Offers well below appraisal, but developer says site will require costly renovation....
Full article: https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/dia-rejects-3-offers-to-buy-vacant-lavilla-building
Quote"The building is falling apart," Caldera said when questioned by DIA board member Brenna Durden about his offer.
"The only way this project is going to be viable is to get the property at a low purchase price, because we're going to have to invest a lot," Caldera said.
Durden suggested scrapping all three bids.
"The purchase price isn't good," Durden said, who was backed by board members Ron Moody and Braxton Gillam.
"We'd like to get it on the tax rolls, but we also have a responsibility to the taxpayers," she said.
The largest offer for the property was $10k. The DIA will never get anything close to their $180k appraisal price. However, the responsibility to the taxpayers was already lost when millions in public funds were used to raze the neighborhood in the mid-1990s. In addition, it appears no money or maintenance has been put into this property since COJ acquired it for $34k in 1994. True value is worth only what the market is willing to pay for it.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 14, 2017, 08:17:13 PM
Quote"The building is falling apart," Caldera said when questioned by DIA board member Brenna Durden about his offer.
"The only way this project is going to be viable is to get the property at a low purchase price, because we're going to have to invest a lot," Caldera said.
Durden suggested scrapping all three bids.
"The purchase price isn't good," Durden said, who was backed by board members Ron Moody and Braxton Gillam.
"We'd like to get it on the tax rolls, but we also have a responsibility to the taxpayers," she said.
The largest offer for the property was $10k. The DIA will never get anything close to their $180k appraisal price. However, the responsibility to the taxpayers was already lost when millions in public funds were used to raze the neighborhood in the mid-1990s. In addition, it appears no money or maintenance has been put into this property since COJ acquired it for $34k in 1994. True value is worth only what the market is willing to pay for it.
Lease the land for next to nothing with an accompanying development agreement to the counterparty proposing the most compelling land use and with the depth of proven and documented resources to actually get it done in a reasonable timeframe.
The response from Durden perfectly frames the incompetence of the DIA Board members.
They just don't get it. The RFP was put out. 3 offers came min. They represent what Buyers are willing to pay, TODAY, for the parcel.
Within a few short years it will be accurately assessed at over $500,000 based on the renovations, which EVERYONE agrees will take
several hundred thousand dollars. It's this type of situation that prevents projects from moving forward ALL OVER DOWNTOWN AND ALL
AROUND JACKSONVILLE. Insisting on ridiculous prices. I would love to see the comparable SOLD props the city used in arriving at the
valuation. Arms length transactions where Buyers purchased shells of buildings at this price per square foot. I'm betting there aren't any.
Pretty frustrating.
Lake&Music, excellent observations with historical knowledge that I wouldn't know otherwise. This place has potential. Bill, totally frustrating, agreed! All three of those prospects aren't bad ideas, but DIA says no?!?
Once again, greed shall deter progress and will likely destroy another historical building. Arg.
And leaving it sitting there is only going to cause further deterioration, further reducing the "value".
You had 3 options to put it on the tax rolls. You failed. And if the city only paid $34k, then a $10k loss on the sale is peanuts compared to the millions they hand out for future tax incentives for other projects.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 14, 2017, 08:17:13 PM
Quote"The building is falling apart," Caldera said when questioned by DIA board member Brenna Durden about his offer.
"The only way this project is going to be viable is to get the property at a low purchase price, because we're going to have to invest a lot," Caldera said.
Durden suggested scrapping all three bids.
"The purchase price isn't good," Durden said, who was backed by board members Ron Moody and Braxton Gillam.
"We'd like to get it on the tax rolls, but we also have a responsibility to the taxpayers," she said.
The largest offer for the property was $10k. The DIA will never get anything close to their $180k appraisal price. However, the responsibility to the taxpayers was already lost when millions in public funds were used to raze the neighborhood in the mid-1990s. In addition, it appears no money or maintenance has been put into this property since COJ acquired it for $34k in 1994. True value is worth only what the market is willing to pay for it.
Just to play devil's advocate: Market sentiments impact prices, and prices change. Portfolio Managers often hold on to assets and then off-load those assets when the marketplace will bear out higher prices. Not to say the city has the best track record on Real Estate Portfolio Management, but the city is under no real pressure to sell the assets into today's marketplace where the properties fetch prices that barely clear $10,000. If it has a reasonable expectation that other catalysts may improve the attractiveness of this block of buildings, then why wouldn't it wait?
