Over the last hour or so, Mayor Donna Deegan, city negotiator Mike Weinstein, and Jaguars President Mark Lamping unveiled the proposal for a $1.4 billion renovation of Everbank Stadium to Jacksonville City Council. The proposal includes up to $775 million in city funding for the stadium, plus $150 million invested in parks and neighborhood development, but would not raise taxes. Multiple outlets are covering elements of the deal as they become available.
https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/local/city-reveals-jaguars-stadium-funding-proposal-taxes-not-be-impacted/77-e28e1922-2fba-438b-8ec7-d2e4c5115fe4
https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/local/live-updates-mayor-jaguars-president-city-negotiator-present-stadium-deal-city-council/LR7IECSBCJCA7MWFQXI6IPNSTM/
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/may/14/jaguars-stadium-of-the-future-deal-includes-775-million-in-public-funding/
Rory Diamond already pouring cold water on the deal. It is complex so you would think he would take a deep breath before critiquing it. In the end, if Deegan is for something, rest assured Diamond and his cronies are against it.
Funny, too, how he thinks he speaks for the entire Council. What arrogance.
From Diamond on X:
QuoteWe got the deal and over the last year
@MayorDeegan hasn't negotiated anything new for this stadium lease other than to add ANOTHER 150 MILLION of additional City spending on non-stadium programs.
Thats a non-starter, and Council will remove it.
We are where we were last year.
Devil will be in the details, looking forward to reviewing the documents, but at first blush, by NFL standards, this deal is incredibly fair, up to and including an unprecedented 30-year lease extension for a rebuild.
More details here...
Quote...Under the terms of the tentative deal, Jacksonville will pay $625 million and the football team will pay $625 million for the project, which would extend the Jaguars' lease for 30 years and include a non-relocation clause.
The city will also pledge $150 million for deferred and ongoing maintenance that must be completed before construction starts, bringing its total spend to $725 (SIC, $775) million.
If the project goes over budget, the team and city would split the overage up to $5 million, with the Jaguars paying for anything over that.
The Jaguars will also commit $100 million for commercial development downtown.
The deal also includes a community benefit agreement that the team and city said is the largest of its kind in the history of the NFL. That agreement has the city and the team each kicking in $150 million, with the money being spent on targeted community initiatives.
That includes spending money in the Eastside neighborhood adjacent to the stadium as well as investing in programs focused on affordable housing and homelessness across the county, as well as workforce development and parks...
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2024/05/14/jacksonville-stadium-deal.html?utm_source=st&utm_medium=en&utm_campaign=BN&utm_content=JA&ana=e_JA_BN&j=35380410&senddate=2024-05-14
Agreed Ken. $775 million is a lot of money that could theoretically go elsewhere, but this seems reasonable for being able to keep an NFL team for 30 years without having to raise taxes or build a new stadium. The CBA adds a Jaguars match (granted, over a longer period of time) to things we already wanted to do anyway, the operating agreements seem much kinder in terms of lessening the city's obligation, and all without the state support that other cities benefit from.
The city has created a webpage (https://www.jacksonville.gov/sotf) for the deal, which includes their presentation for huddles (https://www.jacksonville.gov/mayor/stadium-of-the-future/docs/stadium-of-the-future_community-huddles_may-2024-p.aspx) and an infographic (https://www.jacksonville.gov/mayor/stadium-of-the-future/docs/stadium-of-the-future_economic_framework-pdf.aspx):
(https://www.jacksonville.gov/getattachment/Mayor/Stadium-of-the-Future/Stadium-of-the-Future_Economic_Framework.png.aspx?lang=en-US&width=800&height=518)
Also a new rendering without the entertainment district:
(https://www.jacksonville.gov/getattachment/Mayor/Stadium-of-the-Future/_1.jpg.aspx?lang=en-US)
It also details the BJP funding proposal that was discussed during the meeting:
QuoteThe Better Jacksonville Plan Referendum (BJP) that was passed by the citizens of Jacksonville nearly 30 years ago called for a half of a percent to be added to the sales tax for 30 years to complete a wide variety of capital projects. Jacksonville citizens then passed a second referendum to extend that same half-penny to fund the deficit in the Police and Fire Pension Fund and the City's General Employees' Pension Fund. The BJP half-penny was to stop at the end of 2030 and the Pension half-penny was to immediately take its place.
A prior administration thought it would be a good idea to consider ending the BJP earlier than 2030, possibly at the end of 2026. This required taking projects that would have been paid for by the BJP sales tax, placing those projects in the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and borrowing money to complete those projects. This moved projects that would have been paid for with available City cash to requiring borrowing to get those projects completed. The pension funds by the approved referendum will receive 30 years of their half-penny or until they are both fully funded. Therefore, whether the BJP ends at the end of 2030 or 2026, the pension funds will be fully funded by the pension sales tax.
If the city follows through with the approved referendum BJP end date of 2030 and returns the projects that were taken out of the BJP and adds similar projects that can be added through City Council approval, it will remove around $600 million from anticipated borrowing and save the taxpayer over $1.5 billion in debt payments and still get all the projects completed according to their schedules.
The relief of this debt burden brings us to the stadium recommendation;
During the next four budget cycles, it is recommended we place into the City's CIP the required funding for our share of the renovation expenses according to the construction schedule and funding requirements matching the construction schedule. The way the CIP works is the City pays the expenses of the CIP projects from various City accounts as the costs occur and at the end of each year the city borrows the amount spent on the projects and reimburses the accounts the funding originally came from. The borrowing at the end of each year is then added to the City's overall debt and paid for in the City's debt service accounts. The goal is always to borrow less than we pay off each year.
Roof is different looking. Yeah they changed some things the entrances tropical jungle look gone. sides of the roof you can now see the field below the roof.
Nate Monroe weighs in...
QuoteNate Monroe: The promises, contradictions and perils of Jaguars stadium agreement
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/nate-monroe/2024/05/14/nate-monroe-the-promises-contradictions-and-perils-of-jacksonville-jaguars-everbankstadium-agreement/73689084007/
Interesting tidbit in his column mentions Khan's new Kismet yacht at 122 meters (that's 400 feet, longer than the Jags' playing field). You, too, can enjoy as charters are available at about $3,000,000/week PLUS expenses.
QuoteLürssen's 122m superyacht Kismet delivered
https://www.boatinternational.com/yachts/news/lurssen-superyacht-kismet-project-jag-delivered
(https://cdn.boatinternational.com/convert/files/2024/05/f6e57b80-0d1a-11ef-937e-93b8d9fe4658-kismet-credit-carl-grol.jpg/r%5Bwidth%5D=1920/f6e57b80-0d1a-11ef-937e-93b8d9fe4658-kismet-credit-carl-grol.webp)
(https://cdn.boatinternational.com/convert/files/2024/03/542fbe30-e04e-11ee-95e4-414f1b3b0a04-kismet-skylounge.jpg/r%5Bwidth%5D=1920/542fbe30-e04e-11ee-95e4-414f1b3b0a04-kismet-skylounge.webp)
(https://cdn.boatinternational.com/convert/files/2024/03/5427f600-e04e-11ee-89db-1d16e581135a-kismet-yacht-window.jpg/r%5Bwidth%5D=1920/5427f600-e04e-11ee-89db-1d16e581135a-kismet-yacht-window.webp)
(https://cdn.boatinternational.com/convert/files/2024/03/8201ac50-e04f-11ee-a82f-f97a05ad1b8f-kismet-cabin.jpg/r%5Bwidth%5D=1920/8201ac50-e04f-11ee-a82f-f97a05ad1b8f-kismet-cabin.webp)
(https://cdn.boatinternational.com/convert/files/2024/03/81face80-e04f-11ee-89db-1d16e581135a-kismet-fireplaces.jpg/r%5Bwidth%5D=1920/81face80-e04f-11ee-89db-1d16e581135a-kismet-fireplaces.webp)
This below is an interesting presentation... here is a link to see it enlarged: https://www.jacksonville.gov/mayor/stadium-of-the-future/docs/stadium-of-the-future_economic_framework-pdf.aspx .
I do wonder about adequacy of parking for the stadium. I estimate about 5,500 or so parking spaces. Seems less than now as lots look to be more landscaped reducing parking. And, what role might the Fairgrounds play going forward.
(https://www.jacksonville.gov/getattachment/Mayor/Stadium-of-the-Future/Stadium-of-the-Future_Economic_Framework.png.aspx?lang=en-US&width=800&height=518)
Wrong Nate Monroe link. I didn't catch the entire presentation. What's everyone's opinion on the CBA and where that money would be going?
JLT - your "Nate Monroe" link goes to the Business Journal article, not Nate's column
The renderings are confusing about the roof. In the 'above' views, it looks gone, or transparent; in the 'inside looking up' views, it looks like it always has.
More for sunlight to hit you instead of actual shade that was shown in earlier renderings and everything outside around stadium is different. Lost some cool slopes and jungle for some long tall stairs.
https://www.hok.com/news/2023-06/jacksonville-jaguars-unveil-plans-for-stadium-of-the-future/ (https://www.hok.com/news/2023-06/jacksonville-jaguars-unveil-plans-for-stadium-of-the-future/) Original
Quote from: thelakelander on May 14, 2024, 07:34:14 PM
Wrong Nate Monroe link. I didn't catch the entire presentation. What's everyone's opinion on the CBA and where that money would be going?
I thought the breakdown seemed reasonable at first glance (converted into forum format):
Quote$300 MILLION TOTAL INVESTMENT
$150M invested upfront by the City & $150M invested by the Jaguars over the term of the lease in targeted community initiatives including:
- OUTEAST Neighborhood: Community Development & Affordable Housing/Homelessness
- Countywide: Workforce Development & Affordable Housing/Homelessness
- Parks: Development of the Riverfront Plaza, Shipyards West Park, Metropolitan Park and Flex Field Conversion on the Northbank of the St. Johns River & Public Park Upgrades Combined with Youth Sports Programming throughout Duval County
| Total | COJ | Jaguars |
OUTEAST | $105M | $30M | $75M |
Countywide | $125M | $50M | $75M |
Parks | $70M | $70M | $0 |
Total | $300M | $150M | $150M |
$105 million for the Eastside seems like a real win, hopefully the community is able to utilize that money effectively to attract investment without displacement.
I wonder if the countywide investment would be run through the affordable housing fund (https://www.jacksonville.gov/welcome/news/mayor-deegan-commits-$10-million-to-jumpstart-jack) the Mayor launched a few weeks ago or as its own program.
Parks I'm a little confused about, since this doesn't propose the Jaguars making an investment and I don't recall hearing about plans to convert the Flex Field into exhibition space before today. I'm also unsure if $70 million is actually enough to cover developing all of those parks while also doing youth sports programming.
Re Eastside: There are some serious plans there. I've sat in those meetings for several months now. Having a neighborhood vision, startegy and organization.... with funding will have dramatic impact in a way that Jacksonville has not seen (because we've never done things in these communities this way). As most here know, The Avenue (A. Philip Randolph Boulevard) was recently designated as Jacksonville's first Main Street program. A goal there is to enhance that corridor and its businesses into a local commercial district that rivals the vibrancy of San Marco Square, Five Points, St. Johns Avenue, etc. However, the businesses, cuisine, culture, etc. will reflect the demographic makeup and cultural heritage of that neighborhood. That's an example of a neighborhood revitalization strategy that can be bolstered through a CBA.
I don't know too much about the overall deal outside of the Eastside withintrication work, but understand why the CBA extends to the larger community as well. I'm sure we'll need more than $70 million combined for all of downtown's riverfront parks but its possible those funds could be used as a match to leverage additional dollars from other financial sources.
I got the vibe from the language used during the meeting that the $70 million would be used to complete the riverfront parks, not fund them in full. We've already got $25 million in the CIP set aside for Phase I of Riverfront Plaza, and another $25 million for Phase I of Shipyards West. I assume we can't count that retroactively as part of the CBA, before an agreement is even signed. If you think of it as $15 million for Phase 2 of Riverfront Plaza, $20 million for Phase 2 of Shipyards West, $25 million for Metro Park, and $10 million for the flex field and sports programs, it makes a little more sense.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 14, 2024, 09:12:17 PM
Re Eastside: There are some serious plans there. I've sat in those meetings for several months now. Having a neighborhood vision, startegy and organization.... with funding will have dramatic impact in a way that Jacksonville has not seen (because we've never done things in these communities this way). As most here know, The Avenue (A. Philip Randolph Boulevard) was recently designated as Jacksonville's first Main Street program. A goal there is to enhance that corridor and its businesses into a local commercial district that rivals the vibrancy of San Marco Square, Five Points, St. Johns Avenue, etc. However, the businesses, cuisine, culture, etc. will reflect the demographic makeup and cultural heritage of that neighborhood. That's an example of a neighborhood revitalization strategy that can be bolstered through a CBA.
What's the secret for pulling a potentially huge investment like this off and transforming The Avenue into a vibrant district like those noted above without triggering gentrification and displacing current residents? Any examples comes to mind of cities who have done this right vs. wrong?
Several....
The first key is to not view current residents as needing a handout. Most people only need a hand. When put in a position to economically prosper, own businesses, houses, etc., the threat of displacement is decreased. However, as long as people are limited economically and don't own property, their livelihood will always be controlled by the whelms of those that do. If you don't have a seat at the decison-making table, you're likely on the menu. Find a community that has had a high level of displacement and I'll bet my house that community was not at the decision-making table to determine its future.
So terms like affordable housing, gentrification, mixed-use, etc. are literally buzzwords that get caught up in academic and political debate, moreso than what's happening on the street. Tackling issues like heirs property, building capacity for neighborhood groups, access to information, access to economic growth and having a seat at the decision-making table are the critical areas that ultimately stimulate inclusive revitalization.
Bronzeville is a good example. Some may view the neighborhood as gentrifying because property values are increasing and revitalization is taking place. I'd argue that its a form of withinttification, as Black people can increase wealth and invest in their community as well. That's not necessarily displacement. It's just the benefit of inclusive revitalization where a larger segment of the local population is benefitting.
Bronzeville (Chicago)(https://photos.moderncities.com/photos/i-wtFPbxD/0/L/i-wtFPbxD-L.jpg)
QuoteThe neighborhood of Bronzeville on the South Side of Chicago has been gentrifying now for more than a decade. Formerly boarded-up beautiful brick homes along Martin Luther King Jr. Drive have come to life. New construction has gone up on land where high-rise public housing projects were spectacularly imploded starting in the 1990s. Median incomes and property values have soared.
Gentrification, though, means something different in Bronzeville than it does in other neighborhoods. In most U.S. cities the word has generally come to imply the gradual taking of a place from one group (usually poor people, usually minorities) by another (usually middle- or upper-class whites). But in Bronzeville, a historically black neighborhood – once Chicago's version of Harlem, the city's "Black Metropolis" – the gentrifiers are black, too.
Some of them have been there for years, ascending the income ladder as the black middle-class nationwide has dramatically expanded. Then there is the sense that others are "returning" 30 or 40 years after the black middle-class left Bronzville. Either way, there seems to be space enough in the neighborhood amid the vacant lots.
Bronzeville's historic "blackness" appears to overwhelm any sense of its identity as a neighborhood on the way up.
"The idea of gentrification as necessitating displacement – that understanding changed in this particular neighborhood," says Matthew Anderson, who teaches at Montana State University in Billings and grew up not far from Bronzeville. "Gentrification became a positive word."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-31/how-black-gentrifiers-have-affected-the-perception-of-chicago-s-changing-neighborhoods
(https://photos.moderncities.com/photos/i-BHS9t9D/0/L/i-BHS9t9D-L.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Chicago/Chicago---March-2022/i-3QQNPW8/0/DpjdV5cqVqWM77RcwwXDNNFvVtX7HcwJ3SrcBnn7B/L/20220318_123516-L.jpg)
Some other examples include the following:
Oretha Castle Haley Boulevard (New Orleans)(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/New-Orleans-March-2024/i-FHH9xTt/0/FVM8tpFfg2vgZLM28gCRbwr24Z6P8bQpDBK2qgVp9/L/20240325_133457-L.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/New-Orleans-March-2024/i-J9tD5WK/0/CwqQkKbLkpcGLzdc5r6zXr66RqsRj26zkrfDTNCbs/L/20240327_131000-L.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/New-Orleans-March-2024/i-TmZNFQP/0/CDxNsKjLbGnbnfJkr3ddpwD9znFSk8JZppGXDhTPW/L/20240327_125341-L.jpg)
Main Street (College Park, GA)(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Atlanta/HJ-Russell---May-2022/i-VwjSTWH/0/DvNPvN6DFQt23bgfRSt2k3xhnqv7nh6VfZt85HhX9/L/20220520_174114-L.jpg)
The Dueces (St. Petersburg)(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/St-Petersburg---January-2023/i-MdNj7Vf/0/DwZMSh58JkF5wsFKq6WBSPQWDBc79MVhRRmqK2j9n/L/20230116_095731-L.jpg)
All were crack cocaine dens during the 1980s, just like Jax's long redlined urban core communities. While in various states of revitalization, the common elements they really share are decent neighborhood organization, visioning and cultural heritage storytelling. It becomes much easier to move in a positive direction when various initiatives are rowing together in that direction.
Combine these elements with the 3Cs of urbanism, along with real market dynamics and you have a good recipe for progress.
In Jax, that's historically been a real struggle. Downtown is a great example of the struggle. In the last few years, community groups and stakeholders in LaVilla and the Historic Eastside have began to do things differently. The examples in these other communities, along with the loss of Brooklyn over the last decade, may have been the kick in the butt to be proactive with what's left and what the future may hold. Its more effective to connect with similar communities, understand their struggles and successes and then apply the process of the successes within your environment.
Quote from: Skybox111 on May 14, 2024, 06:59:19 PM
Roof is different looking. Yeah they changed some things the entrances tropical jungle look gone. sides of the roof you can now see the field below the roof.
