Just in:
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2021/01/20/shipyards-met-park-nps-swap.html?ana=e_jac_bn_breakingnews_breakingnews&j=90547012&t=Breaking%20News&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTXpRd01qa3pNVE0zTURRMCIsInQiOiI4T05pOHE2VTRDeFpicVFRNVZBV2dFUjBoMjg1UUpxV1dBTmhnTklDaSsxZ1MyQjhvM0I3dTA0emxWSGxwQUJTUGtvYW5La0tsa3dWRGc0V2pJVUpPdnBNVFZYUnVCbkdrQ1pqa3FrQ0tKUStnZE5rbENGa0lkNkR0RTRpUzFuRTZqeTVpTWJYeFdydnYwb0VuUGtJYlE9PSJ9
(https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2021/01/20/shipyards-met-park-nps-swap.html?ana=e_jac_bn_breakingnews_breakingnews&j=90547012&t=Breaking%20News&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTXpRd01qa3pNVE0zTURRMCIsInQiOiI4T05pOHE2VTRDeFpicVFRNVZBV2dFUjBoMjg1UUpxV1dBTmhnTklDaSsxZ1MyQjhvM0I3dTA0emxWSGxwQUJTUGtvYW5La0tsa3dWRGc0V2pJVUpPdnBNVFZYUnVCbkdrQ1pqa3FrQ0tKUStnZE5rbENGa0lkNkR0RTRpUzFuRTZqeTVpTWJYeFdydnYwb0VuUGtJYlE9PSJ9)
QuoteThe National Park Service will not accept trading part of the Shipyards property for Metropolitan Park, according to an email from the National Parks Service seen by several people familiar with the situation.
While that does not mean the project is dead, it does mean that plans for Shad Khan's proposed development on the waterfront have, at the least, more hoops to jump through.
The expression of a lack of interest in the deal came from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, on behalf of the National Park Service, in response to an inquiry by the City of Jacksonville's Office of General Counsel regarding exchanging portions of the two parcels to allow Metropolitan Park to be developed.
The park is designated federal parkland, and the city agreed in the 1970s to preserve it as a park in perpetuity. For it to be developed, the city would have to find a new park site that the National Park Service deems comparable.
An email between the state and John C. Sawyer Jr., chief of the city's Governmental Operations Department, revealed that the National Park Service was not interested in accepting a piece of the 60-acre Shipyards property in exchange for a 13-acre parcel of Metropolitan Park, said Barbara Goodman, an international park consultant and former superintendent of the Timucuan Preserve.
"It is our understanding that the National Park Service has said no to the Shipyards as part of the swap," Goodman said. "They have determined, apparently, that the Shipyards property would not be sufficient or acceptable land to be included in a swap."
The Business Journal has requested a copy of the email from Sawyer and the city. Sawyer was not immediately available for comment.
Goodman clarified that she had not spoken to the National Park Service. The plan that the city presented to the Park Service was done as an unofficial inquiry rather than an official proposal.
"They [the city] have not submitted a formal package to swap the property – everything they've been doing has been informal and trying to get a lead on what the Park Service will do with the various proposals," Goodman said.
Downtown Investment Authority CEO Lori Boyer said she was aware of the email between FDEP and Sawyer, which she learned of during a Riverfront Parks Now meeting, and said she was in the process of seeking clarification on the subject.
"I'm working to get additional information on Metropolitan Park," Boyer said.
In a previous interview with the Business Journal, Boyer explained that acceptance or rejection of a proposed swap for Metropolitan Park didn't inherently mean any development would be impossible.
"There is a lot of interest in those properties – everything from MOSH to residential development – but the question now is what goes where," Boyer said. "In part, that's dependent upon whether you keep Metropolitan Park in its current location or do you relocate it. The response to the relocation of Metropolitan Park, yes or no, does not mean any of the other things are off the table – it just means the jigsaw pieces of the puzzle are moved around."
Goodman, who worked with the National Park Service for 33 years, explained the process of the swap. Metropolitan Park was initially created as federal parkland through a grant program which established it as parkland in perpetuity – and in order to reallocate the land for development, the city would have to swap it for "comparable lands."
