased the Landing, with the caveat being that he leased the land underneath it from the city.
Curry can't be right.
No. It is NOT correct. Curry is either misinformed or lying.
Sleiman owns the BUILDING, he has a long term LEASE on the LAND. The city owns the LAND.
WHAT'S WITH THE YELLING.
lol, all the latest posts have got me fired up! brings me back to the glory days this site.
Since this is a land/ground lease wouldn't the building ownership revert to the City at lease expiration? Maybe Sleiman 'owns' the building today but once the lease is done that's it right?
^ Depends on the way the contract was written. There may be some reversion rights for COJ for the buildings.
Although maybe not articulated correctly, COJ owns the land and contributed $20 million to the construction of the Landing in 1987. Never mind all the additional parking and upgrades around the Landing paid for by COJ.
Quote from: Jim on June 22, 2017, 09:22:29 AM
It's designated as such on the St Johns River Wiki page and the list of blackwater rivers in the US Wiki page. While certainly not an official designation, I can't find any other classifications.
Jim, I don't have any problem with the classification. It seems to make perfect sense from what I've read. No, it was the earlier assertion of the water being dark and there being some aesthetic issue with the St. Johns as a result. That's what intrigued me. I had never heard such, and had never noticed any issue with "dark" water in the St. Johns. Not when walking up and down River Road in Orange Park, not when crossing the Buckman or any other bridge in town, not when crossing it on I-4.
When I come across something like this, and can't figure out the point (let alone whether I agree), I look for clarification. That's why I was wondering if I missed something in the point being made.
Quote from: FlaBoy on June 22, 2017, 11:55:47 AM
^ Depends on the way the contract was written. There may be some reversion rights for COJ for the buildings.
Although maybe not articulated correctly, COJ owns the land and contributed $20 million to the construction of the Landing in 1987. Never mind all the additional parking and upgrades around the Landing paid for by COJ.
The only way COJ was going to get Rouse here was to provide incentives. Yet, the Landing was so much of a failure that Rouse basically gave the Landing away to Sleiman to get the hell out of here. The whole project was nothing but another example of a failed downtown redevelopment gimmick. Quite simple, the festival marketplaces that did well were those that were located in markets and areas of density that could support them. The ones that failed were located in declining second tier downtowns like Jacksonville's. We can make excuses about the structure turning itself away from downtown or that it needs to be razed, and we continue to do this. However, perhaps the Landing's struggles are simply a microcosm of the district its located in and changes in national retail trends. If such, the structure is less of an issue than addressing downtown's overall economic problems and radically changing the tenant mix to meet today's retail demands.