You're right. Comparing the 2023 rendering (first) to 2024 rendering (second):
(https://1stdowntownjacksonville.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Jacksonville-Jaguars_Stadium-of-the-Future_02.jpg)
(https://www.jacksonville.gov/getattachment/Mayor/Stadium-of-the-Future/_1.jpg.aspx?lang=en-US)
The interior renderings have also changed, it looks like to keep the current scoreboards and remove some of the more dramatic features:
(https://1stdowntownjacksonville.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Jacksonville-Jaguars_Stadium-of-the-Future_09.jpg)
(https://www.jacksonville.gov/getattachment/Mayor/Stadium-of-the-Future/_7.jpg.aspx?lang=en-US)
Also changes to the entrances, less of that jungle look as you mention:
(https://1stdowntownjacksonville.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Jacksonville-Jaguars_Stadium-of-the-Future_06.jpg)
(https://www.jacksonville.gov/getattachment/Mayor/Stadium-of-the-Future/_14.jpg.aspx?lang=en-US)
Quote from: Charles Hunter on May 14, 2024, 07:37:00 PM
JLT - your "Nate Monroe" link goes to the Business Journal article, not Nate's column
The renderings are confusing about the roof. In the 'above' views, it looks gone, or transparent; in the 'inside looking up' views, it looks like it always has.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 14, 2024, 07:34:14 PM
Wrong Nate Monroe link. I didn't catch the entire presentation. What's everyone's opinion on the CBA and where that money would be going?
Nate Monroe link fixed. Check it out again. Thanks for the call out.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 14, 2024, 11:18:36 PM
Quote from: Skybox111 on May 14, 2024, 06:59:19 PM
Roof is different looking. Yeah they changed some things the entrances tropical jungle look gone. sides of the roof you can now see the field below the roof.
You're right. Comparing the 2023 rendering (first) to 2024 rendering (second):
(https://1stdowntownjacksonville.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Jacksonville-Jaguars_Stadium-of-the-Future_02.jpg)
(https://www.jacksonville.gov/getattachment/Mayor/Stadium-of-the-Future/_1.jpg.aspx?lang=en-US)
Metropolitan Park has also changed. It looks like we're going back to what was demolished years ago.
It looks like another Daily's... promise one thing in a rendering and build something much different in reality, usually of much less quality.
I wonder how much changed during the negotiations when the Jags and the City found out how much the original rendering would really cost today. Just the change in the roof had to reduce the costs by millions or even tens of millions. The Jags and City probably agreed on a maximum number for the construction and had the design altered to back into that amount.
Darn i liked those screens going all around.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 14, 2024, 11:02:34 PM
Several....
The first key is to not view current residents as needing a handout. Most people only need a hand. When put in a position to economically prosper, own businesses, houses, etc., the threat of displacement is decreased. However, as long as people are limited economically and don't own property, their livelihood will always be controlled by the whelms of those that do. If you don't have a seat at the decison-making table, you're likely on the menu. Find a community that has had a high level of displacement and I'll bet my house that community was not at the decision-making table to determine its future.
So terms like affordable housing, gentrification, mixed-use, etc. are literally buzzwords that get caught up in academic and political debate, moreso than what's happening on the street. Tackling issues like heirs property, building capacity for neighborhood groups, access to information, access to economic growth and having a seat at the decision-making table are the critical areas that ultimately stimulate inclusive revitalization.
Bronzeville is a good example. Some may view the neighborhood as gentrifying because property values are increasing and revitalization is taking place. I'd argue that its a form of withinttification, as Black people can increase wealth and invest in their community as well. That's not necessarily displacement. It's just the benefit of inclusive revitalization where a larger segment of the local population is benefitting.
Bronzeville (Chicago)
(https://photos.moderncities.com/photos/i-wtFPbxD/0/L/i-wtFPbxD-L.jpg)
QuoteThe neighborhood of Bronzeville on the South Side of Chicago has been gentrifying now for more than a decade. Formerly boarded-up beautiful brick homes along Martin Luther King Jr. Drive have come to life. New construction has gone up on land where high-rise public housing projects were spectacularly imploded starting in the 1990s. Median incomes and property values have soared.
Gentrification, though, means something different in Bronzeville than it does in other neighborhoods. In most U.S. cities the word has generally come to imply the gradual taking of a place from one group (usually poor people, usually minorities) by another (usually middle- or upper-class whites). But in Bronzeville, a historically black neighborhood – once Chicago's version of Harlem, the city's "Black Metropolis" – the gentrifiers are black, too.
Some of them have been there for years, ascending the income ladder as the black middle-class nationwide has dramatically expanded. Then there is the sense that others are "returning" 30 or 40 years after the black middle-class left Bronzville. Either way, there seems to be space enough in the neighborhood amid the vacant lots.
Bronzeville's historic "blackness" appears to overwhelm any sense of its identity as a neighborhood on the way up.
"The idea of gentrification as necessitating displacement – that understanding changed in this particular neighborhood," says Matthew Anderson, who teaches at Montana State University in Billings and grew up not far from Bronzeville. "Gentrification became a positive word."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-31/how-black-gentrifiers-have-affected-the-perception-of-chicago-s-changing-neighborhoods
(https://photos.moderncities.com/photos/i-BHS9t9D/0/L/i-BHS9t9D-L.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Chicago/Chicago---March-2022/i-3QQNPW8/0/DpjdV5cqVqWM77RcwwXDNNFvVtX7HcwJ3SrcBnn7B/L/20220318_123516-L.jpg)
Some other examples include the following:
Oretha Castle Haley Boulevard (New Orleans)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/New-Orleans-March-2024/i-FHH9xTt/0/FVM8tpFfg2vgZLM28gCRbwr24Z6P8bQpDBK2qgVp9/L/20240325_133457-L.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/New-Orleans-March-2024/i-J9tD5WK/0/CwqQkKbLkpcGLzdc5r6zXr66RqsRj26zkrfDTNCbs/L/20240327_131000-L.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/New-Orleans-March-2024/i-TmZNFQP/0/CDxNsKjLbGnbnfJkr3ddpwD9znFSk8JZppGXDhTPW/L/20240327_125341-L.jpg)
Main Street (College Park, GA)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Atlanta/HJ-Russell---May-2022/i-VwjSTWH/0/DvNPvN6DFQt23bgfRSt2k3xhnqv7nh6VfZt85HhX9/L/20220520_174114-L.jpg)
The Dueces (St. Petersburg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/St-Petersburg---January-2023/i-MdNj7Vf/0/DwZMSh58JkF5wsFKq6WBSPQWDBc79MVhRRmqK2j9n/L/20230116_095731-L.jpg)
All were crack cocaine dens during the 1980s, just like Jax's long redlined urban core communities. While in various states of revitalization, the common elements they really share are decent neighborhood organization, visioning and cultural heritage storytelling. It becomes much easier to move in a positive direction when various initiatives are rowing together in that direction.
Combine these elements with the 3Cs of urbanism, along with real market dynamics and you have a good recipe for progress.
In Jax, that's historically been a real struggle. Downtown is a great example of the struggle. In the last few years, community groups and stakeholders in LaVilla and the Historic Eastside have began to do things differently. The examples in these other communities, along with the loss of Brooklyn over the last decade, may have been the kick in the butt to be proactive with what's left and what the future may hold. Its more effective to connect with similar communities, understand their struggles and successes and then apply the process of the successes within your environment.
Really, really great stuff Ennis.
Thanks for sharing.
Gives me a lot of optimism that you're personally involved and that we're committing to doing right by this community.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 14, 2024, 11:18:36 PM
The interior renderings have also changed, it looks like to keep the current scoreboards and remove some of the more dramatic features:
(https://1stdowntownjacksonville.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Jacksonville-Jaguars_Stadium-of-the-Future_09.jpg)
(https://www.jacksonville.gov/getattachment/Mayor/Stadium-of-the-Future/_7.jpg.aspx?lang=en-US)
The curved extensions of the existing boards definitely look like they got removed.
I think the giant Jaguars banners, that some confused for video boards, will end up making the final cut. Just based on some of the renders and information, I believe this is how we'll quickly and cheaply adjust capacity from 63,000 for Jags games (top image, below) to 71,500 for Florida-Georgia or other big events (bottom image).
(https://snipboard.io/3wjQiI.jpg)
Probably somewhat because the new scoreboard looked to add seats behind the uprights (w/ design & positioning) but now that entire space will remain the same. I think their only option is to extend the sides to get any new capacity (Daily's being the constraint on the other goalpost side).
Are the sides actually being extended though? It seems like the same height in the renderings.
So, is there a roof on this stadium or not? With the new rendering it looks like there is a translucent roof, with cloud images being reflected, that completely covers the entire stadium. Then on the side there is the more reflective, chrome shields.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 15, 2024, 12:07:36 AM
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 14, 2024, 11:18:36 PM
Quote from: Skybox111 on May 14, 2024, 06:59:19 PM
Roof is different looking. Yeah they changed some things the entrances tropical jungle look gone. sides of the roof you can now see the field below the roof.
You're right. Comparing the 2023 rendering (first) to 2024 rendering (second):
(https://1stdowntownjacksonville.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Jacksonville-Jaguars_Stadium-of-the-Future_02.jpg)
(https://www.jacksonville.gov/getattachment/Mayor/Stadium-of-the-Future/_1.jpg.aspx?lang=en-US)
Metropolitan Park has also changed. It looks like we're going back to what was demolished years ago.
At a recent stakeholder meeting, the Metro Park design firm said they do not want a fixed stage, as public spaces are trending towards using mobile stages now. Everyone there seemed on board. And looking at the rendering design, I would wager its just a filler.
Quote from: Joey Mackey on May 15, 2024, 10:13:21 AM
So, is there a roof on this stadium or not? With the new rendering it looks like there is a translucent roof, with cloud images being reflected, that completely covers the entire stadium. Then on the side there is the more reflective, chrome shields.
You're correct.
The entire stadium will be covered by a thin, membrane-like roof (made out of translucent ETFE, like SoFi uses). This will keep out the elements and reflect sunlight away from the stadium's interior, but still give an open-air feel.
The seats themselves will receive additional shade via that reflective canopy that covers most seating areas.
Quote from: Joey Mackey on May 15, 2024, 10:13:21 AM
So, is there a roof on this stadium or not? With the new rendering it looks like there is a translucent roof, with cloud images being reflected, that completely covers the entire stadium. Then on the side there is the more reflective, chrome shields.
Yeah. The roof will be like the one at SoFi. Semi-transparent may be a better description though. From what I've seen it, the panels have an application that blocks a lot of light coming in, but still allows you to see out, similar to a printed bus window.
P.S. I think the financing solution is pretty smart too, right? Effectively filling the four-year gap between the early sunset of the half-cent Better Jax Plan in 2026 and the onset of the half-cent pension tax in 2030 with a half-cent sales tax to pay for the stadium? A pay-go approach vs. debt financing seems like a wise move that taxpayers won't really feel (they're already used to paying the half-center sales tax), and it still leaves the CIP intact to tackle other priorities. Not sure what the tradeoff is in terms of going this way vs. starting to pay down the pension debt immediately in 2026, but from an optics perspective, seems like about as good of a solution as exists.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on May 15, 2024, 02:11:51 PM
P.S. I think the financing solution is pretty smart too, right? Effectively filling the four-year gap between the early sunset of the half-cent Better Jax Plan in 2026 and the onset of the half-cent pension tax in 2030 with a half-cent sales tax to pay for the stadium? A pay-go approach vs. debt financing seems like a wise move that taxpayers won't really feel (they're already used to paying the half-center sales tax), and it still leaves the CIP intact to tackle other priorities. Not sure what the tradeoff is in terms of going this way vs. starting to pay down the pension debt immediately in 2026, but from an optics perspective, seems like about as good of a solution as exists.
I am a little confused by the financing solution, but I am definitely not well versed or learned on the topic. From reading news articles it appears
(1) In 2000, a referendum passed which raised the sales tax by a half-cent to fund infrastructure projects in Jax. The sale tax was to sunset no later than 2030. This was called the Better Jacksonville Plan.
(2) In 2016, a referendum passed which raised the sales tax by a half-cent to fund the City's pension program. The raise in the sales tax was going to go into effect only after the expiration of Better Jacksonville Plan (2031 at the latest). I will call this the Pension sales tax.
(3) During Curry's Administration, the decision was made to end the Better Jacksonville Plan sales tax starting in 2026, which would kick start the Pension sales tax. They also planned to move projects that were funded by the Better Jacksonville Plan into the Capitol Improvement Project (CIP) - which to me means simply projects that City borrows money for to complete.
(4) Now, it is proposed to forgo ending the Better Jacksonville Plan sales tax early and continue it until 2030, which in turn will delay starting the Pension tax until 2031. It is also proposed to move projects out of the CIP and fund those projects from 2026 through 2030 with the Better Jacksonville Plan sales tax. Accomplishing that would give the City about 600 million more in borrowing capabilities in the CIP, which will be used to fund the renovation of the stadium.
I guess my confusion here is why was it even proposed and planned to end the Better Jacksonville Plan sales tax early by four years? That seems like just leaving money on the table for no reason.
Quote from: Joey Mackey on May 15, 2024, 02:46:46 PM
I guess my confusion here is why was it even proposed and planned to end the Better Jacksonville Plan sales tax early by four years? That seems like just leaving money on the table for no reason.
I think your summary of the sales tax schedule is correct.
My guess is Curry wanted to start the Pension Sales Tax earlier to backfill the unfunded pension plans sooner.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on May 15, 2024, 02:11:51 PM
P.S. I think the financing solution is pretty smart too, right? Effectively filling the four-year gap between the early sunset of the half-cent Better Jax Plan in 2026 and the onset of the half-cent pension tax in 2030 with a half-cent sales tax to pay for the stadium? A pay-go approach vs. debt financing seems like a wise move that taxpayers won't really feel (they're already used to paying the half-center sales tax), and it still leaves the CIP intact to tackle other priorities. Not sure what the tradeoff is in terms of going this way vs. starting to pay down the pension debt immediately in 2026, but from an optics perspective, seems like about as good of a solution as exists.
Good breakdown, Joey!
So, I think my interpretation here was wrong.
The half-cent sales tax does not pay for the stadium, it pays for the projects that will be shifted from the CIP back into the BJP. The CIP would then cover the city's portion of the stadium.
The city's website seems to say as much:
QuoteIf the city follows through with the approved referendum BJP end date of 2030 and returns the projects that were taken out of the BJP and adds similar projects that can be added through City Council approval, it will remove around $600 million from anticipated borrowing and save the taxpayer over $1.5 billion in debt payments and still get all the projects completed according to their schedules.
The relief of this debt burden brings us to the stadium recommendation;
During the next four budget cycles, it is recommended we place into the City's CIP the required funding for our share of the renovation expenses according to the construction schedule and funding requirements matching the construction schedule. The way the CIP works is the City pays the expenses of the CIP projects from various City accounts as the costs occur and at the end of each year the city borrows the amount spent on the projects and reimburses the accounts the funding originally came from. The borrowing at the end of each year is then added to the City's overall debt and paid for in the City's debt service accounts. The goal is always to borrow less than we pay off each year.
I'm curious what "similar projects" they have in mind for City Council to add to BJP. Also seems worth noting here that in theory, the LOGT extension is also helping make this possible because of how it moved some BJP projects to be funded by the gas tax instead. Part of that BJP gap seems to be what can now be made available for the current CIP projects, which would then open up the CIP to be used for the stadium. If it all works out it's an impressive shuffle to enable covering the public share of this renovation.
Money is fungible. No matter how things get shuffled around, in the end, taxpayers are paying $775 million. Spend it on the stadium and something else doesn't get paid for or paid down. I am not criticizing the plan, necessarily, just saying keep one's eye on the ball.
I said the same thing about Curry's slight of hand with the pension funding. He didn't do taxpayers any favors kicking the can down the road.
Continuing the magic analogies 8) , the City can't continue pulling rabbits out of hats at some point unless we increase taxes further via increased property values, higher millage rates and/or more sales taxes and fees.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on May 15, 2024, 10:39:01 PM
Continuing the magic analogies 8) , the City can't continue pulling rabbits out of hats at some point unless we increase taxes further via increased property values, higher millage rates and/or more sales taxes and fees.
Our community has shown its willing to be taxed for improved QOL when good leadership is applied to advocating for it.
Just in the past several years, we've seen gas tax and two DCPS taxes approved. Pension tax, BJP, etc in years prior.
It takes leadership and coalition building.
Would love to see our garbage fee finally addressed...
More info on the CBA:
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2024/05/15/jacksonville-city-council-gives-early-reaction-to-jaguars-stadium-deal/73699886007/
Quote from: thelakelander on May 16, 2024, 12:25:46 PM
More info on the CBA:
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2024/05/15/jacksonville-city-council-gives-early-reaction-to-jaguars-stadium-deal/73699886007/
Rory Diamond surfacing once a year to hypocritically complain about something while pretending to speak for the full council:
(https://wtop.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/AP_19033501440412-1-1880x1254.jpg)
RE: park funding. From my reading, the Jags were willing to contribute $100 million to the CBA. In large part because the city agreed to commit to funding $70 million in riverfront parks, the Jags upped their CBA contribution to $150 million. This feels like a win for Jax, because we were going to theoretically build these parks either way, regardless of the CBA (and for Shipyards West, we have to, per the land swap agreement).
Everyone want to cry special interests when it doesn't benefit their cronies.
I want the Jaguars to stay. I want a stadium deal. I want the Eastside to benefit. All that said, we have $70M of unmatched city dollars (on top of the other tens of millions of dollars) going towards just parks stuffed into the deal...
This deal represents a lot of what is wrong with local policymaking. Want a stadium deal only? Fine, don't include $300M+ of "other" spending on top of $70M. The fine prints read that the OUTEAST & Community funds will be paid equally over 30 years. I can 100% guarantee that the $70M unmatched city funds will not be over 30 years, rather in 5 or less. (Probably why the Jags are not matching any funds.)
Where's the real analysis in this deal? Zero analysis around NPV vs. Future Value of Money. All the dollars are the same in this example. How much does the city actually benefit from the extra spending?