"The National Park Service has rules for how this program is implemented, and in the rules it states the property cannot be purchased back," Goodman said. "In order to cut those strings, the only thing the city can do if the use of the land is no longer desired as a park is to look for other comparable lands."
Goodman said that this scenario is not particularly common, but it has been done before. However, she added that it's much more common for any parcel acquired via the NPS program to remain a park.
Nancy Powell, executive director of Scenic Jacksonville, said she hopes a public discussion about the situation can be had before a decision has been made.
Scenic Jacksonville, a non-profit advocacy organization with a goal of "preserving, protecting and enhancing the scenic character of Jacksonville," is part of the Riverfront Parks Now campaign — which includes other non-profit groups such as St. Johns Riverkeeper, Memorial Park Association and the Garden Club of Jacksonville — that advocates for a connected network of public green space and parks along downtown Jacksonville's riverfront.
"I don't understand why this is a secret – why isn't there a public conversation about what should happen to Metropolitan Park, including if the public wants there to be a swap?" Powell said. "This park is a public asset, so there should be a conversation about it."
LOL!!!!
Lenny Curry right now in 2021...
(https://cdn.drawception.com/images/panels/2016/12-6/mq6YrSSGDj-4.png)
I like the quote from Nancy Powell, Executive Director of Scenic Jacksonville
Quote
"I don't understand why this is a secret – why isn't there a public conversation about what should happen to Metropolitan Park, including if the public wants there to be a swap?" Powell said. "This park is a public asset, so there should be a conversation about it."
Why this is a secret? Because this is the Lenny Curry administration, the public is, at best, an annoyance that must be dealt with when making backroom deals.
Lot J was, in part, dependent on Phase II in Metro Park. Without Phase II, imagine the increased odds that Lot J would be a failure. Thank goodness Lot J was voted down.
This is just another reason Lot J wasn't ready for prime time. Curry and the Jags should have had a handle on Metro Park's fate before putting Lot J up for approval. One more reason Curry was in over his head and the Jag's were rushing things to get a money grab from the taxpayers.
Just checking, but is The Shipyards site shovel ready, or is remediation STILL needed here?
Quote from: MusicMan on January 20, 2021, 03:48:05 PM
Just checking, but is The Shipyards site shovel ready, or is remediation STILL needed here?
The majority of the work done at the Shipyards site revolved around shoring up the bulkhead. About 1,500 ft of new bulkhead structures were added, one of the piers was removed, and if I recall there was some dredging in between two of the piers.
Site-wide remediation never took place, save for the excavation of soil along the waterfront and introduction of backfill between the new bulkheads.
All of that work was essentially paid for by taxpayers, whereas the developer took down draws against a COJ mortgage held on the property as work was completed. That 's why COJ has had the property in its possession since roughly 2009- as they were able to foreclose on the mortgage and recover the asset as part of the developer's bankruptcy proceeding.
Unless it was refinanced into a broader bond re-issuance last year, taxpayers are still paying interest on that original bond that paid for the bulkhead work.
Here is the Shipyards from 2007. Bonus points if you can make out the construction of the Peninsula condos on the Southbank in the background.
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/construction_update_march07/DCP_9159.jpg)
Well... wow.
If they couldn't convince the Trump Administration to let them have the park for development, they're completely screwed now.
I guess Shad will have to really rev up the rendering machines.
Development as it relates to the Jags is toast now. As said if they can't get a deal done under a Trump administration they're screwed with the new leadership. I'd be stunned if we even see a compromise. It was all or nothing. I expect insane demands on the stadium upgrades as the final throw of the dice and more International games. I can't see relations between the Jags and potentially a future no voting Mayor like Carlucci or Hazouri being anything but strained.
QuoteDevelopment as it relates to the Jags is toast now.
I think that's a stretch, with all due respect. There is plenty of land to develop. All of this below is owned by the City, and none of these parcels are parkland. This land, as with Lot J, requires remediation.
