Quote(https://photos.moderncities.com/photos/i-zDqkJC5/0/L/i-zDqkJC5-L.jpg)
Jacksonville Mayor Lenny Curry Presents $1.4B Budget Proposal To City Council.
Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/mayor-curry-presents-14b-budget-proposal-to-council/
Hasn't crime gone up every single year while JSO's budget has increased? Where are the results for all this money being spent?
It's long past time for a focus on resiliency, so that's good. And the CIP is certainly looking to be important this coming year.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on July 21, 2021, 09:02:14 AM
Hasn't crime gone up every single year while JSO's budget has increased?
You could probably correlate that to a number of other rising metrics in the city and have a more meaningful argument
Quote from: Peter Griffin on July 21, 2021, 09:19:49 AM
Quote from: marcuscnelson on July 21, 2021, 09:02:14 AM
Hasn't crime gone up every single year while JSO's budget has increased?
You could probably correlate that to a number of other rising metrics in the city and have a more meaningful argument
Such as?
$19 million in the budget over the next two years to help MOSH relocate.
Wayne Weaver recently made a hefty contribution to the relocation as well.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on July 21, 2021, 09:48:54 PM
$19 million in the budget over the next two years to help MOSH relocate.
Wayne Weaver recently made a hefty contribution to the relocation as well.
Do we have any idea what the current building would be used for once they relocate? Are they selling, donating, leasing, or the old building for the new facilities' land?
Curious, why do we pump so much public money into UF Shands?
$75 million over the next two years, and typically around $25 million annually.
We clearly know in 2021 how big of a priority health should be, but what is it about Shands specifically that so much public money is pumped into it versus Baptist or Mayo, etc.? Is it city owned versus other local hospitals? Some kind of incentive with UF? Are they offering a lot of public health initiatives?
I believe the hospital is owned by the city and operated by UF.
Quote from: WAJAS on July 21, 2021, 10:50:37 PM
Quote from: Ken_FSU on July 21, 2021, 09:48:54 PM
$19 million in the budget over the next two years to help MOSH relocate.
Wayne Weaver recently made a hefty contribution to the relocation as well.
Do we have any idea what the current building would be used for once they relocate? Are they selling, donating, leasing, or the old building for the new facilities' land?
I haven't seen anything reported publicly, but Related will have a say in it:
QuoteThe amended deal also gives Related Group the first say in what is built at the nearby city-owned Museum of Science and History parcel.
The museum's trustees propose to relocate the facility to the Downtown Northbank.
"The developer was quite shaken by the MOSH announcement," DIA CEO Lori Boyer told committee members.
She said Related Group's market analysis relied on an active MOSH next door.
"That was going to be a benefit to the site. The loss of that was a concern," Boyer said.
Boyer said the agreement would give Related Group the chance to bid against any developer for the site as long as it proposes an equal capital investment.
Related Group attorney Steve Diebenow of Driver, McAfee, Hawthorne & Diebenow said the developer's chief concern is a "commercial use next door that is not compatible" with the residential complex.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/dia-board-to-vote-on-dollar92-million-river-city-brewing-proposal (https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/dia-board-to-vote-on-dollar92-million-river-city-brewing-proposal)
Just great. So we've potentially pooped the bed on the space easily being reused as another museum or cultural destination. More apartments here we come.
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on July 23, 2021, 11:22:41 AM
Quote from: WAJAS on July 21, 2021, 10:50:37 PM
Quote from: Ken_FSU on July 21, 2021, 09:48:54 PM
$19 million in the budget over the next two years to help MOSH relocate.
Wayne Weaver recently made a hefty contribution to the relocation as well.
Do we have any idea what the current building would be used for once they relocate? Are they selling, donating, leasing, or the old building for the new facilities' land?
I haven't seen anything reported publicly, but Related will have a say in it:
QuoteThe amended deal also gives Related Group the first say in what is built at the nearby city-owned Museum of Science and History parcel.
The museum's trustees propose to relocate the facility to the Downtown Northbank.
"The developer was quite shaken by the MOSH announcement," DIA CEO Lori Boyer told committee members.
She said Related Group's market analysis relied on an active MOSH next door.
"That was going to be a benefit to the site. The loss of that was a concern," Boyer said.
Boyer said the agreement would give Related Group the chance to bid against any developer for the site as long as it proposes an equal capital investment.
Related Group attorney Steve Diebenow of Driver, McAfee, Hawthorne & Diebenow said the developer's chief concern is a "commercial use next door that is not compatible" with the residential complex.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/dia-board-to-vote-on-dollar92-million-river-city-brewing-proposal (https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/dia-board-to-vote-on-dollar92-million-river-city-brewing-proposal)
Did that part of the deal go through? The right-of-first refusal was being considered by Lori Boyer but the rest of the DIA board was against it and I haven't heard anything of it since. The article is from November.