Imo, the city shouldn't be in the real estate development game. Especially when boards that are randomly appointed are in charge of making the decisions. Then, in this particular case, the city has been sitting on the property since 1994. How long is too long to wait? Also, what's the overall goal? Using underutilized assets to stimulate downtown redevelopment as fast as possible (increasing property tax revenue) or being a slumlord waiting for a pay day that may never come? In this case, we're our own worst enemy, if revitalization is the primary goal.
I think the City is short-sighted to focus on the purchase price. The real money is in the ongoing tax revenue.
A building assessed at $600,000 will return around $12,000 per year to the City forever. It will also raise the value of other nearby properties and encourage their renovation.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 15, 2017, 11:45:08 AM
Imo, the city shouldn't be in the real estate development game. Especially when boards that are randomly appointed are in charge of making the decisions. Then, in this particular case, the city has been sitting on the property since 1994. How long is too long to wait? Also, what's the overall goal? Using underutilized assets to stimulate downtown redevelopment as fast as possible (increasing property tax revenue) or being a slumlord waiting for a pay day that may never come? In this case, we're our own worst enemy, if revitalization is the primary goal.
Not sure where this block is located relative to the new residential projects coming online in LaVilla, but once the LaVilla projects and a few others are actually completed and occupied, shouldn't that drive some demand for retail/commercial uses? I'll be the first to say that much of downtown Jax is a wasteland, but $9k or $10k seemed quite low to me. Market Timing and Buyer Targeting are huge when selling properties. Every day, it feels like private pensions and private equity firms plow money into far-fetched endeavors. If we get these properties in front of the right buyers with dry powder to throw around, they'll see downtown properties adjacent to the Business District in a coastal NFL city in Florida, and surely pay up from $9-10k. Again, I don't know all that was involved in putting these properties out to bid. Arguably, a bit more active marketing of these properties should be able to fetch a great deal more, even on a net basis.
^I'd take a lowball figure if they're also committing to spend money on fixing up the building. Several grand in taxes every year will overtake the $34k the city spent on the property pretty quickly. But at that point I'd want to see a pretty solid project. No need to just give away the property if all they're willing to do with it is some boring office space, which there's already a glut of.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on November 15, 2017, 03:23:13 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on November 15, 2017, 11:45:08 AM
Imo, the city shouldn't be in the real estate development game. Especially when boards that are randomly appointed are in charge of making the decisions. Then, in this particular case, the city has been sitting on the property since 1994. How long is too long to wait? Also, what's the overall goal? Using underutilized assets to stimulate downtown redevelopment as fast as possible (increasing property tax revenue) or being a slumlord waiting for a pay day that may never come? In this case, we're our own worst enemy, if revitalization is the primary goal.
Not sure where this block is located relative to the new residential projects coming online in LaVilla,
2 blocks to Houston Street Manor, 3 to Lofts at Monroe and 6 blocks to phase 2 of Lofts of LaVilla. Also, this location is directly across the street from the courthouse.
While that may sound enticing, they need to give up a few things to help move things long. Then get big money for more worthy holdings later on as the market demands them.
It's all fool's gold. The new projects going up in LaVilla aren't going to result in this particular property increasing in value. In fact, it's declined in value due to no upkeep during 23 years of public ownership. No matter what goes up around it, it's still a property with no off-street parking, no on-street parking, no chance of adding either, that's collapsed on itself, due to neglect by the owner. If COJ was really concerned about sales prices, perhaps the prudent move would have been to maintain the building, so it would at least have value. That didn't happen, so all you have at this point is four walls to work with. If a group is willing to put their money into fixing up this site and returning it to the tax rolls, COJ should take whatever the market is willing to pay.
To get a little off topic, I remember this building, or buildings. The one on the left was a barber shop and I used to get my hair cut there when I was in the Navy, towards the end of my Navy career from 1990 to 1994. Yep, my barber was in the 1st section of the building on the left. Memories. I hope they find a good use for the property because the building or buildings are no good, wore out, and should be demolished; they are too old, decimated and are of no use to anyone now. The buildings were old and wore out back then, so I know they are uninhabitable and not useful to anything or anyone nowadays.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 15, 2017, 06:10:23 PM
It's all fool's gold. The new projects going up in LaVilla aren't going to result in this particular property increasing in value. In fact, it's declined in value due to no upkeep during 23 years of public ownership. No matter what goes up around it, it's still a property with no off-street parking, no on-street parking, no chance of adding either, that's collapsed on itself, due to neglect by the owner. If COJ was really concerned about sales prices, perhaps the prudent move would have been to maintain the building, so it would at least have value. That didn't happen, so all you have at this point is four walls to work with. If a group is willing to put their money into fixing up this site and returning it to the tax rolls, COJ should take whatever the market is willing to pay.