(https://i1.wp.com/www.jacksonvillemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Screen-Shot-2018-09-12-at-2.51.43-PM.png?w=1019&ssl=1)
(https://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wjct/files/styles/x_large/public/201303/shipyards_map.jpg)
The biggest difference between the actual Shipyards property vs Lot J/Metro Park.. is that the latter is directly next to Dailys Place. In that respect, lots M, N and P to the East of Lot J (shown below, essentially the old Coliseum site) as well as the current practice fields... are all developable parcels that don't have breached slur walls underground spreading contaminants into a retention pond. None of those options also require additional tens of millions of dollars to recreate a park (planting grass along the river does not count as 'parkspace').
(https://arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-gmg.s3.amazonaws.com/public/FPYCHSJXNNCGHOKKMBM7A5ZPI4.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/The-Shipyards-Renderings/i-q5Hc4bh/0/63c5b60c/X3/Dlc4k9SX0AEhvi4-X3.jpg)
I also don't read that article and come to the conclusion that the final word on Metro Park has been written. The article and informal email chain only emphasizes what we already knew to be true.... that any effort to swap Met Park faces many uphill battles.
^Yeah, hold on now. There should still be plenty of options. Developing on other lots, or at the Shipyards proper, or coming back to the table on Lot J with a deal that isn't completely ridiculous. This being the final straw to their development efforts says more about them than it does about the city.
If iguana is trying to create a "sports complex neighborhood", certainly they can figure out how to build around met park and highlight it as the amenity it ought to be.
Quote from: Papa33 on January 20, 2021, 06:48:10 PM
If iguana is trying to create a "sports complex neighborhood", certainly they can figure out how to build around met park and highlight it as the amenity it ought to be.
Agreed.
Quote from: Papa33 on January 20, 2021, 06:48:10 PM
If iguana is trying to create a "sports complex neighborhood", certainly they can figure out how to build around met park and highlight it as the amenity it ought to be.
This makes sense to me. We should build on the north side of Bay Street wherever the City already owns the riverfront land on the south side. Having the riverfront green should be an amenity for all of Downtown dwellers, workers and visitors. The City's waterfront holdings would be the envy of most any City elsewhere.
As Lake suggests, Khan and the City have lots of parking lots around the Stadium to play with. And, there is an abundance of non-riverfront land in the Downtown core to develop. I like the idea of urban living but only if there is substantial green space to chill or recreate in. Nothing beats adding access to a great waterway. Every other City, just about, understands this concept except us. Glad there is now a coalition of groups advocating for same here and the City needs to heed their counsel.
Nate Monroe nailed this one about a month back.
Curry, Hughes, and the OGC made no friends throughout this process.
And the right to pay back the grant and develop the land never existed in the feds' opinion (hence the payback bill being revoked), even though that language actually is in the original agreement from the 80s.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on January 20, 2021, 08:27:50 PM
Nate Monroe nailed this one about a month back.
Curry, Hughes, and the OGC made no friends throughout this process.
And the right to pay back the grant and develop the land never existed in the feds' opinion (hence the payback bill being revoked), even though that language actually is in the original agreement from the 80s.
Worth Repeating
Quote from: fieldafm on January 20, 2021, 06:23:05 PM
QuoteDevelopment as it relates to the Jags is toast now.
I think that's a stretch, with all due respect. There is plenty of land to develop. All of this below is owned by the City, and none of these parcels are parkland. This land, as with Lot J, requires remediation.
(https://i1.wp.com/www.jacksonvillemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Screen-Shot-2018-09-12-at-2.51.43-PM.png?w=1019&ssl=1)
(https://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wjct/files/styles/x_large/public/201303/shipyards_map.jpg)
The biggest difference between the actual Shipyards property vs Lot J/Metro Park.. is that the latter is directly next to Dailys Place. In that respect, lots M, N and P to the East of Lot J (shown below, essentially the old Coliseum site) as well as the current practice fields... are all developable parcels that don't have breached slur walls underground spreading contaminants into a retention pond. None of those options also require additional tens of millions of dollars to recreate a park (planting grass along the river does not count as 'parkspace').
(https://arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-gmg.s3.amazonaws.com/public/FPYCHSJXNNCGHOKKMBM7A5ZPI4.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/The-Shipyards-Renderings/i-q5Hc4bh/0/63c5b60c/X3/Dlc4k9SX0AEhvi4-X3.jpg)
I also don't read that article and come to the conclusion that the final word on Metro Park has been written. The article and informal email chain only emphasizes what we already knew to be true.... that any effort to swap Met Park faces many uphill battles.