As I read it, Related
wants the MOSH to stay there. Since that's not happening, it follows that they'd prefer to see something MOSH-like with a similar public draw (i.e., not apartments). Their attorney, Mr. Diebenow, emphasized as much:
QuoteFrom DIA Board meeting on 11.18.2020
MR. DIEBENOW: [...] on the MOSH property, that it could only be used for civic purposes because we really like the civic use, whether it's a museum or an aquarium or a park or whatever it might be. We really like that as a next-door neighbor. [...] And, again, it really is not -- the competition part isn't the issue. The issue is what's our neighbor going to be. For example, this might be a great place for a Topgolf, but would Topgolf be the right -- I mean, you've got the big park there in front of you, you could hit balls in the river, but the lights would be on until 2 o'clock in the morning. So is that the best neighbor for this use? And so we want to have a seat at the table whenever that conversation happens. If it's a civic use, great because we know how that's going to operate generally, but if it's a private use, we have no idea what that would be.
The board expressed concerns over the ROFR in November, but revisited in January 2021 with the following explanation:
Quote
MR. KELLEY: [...]The second item that was open was the right of first refusal. There's been continuing conversation where we feel we've reached agreement on the ROFR as presented. That includes the ten-year term and maintains the similar use requirement found in that language. Nothing else has changed in this language other than to add the word "commercial" as a modifier to the word "improvements," meaning that the ROFR would allow Related to have the option to acquire the property, subject to sale, on similar terms and build the proposed building for an operation of a similar use at value providing similar tax revenue to the City for a period of ten years from closing.
The resolution, amended as explained above, was passed 8-1 by the DIA board. Given Related's desire to see a civic use next door, hopefully the ROFR encourages the city to keep it activated as opposed to having their hands tied to sell it to Related. The final resolution text, approved as amended, was (emphasis mine):
QuoteCOJ/DIA shall grant to Developer a right of first refusal for a period of 10 years from the Effective Date of the RDA to purchase the MOSH site in the event such site is made available for private commercial redevelopment to be more fully defined in the RDA. The ROFR shall require developer to match not only the cash purchase price to be paid for the land but also to commit to construction of commercial improvements of equal value and similar use as to that proposed, on the same or shorter performance schedule, resulting in a similar tax revenue to the City. Such right of first refusal shall not be applicable to any sale, lease or redevelopment for civic use, park space or other use in which the public is invited to visit such as a museum, aquarium, gallery, etc. The CEO shall be authorized to further negotiate the terms of the ROFR with Developer and shall bring any material changes to the Board for approval.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 23, 2021, 10:53:34 AM
I believe the hospital is owned by the city and operated by UF.
Thanks Lake!
Quote from: Zac T on July 23, 2021, 11:46:10 AM
Did that part of the deal go through? The right-of-first refusal was being considered by Lori Boyer but the rest of the DIA board was against it and I haven't heard anything of it since. The article is from November.
The right-of-first-refusal was (thankfully) severely gimped in the final agreement.
Only extends for 10 years, and if someone makes an offer to the city for the property, Related has to match not only the scope but also the use type.
In other words, if someone came to the city with an offer to build a Civil Rights museum, Related couldn't build apartments. They'd have to match with an offer to build a museum/civic attraction.
From my understanding the 10 years was effective the date of the agreement. Might be four to five years before MOSH Genesis is even built out, so we're not looking at a huge long-term roadblock to repurposing the MOSH like we are with the Hyatt site for example.
Also, speaking of MOSH Genesis and the city's desire to have signature lit public art up and down the riverfront, anyone else think that Rex (the big Orange dinosaur) would be a great addition to the MOSH area? Those glowing eyes would look fantastic from the Riverwalk.
^ A right of first refusal is guaranteed to reduce the marketability of a property and, thus, its value. No buyer wants to invest time and money in concepts, due diligence and negotiations only to have the rug pulled out from under them at the last minute. This is just another example of the City not being skilled in business matters. With a ROFR, not only will no 3rd party likely pursue the property, but Related will get it for a bargain price if it pitches for it since there won't be any real chance for competing offers.
All they had to do was make sure the City agreed, or via a zoning restriction, to limit the use of the property in the future for a museum, park or similar type attraction for some fair period of time. In the end, this should be a no-brainer that the City retains the property for public use, much of it as a riverfront park. It's bad enough that they "gave" the land to Related, please don't compound it by adding more.
^All that said, the city does bare some responsibility for facilitating a deal with Related for the development, under the auspices that MOSH would be next door, before springing the Shipyards swerve on them at the last minute. I blame the mayor's office for not being transparent with the DIA on their discussions with MOSH.
Related was a great get for the Jacksonville market, and they didn't come here to build one development and bail. They're already working on a new project at the beach and they've been quietly scoping locations downtown for workforce housing.
They were also amenable to adding a restaurant adjacent to Friendship Fountain/St. John's Park and blew up their design in response to negative feedback from the DDRB.
All things considered, I think it was worth it in this case, and I really do think it because a non-issue or blessing in disguise by keeping the site reserved for public uses (museum, park expansion, theater, etc).
Looking at the credibility of Related vs. the administration, I'm more inclined to take Related at their word until we're given a reason not to. I think it's a silver lining that the city IS limited on the MOSH property, because it increases the likelihood the property remains a civic use. Related doesn't seem to want the land.