The stadium deal itself isn't what will displace the Eastside, it's all the Four Seaons, Parks, Lot J... etc. all coming together that will do it. Why shovel that onto the general taxpayer? Private ventures on public land should be able to cover that concern.
The real win of this deal (from a basic deal summary) are the reworked terms of how the Jags & the COJ will operate the stadium. I like what Donna is doing, I just don't understand the reasoning at play here.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on May 16, 2024, 12:43:00 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 16, 2024, 12:25:46 PM
More info on the CBA:
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2024/05/15/jacksonville-city-council-gives-early-reaction-to-jaguars-stadium-deal/73699886007/
Rory Diamond surfacing once a year to hypocritically complain about something while pretending to speak for the full council:
(https://wtop.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/AP_19033501440412-1-1880x1254.jpg)
RE: park funding. From my reading, the Jags were willing to contribute $100 million to the CBA. In large part because the city agreed to commit to funding $70 million in riverfront parks, the Jags upped their CBA contribution to $150 million. This feels like a win for Jax, because we were going to theoretically build these parks either way, regardless of the CBA (and for Shipyards West, we have to, per the land swap agreement).
Everyone want to cry special interests when it doesn't benefit their cronies.
So am I miss interpreting? The $70M is just being moved? Not new funding?
Quote from: Ken_FSU on May 16, 2024, 12:43:00 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 16, 2024, 12:25:46 PM
More info on the CBA:
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2024/05/15/jacksonville-city-council-gives-early-reaction-to-jaguars-stadium-deal/73699886007/
Rory Diamond surfacing once a year to hypocritically complain about something while pretending to speak for the full council:
and just think...Diamond got appointed to the DIA study group - his interest in downtown is clear!
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 16, 2024, 12:53:56 PMSo am I miss interpreting? The $70M is just being moved? Not new funding?
With or without a CBA, Jacksonville needs to:
1) Complete Riverfront Plaza (only Phase I is currently funded)
2) Complete Shipyards West (only Phase I is currently funded)
3) Restore Metro Park (currently unfunded; our investment in the Shipyards and Four Seasons doesn't make sense with a dead park abutting it)
4) Figure out what to do long-term with the Flex Field that is now under city ownership
None of these projects are the Jags responsibility, and all are projects (minus the Flex Field conversion) that have been promised to the public (or to the Feds, via the land swap deal) and that we badly need to complete to spark some vibrancy along the riverfront.
If there's no CBA match, these projects don't magically disappear from the five-year plan.
So, if we're willing to formally commit to completing them, and the Jags are subsequently willing to kick an extra $50 million into the CBA as a result, feels like a win for all parties involved.
In terms of the other $80 million we're kicking in, I'd kind of put it in the same bucket. The Jags aren't responsible for fixing our downtown homelessness and affordable housing crises, but their investments are directly impacted by these issues. Assuming the uses are vetted and fairly chosen, I personally think the CBA match is a great way for all parties to have skin in the game and work together to maximize the impact of the stadium investment whilst addressing other pressing city problems and protecting the Eastside.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on May 16, 2024, 01:18:05 PM
If there's no CBA match, these projects don't magically disappear from the five-year plan.
I believe the possibility of these parks getting bogged down, value engineered, or "Downtown 2 way streets"ed goes way up if they're just another thing to do inside the CIP. If they're part of the stadium deal, there is more weight to fully funding and executing sooner than later. Also, optics wise, spending a ton of tax payer $ on a private entertainment space while the adjacent public spaces suffer is not very palatable. Same with investing in Eastside. The stories would write themselves.
The Community Benefit Agreement is included in the stadium deal, I believe in part, so the politicians have something to argue about and claim "victory" if the terms change. No one wants to, and no one is, except for maybe a knee-jerk tweet from Diamond, seriously questioning the aspects of the deal concerning the stadium renovation, which of course is the ultimate goal here. But some City Council members also do not want to just appear as if they rolled over, especially to Donna Deegan and her administration. Hell, during the City Council meeting Salem even said that the City Council will consider six proposals (the stadium renovation) all at once, and then consider the seventh proposal, the Community Benefit Agreement separately, indicating to me that the stadium renovation is already approved and the only "fight" remains regarding the Community Benefit Agreement. Deegan's Administration and the Jags will let some of the City Council members "beat their chest" for optics as it concerns the Community Benefit Agreement, but the real deal here is already done in my opinion.
Someone needs to bring me up to speed. Why not implement an Eastside CRA? Or a special tax district like at one point discussed? $5M in 2045 is going to be virtually meaningless to the goals of the Eastside today. Yeah $150M is a big number, but it's also not really $150M. The Eastside has more resources for it today than virtually any other redlined neighborhood in Jacksonville. A good percentage of it is already bought up.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on May 16, 2024, 01:18:05 PM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 16, 2024, 12:53:56 PMSo am I miss interpreting? The $70M is just being moved? Not new funding?
With or without a CBA, Jacksonville needs to:
1) Complete Riverfront Plaza (only Phase I is currently funded)
2) Complete Shipyards West (only Phase I is currently funded)
3) Restore Metro Park (currently unfunded; our investment in the Shipyards and Four Seasons doesn't make sense with a dead park abutting it)
4) Figure out what to do long-term with the Flex Field that is now under city ownership
None of these projects are the Jags responsibility, and all are projects (minus the Flex Field conversion) that have been promised to the public (or to the Feds, via the land swap deal) and that we badly need to complete to spark some vibrancy along the riverfront.
If there's no CBA match, these projects don't magically disappear from the five-year plan.
So, if we're willing to formally commit to completing them, and the Jags are subsequently willing to kick an extra $50 million into the CBA as a result, feels like a win for all parties involved.
In terms of the other $80 million we're kicking in, I'd kind of put it in the same bucket. The Jags aren't responsible for fixing our downtown homelessness and affordable housing crises, but their investments are directly impacted by these issues. Assuming the uses are vetted and fairly chosen, I personally think the CBA match is a great way for all parties to have skin in the game and work together to maximize the impact of the stadium investment whilst addressing other pressing city problems and protecting the Eastside.
The size of & dollar investment into the DT parks (to me) is really at the point of insanity. We have so much existing park space, with so much already in the works within a short drive... do we really need to be funding more park space? I get that I won't see eye to eye with many people on this, but the intense & undivided attention towards implementing active space on our Northbank has been taken to an extreme, barring any type of private development. No residential, almost zero retail... Marina? Nah. They'll build an amphitheater, and won't put in any permanent beverage/concessions. Just roll in some food trucks like every DT park that we have. It's incredibly frustrating to see people support the parks while not living DT & understanding the ecosystem that already exists. We don't need the same thing repeated 4-5 times in different locations. We need something different, we need variety. Everything is so incredibly stale in the future plans, because there is no tax base to support anything eye catching. We're quite literally privately financing 20+ acres of hardscape, with absolutely zero ability to generate income from it. Property tax? Nope, any new deal since like 2015 has a 75% tax abatement. Sales tax? Nope, we have given incentives for that too nor do people actually live & transact near the Northbank. We'll make sure of that too, by limiting private development to lands within close proximity.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on May 16, 2024, 01:18:05 PM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 16, 2024, 12:53:56 PMSo am I miss interpreting? The $70M is just being moved? Not new funding?
With or without a CBA, Jacksonville needs to:
1) Complete Riverfront Plaza (only Phase I is currently funded)
2) Complete Shipyards West (only Phase I is currently funded)
3) Restore Metro Park (currently unfunded; our investment in the Shipyards and Four Seasons doesn't make sense with a dead park abutting it)
4) Figure out what to do long-term with the Flex Field that is now under city ownership
None of these projects are the Jags responsibility, and all are projects (minus the Flex Field conversion) that have been promised to the public (or to the Feds, via the land swap deal) and that we badly need to complete to spark some vibrancy along the riverfront.
If there's no CBA match, these projects don't magically disappear from the five-year plan.
So, if we're willing to formally commit to completing them, and the Jags are subsequently willing to kick an extra $50 million into the CBA as a result, feels like a win for all parties involved.
In terms of the other $80 million we're kicking in, I'd kind of put it in the same bucket. The Jags aren't responsible for fixing our downtown homelessness and affordable housing crises, but their investments are directly impacted by these issues. Assuming the uses are vetted and fairly chosen, I personally think the CBA match is a great way for all parties to have skin in the game and work together to maximize the impact of the stadium investment whilst addressing other pressing city problems and protecting the Eastside.
Yes, this is correct. The Jags are happy to put money into a CBA and increased the amount of their contribution when the city agreed to put in money. All the projects are things we can or should be doing -- funding for the Eastside is one portion of it, as they'll be the area most impacted by the stadium, but the rest of the money is for completing the Downtown parks (something we need to do stat; pushing it back would be nuts if we can avoid it), as well as millions in countywide projects. It's a win-win.
Quote from: Joey Mackey on May 16, 2024, 01:56:34 PM
The Community Benefit Agreement is included in the stadium deal, I believe in part, so the politicians have something to argue about and claim "victory" if the terms change. No one wants to, and no one is, except for maybe a knee-jerk tweet from Diamond, seriously questioning the aspects of the deal concerning the stadium renovation, which of course is the ultimate goal here. But some City Council members also do not want to just appear as if they rolled over, especially to Donna Deegan and her administration. Hell, during the City Council meeting Salem even said that the City Council will consider six proposals (the stadium renovation) all at once, and then consider the seventh proposal, the Community Benefit Agreement separately, indicating to me that the stadium renovation is already approved and the only "fight" remains regarding the Community Benefit Agreement. Deegan's Administration and the Jags will let some of the City Council members "beat their chest" for optics as it concerns the Community Benefit Agreement, but the real deal here is already done in my opinion.
This is probably the last I'll be able to say on this for a while, but the CBA is very much an intrinsic part of this deal, and the city and Jags are 100% united on this. Everything in it is there because it's a priority. The city's investment is not only what got the Jags to chip in additional CBA money, but it's what's needed for the additional downtown investments everyone wants to see.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 16, 2024, 02:54:38 PM
Someone needs to bring me up to speed. Why not implement an Eastside CRA? Or a special tax district like at one point discussed? $5M in 2045 is going to be virtually meaningless to the goals of the Eastside today. Yeah $150M is a big number, but it's also not really $150M. The Eastside has more resources for it today than virtually any other redlined neighborhood in Jacksonville. A good percentage of it is already bought up.
Stay tuned. There's a lot to unpack that you aren't aware of at this point. As for the Eastside, all of the Eastside is included, not just the area south of East 8th Street. A TIF is also under consideration.
Quote from: Tacachale on May 16, 2024, 05:19:42 PM
This is probably the last I'll be able to say on this for a while, but the CBA is very much an intrinsic part of this deal, and the city and Jags are 100% united on this. Everything in it is there because it's a priority. The city's investment is not only what got the Jags to chip in additional CBA money, but it's what's needed for the additional downtown investments everyone wants to see.
I believe the Jags and the City (read Donna Deegan's administration) are united on the Community Benifits Agreement being passed as proposed, but I am not convinced that some City Council members share that belief. https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/may/15/council-members-proposed-stadium-deal-offers-promise-but-also-begs-questions/ I do know, however, the Salem wants to be the Council President who secured the Jaguars for another 30 years, so if he and Donna can strong arm this deal, as written, by the end of June I will not be surprised. I respect your position with the City, so obviously I do not expect a reply.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 16, 2024, 06:00:36 PM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 16, 2024, 02:54:38 PM
Someone needs to bring me up to speed. Why not implement an Eastside CRA? Or a special tax district like at one point discussed? $5M in 2045 is going to be virtually meaningless to the goals of the Eastside today. Yeah $150M is a big number, but it's also not really $150M. The Eastside has more resources for it today than virtually any other redlined neighborhood in Jacksonville. A good percentage of it is already bought up.
Stay tuned. There's a lot to unpack that you aren't aware of at this point. As for the Eastside, all of the Eastside is included, not just the area south of East 8th Street. A TIF is also under consideration.
I'll be patient! I just really hope that the payment period's and NPV were all taken into consideration. Iguana seems to be the real winner here.
I believe funding the parks are critical to elevating the appeal of Downtown. Who wants to live Downtown with no convenient way to recreate?
And, the river is a focal point that can attract visitors to Downtown more than any other attraction if it is catered to. The Riverwalk and Emerald Trail are a start, but it isn't enough. We need more space and variation for play spaces, pickup games, dog walking, gardens, meditative spaces, performance and visual arts, etc. And, a place to host large events. When we hosted the Super Bowl in 2005, it was the vacant riverfront properties on both the Northbank and Southbank that hosted concerts, the NFL experience, and more. If we want to host another Super Bowl or the NFL Draft, we are going to have to preserve these spaces to host tens or hundreds of thousands of people.
In addition, green spaces along the river serve as resiliency buffers to the inevitable flooding in our future.
Developers will add more value to Downtown by having these green amenities to compliment their developments. Just look at any other city before us. The taxes on that development will more than pay for our investment in these parks.
No city ever said they had too much park space, only too little. Jax is under-parked, especially along our waterways, once you subtract the acreage in the massive Timucuan Preserve. And, many of our "parks" are actually school playgrounds doubling as "parks" or odd pieces of right of way that have no other use. Many cities have standards for parks being within a certain distance of each neighborhood and I doubt Jax would pass such a standard.
Lastly, parks need to be set aside before population expands as the land disappears quickly at that point. We need to think decades into the future, not just today. Jax falls way short on this type of planning and visioning.
I'm fine with money being spent to finish out the park system sooner rather than later. We've been looking at a blighted shipyards site since the 1990s.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 16, 2024, 10:46:01 PM
I'm fine with money being spent to finish out the park system sooner rather than later. We've been looking at a blighted shipyards site since the 1990s.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on May 16, 2024, 10:08:04 PM
I believe funding the parks are critical to elevating the appeal of Downtown. Who wants to live Downtown with no convenient way to recreate?
And, the river is a focal point that can attract visitors to Downtown more than any other attraction if it is catered to. The Riverwalk and Emerald Trail are a start, but it isn't enough. We need more space and variation for play spaces, pickup games, dog walking, gardens, meditative spaces, performance and visual arts, etc. And, a place to host large events. When we hosted the Super Bowl in 2005, it was the vacant riverfront properties on both the Northbank and Southbank that hosted concerts, the NFL experience, and more. If we want to host another Super Bowl or the NFL Draft, we are going to have to preserve these spaces to host tens or hundreds of thousands of people.
In addition, green spaces along the river serve as resiliency buffers to the inevitable flooding in our future.
Developers will add more value to Downtown by having these green amenities to compliment their developments. Just look at any other city before us. The taxes on that development will more than pay for our investment in these parks.
No city ever said they had too much park space, only too little. Jax is under-parked, especially along our waterways, once you subtract the acreage in the massive Timucuan Preserve. And, many of our "parks" are actually school playgrounds doubling as "parks" or odd pieces of right of way that have no other use. Many cities have standards for parks being within a certain distance of each neighborhood and I doubt Jax would pass such a standard.
Lastly, parks need to be set aside before population expands as the land disappears quickly at that point. We need to think decades into the future, not just today. Jax falls way short on this type of planning and visioning.
Agreed on all fronts.
With the broken record caveat that we desperately need to make sure that fixed, permanent amenities are built alongside each park.
Shipyards West, for example, is bounded by the Berkman 2 parcel and Bay Street/Maxwell House. There's not really a lot of opportunities with the current landscape for supporting amenities to pop up on the periphery of the park. Following through on the construction of the food hall and restaurant and leasing slots to popular local restaurants (Safe Harbor, Angies, Southern Grounds, Firehouse, Mayday, whatever) gives the park a genuine draw, pulls users in from other areas, supports the museum district, and gives it a better shot of being a place you spend the day, rather than a place you spend an hour. Worries me when I hear the DIA floating food trucks as a long-term alternative to building out real space, though that was pre-CBA.
Ditto Riverfront Plaza. Following through on building the restaurant and beer garden there gives people a reason to go beyond recreation, or stay once they've finished recreating. If it's not built in the park, there's not a lot of options on the periphery.
Ditto James Weldon Johnson Park. Not on the riverfront, but same concept. Absent fixed amenities like restrooms and food, it stays a pass-through.
The greenspace/parkspace is lovely and badly needed for all the reasons listed above, but I think the supporting, differentiating amenities (with a portion of revenues going back into the parks for upkeep) are the difference between wildly successful riverfront parks, and parks that fail to sustain momentum.
^While I agree that these spaces need to be activated with F&B and local businesses to draw people consistently, is a food hall even viable at Shipyards Park? That's one element of that park that has always been questionable to me. The previous plans I saw appear to have little involvement from people in the business of running these types of places. With all of our urban parks, from JWJ and LEVS to Riverfront Plaza, Shipyards and Friendship Fountain, I really wish the planning efforts would extend to the "outer square." If we took a more holistic look at planning and implementing these spaces, we'd begin to really see how F&B can best be designed and integrated into the urban environment in a manner that keeps the future business owner in business long term and reliant on subsidies to stay afloat.
With that said, I'm totally fine with moving these park projects forward.....and public restrooms are a must!
Quote from: thelakelander on May 19, 2024, 10:37:18 AM
^While I agree that these spaces need to be activated with F&B and local businesses to draw people consistently, is a food hall even viable at Shipyards Park?
No, not currently. Thus the current plan is to simply reserve an area of the park bordering Bay Street as a future development, TBA. Potentially a food hall or whatever else makes sense in the future.
Quote from: fsu813 on May 19, 2024, 03:54:09 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 19, 2024, 10:37:18 AM
^While I agree that these spaces need to be activated with F&B and local businesses to draw people consistently, is a food hall even viable at Shipyards Park?
No, not currently. Thus the current plan is to simply reserve an area of the park bordering Bay Street as a future development, TBA. Potentially a food hall or whatever else makes sense in the future.