Mike Mendenhall provides a little more color than the JBJ article, which seemed like a rushed product to get onto the web first.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/national-park-service-rejected-shipyards-swap-for-metropolitan-park-in-december (https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/national-park-service-rejected-shipyards-swap-for-metropolitan-park-in-december)
Not surprisingly, floating ideas about park land swaps without providing much in the way of details- like a formal plan to fully remediate, amenitize and fund your proposed park space... doesn't impress the National Park Service.
The informal emails are par for the course for Curry's administration's entire strategy towards Downtown... tear lots of things down, make references to vague and unvetted future plans, and worry about figuring out how to do any of it later (or never).
Perhaps this only interests me... but it should be noted that the original Shipyards proposal almost two decades ago included 16 acres of park space. That would be 16 acres of new park space, to go along with the 24 acres that already existed/exists at MetroPark.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3913735020_PkvrWGH-L.jpg)
Been saying it for years, but Columbus Commons should be the model for the Shipyards. The public pays for the public space, master plans the site, and then sells individual parcels to developers that build to the uses and design conformity within your master plan. Basically, the public is the master developer who gets the site ready to market and sells the land to individual developers. The model for the Shipyards has always been- Give the land to the Jaguars (who won the RFP in 2015, not one shovel in the ground almost 6 years later), LandMar (bankrupt) or TriLegacy (bankrupt) as the master developer, the City gives the master developer the money to get the site ready to market, and the master developer then sells individual parcels to other developers. Its an all or nothing approach, that has failed at least twice.... and maybe/maybe not a third time.
https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/getting-it-right-columbus-commons/ (https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/getting-it-right-columbus-commons/)
Definitely agree with fieldafm on Columbus Commons. In the time we've talked about what to do with the Shipyards, they've had a functional mall run out of business, close, get demolished, recreated as a park with building pads and seen all of those pads incrementally developed with mixed-use infill. This stuff isn't rocket science. Jax just needs to get out of its own way.
As for the National Park Service, like Lot J, this process of swapping land is another time consuming, money wasting thing. There's nothing wrong with leaving Metropolitan Park where it is and developing on other properties around it. If there's one thing we have in abundance in and around downtown, it's empty, city owned property.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 21, 2021, 08:36:48 AM
Definitely agree with fieldafm on Columbus Commons. In the time we've talked about what to do with the Shipyards, they've had a functional mall run out of business, close, get demolished, recreated as a park with building pads and seen all of those pads incrementally developed with mixed-use infill. This stuff isn't rocket science. Jax just needs to get out of its own way.
As for the National Park Service, like Lot J, this process of swapping land is another time consuming, money wasting thing. There's nothing wrong with leaving Metropolitan Park where it is and developing on other properties around it. If there's one thing we have in abundance in and around downtown, it's empty, city owned property.
I mean, its not like this conversation is anything new. It's only another decade and a few more Mayoral administrations to waste. The redevelopment of the Shipyards has been a discussion that occupies time and money since basically 2000. The push to drive development and public money away from the walkable core of the City and towards the Sports District has been going on since basically 2008. When you step back and ponder on that for a moment... that's a lot of time and money spent spinning wheels. Both time and money are valuable... perhaps even more of a valuable commodity then some empty land? Maybe its best to spend both on something that won't drag on for another 20 years?
https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-may-creating-synergy-history-the-landing-or-metro-park (https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-may-creating-synergy-history-the-landing-or-metro-park)
Anyone note the date (December 2nd) the City was notified that the NPS wasn't biting on a swap? This was during the intense discussions about Lot J and when the Jag's were dangling the Four Seasons at Metro Park as another development bonus. It doesn't appear the Curry administration shared the info before the Lot J vote. I wonder what impact it would have had if the Council knew this very relevant development. More Curry manipulations? It appears an investigation by the Council is in order.
QuoteThe Florida Department of Environmental Protection notified city attorney John Sawyer on Dec. 2 that the National Park Service will not consider the Shipyards as replacement property for Metropolitan Park.