There is parking in the rear but I'm not sure how much is allocated to the retail outlet on the corner. There is also a 1/10th acre lot for sale directly behind the rear parking lot for sale. Zoned CRO so the parking lot could be extended.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Miscellaneous/Miscellaneous/i-dh3Pmzk/0/6ec3a137/X2/324%20Broad%20Street-X2.jpg)
The parking in the rear (618 Duval) is owned by property owner on the corner (326 Broad). The on-street parking was removed a couple of years ago for the BRT lanes on Broad. All that's available are spaces that are generally already used on Monroe and Duval. This piece of property is literally four walls with a roof and second floor caved in. Short of saving the facade, you're literally building a new structure on a small parcel that will still have no on or off-street parking and no foot traffic. The numbers desired for the sale of the property already make it not worth it from a market rate perspective. Instead of spending more money (making the proforma worse) to by another parcel divided from the property, anyone not doing this out of love for LaVilla's history, is better off investing their money elsewhere. I'd hope the realities of the site would be seriously considered by the DIA, with any deal to sell it.
I was trying to give them the most devil's advocate I could. I figured most of the rear parking was allocated (owned) by the corner optics retailer and that tiny lot for sale between 618 and 628 is too out of place (and limited in maneuverability for parking).
They should have taken the money.
"Acquired by the city in 1994 for $34,300, a September appraisal by Florida Valuation assessed the 4,104-square-foot building at $180,000.
According to DIA Operations Manager Guy Parola, the roof and second story have caved in.
"There's little more than a facade left," Parola said during the meeting. "
Then's it's worth what they paid, at most. $34,300 AT MOST!
I would like to add, "acquired by the City in 1994" and as Ennis has pointed out, not so much as a tarp put over the roof. That is what happens when COJ acquires property. They watch it melt into the earth.
Lake: You seem to take this issue personally...
As I learn more about Jax's treatment towards its African-American history and the national significance of what's being ignored, I've recognized the importance of preserving and reusing the little that's left. This stretch of Broad, along with a few scattered buildings on Ashley is Jax's version of Beale St (Memphis), Sweet Auburn (Atlanta), Jackson Ward (Richmond), Bronzeville (Chicago), Harlem, etc. I hate to see us piss redevelopment opportunities away due to shortsightedness.
I don't think the City has really grappled with what was done in LaVilla. You still find City employees and politicians who think the urban renewal plan was a good one.
They're typically the first ones that have no idea about the neighborhood's history or the cultural significance of the people who live, worked, played, stayed and operated businesses within the few boarded up structures that remain.
Jax is an odd place. The council is comprised of representatives from far-flung corners of the county. I'm guessing many of them have never lived in a walkable, dense, urban area. It's almost as though the "old part of urban Jacksonville" needs a sub-council, made up of actual residents, who should only have to go to City Council for massive actions. The DIA isn't really a governing body for the core - it seems more like an RFP machine scouring the landscape for economic catalysts to incentivize.
^In my experience, there was, and to an extent still is, a lack of understanding about why historic preservation is important, or why smaller and/or dilapidated buildings are still significant and worth saving. There was even a lack of understanding that removing most of the buildings would effectively be the end of the neighborhood. So, even some of the folks interested in LaVilla's history didn't realize that bulldozing the buildings would be so bad. LaVilla stands out compared to some other places that have been replaced because virtually nothing has cropped up there in 25 years. It puts the lie to the idea that demolishing buildings will bring in new growth.
There's also an element of Jaxsons' traditional inferiority complex and failure to recognize our own contributions as important. We're still fighting that.
Here's a pretty nice article on preservation:
http://mcmansionhell.com/post/167459130501/looking-around-reflections-on-preservation (http://mcmansionhell.com/post/167459130501/looking-around-reflections-on-preservation)
QuoteBuildings are worth saving for several reasons. Sometimes, a building has an interesting cultural history - perhaps an important person was born there, or it was the site of a burgeoning subculture, or an important historical event. Sometimes a building is worth preserving because it is a particularly good example of its architectural style, or because it's the only example of its particular style in the surrounding area.