Viable today? Obviously not. Viable by the time that Shipyards West opens? I think it absolutely is. In four years, if all goes according to plan, we'll have MOSH, Four Seasons, a refurbished event-centric Metro Park, the new six-story office building, and a new $1.4 billion stadium driving a ton of incremental traffic into that area. Aside from Intuition, there's almost nothing there now from a F&B perspective, especially for the average family. Food Hall could be a key stop for people visiting the Orleck, or MOSH, or the park, or for hotel guests at the Four Seasons, or those attending events/festivals at Metro Park, or for boaters, or for workers at the new office building, or as a pregame or postgame spot for people catching events at the new stadium or refurbished baseball grounds, and it's even close enough to service hotel/convention guests at the Hyatt and everyday downtown workers and residents. It's also a much needed way to beat the Florida heat and take a break from the elements. To me, it's the glue that holds everything together in that area, and I think it's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy/needless delay to building vibrancy to axe it from the short-term plan because it doesn't make sense in 2024 rather than getting ahead of the forecasted future demand and building it alongside the park.
Quote from: fsu813 on May 19, 2024, 03:54:09 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 19, 2024, 10:37:18 AM
^While I agree that these spaces need to be activated with F&B and local businesses to draw people consistently, is a food hall even viable at Shipyards Park?
No, not currently. Thus the current plan is to simply reserve an area of the park bordering Bay Street as a future development, TBA. Potentially a food hall or whatever else makes sense in the future.
It totally makes sense to have green pad spaces for future amenities like F&B, museums and other attractions. That's a common best practice. My view was more related to having people not in the F&B or food hall business selecting a random site in a random park to specifically be a food hall. That's a recipe for disaster. Unless there's a real operator willing to go in that location and in to the specific questionable design illustrated a few months back, it would be good to maintain some flexibility on future use.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on May 19, 2024, 04:40:25 PM
Quote from: fsu813 on May 19, 2024, 03:54:09 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 19, 2024, 10:37:18 AM
^While I agree that these spaces need to be activated with F&B and local businesses to draw people consistently, is a food hall even viable at Shipyards Park?
No, not currently. Thus the current plan is to simply reserve an area of the park bordering Bay Street as a future development, TBA. Potentially a food hall or whatever else makes sense in the future.
Viable today? Obviously not. Viable by the time that Shipyards West opens? I think it absolutely is. In four years, if all goes according to plan, we'll have MOSH, Four Seasons, a refurbished event-centric Metro Park, the new six-story office building, and a new $1.4 billion stadium driving a ton of incremental traffic into that area. Aside from Intuition, there's almost nothing there now from a F&B perspective, especially for the average family. Food Hall could be a key stop for people visiting the Orleck, or MOSH, or the park, or for hotel guests at the Four Seasons, or those attending events/festivals at Metro Park, or for boaters, or for workers at the new office building, or as a pregame or postgame spot for people catching events at the new stadium or refurbished baseball grounds, and it's even close enough to service hotel/convention guests at the Hyatt and everyday downtown workers and residents. It's also a much needed way to beat the Florida heat and take a break from the elements. To me, it's the glue that holds everything together in that area, and I think it's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy/needless delay to building vibrancy to axe it from the short-term plan because it doesn't make sense in 2024 rather than getting ahead of the forecasted future demand and building it alongside the park.
Forecasts are often inaccurate.
But this timeline for building a food hall there (or other small scale development) could change on a dime. Good to have that flexibility.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on May 19, 2024, 04:40:25 PM
Quote from: fsu813 on May 19, 2024, 03:54:09 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 19, 2024, 10:37:18 AM
^While I agree that these spaces need to be activated with F&B and local businesses to draw people consistently, is a food hall even viable at Shipyards Park?
No, not currently. Thus the current plan is to simply reserve an area of the park bordering Bay Street as a future development, TBA. Potentially a food hall or whatever else makes sense in the future.
Viable today? Obviously not. Viable by the time that Shipyards West opens? I think it absolutely is. In four years, if all goes according to plan, we'll have MOSH, Four Seasons, a refurbished event-centric Metro Park, the new six-story office building, and a new $1.4 billion stadium driving a ton of incremental traffic into that area. Aside from Intuition, there's almost nothing there now from a F&B perspective, especially for the average family. Food Hall could be a key stop for people visiting the Orleck, or MOSH, or the park, or for hotel guests at the Four Seasons, or those attending events/festivals at Metro Park, or for boaters, or for workers at the new office building, or as a pregame or postgame spot for people catching events at the new stadium or refurbished baseball grounds, and it's even close enough to service hotel/convention guests at the Hyatt and everyday downtown workers and residents. It's also a much needed way to beat the Florida heat and take a break from the elements. To me, it's the glue that holds everything together in that area, and I think it's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy/needless delay to building vibrancy to axe it from the short-term plan because it doesn't make sense in 2024 rather than getting ahead of the forecasted future demand and building it alongside the park.
All cool but what happens to the viability if another opened up privately elsewhere in downtown or as a part of one of the projects mentioned? Would COJ attempt to kill something else in an attempt to force something into a specific location that could take another decade to come to fruition, if ever?
I think it totally makes sense for F&B and other amenities in the park spaces. However, I fear that we go down a slippery slope when we get too specific in what the exact operation should be, where it should be located and how it should be designed. That's never worked well with DT's previous revitalization schemes.
Mark Woods in the Times-Union with his take on the stadium deal:
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/mark-woods/2024/05/17/jaguars-stadium-deal-couldve-been-worse-for-jacksonville/73730467007/
In my view the TU's columnists including Nate Monroe have been relatively positive about the deal, even noting the cost. Biggest media opposition I've seen has been AG Gancarski at Florida Politics and a number of sports bloggers who anticipated the team having left the market.
Anybody who believes this is a 50/50 or a 55/45 deal needs to go back to school. This deal is nowhere near that split. It's much closer to 75/25 when you factor in when the money is being spent.
I've seen this 50/50 type thing touted by basically every news agency covering it. Actually comical.
^How does it compare with recent deals in other NFL markets of similar size? Good or bad?
I just think we have to stop touting this as some amazing or good deal. It's not, we are getting an average deal. (Which I'm fine with.) When you compare other cities/sports, there are often varying dynamics going on.. funding, disposable income etc. We are not getting a new stadium, like virtually every other comparison. We also don't have state or private funding, like virtually every other comparison.
To then compare our deal to those, I think of it no different than clickbait. I honestly think the media is going on light on this. Imagine if Curry brought forth the same package...
Nonetheless, there has been virtually zero mention/focus on all these points:
1). Sorry to be a broken record, but when these dollars are outlaid - its not an even timetable - like almost all other examples (not a 50/50)
2). $25M credit towards more public lands (which will get incentives - public dollar return will be less than 10% over their analysis period)
3). $100M of "surrounding" development (which will also get incentives - all on public land)
4). The net effect to the taxpayer for delaying the Better Jacksonville Plan (there's no way you can convince me the real net here is zero - opportunity cost, interest, inflation & all)
I think it's more appropriate to accept that we want the Jags - for a certain price. Like Oklahoma City with the Thunder. That's fine. Let's not act like we as taxpayers are seeing $26B of "benefits" and act like this deal doesn't have some amazing incentives for the Jags to remain here long term.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 20, 2024, 09:47:07 AM
3). $100M of "surrounding" development (which will also get incentives - all on public land)
This is in reference to the parcel beside the new office building where the Baptist medical facility was originally proposed (talk of this component seems to have quieted way down in the last couple of years). I wonder how much of this parcel will end up as structured parking, and who will foot the bill for construction and operations. A big elephant in the room with the current Shipyards project underway (Four Seasons + office building) is that there isn't enough parking currently in place to support it.
Has anyone seen any of the full agreements documents released pubicly yet? I think we'll have a much better idea of how this deal will truly impact Jacksonville once we get a thorough look at those.
Bed tax implications will be interesting to watch. Of the 6% bed tax we collect as a city, a third goes to Visit Jacksonville for local tourism marketing, a third goes to the Sports Complex Capital Maintenance Enterprise Fund (covering upkeep for the stadium, baseball grounds, and arena), and a third goes to paying down our bond obligations for financing the stadium back in 1993 (and for financing $28 million in upgrades before Super Bowl XXXIX). We know that with the new lease agreement, only Everbank will receive bed tax dollars for upkeep, and maintenance for the baseball grounds and arena will be shifted to the general fund. Will also be interesting to see what happens with the 2% going toward debt service when the original stadium is paid off in 2029. Convention center? Sports & entertainment district?
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 20, 2024, 09:47:07 AM
We are not getting a new stadium, like virtually every other comparison. We also don't have state or private funding, like virtually every other comparison.
To then compare our deal to those, I think of it no different than clickbait. I honestly think the media is going on light on this. Imagine if Curry brought forth the same package...
The Jaguars note themselves that they would be joining at least 5 other teams that have made major renovations to their stadiums instead of building new ones since 1995. All except Miami are arguably in comparable markets (New Orleans, Baltimore, Cleveland, Green Bay). Several of those renovations don't include state funding either and the portion the Jaguars would pay might very well include private funding elements.
Curry notably did not bring forth the same package, he oversaw the planning of one before the election (https://floridapolitics.com/archives/616416-jags-stadium-cost/) that asked the city to pay for two thirds of a stadium renovation on top of requiring funding for the Lot J redux and committing to locating the UF campus at the Fairgrounds. Even if we ultimately put down some incentives for the entertainment district, releasing it from the deal itself provides some breathing room.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 20, 2024, 09:47:07 AM
1). Sorry to be a broken record, but when these dollars are outlaid - its not an even timetable - like almost all other examples (not a 50/50)
I'll grant this being the case for the CBA, but unless your suggestion is that the renovation will not actually cost $1.4 billion then the 55-45 split would appear to be accurate.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 20, 2024, 09:47:07 AM
4). The net effect to the taxpayer for delaying the Better Jacksonville Plan (there's no way you can convince me the real net here is zero - opportunity cost, interest, inflation & all)
It's basically that instead of starting to pay down pension debt in 2026 which might make it a little easier to pay sooner (four less years of inflation) we maintain the course of starting to pay it down in 2030. Yeah there's a cost, but that doesn't mean we aren't going to start paying the pension debt with the sales tax.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 20, 2024, 05:43:27 PM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 20, 2024, 09:47:07 AM
We are not getting a new stadium, like virtually every other comparison. We also don't have state or private funding, like virtually every other comparison.
To then compare our deal to those, I think of it no different than clickbait. I honestly think the media is going on light on this. Imagine if Curry brought forth the same package...
The Jaguars note themselves that they would be joining at least 5 other teams that have made major renovations to their stadiums instead of building new ones since 1995. All except Miami are arguably in comparable markets (New Orleans, Baltimore, Cleveland, Green Bay). Several of those renovations don't include state funding either and the portion the Jaguars would pay might very well include private funding elements.
Curry notably did not bring forth the same package, he oversaw the planning of one before the election (https://floridapolitics.com/archives/616416-jags-stadium-cost/) that asked the city to pay for two thirds of a stadium renovation on top of requiring funding for the Lot J redux and committing to locating the UF campus at the Fairgrounds. Even if we ultimately put down some incentives for the entertainment district, releasing it from the deal itself provides some breathing room.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 20, 2024, 09:47:07 AM
1). Sorry to be a broken record, but when these dollars are outlaid - its not an even timetable - like almost all other examples (not a 50/50)
I'll grant this being the case for the CBA, but unless your suggestion is that the renovation will not actually cost $1.4 billion then the 55-45 split would appear to be accurate.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 20, 2024, 09:47:07 AM
4). The net effect to the taxpayer for delaying the Better Jacksonville Plan (there's no way you can convince me the real net here is zero - opportunity cost, interest, inflation & all)
It's basically that instead of starting to pay down pension debt in 2026 which might make it a little easier to pay sooner (four less years of inflation) we maintain the course of starting to pay it down in 2030. Yeah there's a cost, but that doesn't mean we aren't going to start paying the pension debt with the sales tax.
There are no stadium renovation deals comparable to this one, especially in the last 10 years. I'm okay to be proven wrong.
- Miami used a good amount of private financing
- New Orleans was a $450M renovation that only included the stadium itself (state funding involved)
- Baltimore ($600M) used state funding. Also only includes stadium renovations
- Cleveland... well not sure this is a comp at all given nothing is final & again only includes the stadium
- Green Bay's renovation was roughly $200M
So there are zero cases of stadium renovations coming with a CBA &
local government spending for the surrounding area. Those cases are for the big flashy stadiums, like the Bills... who also happen to be receiving a ton of state money.
--
Even the Stadium split is not on an even timeline. $150M for repairs & deferred maintenance upfront? Isn't that the whole point of us doing the renovation agreement? I don't think this point is talked about enough. $150M? That's the entire upgrade budget the Green Bay Packers had... How did we get here? Why is it not included with the "other" stadium renovation funds? But yes, the CBA is what skews the benefits, greatly in favor of the Jags/Iguana. The stadium portion is closer to 60/40 with NPV factored in. The stadium portion being the "best" skew towards the taxpayer.
--
That cost has to be nonetheless considered in this agreement. It's another cost that the general taxpayer will need to pay, one way or another. We are playing with money that we don't have in cash, and simply put the cost of those funds need to be considered when analyzing this agreement.
I still maintain that the community section should have been kept on its own. I don't think the general taxpayer would like to know that the Jags will be getting millions of more incentives on projects that they are building in the nearby Sports District on top of the four seasons. When you add up what they would be getting there too, the conversations get's a little interesting. We have a local government investing hundreds of millions locally, with almost zero tax base to show for it. Compound that thought with the sheer amount of money that has been put towards DT proper...
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 20, 2024, 07:53:22 PM
There are no stadium renovation deals comparable to this one, especially in the last 10 years. I'm okay to be proven wrong.
- Miami used a good amount of private financing
- New Orleans was a $450M renovation that only included the stadium itself (state funding involved)
- Baltimore ($600M) used state funding. Also only includes stadium renovations
- Cleveland... well not sure this is a comp at all given nothing is final & again only includes the stadium
- Green Bay's renovation was roughly $200M
So there are zero cases of stadium renovations coming with a CBA & local government spending for the surrounding area. Those cases are for the big flashy stadiums, like the Bills... who also happen to be receiving a ton of state money.
Unfortunately Jax is a small market (so forget about Miami-style private financing) and isn't in a state that's going to share with public subsidies for processional sports facilities. Locally, these are two areas we can't control. So if you were chief negoitator, what would you consider a win scenario for the local community?
^ Yeah that's exactly my point.
I'm not saying I know how to make the best deal, but let's not act like this is a "good" deal to the average taxpayer. There were ways to make a deal for only the stadium, maybe with a less than favorable 50/50 split, but the idea that we have a 50/50 or even 55/45 split now, is simply inaccurate. You also have to question the hyper local investment, without the ability to produce a return for the city.
Let's just be honest, we want an NFL team & are willing to pay for it. Nothing wrong with that. No need to put a guise over the taxpayer and sell this as a deal to them.
Yeah, clearly the Mayor has gone on the record about wanting the team here. So from that perspective, it simply becomes a task about getting the best deal for the taxpayer under that scenario (i.e. keeping a NFL team vs. not having one). So from that angle, I can see the reasoning behind comparisons between Jax and similar sized NFL markets, as that's the only rational nexus that's applicable. I can also see the perspective of those that would not mind seeing the team go. From that perspective, nothing they are negotiating will ever be good. I'm not sure there's much of a middle ground but the referendum on doing a deal was made when the taxpayers voted for her......as she ran on this exact platform.
If the stadium deal goes through and they start talks of the stadium district how much do you think that will cost because rendering of lot j was around 400 to 600 million and had seven story buildings instead and that was back in 2021. Wondering how many people forgot about the cost of remedying the area.
I'm not for sure what it will cost but will be interested in playing a role to make sure that APR in the Sports District isn't forgotten in the urban planning perspective at the pedestrian level.
In the Eastside, there's an opportunity to bring back APR north of the expressway as a real authentic "Lot J." Like West Ashley Street in LaVilla, APR was a real "Beale Street" or "Deep Ellum" and despite years of disinvestment, still maintains local ownership and structures associated with the likes of Chitlin' Circuit era individuals, musicians and Civil Rights icons. A lot of groundwork for its revitalization has been laid by the community, businesses, nonprofits and property owners there. The CBA helps fuel that withintrification goal forward. That's one of several initiatives planned in that neighborhood and I think there are some things there, outside of the downtown and specific stadium renovation aspect, that result in job creation, economic development, etc. that's hard to imagine for most.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 20, 2024, 05:43:27 PM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 20, 2024, 09:47:07 AM
We are not getting a new stadium, like virtually every other comparison. We also don't have state or private funding, like virtually every other comparison.
To then compare our deal to those, I think of it no different than clickbait. I honestly think the media is going on light on this. Imagine if Curry brought forth the same package...
The Jaguars note themselves that they would be joining at least 5 other teams that have made major renovations to their stadiums instead of building new ones since 1995. All except Miami are arguably in comparable markets (New Orleans, Baltimore, Cleveland, Green Bay). Several of those renovations don't include state funding either and the portion the Jaguars would pay might very well include private funding elements.
Curry notably did not bring forth the same package, he oversaw the planning of one before the election (https://floridapolitics.com/archives/616416-jags-stadium-cost/) that asked the city to pay for two thirds of a stadium renovation on top of requiring funding for the Lot J redux and committing to locating the UF campus at the Fairgrounds. Even if we ultimately put down some incentives for the entertainment district, releasing it from the deal itself provides some breathing room.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 20, 2024, 09:47:07 AM
1). Sorry to be a broken record, but when these dollars are outlaid - its not an even timetable - like almost all other examples (not a 50/50)
I'll grant this being the case for the CBA, but unless your suggestion is that the renovation will not actually cost $1.4 billion then the 55-45 split would appear to be accurate.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 20, 2024, 09:47:07 AM
4). The net effect to the taxpayer for delaying the Better Jacksonville Plan (there's no way you can convince me the real net here is zero - opportunity cost, interest, inflation & all)
It's basically that instead of starting to pay down pension debt in 2026 which might make it a little easier to pay sooner (four less years of inflation) we maintain the course of starting to pay it down in 2030. Yeah there's a cost, but that doesn't mean we aren't going to start paying the pension debt with the sales tax.