"I wanted to let you know that NPS has responded to the City's proposal of the Shipyards as replacement property for the Metro Park conversion," department Land and Recreation Grants Program Manager Rebecca Wood wrote to Sawyer, governmental operations department chief of the city Office of General Counsel.
"NPS has reiterated that the purpose of reviewing the additional properties identified by the City thus far was because the Shipyards will not be considered as replacement property for Metro Park," Wood wrote. "Please let me know if the City has any additional properties to review."
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/national-park-service-rejected-shipyards-swap-for-metropolitan-park-in-december (https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/national-park-service-rejected-shipyards-swap-for-metropolitan-park-in-december)
QuoteShad Khan's development company asks for Shipyards site access
The Downtown Investment Authority board will consider allowing Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shad Khan's development company access to the Shipyards property as he considers the site for a Four Seasons hotel and mixed-use development.
According to the Feb. 17 meeting agenda packet, the DIA board is scheduled to vote on a resolution to give Iguana Investments Florida LLC access to the city-owned riverfront property for at least six months to conduct environmental and geotechnical site due diligence.
The board documents were released Feb. 10.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/shad-khans-development-company-asks-for-shipyards-site-access
Don't see why not. Not like anything else is going on at the Shipyards.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on February 11, 2021, 01:44:11 PM
Don't see why not. Not like anything else is going on at the Shipyards.
I agree. I would hope the findings are shared with DIA though.
I thought curry said the Jags were walking away if the lot J deal didn't go through? 8)
Seems they should be doing environmental investigation of the Shipyards, and not Metro Park.
The annual state of the franchise is soon isn't it? Guess you've gotta talk about something off the field....
^Sounds like more renderings are on the way! I'm excited to see what the latest will be.
Renderings. Schmenderings. There is some excitement, for sure. But tempered by what we ended up with in the few projects that came to fruition.
Jaguars: Four Seasons plan doesn't depend on Met Park land swaphttps://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2021/02/12/jaguars-four-seasons-hotel-plan-doesnt-depend-met-park-land-swap/6741376002/
QuoteJaguars owner Shad Khan's ongoing plans for a Four Seasons Hotel and medical office building do not depend on the city gaining federal approval for a land swap that would allow private development on a chunk of Metropolitan Park, the team says.
"Our belief in downtown Jacksonville and its potential hasn't changed, nor has our commitment to playing a leading role in helping downtown realize its full potential," the Jaguars said in a statement Friday. "We are currently working through the DIA process regarding the Shipyards development. The Shipyards development, including the Four Seasons Hotel and Residences and medical office, are not dependent on the Met Park land swap."
I thought the four seasons was ambitious when Lot J was alive, but to me building it without it now would border on lunacy.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on February 12, 2021, 06:53:14 PM
Jaguars: Four Seasons plan doesn't depend on Met Park land swap
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2021/02/12/jaguars-four-seasons-hotel-plan-doesnt-depend-met-park-land-swap/6741376002/
QuoteJaguars owner Shad Khan's ongoing plans for a Four Seasons Hotel and medical office building do not depend on the city gaining federal approval for a land swap that would allow private development on a chunk of Metropolitan Park, the team says.
"Our belief in downtown Jacksonville and its potential hasn't changed, nor has our commitment to playing a leading role in helping downtown realize its full potential," the Jaguars said in a statement Friday. "We are currently working through the DIA process regarding the Shipyards development. The Shipyards development, including the Four Seasons Hotel and Residences and medical office, are not dependent on the Met Park land swap."
I hope this doesn't get messed up or squashed as well. How about a hotel, medical office building, and a convention center inside a tower?
Quote from: landfall on February 12, 2021, 07:21:05 PM
I thought the four seasons was ambitious when Lot J was alive, but to me building it without it now would border on lunacy.
I completely agree.
Quote from: landfall on February 12, 2021, 07:21:05 PM
I thought the four seasons was ambitious when Lot J was alive, but to me building it without it now would border on lunacy.
Khan should put this development on the old courthouse/city hall property and use the U2C ;D to connect it to his stadium district. Then, he would have two sources of support, the real downtown and the occasional events in the stadium district. Of course, this will test JTA's faith in the viability of the U2C, not just Khan's commitment to downtown. Two birds with one stone. Let's see how committed everyone really is to these ambitious projects.