Sometimes a building is worth preserving simply because it is beautiful, old, or built by a famous architect.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on November 21, 2017, 10:22:06 AM
Jax is an odd place. The council is comprised of representatives from far-flung corners of the county. I'm guessing many of them have never lived in a walkable, dense, urban area. It's almost as though the "old part of urban Jacksonville" needs a sub-council, made up of actual residents, who should only have to go to City Council for massive actions. The DIA isn't really a governing body for the core - it seems more like an RFP machine scouring the landscape for economic catalysts to incentivize.
One of the downsides of Consolidation was that the urban core no longer has its own identity or the ability to come all together. As such it's easier to overlook how much the core continues to struggle considering that other parts of the city are booming. Individual neighborhoods have created organizations that have had a positive impact, but it's entirely driven by dedicated people within those neighborhoods. Because Downtown has so few people living there it has never had a group like that who can advocate for it as a neighborhood. The closest we have is DVI, and that's mainly a business organization and not primarily people who live downtown. DIA is a government organization made up of government folks, who also don't usually live there. Then we have the developers and advisers, who generally have their heart in the right place, but often don't have the background to know what really works when it comes to revitalization.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 21, 2017, 08:31:20 AM
As I learn more about Jax's treatment towards its African-American history and the national significance of what's being ignored, I've recognized the importance of preserving and reusing the little that's left. This stretch of Broad, along with a few scattered buildings on Ashley is Jax's version of Beale St (Memphis), Sweet Auburn (Atlanta), Jackson Ward (Richmond), Bronzeville (Chicago), Harlem, etc. I hate to see us piss redevelopment opportunities away due to shortsightedness.
Couldn't agree more with you Lake.
For me, the best thing the City could do is give these buildings away for free to whoever has the best plan to restore it.
Disclaimer: Of course the contract should be written in a way that the building remains the COJ's property until all obligations have been fulfilled, i.e. the building is completely done.
They could sell empty lots cheaper if something is rebuilt on them that is either the original building (in the case of historically or architecturally relevant buildings) or built in the same style as the old ones were.
Frankfurt is trying something similar with their Dom Romer area, which I think is nice.
http://www.domroemer.de/english-information
Quote from: Tacachale on November 21, 2017, 11:23:16 AM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on November 21, 2017, 10:22:06 AM
Jax is an odd place. The council is comprised of representatives from far-flung corners of the county. I'm guessing many of them have never lived in a walkable, dense, urban area. It's almost as though the "old part of urban Jacksonville" needs a sub-council, made up of actual residents, who should only have to go to City Council for massive actions. The DIA isn't really a governing body for the core - it seems more like an RFP machine scouring the landscape for economic catalysts to incentivize.
One of the downsides of Consolidation was that the urban core no longer has its own identity or the ability to come all together. As such it's easier to overlook how much the core continues to struggle considering that other parts of the city are booming. Individual neighborhoods have created organizations that have had a positive impact, but it's entirely driven by dedicated people within those neighborhoods. Because Downtown has so few people living there it has never had a group like that who can advocate for it as a neighborhood. The closest we have is DVI, and that's mainly a business organization and not primarily people who live downtown. DIA is a government organization made up of government folks, who also don't usually live there. Then we have the developers and advisers, who generally have their heart in the right place, but often don't have the background to know what really works when it comes to revitalization.
Yes, Jacksonville must continue to ask some tough questions about the area it defines as its downtown. I could be wrong, but my sense is that the COJ is focused on making downtown a type of quasi-theme park for suburbanites. Is that the grand vision, or what makes sense for the city? Or is the plan to make it another lifestyle option for those who desire a dense, walkable, urban experience? Or is downtown supposed to make a grand statement of identity about the city and region to outsiders? Is downtown really just a branding project...an expression of cultural values?
If revenue resulting from growth in every part of the county flows into the same coffers, what makes downtown so special? Is there some sort of enhanced revenue that results from growth and development in the core versus growth and development on the southside or near the beaches?
What specifically is downtown's target state - the point at which it no longer needs special treatment - or will it always have special needs because of some grand cultural role it plays in the history and evolution of the city?
QuoteIf revenue resulting from growth in every part of the county flows into the same coffers, what makes downtown so special? Is there some sort of enhanced revenue that results from growth and development in the core versus growth and development on the southside or near the beaches?
What specifically is downtown's target state - the point at which it no longer needs special treatment - or will it always have special needs because of some grand cultural role it plays in the history and evolution of the city?
Most suburban growth cost MORE in services and infrastructure than they return. This is why taxes continue to rise even in the face of steady growth. Urban growth typical returns more money than it requires in services. This is because of the density involved, the higher property values that normally exist and the fact that the infrastructure was already in place.