This is 100% correct. There are always different ways you can parse the different deals that have gone into stadiums, and not all "new" stadiums are 100% new -- hell, the current Bank features a part of the old Gator Bowl built in the 80s. But regardless of how you parse it, this deal compares extremely favorably to the other recent NFL and major league sports deals. I don't understand the distinction being made between state and local money. Jax has no hope of getting state money, unlike many markets, and it isn't as if that's somehow *not* taxpayer money.
Re the comment "we want an NFL and we're willing to pay for it," well, obviously. But even if we decided we didn't, it's not as if we're out of the business of owning a publicly-funded stadium. That's what the $150 million in current work is about. That's deferred maintenance we're on the hook for whether this deal goes through or not. However, in the new lease the Jags take over a lot of the operations and maintenance moving forward.
As far as the financing split, I really don't understand this comment. Including the $150 million in deferred maintenance, it's about a 55-45% split. That's what's been in all the releases since it came out last week, or 50-50% if you don't include that. And Marcus is right about the BJP funding. The city saves money by going back to the original BJP schedule, as we no longer have to bond out those projects on top of bonding out the stadium.
I'm not going to be able to speak on the community benefits agreement much here, but some of the above statements are inaccurate. The city's contribution would not only be going toward things we are or would be investing in already, it persuaded the Jaguars to put in another $50 million into the CBA. That's beside what we may be able to use it for in terms of matches and grants, similar to how we just leveraged our local option gas tax funding for the Emerald Trail to get a $148 million grant. Removing the CBA wouldn't make this deal somehow better or fairer, it would just reduce how much this investment benefits the city as a whole and eliminate future funding opportunities.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 20, 2024, 11:24:53 PM
I'm not for sure what it will cost but will be interested in playing a role to make sure that APR in the Sports District isn't forgotten in the urban planning perspective at the pedestrian level.
In the Eastside, there's an opportunity to bring back APR north of the expressway as a real authentic "Lot J." Like West Ashley Street in LaVilla, APR was a real "Beale Street" or "Deep Ellum" and despite years of disinvestment, still maintains local ownership and structures associated with the likes of Chitlin' Circuit era individuals, musicians and Civil Rights icons. A lot of groundwork for its revitalization has been laid by the community, businesses, nonprofits and property owners there. The CBA helps fuel that withintrification goal forward. That's one of several initiatives planned in that neighborhood and I think there are some things there, outside of the downtown and specific stadium renovation aspect, that result in job creation, economic development, etc. that's hard to imagine for most.
I can say both the admin and the Jaguars are still very invested in the outlying developments in the stadium district. It just wasn't feasible to wrap it in with the stadium deal. And I definitely don't expect the financial aspect to be like the Lot J deal, which was the whole issue with it. I also think there'll be a lot of opportunity to make it mesh with the Eastside investments, if the community benefit agreement gets through.
Quote- Miami used a good amount of private financing
- New Orleans was a $450M renovation that only included the stadium itself (state funding involved)
- Baltimore ($600M) used state funding. Also only includes stadium renovations
- Cleveland... well not sure this is a comp at all given nothing is final & again only includes the stadium
- Green Bay's renovation was roughly $200M
The fact that the Jags went for a renovation vs a new build is to save the tax payers money. New or renovated, the 3 most recent deals of any kind show the going rate for an NFL team these days. Bears are covering half of stadium and infrastructure ($2.3B of $4.6B), Titans are paying less than 40% of their stadium ($840M of $2.2B), and Bills are paying less than 40% of their stadium ($550M of $1.4B). Small market teams can't generate the revenue of the larger markets (by the way the Saints are only contributing 30% of the costs in your example above and the Ravens are contributing an even smaller percentage), so typically the city or state has to pay more. It's common knowledge that the state of Florida doesn't contribute to stadiums or sports facilities, so that falls on the local municipality. If the Jags were to offer more favorable terms toward the city, it would likely be shot down by the NFL owner's committee that has to approve the deal by a 3/4 vote. If we paid 70%, it would set a bad precedent for other small market teams, which the owners would not allow.
Yet in all those examples, besides Vegas which was funded by the bed tax, all of them had a large percentage of state funding. In fact, local funding in almost every example is much less than state funding. Why does that matter? Well it's obvious. Do the Jags have fans in Clay, St. Johns or Nassau counties? They will contribute nothing to the Jags staying. They of course benefit from it. Obviously the state not being involved will mandate that local governments pay the coin. That doesn't make it anymore equitable to the duval taxpayer.
All that said & my original point still stands. This isn't a good deal for the Jacksonville Taxpayer. We want to pay for the team. That's fine. It's a good deal for the St. Johns, Nassau, or Clay County Taxpayer & Iguana. The media seems to be taking a back seat, and AG seems to be the only vocal person about it. Not sure how it's possible to say that the money being used here doesn't have a cost to the taxpayer. That seems impossible to say the least.
Hence why many are critical about the stadium vs. community deals & the commingling of the two. I admit to not know what every dollar is being spent on, or what was already planned etc. Still, was adding that expense necessary? Nonetheless, the average taxpayer will not understand what is going on, even if they wanted to, because it simply won't be reported on. That takes me back to the whole 50/50 thing, that claim is really misguiding and if reporters cared about actually understanding the finances, it would be pretty obvious that this isn't a 50/50 split.
The OKC leadership was much more transparent, they knew the deal will cost the taxpayer, but they wanted to keep the team local more than not. OKC is also about 50% of Oklahoma's GDP. Jacksonville is about 10% of Florida's. Was that really locally funded? You can be the judge.
Can only speak for myself, but assuming there's nothing goofy in the small print, I think the agreement between the Jags and the City of Jacksonville is an incredibly fair partnership by NFL standards. I'd take it one step further and say that both sides seems to be negotiating in genuinely good faith. The Jags CLEARLY benefit from being in Jacksonville, and it's in their best interest to stay here, but to their credit, they got way out ahead of this thing, have bent a lot, and have never once during this process bashed the city or threatened to relocate.
In general, here are seven reasons I like the deal, and admire the collaborative partnership this process this appears to have been between Mark Lamping, Donna Deegan, Mike Weinstein, etc., versus the insane Lot J dumpster fire with Curry threatening to fight City Council members in their backyard if they didn't back the Jags, Mark Lamping and Paul Harden red-faced and screaming, the Cordish goons evading city council, etc.:
1. Shad Khan/The Jags are picking up half the tab ($650 million) to modernize Jacksonville's city-owned stadium. Though the Jags are the primary tenant, the desire and need for a large football stadium in Jacksonville has existed since Fairfield Stadium was constructed in 1928. Our modern stadium has elements that date back to 1948, and Florida-Georgia and the Gator Bowl have been huge economic drivers and points of civic pride dating back over a century. The Jags make a lot of money by being in Jacksonville, but let's not pretend like the stadium was built for, or would no longer be needed without, the Jags presence in Jacksonville.
2. Rather than demanding a shiny new stadium like almost every other franchise owner in the league of the over 20 years, the Jags proactively came to the table with the recommendation to renovate the existing stadium instead. This lowered the price tag by $1 billion, easily, and saved both sides an insane amount of money.
3. The upgrades that we're being asked to pay half for aren't frivolous, and are based on best practices, fan surveys, and improving the gameday experience for almost all event attendees. The roof was badly needed. Lower temperatures were badly needed. Wider concourses with better food offerings are a genuine need. An easier, cheaper way to add and remove seats for college vs. NFL will pay for itself. This isn't a frivolous cash grab adding $600 million in luxury boxes.
4. The Jags have demonstrated an insane amount of trust in the City of Jacksonville throughout this whole process. It's pretty wild when you think about it. The team dumped $60 million into the sports performance center in good faith that a stadium deal would get done. The Jags new six-story office building is coming out the ground as we speak, with no signed stadium agreement. And a $250 million Four Seasons hotel, adjacent a brownfield, has gone vertical, with no binding agreement the Jags will still be on course to stay in Jacksonville by the time it starts taking guests. Yes, there were city subsidies, but the massive private investment for facilities that make no sense without the Jags was a huge leap of faith by Shad Khan.
5. It's crystal clear that a sports & entertainment district is badly needed adjacent the stadium, and nearly every major NFL stadium agreement in the last decade has included some form of Lot J-type development to drive revenue during the 350 days a year that NFL football isn't being played at the stadium. The Jags originally wanted this included in the stadium deal. The city didn't feel comfortable negotiating both at once. And the Jags said "Fine, let's separate them." It's putting a lot of trust in the city to get a deal done down the road.
6. The Jags, despite pushbacks from the Rory Diamonds of the world on the public match, are prepared to enter into the largest CBA in the entire NFL, despite our small market and the teams lower local revenues than the majority of the league. $150 million, with a genuine concern for standing up the Eastside. They're also sponsoring Metro Park, separately.
7. With a renovation rather than a brand new stadium, and no sports & entertainment district in writing, the Jags have agreed to extend the lease for THIRTY YEARS if the city goes in 50/50 on the stadium and cap a London partnership that clearly isn't going anywhere to 1 regular season game a year. There's a lot of talk about the cost of the deal, but not enough talk about the length of the deal. Our $650 million commitment to upgrading our own city-owned stadium (and a commitment to finish riverfront parks, be a partner in downtown/Eastside development, and finish some deferred maintenance) will keep the team here through 2059. That's insane, and 10 years longer than most expected for a refurb.
I dig it, and I think it genuinely signals a huge step forward from the Jags being a reluctant tenant to a genuine partner in the community.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on May 21, 2024, 07:30:19 PM
Can only speak for myself, but assuming there's nothing goofy in the small print, I think the agreement between the Jags and the City of Jacksonville is an incredibly fair partnership by NFL standards. I'd take it one step further and say that both sides seems to be negotiating in genuinely good faith. The Jags CLEARLY benefit from being in Jacksonville, and it's in their best interest to stay here, but to their credit, they got way out ahead of this thing, have bent a lot, and have never once during this process bashed the city or threatened to relocate.
In general, here are seven reasons I like the deal, and admire the collaborative partnership this process this appears to have been between Mark Lamping, Donna Deegan, Mike Weinstein, etc., versus the insane Lot J dumpster fire with Curry threatening to fight City Council members in their backyard if they didn't back the Jags, Mark Lamping and Paul Harden red-faced and screaming, the Cordish goons evading city council, etc.:
1. Shad Khan/The Jags are picking up half the tab ($650 million) to modernize Jacksonville's city-owned stadium. Though the Jags are the primary tenant, the desire and need for a large football stadium in Jacksonville has existed since Fairfield Stadium was constructed in 1928. Our modern stadium has elements that date back to 1948, and Florida-Georgia and the Gator Bowl have been huge economic drivers and points of civic pride dating back over a century. The Jags make a lot of money by being in Jacksonville, but let's not pretend like the stadium was built for, or would no longer be needed without, the Jags presence in Jacksonville.
2. Rather than demanding a shiny new stadium like almost every other franchise owner in the league of the over 20 years, the Jags proactively came to the table with the recommendation to renovate the existing stadium instead. This lowered the price tag by $1 billion, easily, and saved both sides an insane amount of money.
3. The upgrades that we're being asked to pay half for aren't frivolous, and are based on best practices, fan surveys, and improving the gameday experience for almost all event attendees. The roof was badly needed. Lower temperatures were badly needed. Wider concourses with better food offerings are a genuine need. An easier, cheaper way to add and remove seats for college vs. NFL will pay for itself. This isn't a frivolous cash grab adding $600 million in luxury boxes.
4. The Jags have demonstrated an insane amount of trust in the City of Jacksonville throughout this whole process. It's pretty wild when you think about it. The team dumped $60 million into the sports performance center in good faith that a stadium deal would get done. The Jags new six-story office building is coming out the ground as we speak, with no signed stadium agreement. And a $250 million Four Seasons hotel, adjacent a brownfield, has gone vertical, with no binding agreement the Jags will still be on course to stay in Jacksonville by the time it starts taking guests. Yes, there were city subsidies, but the massive private investment for facilities that make no sense without the Jags was a huge leap of faith by Shad Khan.
5. It's crystal clear that a sports & entertainment district is badly needed adjacent the stadium, and nearly every major NFL stadium agreement in the last decade has included some form of Lot J-type development to drive revenue during the 350 days a year that NFL football isn't being played at the stadium. The Jags originally wanted this included in the stadium deal. The city didn't feel comfortable negotiating both at once. And the Jags said "Fine, let's separate them." It's putting a lot of trust in the city to get a deal done down the road.
6. The Jags, despite pushbacks from the Rory Diamonds of the world on the public match, are prepared to enter into the largest CBA in the entire NFL, despite our small market and the teams lower local revenues than the majority of the league. $150 million, with a genuine concern for standing up the Eastside. They're also sponsoring Metro Park, separately.
7. With a renovation rather than a brand new stadium, and no sports & entertainment district in writing, the Jags have agreed to extend the lease for THIRTY YEARS if the city goes in 50/50 on the stadium and cap a London partnership that clearly isn't going anywhere to 1 regular season game a year. There's a lot of talk about the cost of the deal, but not enough talk about the length of the deal. Our $650 million commitment to upgrading our own city-owned stadium (and a commitment to finish riverfront parks, be a partner in downtown/Eastside development, and finish some deferred maintenance) will keep the team here through 2059. That's insane, and 10 years longer than most expected for a refurb.
I dig it, and I think it genuinely signals a huge step forward from the Jags being a reluctant tenant to a genuine partner in the community.
Well said, Ken.
Ken I agree with a lot of points you made. If it is easier get my point across by comparing every NFL stadium deal, there are only 32 and that isn't hard to do. I can get into it more this weekend. In general, teams need new land to build a new stadium. The downtime they incur from the projects (planning & build), often makes these strategies completely non-starters without it. Where would they have gone anyway?
The fact the Jaguars didn't attempt to go for a new build, makes complete business sense. In fact, are there any new stadiums built exactly where the old one was? I can't think of a recent example. The Jags stadium is legitimately one of a very small group to be built basically where the old one was (we know why). Because the Jags/taxpayer had already sunk a considerable cost to their nearby developments, that indicates that anything new was completely out of the question (due to timeline, cost & complications mainly).
Hence why the more well known stadiums in the league, get renovations rather than entirely new buildings. Obviously there is a historical element there, but just like Lake mentions, it's almost always cheaper to reuse/renovate. The thing is, those renovations are often much much less expensive than what we are discussing here. I don't see this as a meaningful argument that the Jaguars are being reasonable or something like that. This is one of, if not, the largest NFL stadium renovation ever funded. They are covering their P/L. And while it may seem most stadiums are new, the fact remains that more than 20 stadiums in the NFL are more than 20 years old. Yes they have been renovated, but none of them near the cost the Jags have proposed (other than Cleveland who is still completely unsure with what they are doing). Renovations are still the main route teams go to upgrade their facilities.
Again, back to the CBA. If there was an actual split of public (state & local) funding, then there would be much less cause to pushback on the community giving. The fact of the matter is, there are thousands of families that live in consolidated areas, that still lack basic city services. We are quite literally telling the folks in the greater Eastside, they matter more for the wrongs of the past than other taxpayers. If I lived on the Northside or Westside without safe & reliable water/sewer, I'd be pretty upset. Thing is, will those people ever really know what happened? Probably not, and not because some of them don't care to know...
I post on here about the Septic Phase Out Program, but of course nobody cares... City Council members, everyday citizens alike. Stadium deals get people fired up, for all the wrong reasons. The Jaguars are a privilege to the city. It requires smart fiscal planning & a community that supports them for it to make sense. When it starts to become a big red flag, is when we start to justify putting off or delaying programs to pay for other shiny things. (Like a CBA in an area that already has water/sewer & community interest.) There's no way there isn't a cost to the taxpayer. Money just doesn't work like that.
Just do the deal, say we are willing to make the Jags happy, and leave it there. Again, zero state funds, and this is somehow a good deal to the average duval taxpayer? That doesn't align.
ADDED: https://www.duanemorris.com/articles/revolution_nfl_stadiums_analysis_deal_structure_related_rewards_0923.html
Here is a breakdown of all the "real" stadium deals right now, in which we are certainly very unique in our funding, and scope.
A few more details via public records request from the Daily Record before the paperwork/agreement is officially presented to the Council.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/may/23/goodbye-grass-new-details-about-stadium-of-the-future-renovation/
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/may/23/drafts-of-stadium-agreements-provide-details-of-construction-community-benefits/
Some things that stood out to me: switching to an artificial turf field, despite the recent complaints by NFL Players and their Union; Main Concourse and Upper Concourse will wrap around the entire stadium; Current JumboTrons are staying in place; cost overruns are covered by the Jaguars unless the City is the cause for the cost overrun, seems to be inviting future disputes/litigation.
Oh and the stadium will be open to the public to serve as a public park during non-event days. That's pretty awesome if that is implemented the way it sounds.
Quote from: Joey Mackey on May 23, 2024, 03:02:33 PMOh and the stadium will be open to the public to serve as a public park during non-event days. That's pretty awesome if that is implemented the way it sounds.
I *think* this has probably been worded wrong by some of the local media.
My read isn't that stadium itself will be open to the public, but that the perimeter of the stadium will serve as a green promenade to deflect heat and act as passive greenspace for those in the area.
Some of the documents are starting to drop in draft form, but still a lot of missing elements.
Pretty incredible that:
1) The overwhelming majority of Jacksonville citizens (80%+) support the City partnering with the Jags on the CBA.
2) The inclusion of the CBA is enough to flip public support of the city subsidizing the stadium from majority opposed to majority support.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/may/28/poll-jaguars-stadium-renovation-support-boosted-by-community-benefits-agreement/
They're removing funding from infrastructure projects to fund this. I've heard of one particular project that is meant to replace a crumbling box culvert being set on the shelf for the foreseeable future in order to prioritize funding for the stadium deal. This crumbling box culvert was first noticed in 2013. Several other infrastructure projects are being de-prioritized for this.