So you're saying nothing is going to happen, then.
Of course Khan wants his developments next to his football team. I don't blame him for trying, I blame him for offering taxpayers a crap deal. And we've been talking for weeks now about how JTA is overhauling the existing Skyway with expectations of an additional 10-15 year service life, because it's apparently turned out that autonomous vehicles aren't ready to serve as urban circulators.
The coalition of groups supporting downtown, and specifically riverfront, parks is opposing allowing Iguana Investments access to the "city" portion of Metro Park for environmental testing.
Quote
Riverfront Parks Now, a growing coalition of 10 civic organizations representing thousands of citizens, is asking the public to oppose the DIA resolution, recognizing that commercial development of the property will rob locals of the opportunity to maintain public access and ownership, and to create something distinctive, inviting, and resilient.
https://jaxlookout.com/metro-park/?fbclid=IwAR2SqVvFkGhuOPTRLcTdN3xj-jNEdjhRB5wOf6XdbjsuprQti28s_F5iiqU
Quote from: Charles Hunter on February 14, 2021, 02:18:57 PM
The coalition of groups supporting downtown, and specifically riverfront, parks is opposing allowing Iguana Investments access to the "city" portion of Metro Park for environmental testing.
Quote
Riverfront Parks Now, a growing coalition of 10 civic organizations representing thousands of citizens, is asking the public to oppose the DIA resolution, recognizing that commercial development of the property will rob locals of the opportunity to maintain public access and ownership, and to create something distinctive, inviting, and resilient.
https://jaxlookout.com/metro-park/?fbclid=IwAR2SqVvFkGhuOPTRLcTdN3xj-jNEdjhRB5wOf6XdbjsuprQti28s_F5iiqU
They need to use their heads. How about proposing to build something bigger and better for the kids if they build a hotel or whatever on the property; either include it IN the development, or build it next to the development on a small portion of land...or will the hotel, etc. be to big to include a kiddie park? Just saying. That might make the coalition more happy. The kids will have to do without a park while it is all under construction, but it will show that the City is still thinking about the kids and not eradicating the park altogether without building something else either within or next to the development or close by.
The Kids' Kampus has been gone for a long time, the City converted it into "open space" years ago. The Four Seasons Resort doesn't impress me as the kind of place that would invite local children onto their property unless they (or their parents) could afford to book a room there. And it's not just about the former playground, it's about the idea of giving free parkland to a billionaire developer to build something that very few of the residents of Jacksonville can afford to benefit from. And looking at the "broken ship" profile from across the river is not a 'benefit' to the taxpayer. Heck, if the deal is made during the Curry administration (or a prospective Davis administration) I would not be surprised if the City retains ownership of the land, so there will never be any property taxes coming from this luxury hotel and medical facility.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on February 14, 2021, 02:18:57 PM
The coalition of groups supporting downtown, and specifically riverfront, parks is opposing allowing Iguana Investments access to the "city" portion of Metro Park for environmental testing.
Quote
Riverfront Parks Now, a growing coalition of 10 civic organizations representing thousands of citizens, is asking the public to oppose the DIA resolution, recognizing that commercial development of the property will rob locals of the opportunity to maintain public access and ownership, and to create something distinctive, inviting, and resilient.
https://jaxlookout.com/metro-park/?fbclid=IwAR2SqVvFkGhuOPTRLcTdN3xj-jNEdjhRB5wOf6XdbjsuprQti28s_F5iiqU
I fully support the mission of Riverfront Parks Now and agree that we should preserve as much of our riverfront as possible as green space and public access. Any development set back behind such spaces should retain or even increase in value with these spaces as an added amenity as proven in cities all over the world. It is really a relatively inexpensive economic development driver.
We are blessed that the City already owns so much of this land and we need to not squander the opportunity away. Khan and his ilk are welcome to build all day long across from such spaces. Future generations of Jacksons will be thanking us for our foresight.
Added benefits include urban health, environmental and resiliency. It should be a no-brainer. Only in our City due we have to fight for this type of decision.