Historically DT JAX, like most cities, produced far more revenue than it required, such that it helped with the deficit created by suburban growth. However, that surplus has dramatically been reduced by the falling property values from the recession, offices leaving for the suburbs and the resulting vacancy.
Quote from: vicupstate on November 21, 2017, 01:39:29 PM
QuoteIf revenue resulting from growth in every part of the county flows into the same coffers, what makes downtown so special? Is there some sort of enhanced revenue that results from growth and development in the core versus growth and development on the southside or near the beaches?
What specifically is downtown's target state - the point at which it no longer needs special treatment - or will it always have special needs because of some grand cultural role it plays in the history and evolution of the city?
Most suburban growth cost MORE in services and infrastructure than they return. This is why taxes continue to rise even in the face of steady growth. Urban growth typical returns more money than it requires in services. This is because of the density involved, the higher property values that normally exist and the fact that the infrastructure was already in place.
Historically DT JAX, like most cities, produced far more revenue than it required, such that it helped with the deficit created by suburban growth. However, that surplus has dramatically been reduced by the falling property values from the recession, offices leaving for the suburbs and the resulting vacancy.
Consider Manhattan. While I love it, it makes me challenge the idea that suburban growth costs more. Density has its benefits, but there's an entirely new infrastructure required to support density. Case in point, transit systems, because density with Auto-Centricity means disaster.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on November 21, 2017, 12:49:15 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on November 21, 2017, 11:23:16 AM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on November 21, 2017, 10:22:06 AM
Jax is an odd place. The council is comprised of representatives from far-flung corners of the county. I'm guessing many of them have never lived in a walkable, dense, urban area. It's almost as though the "old part of urban Jacksonville" needs a sub-council, made up of actual residents, who should only have to go to City Council for massive actions. The DIA isn't really a governing body for the core - it seems more like an RFP machine scouring the landscape for economic catalysts to incentivize.
One of the downsides of Consolidation was that the urban core no longer has its own identity or the ability to come all together. As such it's easier to overlook how much the core continues to struggle considering that other parts of the city are booming. Individual neighborhoods have created organizations that have had a positive impact, but it's entirely driven by dedicated people within those neighborhoods. Because Downtown has so few people living there it has never had a group like that who can advocate for it as a neighborhood. The closest we have is DVI, and that's mainly a business organization and not primarily people who live downtown. DIA is a government organization made up of government folks, who also don't usually live there. Then we have the developers and advisers, who generally have their heart in the right place, but often don't have the background to know what really works when it comes to revitalization.
Yes, Jacksonville must continue to ask some tough questions about the area it defines as its downtown. I could be wrong, but my sense is that the COJ is focused on making downtown a type of quasi-theme park for suburbanites. Is that the grand vision, or what makes sense for the city? Or is the plan to make it another lifestyle option for those who desire a dense, walkable, urban experience? Or is downtown supposed to make a grand statement of identity about the city and region to outsiders? Is downtown really just a branding project...an expression of cultural values?
If revenue resulting from growth in every part of the county flows into the same coffers, what makes downtown so special? Is there some sort of enhanced revenue that results from growth and development in the core versus growth and development on the southside or near the beaches?
What specifically is downtown's target state - the point at which it no longer needs special treatment - or will it always have special needs because of some grand cultural role it plays in the history and evolution of the city?
There's no one plan for Downtown that is adhered to. That's as much of a problem as anything. It has improved a lot in the past few years, and things will get easier the more residents move into downtown itself, rather than just (some of) the surrounding neighborhoods. Then, it'll have a core of people who are personally invested in making it a real neighborhood instead of just a business district or entertainment area.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on November 21, 2017, 01:45:49 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on November 21, 2017, 01:39:29 PM
QuoteIf revenue resulting from growth in every part of the county flows into the same coffers, what makes downtown so special? Is there some sort of enhanced revenue that results from growth and development in the core versus growth and development on the southside or near the beaches?
What specifically is downtown's target state - the point at which it no longer needs special treatment - or will it always have special needs because of some grand cultural role it plays in the history and evolution of the city?
Most suburban growth cost MORE in services and infrastructure than they return. This is why taxes continue to rise even in the face of steady growth. Urban growth typical returns more money than it requires in services. This is because of the density involved, the higher property values that normally exist and the fact that the infrastructure was already in place.
Historically DT JAX, like most cities, produced far more revenue than it required, such that it helped with the deficit created by suburban growth. However, that surplus has dramatically been reduced by the falling property values from the recession, offices leaving for the suburbs and the resulting vacancy.