Quote from: jax_hwy_engineer on May 28, 2024, 03:08:51 PM
They're removing funding from infrastructure projects to fund this. I've heard of one particular project that is meant to replace a crumbling box culvert being set on the shelf for the foreseeable future in order to prioritize funding for the stadium deal. This crumbling box culvert was first noticed in 2013. Several other infrastructure projects are being de-prioritized for this.
Is it possible that some of these projects are just being shifted from the general fund back into the Better Jacksonville Plan?
Quote from: Ken_FSU on May 28, 2024, 03:15:09 PM
Quote from: jax_hwy_engineer on May 28, 2024, 03:08:51 PM
They're removing funding from infrastructure projects to fund this. I've heard of one particular project that is meant to replace a crumbling box culvert being set on the shelf for the foreseeable future in order to prioritize funding for the stadium deal. This crumbling box culvert was first noticed in 2013. Several other infrastructure projects are being de-prioritized for this.
Is it possible that some of these projects are just being shifted from the general fund back into the Better Jacksonville Plan?
I don't think any of the projects we're working on are a part of the BJP. From what I've heard, these are simply being shelved for the foreseeable future when new funding possibly comes into the picture in a handful of years.
Quote from: jax_hwy_engineer on May 28, 2024, 03:08:51 PM
They're removing funding from infrastructure projects to fund this. I've heard of one particular project that is meant to replace a crumbling box culvert being set on the shelf for the foreseeable future in order to prioritize funding for the stadium deal. This crumbling box culvert was first noticed in 2013. Several other infrastructure projects are being de-prioritized for this.
Nothing is being canceled or delayed from the CIP for this deal. There'll be some adjustment of the CIP for various reasons, but the only things that are impacted by the stadium deal are those going back to the BJP funding source.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on May 28, 2024, 02:11:30 PM
Pretty incredible that:
1) The overwhelming majority of Jacksonville citizens (80%+) support the City partnering with the Jags on the CBA.
2) The inclusion of the CBA is enough to flip public support of the city subsidizing the stadium from majority opposed to majority support.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/may/28/poll-jaguars-stadium-renovation-support-boosted-by-community-benefits-agreement/
The community benefits agreement is frankly the best part of the deal, and evidently the part voters most respond to. I'm proud to see it in there.
They only polled 600 voters out 900,000
Quote from: Skybox111 on May 28, 2024, 06:07:38 PM
They only polled 600 voters out 900,000
That is a reasonable sample size for the Jacksonville (Duval County) population of 1,041,000,
First some Statistics 101. The three key factors in a survey sample are Sample Size, Margin of Error, and Sampling Confidence Level. Here are definitions of the last two from a survey company's website
Quote
Margin of error: A percentage that tells you how much you can expect your survey results to reflect the views of the overall population. The smaller the margin of error, the closer you are to having the exact answer at a given confidence level.
Sampling confidence level: A percentage that reveals how confident you can be that the population would select an answer within a certain range. For example, a 95% confidence level means you can be 95% certain the results lie between x and y numbers.
A 95% Confidence Level and 5% Margin of Error are standards in the survey industry, and a 99% Confidence Level is the Gold+ Standard.
For Duval County's 1,041,000 population
5% Margin of Error and 95% Confidence Level - you need a Sample Size of 385
for 5% MoE and
99% Confidence Level - you need a Sample Size of 666
If you only want to reflect the 622,500 registered voters in Duval, the sample sizes are nearly the same.
Source: SurveyMonkey sample size calculator, and confirmed by another website
https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-calculator/
This also assumes the sample adequately represents the geographic, ethnic, and political populations of Duval - in other words, not all the surveyed live in Deerwood, or Brentwood.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on May 28, 2024, 06:43:27 PM
Quote from: Skybox111 on May 28, 2024, 06:07:38 PM
They only polled 600 voters out 900,000
That is a reasonable sample size for the Jacksonville (Duval County) population of 1,041,000,
First some Statistics 101. The three key factors in a survey sample are Sample Size, Margin of Error, and Sampling Confidence Level. Here are definitions of the last two from a survey company's website
Quote
Margin of error: A percentage that tells you how much you can expect your survey results to reflect the views of the overall population. The smaller the margin of error, the closer you are to having the exact answer at a given confidence level.
Sampling confidence level: A percentage that reveals how confident you can be that the population would select an answer within a certain range. For example, a 95% confidence level means you can be 95% certain the results lie between x and y numbers.
A 95% Confidence Level and 5% Margin of Error are standards in the survey industry, and a 99% Confidence Level is the Gold+ Standard.
For Duval County's 1,041,000 population
5% Margin of Error and 95% Confidence Level - you need a Sample Size of 385
for 5% MoE and 99% Confidence Level - you need a Sample Size of 666
If you only want to reflect the 622,500 registered voters in Duval, the sample sizes are nearly the same.
Source: SurveyMonkey sample size calculator, and confirmed by another website
https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-calculator/
This also assumes the sample adequately represents the geographic, ethnic, and political populations of Duval - in other words, not all the surveyed live in Deerwood, or Brentwood.
This man gets it.
Same reason a mere 40,000 Nielsen families have historically swayed billions of advertising dollars because they're statistically representative of 122 million U.S. households.
In the above example, the reason that the sample size needed to reflect the overall Duval population (1.04 million) and the sample size needed to reflect Duval's registered voters (623k) is virtually identical (and the reason a representative sample in both the U.S. and UK is around 2,000, despite their radically different population sizes) is because once you reach an appropriate sample, you'll very quickly hit a point of diminishing returns where it just isn't useful to add more respondents.
For the simplest example possible, imagine discovering a normal coin that you know nothing about. Let's say you wanted to determine what percentage of coin flips will result in heads. If you flip it 10 times, you learn a little bit, but with such a small sample, it's very easy to misinterpret random variance/white noise (7 of the first 10 flips are heads) for actionable knowledge. If you flip it 50 times, the underlying signal may start to get a little stronger (29 of 50 flips are heads), but your statistical confidence that the results are repeatable remains low.
Sooner or later, as the below real-world experiment demonstrates, you reach a point where it just doesn't matter if your population is 500,000 or 50 million, your gains past a certain point are going to be incremental at best, and not worth the added cost, time, and error of polling more than the number of people necessary to satisfy statistical significance.
(https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1400/1*EfjWnCuRua5NoU_Ldw16iw.png)
Will also say that - as a data scientist who has conducted and reviewed many a statistical test - UNF's Public Opinion Research Lab (the school's survey/polling center) is legitimately one of the best polling centers in the country. I think sometimes people see "UNF Poll" and think some wacky half-baked survey akin to a Twitter poll. If you look at independent analysis of the work they're doing, their methodology is as sound as it gets, as reflected by wildly low errors and biases. Really great, underrated resource to the community.
Ah ok
I wasn't polled but the CBA is what I like most about the stadium deal. It provides additional quality of life benefits for the entire community that a stadium only deal would never come close to accomplishing.
The CBA is nothing more than feel good politics. The actual impact of the funds from the Jags will never be seen by 99.99% of people. The actual giving amount is less than $100M when inflation is factored in... so this magical $50M increase is not real but a nice big number that makes people feel better.
"The goal of the city's commitment, Weinstein said, was to leverage the Jaguars to increase their contribution from $100 million to $150 million."
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2024/05/29/jagaurs-jacksonville-deal.html
We also get to maintain 5500 parking spaces for 30 years, with virtually zero revenue from it. The annual amount the city will be paying every year to keep the terms of this agreement alive, will eclipse the $3M annual gift the Jags will write. ;D
Btw, no point in reporting on all the stadium deals. This is the largest stadium renovation by a long shot. The only worse stadium deals (for the local taxpayer) are Cincinnati & Indianapolis. We are right there at third when this is completed. The commonality of the three being the lack of state/private funding.
Then again, the Bengals are investing up to $200M for upgrades, all privately financed... a dollar amount similar to other stadium renovations... without a new lease that expires in 2026...
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 29, 2024, 07:45:10 AM
The CBA is nothing more than feel good politics. The actual impact of the funds from the Jags will never be seen by 99.99% of people. The actual giving amount is less than $100M when inflation is factored in... so this magical $50M increase is not real but a nice big number that makes people feel better.
"The goal of the city's commitment, Weinstein said, was to leverage the Jaguars to increase their contribution from $100 million to $150 million."
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2024/05/29/jagaurs-jacksonville-deal.html
We also get to maintain 5500 parking spaces for 30 years, with virtually zero revenue from it. The annual amount the city will be paying every year to keep the terms of this agreement alive, will eclipse the $3M annual gift the Jags will write. ;D
Not sure what math realtors use, but I'm pretty sure 150 million is a bigger number than 100 million. At any rate, the city's $150 million will be up front while the Jags money comes in year over year, so we're not sitting around to get things started while prices rise and we waste more time waiting.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 29, 2024, 08:02:02 AM
Btw, no point in reporting on all the stadium deals. This is the largest stadium renovation by a long shot. The only worse stadium deals (for the local taxpayer) are Cincinnati & Indianapolis. We are right there at third when this is completed. The commonality of the three being the lack of state/private funding.
Then again, the Bengals are investing up to $200M for upgrades, all privately financed... a dollar amount similar to other stadium renovations... without a new lease that expires in 2026...
So state funding isn't taxpayer funding? Wish I'd known that in the 14 years I worked for the state!
Quote from: thelakelander on May 28, 2024, 11:41:56 PM
I wasn't polled but the CBA is what I like most about the stadium deal. It provides additional quality of life benefits for the entire community that a stadium only deal would never come close to accomplishing.
It's a good way to ensure the benefits of this investment are spread around across the community, and knock off some priorities without having to take out as much debt or wait for years. I'm proud it's in there.
Quote from: Tacachale on May 29, 2024, 11:10:09 PM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 29, 2024, 07:45:10 AM
The CBA is nothing more than feel good politics. The actual impact of the funds from the Jags will never be seen by 99.99% of people. The actual giving amount is less than $100M when inflation is factored in... so this magical $50M increase is not real but a nice big number that makes people feel better.
"The goal of the city's commitment, Weinstein said, was to leverage the Jaguars to increase their contribution from $100 million to $150 million."
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2024/05/29/jagaurs-jacksonville-deal.html
We also get to maintain 5500 parking spaces for 30 years, with virtually zero revenue from it. The annual amount the city will be paying every year to keep the terms of this agreement alive, will eclipse the $3M annual gift the Jags will write. ;D
Not sure what math realtors use, but I'm pretty sure 150 million is a bigger number than 100 million. At any rate, the city's $150 million will be up front while the Jags money comes in year over year, so we're not sitting around to get things started while prices rise and we waste more time waiting.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 29, 2024, 08:02:02 AM
Btw, no point in reporting on all the stadium deals. This is the largest stadium renovation by a long shot. The only worse stadium deals (for the local taxpayer) are Cincinnati & Indianapolis. We are right there at third when this is completed. The commonality of the three being the lack of state/private funding.
Then again, the Bengals are investing up to $200M for upgrades, all privately financed... a dollar amount similar to other stadium renovations... without a new lease that expires in 2026...
So state funding isn't taxpayer funding? Wish I'd known that in the 14 years I worked for the state!
Quote from: thelakelander on May 28, 2024, 11:41:56 PM
I wasn't polled but the CBA is what I like most about the stadium deal. It provides additional quality of life benefits for the entire community that a stadium only deal would never come close to accomplishing.
It's a good way to ensure the benefits of this investment are spread around across the community, and knock off some priorities without having to take out as much debt or wait for years. I'm proud it's in there.
Ah yes, back to the name calling. Very professional of a mayor's official to do. Idk what math politicians & english majors use, but there is this thing called inflation. Yeah crazy right? Forgot about that at the negotiation table when you tried to get creative? Sure seems like it. The relocation clause is a joke. Remember... inflation? Oh yeah silly me, I'm just a realtor. Really would have been quite easy to put a 2% inflation clause in there...
Here is a reminder on the definition for you:
"a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money"
Ah yeah, this is too complicated to understand basic tax structures. Good response there lol. So hard to understand why the stadium would deserve a tax pool outside of duval. Let's put our thinking hats on. ::)
Added: The fact that I am even having *this* conversation with a Mayor's official, who knows this deal, should tell anyone they need to know about how poorly the city has negotiated for the taxpayer. A lack of understanding of basic finance, coupled with blinding amounts of copium, this city needs stronger leaders who truly understand the responsibility of their position (JEA, JTA, etc.).
Double Added: In the entire 60-page draft agreement, that spans 30-years, there isn't a single mention of inflation. Absolutely incredible. 8)
https://www.news10.com/sports/buffalo-bills-stadium-discussions/bills-stadium-gets-final-governmental-approval-construction-can-begin/#:~:text=The%20new%20stadium%20is%20projected,of%20the%2030%2Dyear%20lease.
"The final agreement on the stadium between New York State, Erie County and the Bills was reached on April 4. The new stadium is projected to create roughly 10,000 jobs and the deal's Community Benefits Agreement includes the Bills investing $3 million annually. Adjusting for inflation, that will likely amount to about $100 million over the course of the 30-year lease."
Wow, look at that? A news agency reporting on real dollars versus inflated dollars? No way... not in Jacksonville. Luckily, we don't have that inflation thing here.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 30, 2024, 08:26:22 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on May 29, 2024, 11:10:09 PM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 29, 2024, 07:45:10 AM
The CBA is nothing more than feel good politics. The actual impact of the funds from the Jags will never be seen by 99.99% of people. The actual giving amount is less than $100M when inflation is factored in... so this magical $50M increase is not real but a nice big number that makes people feel better.
"The goal of the city's commitment, Weinstein said, was to leverage the Jaguars to increase their contribution from $100 million to $150 million."
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2024/05/29/jagaurs-jacksonville-deal.html
We also get to maintain 5500 parking spaces for 30 years, with virtually zero revenue from it. The annual amount the city will be paying every year to keep the terms of this agreement alive, will eclipse the $3M annual gift the Jags will write. ;D
Not sure what math realtors use, but I'm pretty sure 150 million is a bigger number than 100 million. At any rate, the city's $150 million will be up front while the Jags money comes in year over year, so we're not sitting around to get things started while prices rise and we waste more time waiting.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 29, 2024, 08:02:02 AM
Btw, no point in reporting on all the stadium deals. This is the largest stadium renovation by a long shot. The only worse stadium deals (for the local taxpayer) are Cincinnati & Indianapolis. We are right there at third when this is completed. The commonality of the three being the lack of state/private funding.
Then again, the Bengals are investing up to $200M for upgrades, all privately financed... a dollar amount similar to other stadium renovations... without a new lease that expires in 2026...
So state funding isn't taxpayer funding? Wish I'd known that in the 14 years I worked for the state!
Quote from: thelakelander on May 28, 2024, 11:41:56 PM
I wasn't polled but the CBA is what I like most about the stadium deal. It provides additional quality of life benefits for the entire community that a stadium only deal would never come close to accomplishing.
It's a good way to ensure the benefits of this investment are spread around across the community, and knock off some priorities without having to take out as much debt or wait for years. I'm proud it's in there.
Ah yes, back to the name calling. Very professional of a mayor's official to do. Idk what math politicians & english majors use, but there is this thing called inflation. Yeah crazy right? Forgot about that at the negotiation table when you tried to get creative? Sure seems like it. The relocation clause is a joke. Remember... inflation? Oh yeah silly me, I'm just a realtor. Really would have been quite easy to put a 2% inflation clause in there...
Here is a reminder on the definition for you:
"a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money"
Ah yeah, this is too complicated to understand basic tax structures. Good response there lol. So hard to understand why the stadium would deserve a tax pool outside of duval. Let's put our thinking hats on. ::)
Added: The fact that I am even having *this* conversation with a Mayor's official, who knows this deal, should tell anyone they need to know about how poorly the city has negotiated for the taxpayer. A lack of understanding of basic finance, coupled with blinding amounts of copium, this city needs stronger leaders who truly understand the responsibility of their position (JEA, JTA, etc.).
Double Added: In the entire 60-page draft agreement, that spans 30-years, there isn't a single mention of inflation. Absolutely incredible. 8)
We're having this conversation because you came onto my site and posted misinformed takes that I responded to. However, while I was being glib I definitely didn't mean to insult you. I think your comments here are dead wrong, but if I offended you I apologize.
I understand the criticism of media coverage ignoring the effects of the timing of dollars, which does skew the split in the Jags' favor from an NPV perspective relative to nominal dollars. Another log to add to that fire: the sliding scale if the Jags leave early really means the expected value term of the lease extension is 21.5 years.
However, I don't think it indicts the deal that's been struck. Yes, this may be a far worse deal for Duval taxpayers than stadium deals in other jurisdictions. But what leverage did the Mayor have to force other counties' taxpayers to chip in? Even if the Jags felt charitable and agreed to foot 60% of the bill, why would the NFL owners approve that? They don't care if the taxpayer funds are concentrated or distributed. Keep in mind also that Duval taxpayers benefit whenever Orlando, Tampa, or Miami want to upgrade their stadium/arena facilities because we don't subsidize them with our state tax dollars, either.
Stipulating that stadium subsidies are generally a bad deal for taxpayers everywhere, it's fair to say this is a bad deal primarily because of circumstances outside the city's control. The CBA makes it less bad (my opinion, of course). Alleging that the city is paying $150M now to get an extra $50M deferred is a bit disingenuous, because it assumes the city wouldn't have had to spend any of that $150M otherwise. It seems more like a political maneuver to bundle some of Deegan's policy priorities in with a stadium deal to avoid debating them separately, and I think this read is reinforced by Rory Diamond's immediate opposition to it despite it's popularity with the public. If the city $150M is stripped out, I'd easily bet most of it comes back as standalone spending proposals, but without the extra $50M from the Jags to assist (which is still worth $28.8M in today's money assuming equal annual payments and inflation tracking hot at 4% for the next 30 years). Investing $150M today to realize an increase in present value purchasing power of $28.8M is a 19% ROI. Seems pretty solid to me.
Let's assume miserably unfavorable borrowing conditions. If the city bonds out the $150M at 8% over a 30 year term, assuming the same 4% inflation rate, the present value of future payments is $230M. That's still a 12.5% ROI. Looked at differently, securing $178.8M in purchasing power by bonding out $150M at 8% over 30 years is equivalent to borrowing the full $178.8M over 30 years for about 6.25%.
If the city issues at a 4% rate, inflation offsets the cost of borrowing, raising ROI and imputing a 2.6% equivalent interest rate if the full $178.8M had to be borrowed.
If someone is politically opposed to the priorities included in the CBA money, fine -- that's politics. If someone if philosophically opposed to subsidizing stadium deals, perfectly reasonable. I don't, however, think the inflation-adjusted numbers support the assertion that the CBA itself is a loser at the margins.
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on May 31, 2024, 11:46:34 AM
Keep in mind also that Duval taxpayers benefit whenever Orlando, Tampa, or Miami want to upgrade their stadium/arena facilities because we don't subsidize them with our state tax dollars, either.
Great post. I agree with most of it, but just wanted to point out that Orlando, Tampa, and Miami contribute substantially more tax dollars to the state than Duval County does. Roughly 80% of the state's revenue comes from sales tax. Duval County is just above 1 million residents and is only Florida's 6th most populous county. It only makes up about 4.4% of the state's permanent population. When you factor in that there are substantially more part time residents in places like SE and SW Florida and the Tampa Bay area, that percentage goes down even lower. Then factor in that Orlando and South Florida get exponentially more tourists and Tampa Bay presumably gets a healthy bit more. All that (and the fact that there is more wealth in other areas) adds up to those places contributing a much greater share of Florida's sales tax revenue (and other sources) than Jax.
State support of the Jags stadium would likely disproportionally benefit Jax taxpayers relative to the two other NFL cities in the state, and as has been pointed out, would at least give the surrounding counties some skin the game.
Tacachale, I appreciate your work for the city, I don't think I'm saying misinformation. The lack of reporting on the deal is frustrating. I'm going to leave it at that.
I'm not going to comment on this again since it really won't matter, but jaxNOLE that breakdown is great. The simple very simple conversation is about what the Jags offered vs. what is being brought forth to us now. The stadium got VE'd, and we got the Jags to increase their split... great with that.
But we also killed a $500M development where the city was expected to pay less than 20%. Will there be another agreement in the future? Maybe, likely there will be a public incentive package much higher than 20%. Another reason why inflation is such a big deal here, is the mandated terms of agreement imply real public dollars will be spent to maintain "accessory" items for stadium events. Items like: acres of parking, security, trash etc... All of those items will become much more expensive with time... More importantly, the true impact to the Eastside, for funds received in 2050, is negligible. The relocation clause really doesn't mean anything. The team's revenue in 15-30 years will eclipse a partial 2024 dollar amount.
I'm not political about the CBA, I genuinely believe the benefits of the CBA are far overstated & the alternative would have yielded city revenues that far exceed $5M in 2050. (Basic economic theory would prove this.) I'm also not arguing for the state to partially fund the stadium deal, but the optics of spending discretionary funds towards a CBA, when we are years behind on simple infrastructure projects, yield criticism of where local funds are being spent. I have dozens of lots waiting on sewer with written emails from years ago stating how these projects will be done by 2022-2023. Couldn't imagine if I was a resident in one of these areas.
What's the alternative to the CBA? I missed that part. Also, what $500 million development was killed?
Quote from: CityLife on May 31, 2024, 02:23:02 PM
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on May 31, 2024, 11:46:34 AM
Keep in mind also that Duval taxpayers benefit whenever Orlando, Tampa, or Miami want to upgrade their stadium/arena facilities because we don't subsidize them with our state tax dollars, either.
Great post. I agree with most of it, but just wanted to point out that Orlando, Tampa, and Miami contribute substantially more tax dollars to the state than Duval County does. Roughly 80% of the state's revenue comes from sales tax. Duval County is just above 1 million residents and is only Florida's 6th most populous county. It only makes up about 4.4% of the state's permanent population. When you factor in that there are substantially more part time residents in places like SE and SW Florida and the Tampa Bay area, that percentage goes down even lower. Then factor in that Orlando and South Florida get exponentially more tourists and Tampa Bay presumably gets a healthy bit more. All that (and the fact that there is more wealth in other areas) adds up to those places contributing a much greater share of Florida's sales tax revenue (and other sources) than Jax.
State support of the Jags stadium would likely disproportionally benefit Jax taxpayers relative to the two other NFL cities in the state, and as has been pointed out, would at least give the surrounding counties some skin the game.
Also great points; it's certainly not an equal benefit given those realities. We'll never really know what the ask may have been if state dollars were on the table, either.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 31, 2024, 03:10:30 PM
I'm not political about the CBA, I genuinely believe the benefits of the CBA are far overstated & the alternative would have yielded city revenues that far exceed $5M in 2050. (Basic economic theory would prove this.) I'm also not arguing for the state to partially fund the stadium deal, but the optics of spending discretionary funds towards a CBA, when we are years behind on simple infrastructure projects, yield criticism of where local funds are being spent. I have dozens of lots waiting on sewer with written emails from years ago stating how these projects will be done by 2022-2023. Couldn't imagine if I was a resident in one of these areas.
The word "political" has gained a very negative connotation, but I don't mean it to be in this instance. Debating whether the CBA is the best use of $150M city dollars is, at its core, a policy argument. Where do our priorities belong as a city? I merely sought to demonstrate the CBA isn't a
financial albatross. If you don't trust the money will be spent well, it doesn't matter how financially sound a deal it is -- for example, if the Jags were volunteering to fund the entire U2C project, I'd be staunchly opposed anyway. Heck, just yesterday I lamented in another thread how unimpressed I am with city stewardship of our tax dollars. But then, that's more of a philosophical opposition to government discretionary spending that isn't particularized to the stadium deal.
I think you nailed it a while back, when you said something to the effect of "We want an NFL team, and we're willing to pay through the nose to have one." Clearly, we don't have the same level of conviction about effective mass transit, sewer, or any of the many other things we could choose to prioritize.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 31, 2024, 03:59:51 PM
What's the alternative to the CBA? I missed that part. Also, what $500 million development was killed?
I think the $500 million is a reference to the entertainment district.
Oh okay. I was confused since they've been clear on why it's not being included in the stadium deal. It's not dead. It just isn't being looped into this specific deal.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 31, 2024, 03:59:51 PMAlso, what $500 million development was killed?
The original stadium deal floated involved a 50/50 split on around $2 billion in work for both the stadium and an adjacent entertainment district.
Under that framework:
1) The City paid $934 million for stadium renovations (67%) and the Jags would pay $466 million (33%).
2) The City would pay $75-$100 million for an entertainment district (14%), and the Jags would pay the remaining $500+ million (86%)
Under the new framework, which came at the city's request and Jags' approval, bifurcates the stadium and entertainment district into separate deals.
Under the new framework:
1) The City pays $750 million for stadium renovations, including $150m in deferred maintenance (55%) and the Jags pay $625 (45%).
2) The City pays ? for the an entertainment district, and the Jags pay ?.
I'd expect the city's contribution to an eventual entertainment district to be larger than what was proposed above, based on the new framework for the stadium, and would eventually expect the combined public/private contribution for both projects to be close to the same 50/50 originally floated, just distributed a little bit differently. $250 million would be my guess, netting out to around $1 billion in public dollars for the full project.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on May 31, 2024, 05:26:11 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 31, 2024, 03:59:51 PMAlso, what $500 million development was killed?
The original stadium deal floated involved a 50/50 split on around $2 billion in work for both the stadium and an adjacent entertainment district.
Under that framework:
1) The City paid $934 million for stadium renovations (67%) and the Jags would pay $466 million (33%).
2) The City would pay $75-$100 million for an entertainment district (14%), and the Jags would pay the remaining $500+ million (86%)
Under the new framework, which came at the city's request and Jags' approval, bifurcates the stadium and entertainment district into separate deals.
Under the new framework:
1) The City pays $750 million for stadium renovations, including $150m in deferred maintenance (55%) and the Jags pay $625 (45%).
2) The City pays ? for the an entertainment district, and the Jags pay ?.
I'd expect the city's contribution to an eventual entertainment district to be larger than what was proposed above, based on the new framework for the stadium, and would eventually expect the combined public/private contribution for both projects to be close to the same 50/50 originally floated, just distributed a little bit differently. $250 million would be my guess, netting out to around $1 billion in public dollars for the full project.
Okay, I lied. My actual last comment.
This is exactly right Ken. But it's likely even more expensive than that:
1). $775M for the stadium
2). $150M for the CBA
3). ?? Entertainment District Deal (time frame matters)
More importantly, maintaining 5000+ parking spaces for 30 years? Do we not realize where 2,000+ parking spots are currently designated? The city quite literally cannot afford to build parking. So, I'd really like to see what is put forth on this entertainment deal but I don't think it's accurate to fault me for being slightly pessimistic of the potential scope of the incentives dealt to an Entertainment District. And parking.
Looks like a comparison has finally emerged.
https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/charlotte-leaders-consider-650m-toward-bank-america-stadium-renovations/3YV645GZXVHHLBRDLDHD5N7KBM/
Charlotte is now considering $650 million in renovations to Bank of America Stadium, to which the owners of the Carolina Panthers would add $150 million and then take on overruns and maintenance costs with a 20-year lease extension. It is unclear if there is a community benefits agreement. Their timeline is much faster for consideration, with a City Council vote expected on June 24th.
Charlotte passed their stadium deal (https://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/nfl/carolina-panthers/article289411400.html) the day before Jacksonville and I feel relieved that we got such a better deal in comparison. We didn't get everything that might have been liked but Shad Khan is at least putting real money in unlike David Tepper, with a longer lease term and better relocation protection. Things could have been much worse.
Hopefully this means Jax can now turn to other priorities (like again, passing the rest of the CBA). Transit, housing, healthcare, education, libraries, infrastructure like sewers or the jail or whatever exhibition space might replace the Prime Osborn. Should be good for everyone that the stadium is mostly out of the way now.
QuoteThe cost of milling and resurfacing Lot J will be an estimated $933,000 and Lot D will have a $453,000 cost. The estimated expense of cleaning 1,500 feet of drainage pipe along the south side of the stadium and across the top portion of Lot J will be $81,000, Perry said.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2024/06/04/jacksonville-stadium-agreement-with-jaguars-would-repave-parking-lots/73968379007/
Aren't we still expecting an entertainment district deal for Lot J, or is the location expected to change? Not sure why'd we spend this money resurfacing a lot that may not exist in the near-term.
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on June 04, 2024, 02:57:35 PM
QuoteThe cost of milling and resurfacing Lot J will be an estimated $933,000 and Lot D will have a $453,000 cost. The estimated expense of cleaning 1,500 feet of drainage pipe along the south side of the stadium and across the top portion of Lot J will be $81,000, Perry said.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2024/06/04/jacksonville-stadium-agreement-with-jaguars-would-repave-parking-lots/73968379007/
Aren't we still expecting an entertainment district deal for Lot J, or is the location expected to change? Not sure why'd we spend this money resurfacing a lot that may not exist in the near-term.
Weird. Though, with no parking solution currently in place for the full Shipyards project under construction, and expected parking impacts from construction, I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to keep Lot J as surface parking in near-term and start building the entertainment district on the lots above it like (P, N, M, etc.) or even considering the Fairgrounds given that UF seems to be leaning toward other sites. Would be very, very expensive to replace Lot J with structured parking.
Also, somewhat related side question. Has anyone heard any more details of what is being considered in terms of the $9 million conversion of the Daily's Place into "Expo Space." Very curious what that looks like in practice, how it fits into overall event strategy, and whether the benefits and frequency of use outweigh keeping it as a community football field.
Here it is, in all of its glory, https://jaxcityc.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6722014&GUID=DF4D576E-275C-4D4D-A3F2-28235A51A483&Options=ID You will need to click on 2024-904 On File.pdf hyperlink and download the 336 page document.
I will be updating this comment periodically as I get through it, but the first thing I wanted to check out is the "London" situation. The bulk of that agreement appears to be on page 197. Starting point, all home games must be played in the renovated stadium. Now for the exceptions: During a 17-game regular season (current schedule) the Jags are entitled to play one home game offsite each year. (Presumably that's the annual home game at Wembley Stadium in London). Additionally, the Jags are entitled to play an additional home (for a total of two) once every four years. (I have no clue where that second home game would be played, but I'd guess somewhere in London). So in a four-year period under the 17-game season, the Jags would play in Jacksonville a total of 29 games. If the NFL ever approves an 18 game season (which can't happen until at least 2030 with a new CBA) the Jags are still entitled to play one home game offsite each year and they can play an additional home game offsite twice every four years, with a caveat that the additional offsite home game can't happen in back-to-back years. So in a four-year period under the 18-game season, the Jags would play in Jacksonville for a total of 30 games. For context, under the 16 game season, the Jags played a total of 28 home games in Jacksonville in any four year period.
Looking forward to digging into all the documents, thanks for sharing.
Bummed to see the CBA potentially being negotiated separately/after the stadium.
It's the best thing about the deal, and I'd hate to see it get tied up in political hell.
Stadium only deals always result in the taxpayer being on the super short end of the stick. CBAs are normally something cities want included in stadium deals. Only in Jax would we strip out the best part of the deal over local politics. Hopefully, the council doesn't screw the pooch with this one. Politics aside, its okay for Jaxsons to win once in a while.
Think about this... the U2C will cost local taxpayers more than double the amount of the City's portion of the CBA. Yet, City leaders don't question that wasteful project but beat the heck out of the CBA. This is just crazy!
Totally crazy indeed.
Daily Record coverage on the clock starting on the deal.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/jun/11/legislation-for-proposed-stadium-of-the-future-meets-deadline-for-potential-council-vote-june-25/
Thought this bit from Salem was interesting:
QuoteHe said he also had concerns about plans to include $1 million for each of the 14 Council districts to spend on parks.
"We allocated $100 million for parks at the end of the last year or two, and much of that money has not even been spent yet," he said. "So we have a lot of money going towards parks, and we have so many critical needs around this committee that I'd like to see that further debated."
Reading through the Community Benefits Agreement (pgs 305-310), I do have some questions that maybe someone here can answer.
For the Eastside neighborhood (the agreement includes a convenient map of its boundaries on pg 319), the deal is basically the City will commit $30,000,000 dollars to the Eastside Strategic Focus which will be disbursed within two years after the Stadium Lease is signed. The Jags will commit $2,500,000 dollars to the Eastside Strategic Focus every year for 30 years (for a total of $75,000,000). A quick injection of cash and then a steady stream of supporting cash, I think that's a pretty good idea.
My question is what is this money actually going to be spent on? The Eastside Strategic Focus is defined in the agreement pretty broadly. It reads "shall mean economic development, affordable housing, and the mitigation of homelessness in the Eastside." That all sounds good on paper, but how is that actually accomplished? Is the City going to build a new homeless shelter in the Eastside to mitigate homelessness? Is the City going to subsidize the construction of affordable housing the Eastside? Is the City going to give cash grants to local restaurants and retail in the Eastside to stimulate economic development? I'd imagine the worst thing that could happen is that this money is used to pay people's exorbitant salaries to conduct "studies" to figure out how the money should be spent. I have a similar question about the Countywide Strategic Focus program, but the answer should apply to both. I appreciate any insight.
From my understanding, a nonprofit entity independent of the city with Eastside stakeholders playing a leadership role, will be established. There's actually a public meeting in the Eastside this afternoon/evening to provide in greater detail on what the Eastside's project plans are. I know that tangible investment in APR, it's infrastructure, businesses and buildings are one of the focuses.
The goal for APR is for it to be as vibrant as Five Points or San Marco Square but retaining the neighborhood culture and local business characteristics.
Additional investment in ongoing successful homeownership and affordable housing programs could be other areas of focus. I'll follow-up and add the time and location info.
I think that is a great idea, if actual Eastside residents (or people connected to the neighborhood) are in charge of spending the money, they will be incentivized to actually improve their neighborhood. I really hope APR becomes something like Five Points or San Marco Square. It would be a great place to stop before and after Shrimp/Iceman/Jags games.
Quote from: Joey Mackey on June 13, 2024, 11:16:56 AM
I think that is a great idea, if actual Eastside residents (or people connected to the neighborhood) are in charge of spending the money, they will be incentivized to actually improve their neighborhood. I really hope APR becomes something like Five Points or San Marco Square. It would be a great place to stop before and after Shrimp/Iceman/Jags games.
I have no problem with residents prioritizing how to spend the money but do have concerns about oversight. Most people are not skilled in managing such large amounts of money and tend to overspend or just throw money at things without making sure they get the value they are paying for. Kind of like lottery winners or athletes coming into a lot of money and thinking it will last forever. The process needs to ensure judicious spending or people are going to be disappointed with the results. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and residents can't afford to blow it.
I am sure there are at least a handful of Eastside residents who have experience in overseeing large amounts of money to ensure that the money is wisely spent that can serve on the board. I would be worried that the more "oversight" from people who have nothing to do with the Eastside neighborhood would actually cause inefficiencies because they have no working knowledge of how the neighborhood actually operates on the ground level. (e.g. the "oversight" person demanding a new trendy taco restaurant be built, because, you know, everyone loves tacos, instead of a restaurant that reflects the actual neighborhood. Maybe it is tacos, idk) Projects could be incorrectly implemented, and both residents and potential future visiting customers (i.e. me) would lose out on the benefits.
I gave a high level overview but this isn't giving people a free check or something that doesn't have proper fiscal checks and balances. However, it's well known that the fastest path to really wasting public money and not achieving the intended results, is not having adequate community representation at the decision making table.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 13, 2024, 01:12:29 PM
I gave a high level overview but this isn't giving people a free check or something that doesn't have proper fiscal checks and balances. However, it's well known that the fastest path to really wasting public money and not achieving the intended results, is not having adequate community representation at the decision making table.