Consider Manhattan. While I love it, it makes me challenge the idea that suburban growth costs more. Density has its benefits, but there's an entirely new infrastructure required to support density. Case in point, transit systems, because density with Auto-Centricity means disaster.
Yes, transit systems cost money. However, if you look at the total picture and compare the cost of serving a population of 1 million in a dense urban area vs. in a spread out suburban area I would bet that the former is cheaper.
You have to look at everything - roads, power water and sewage lines, communication,....
Suburban growth seems like a great money maker for developers - buy cheap land, build houses and have the public finance and maintain the infrastructure.
I spoke at length with Caldera today about the building in question. He said it has deteriorated so much that just stabilizing the facade will be tricky and expensive, not to mention the cost of environmental cleanup. There is undoubtedly asbestos and lead paint throughout the site.
It's basically a Cowford Chophouse type situation in a significantly less viable location. There's asbestos and lead paint in every unrenovated building constructed during the early 20th century. Those aren't significant challenges to overcome if the property is priced right. The building's conditions do become a challenge when the acquisition asking price is well above what the market will support. This is a situation where the property should be sold for whatever the market will support as opposed to COJ contining to sit on it until it caves in own itself.
Yeah, I could see that building caving in on itself if something isn't done with it. A small grocery store/eatery business on the bottom with offices leased on the top floors would be a great idea if coj/dia weren't so greedy about wanting their $34k back that they paid for the property and essentially did nothing but let it sit there and rot away further. At the very least, the city should have kept up the building better the last two decades if they thought they should re-coup that $34k purchase price as resale price. It will probably cost at least a $660,000 to restore the building to safe and inhabitable, plus all that lead paint and asbestos. It's so near to all those new apartments being built
in /near lavilla too. What a shame. I'd try something, if I had the capital funds to. Maybe I will buy a lottery ticket haha ;)
Quote from: jaxrox on November 21, 2017, 07:51:06 PM
Yeah, I could see that building caving in on itself if something isn't done with it. A small grocery store/eatery business on the bottom with offices leased on the top floors would be a great idea if coj/dia weren't so greedy about wanting their $34k back that they paid for the property and essentially did nothing but let it sit there and rot away further. At the very least, the city should have kept up the building better the last two decades if they thought they should re-coup that $34k purchase price as resale price. It will probably cost at least a $660,000 to restore the building to safe and inhabitable, plus all that lead paint and asbestos. It's so near to all those new apartments being built
in /near lavilla too. What a shame. I'd try something, if I had the capital funds to. Maybe I will buy a lottery ticket haha ;)
I'd always thought it'd be cool if there was a way to, in a sense, "crowdfund" development.
As in, have some kind of collective that makes decisions and gathers funding to purchase buildings, restore/redevelop them, and either put them on the market or find tenants to make them work.
That's not a bad idea. I don't really know how all the ins and outs of crowdfunding/crowdsourcing works, but I need to learn it anyway. I'm in for forming an independent organization for community building developments. Who else would be up for putting together something like that? We could call ourselves FDJ (Friends of Downtown Jacksonville)
Just an idea...
Quote from: jaxrox on November 22, 2017, 01:29:11 PM
That's not a bad idea. I don't really know how all the ins and outs of crowdfunding/crowdsourcing works, but I need to learn it anyway. I'm in for forming an independent organization for community building developments. Who else would be up for putting together something like that? We could call ourselves FDJ (Friends of Downtown Jacksonville)
Just an idea...
With the way this Net Neutrality battle is going down, maybe it'd help to consider including some kind of mesh networking collective. Just putting that out there.
As far as names, I'm personally fond of Jacksonville Urban Development Collective (JUDC), or something similar. Sounds a bit more formal and effective.
Yeah, your name is good too. I am admittedly less formal and refined, more a call it like I see it type. But I'm passionate with good ideas, so i hope it counts for something :)
New development to this story. In the Business Journal link they mention 326 Broad Street as being listed for sale at an asking price of $500,000. The listing included the vacant lot at 618 W. Duval, immediately behind the building. Those props are now Under Contract.
I will post the selling price when it is posted. Not sure it impacts the City owned vacant building but I wonder if the City would look at a new bid from the Pending owner of 326 Broad Street. Packaging it all together might be the best scenario going forward.
I doubt the new owner of the building and parking lot next door would want 324 Broad for anything close to the DIA's appraisal price. I also doubt they could be packaged today. One is privately owned and the other is publicly owned. They couldn't be packaged without the private property owner winning a RFP for the public property.