To be clarify, I don't think Eastside residents would benefit on spending millions to bring U2C or the Oreleck to their neighborhood. They, too, should want checks and balances on such project ideas. That is my point mainly. Don't go chasing frivolous, non-sustainable or sexy projects just because you have deep pockets. We have enough of that in the City at large. The main caution, is unlike the City at large that manages to somehow refill its coffers with dollars for wasteful projects, the Eastside might not have that luxury.
The Eastside has a plan and has already been implementing things on a smaller scale, given the resources at hand. The CBA allows them to scale up that work up. Pretty exciting if council doesn't kill it.
The Eastside CBA community meeting is today at 6pm at the First Baptist Church of Oakland.
QuoteHello all,
We are confirmed for a community meeting regarding the CBA tomorrow (Thursday, June 13) at 6:00 pm. Many thanks to The Oak for hosting the meeting.
Please invite your friends and neighbors from the Eastside to join. Dinner will be provided.
The Oak is located at:
1025 Jessie St.
Jacksonville FL, 32206
At the Eastside meeting now. They have a new website:
https://outeastjax.com/cba/
The Business Journal is lowering expectations about the Stadium of the Future. The headline is
EverBank Stadium renderings are an ideal; reality could be differenthttps://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2024/06/13/renderings-vs-reality.html
Some key points from the article
Quote
As City Council will examine the $1.4 billion deal for the Jacksonville Jaguars EverBank Stadium renovation, members of the public have expressed concern over whether the final stadium will resemble the futuristic, multidimensional stadium depicted in the renderings.
This concern comes after disappointment with Daily's Place, the 5,500-seat amphitheater developed by the Jaguars, and its finished product compared to the renderings presented in concept.
But renderings are just that, a concept, an ideal, the best-case scenario, Kasper Architects CEO Erik Kasper said. Jacksonville-based Kasper Architects is not involved with the stadium design.
...
A rendering sells an idea, Kasper said.
When it comes to the Stadium of the Future, city chief negotiator Mike Weinstein told the Business Journal one of the agreements is the project program statement, which is 45-50 pages of what the city is buying to ensure it pays for what it's getting.
"This will be very much like the drawings originally, but more importantly, the guts of it will be exactly what's in that agreement," Weinstein said. "If anything has changed, we have to change it jointly."
Quote from: Charles Hunter on June 13, 2024, 07:13:26 PM
The Business Journal is lowering expectations about the Stadium of the Future. The headline is
EverBank Stadium renderings are an ideal; reality could be different
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2024/06/13/renderings-vs-reality.html
Some key points from the article
Quote
As City Council will examine the $1.4 billion deal for the Jacksonville Jaguars EverBank Stadium renovation, members of the public have expressed concern over whether the final stadium will resemble the futuristic, multidimensional stadium depicted in the renderings.
This concern comes after disappointment with Daily's Place, the 5,500-seat amphitheater developed by the Jaguars, and its finished product compared to the renderings presented in concept.
But renderings are just that, a concept, an ideal, the best-case scenario, Kasper Architects CEO Erik Kasper said. Jacksonville-based Kasper Architects is not involved with the stadium design.
...
A rendering sells an idea, Kasper said.
When it comes to the Stadium of the Future, city chief negotiator Mike Weinstein told the Business Journal one of the agreements is the project program statement, which is 45-50 pages of what the city is buying to ensure it pays for what it's getting.
"This will be very much like the drawings originally, but more importantly, the guts of it will be exactly what's in that agreement," Weinstein said. "If anything has changed, we have to change it jointly."
Seems like kind of a goofy, bad faith article. The Jags heard the Daily's Place complaints loud and clear. In the City Council meeting where the deal was formally introduced, Mark Lamping was clear that what was in the final renderings (slightly different than the former 2023 renderings errantly, or disingenuously used, in the above article) were a direct reflection of what would actually be built. Kasper has nothing to do with the project, and as Weinstein clearly states, any deviations from the proposed design will have to be signed off on by the city. Seems like someone just trying to stir up shit against the stadium deal.
Also, I remain absolutely baffled that Jacksonville may be the first major city to negotiate a CBA out of their stadium package. It will be an absolute travesty if we manage to approve the stadium without simultaneously approving the main aspect of the deal that the public most strongly supports. Guarantee that if this thing gets spun off separately, it's going to get mangled beyond recognition into some horrific giveaway to a million special interests. If Salem is that concerned about it, he should urge the Council to delay a vote on the total package until after their summer recess, rather than breaking the legislation into pieces voted on seperately. He might not get the accolades of having the deal pass under his watch as President, but at least it guarantees that the best, most equitable part of the agreement doesn't get politicked to shit after we've already handed over our $650 million.
It really is unfortunate that we tend to sabatoge ourselves whenever a potential win presents itself. On the other hand, its crickets on JTA burning up +$400 million in local money on a gimmick.
You have to understand that the CBA has fatal flaws
* it has "community" in the name, you know, kinda like the USSR or Cuba
* it is located in one of "those sections" of town
* it is supported by the Mayor with a "D" after her name (probably the worst sin of the proposal)
Quote from: Charles Hunter on June 13, 2024, 10:07:29 PM
You have to understand that the CBA has fatal flaws
* it has "community" in the name, you know, kinda like the USSR or Cuba
* it is located in one of "those sections" of town
* it is supported by the Mayor with a "D" after her name (probably the worst sin of the proposal)
Don't forget:
There seems to be genuine, legitimate OUTRAGE that the CBA includes $1 million for parks in each of the 14 districts.
Certainly a non-starter.
Irresponsible to the max.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on June 13, 2024, 07:13:26 PM
The Business Journal is lowering expectations about the Stadium of the Future. The headline is
EverBank Stadium renderings are an ideal; reality could be different
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2024/06/13/renderings-vs-reality.html
Some key points from the article
Quote
As City Council will examine the $1.4 billion deal for the Jacksonville Jaguars EverBank Stadium renovation, members of the public have expressed concern over whether the final stadium will resemble the futuristic, multidimensional stadium depicted in the renderings.
This concern comes after disappointment with Daily's Place, the 5,500-seat amphitheater developed by the Jaguars, and its finished product compared to the renderings presented in concept.
But renderings are just that, a concept, an ideal, the best-case scenario, Kasper Architects CEO Erik Kasper said. Jacksonville-based Kasper Architects is not involved with the stadium design.
...
A rendering sells an idea, Kasper said.
When it comes to the Stadium of the Future, city chief negotiator Mike Weinstein told the Business Journal one of the agreements is the project program statement, which is 45-50 pages of what the city is buying to ensure it pays for what it's getting.
"This will be very much like the drawings originally, but more importantly, the guts of it will be exactly what's in that agreement," Weinstein said. "If anything has changed, we have to change it jointly."
The article is junk. They interview an architect that has nothing to do with the stadium project. And Dailys Place is not an NFL stadium. The team president has already said there's a contractual obligation to follow the renderings. And the NFL owners have to approve it this fall. They're not going to sign off on something that could change.
According to Jake Stofan from Action News (https://x.com/jakestofan/status/1802809969231777967?s=46&t=vkOnzVgzGQzmKS--73ASSg), a weird compromise is emerging over the Community Benefits Agreement:
QuoteIncoming Council President Randy White says he'll offer an amendment to keep $56 million in the stadium deal community benefits agreement in tact and take up the remaining $94 million city share for homelessness, affordable housing and workforce development during budget season.
White indicated he's hopeful the Jaguars will kick in $25 million for the parks piece.
White says the remainder of the CBA funds will be handled by a special committee he plans to establish after taking over as Council President on July 1st.
The compromise plan will be introduced Thursday according to Council President Ron Salem.
According to the mayor's Chief of Staff, the deal was struck in order to avoid council members from having to abstain from voting on the overall deal, due to potential conflicts of interest that could arise with the parts of the CBA that will be pulled out.
The parks projects covered by the $56 million that will remain in the overall stadium deal include the renovation of the Covered Flex Field, completing improvements to the Shipyards West Park and the redevelopment of River Front and Metro Parks.
City Council agreed (https://x.com/jakestofan/status/1803789888803987594?s=46&t=vkOnzVgzGQzmKS--73ASSg) to this deal today. 10 Yeas, 2 Nays, 7 Abstentions/Absences.
Feels very dangerous.
Pass the shiny new parks piece at a $56 million/$25 million split with the Jags, as White suggests, and then trust that Council is going to come back and pass a less glamorous $94 million/$25 million split with the Jags on affordable housing, homelessness, and boosting up the East Side at a later date with many other economic priorities.
Even with the Jags committing $100 million in the CBA to the Eastside, the dollars aren't front loaded, and the impact of $3.3 million over 30 years is going to be massively diminished if the city isn't willing to make that initial upfront investment to kickstart the Eastside.
Council and Salem need to have a backbone (or simply listen to the public, who support the CBA as is) and vote this thing up or down with the stadium, even if it takes a little extra time.
I just left city hall. If the public comments are worth anything, there was massive unified public support for the CBA.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2024, 07:57:01 PM
I just left city hall. If the public comments are worth anything, there was massive unified public support for the CBA.
Comments like this give me hope in this city.
Council may be on their own planet at times. However, even the free Palestine crowd that comes to council stood in solidarity. A local construction worker Union also came out in a large number to support the CBA and suggest that the bill incorporate language to use local labor. I do get the need for checks and balances but it's still hard to figure out why some members desire not to invest in our community, residents and quality of life. Nevertheless, it was good listening to public comment tonight. Not all is lost in this town. We just have to get council on board or chop the heads off of those that won't do right by their constituents.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2024, 11:12:40 PM
but it's still hard to figure out why some members desire not to invest in our community, residents and quality of life.
Yes you can.
As it sits now, what is best guess vote count to pass as is v. to remove some, if not all, of the CBA from the stadium deal?
^It looks like Council President-Elect Randy White is going to introduce an amendment on Thursday, reducing the CBA to just 56 million for riverfront parks, unclear what the Jags obligations will be. I anticipate that amendment to pass 18-1. (Peluso voting against it).
Not even the Carluccis will oppose?
So, I think that means it will be taken up as separate legislation. It's not that people like the Carluccis will not vote for it, just that it's split out from the rest.
I think the chance the rest of the Jags agreement with the $56M passes unanimously.
News reports say that one of the reasons for splitting the CBA from the stadium package is there are multiple Council members who (may) have conflicts of interest. Has there been a listing of the potential conflicts and who has them?
I think the CBA ultimately passes. Too much momentum and support for council to screw it up.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on June 18, 2024, 05:01:29 PM
News reports say that one of the reasons for splitting the CBA from the stadium package is there are multiple Council members who (may) have conflicts of interest. Has there been a listing of the potential conflicts and who has them?
Hypothetically, Pittman and Carrico, as they work for orgs which may or may not eventually apply/be awarded funds from this source.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 18, 2024, 05:09:33 PM
I think the CBA ultimately passes. Too much momentum and support for council to screw it up.
I agree the bulk of it will pass, but parts could be thinned a bit, get strings attached, etc.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on June 18, 2024, 04:43:37 PM
Not even the Carluccis will oppose?
Matt Carlucci has spoken favorably about White's proposed amendment, though he might still vote for the CBA without the amendment. https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/jun/17/support-for-community-benefits-agreement-dominates-public-hearing-on-jaguars-stadium-deal/ Joe Carlucci was even more hesitant to pass the CBA, "as is," without amendments at last week's committee of whole council meeting.
It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.
For clarification, nothing is being cancelled. The CBA, except the downtown parks money, would just being split into a separate bill. The reason is this conflict issue. It's fairly common to spin out portions of bills so council members with conflicts can still vote on the bigger package where they have no conflict. The nature of this conflict issue I'm sure will be debated, but in the interest of not slowing down the stadium piece, we've agreed to support White's amendment.
So bill 904 will be stadium in toto, $56 million from the city for parks, and $25 million from the Jags for park maintenance over 30 years. The rest of the city and Jags CBA money will be in a separate bill being filed ASAP and debated after Council gets back from break in late July. We are optimistic but it's definitely good for the citizens who want to see these projects to speak up.
Tacachale, does the separation of the CBA impact the timing of the Jags to take the stadium renovation deal to the NFL? Will the Jags have to wait until the second part of the CBA is either voted up or down? I am assuming that is probably no and they will go the NFL with what is passed (hopefully) next week.
Question for you Bill:
What happened to the $100 million that was set aside a couple of years back by Lenny Curry for parks & pools?
Had it been spent on other things by the time he left office, or is it still hanging around in a park fund somewhere?
Quote from: Joey Mackey on June 18, 2024, 05:56:11 PM
Tacachale, does the separation of the CBA impact the timing of the Jags to take the stadium renovation deal to the NFL? Will the Jags have to wait until the second part of the CBA is either voted up or down? I am assuming that is probably no and they will go the NFL with what is passed (hopefully) next week.
It won't affect that, as the stadium funding and lease agreement will be covered in bill 904 which is scheduled to be voted on Tuesday.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on June 18, 2024, 06:14:33 PM
Question for you Bill:
What happened to the $100 million that was set aside a couple of years back by Lenny Curry for parks & pools?
Had it been spent on other things by the time he left office, or is it still hanging around in a park fund somewhere?
Don't quote me on this, but I believe all of that was spent or allocated by FY2022-23. So a lot of it is going to the work and design you see at Riverfront Plaza, Shipyards, etc. plus stuff that's now done. This proposed $56 is what it'll take to finish those downtown parks as of now, while the Jags money goes to annual maintenance.
Bill, thanks for the clarification.
Quote from: Tacachale on June 18, 2024, 06:27:00 PMDon't quote me on this, but I believe all of that was spent or allocated by FY2022-23. So a lot of it is going to the work and design you see at Riverfront Plaza, Shipyards, etc. plus stuff that's now done. This proposed $56 is what it'll take to finish those downtown parks as of now, while the Jags money goes to annual maintenance.
Thanks Bill!
Appreciate the context!
Would love to see this all voted on together, but the park's piece is super encouraging when you think about it logically. In exchange for the city committing $56 million to finish riverfront parks
that we were already going to finish regardless, the Jags are agreeing to kick in essentially $1 million a year for maintenance of the parks ($25 million here, plus the $4 million they've already committed to Metro Park). Feels like essentially free money on top of the $100 million CBA originally discussed. Good job to the Mayor here. Now let's push the rest of the CBA through without politicking it all to hell.
According to Jake Stofan from Action News (https://x.com/jakestofan/status/1802809969231777967?s=46&t=vkOnzVgzGQzmKS--73ASSg), a weird compromise is emerging over the Community Benefits Agreement:
QuoteIncoming Council President Randy White says he'll offer an amendment to keep $56 million in the stadium deal community benefits agreement in tact and take up the remaining $94 million city share for homelessness, affordable housing and workforce development during budget season.
White indicated he's hopeful the Jaguars will kick in $25 million for the parks piece.
White says the remainder of the CBA funds will be handled by a special committee he plans to establish after taking over as Council President on July 1st.
The compromise plan will be introduced Thursday according to Council President Ron Salem.
According to the mayor's Chief of Staff, the deal was struck in order to avoid council members from having to abstain from voting on the overall deal, due to potential conflicts of interest that could arise with the parts of the CBA that will be pulled out.
The parks projects covered by the $56 million that will remain in the overall stadium deal include the renovation of the Covered Flex Field, completing improvements to the Shipyards West Park and the redevelopment of River Front and Metro Parks.
City Council agreed (https://x.com/jakestofan/status/1803789888803987594?s=46&t=vkOnzVgzGQzmKS--73ASSg) to this deal today. 10 Yeas, 2 Nays, 7 Abstentions/Absences.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on June 20, 2024, 12:12:21 PM
According to Jake Stofan from Action News (https://x.com/jakestofan/status/1802809969231777967?s=46&t=vkOnzVgzGQzmKS--73ASSg), a weird compromise is emerging over the Community Benefits Agreement:
QuoteIncoming Council President Randy White says he'll offer an amendment to keep $56 million in the stadium deal community benefits agreement in tact and take up the remaining $94 million city share for homelessness, affordable housing and workforce development during budget season.
White indicated he's hopeful the Jaguars will kick in $25 million for the parks piece.
White says the remainder of the CBA funds will be handled by a special committee he plans to establish after taking over as Council President on July 1st.
The compromise plan will be introduced Thursday according to Council President Ron Salem.
According to the mayor's Chief of Staff, the deal was struck in order to avoid council members from having to abstain from voting on the overall deal, due to potential conflicts of interest that could arise with the parts of the CBA that will be pulled out.
The parks projects covered by the $56 million that will remain in the overall stadium deal include the renovation of the Covered Flex Field, completing improvements to the Shipyards West Park and the redevelopment of River Front and Metro Parks.
City Council agreed (https://x.com/jakestofan/status/1803789888803987594?s=46&t=vkOnzVgzGQzmKS--73ASSg) to this deal today. 10 Yeas, 2 Nays, 7 Abstentions/Absences.
Only key difference is that it sounds the Jags won't be kicking in $25 million for the parks piece, which seemed a little off from the start.
They'll instead be kicking in roughly $18.7 million, which is more in line with what they originally floated ($1 for every $3 the city kicked in).
Tip of the ball cap to whoever the lobbyist, lawyer, or strategist is that formulated the approach to have the entire focus of the deal become about the CBA, not the actual stadium renovation itself.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on June 19, 2024, 11:44:10 AM
Would love to see this all voted on together, but the park's piece is super encouraging when you think about it logically. In exchange for the city committing $56 million to finish riverfront parks that we were already going to finish regardless
I wouldn't assume COJ would dedicate that amount to finishing the parks in the future. Much like the skyway, Laura Street Trio, riverwalk, etc - big, expensive projects often wither on the vine, from lack of urgency/competing priorities. Striking when the iron is hot is 110% key to finishing the parks as intended (more or less). Budget tightening is on the horizon...
*thank goodness Groundwork Jax is leading the Emerald Trail and creek restorations
Even with the non-park portions of the CBA culled from the stadium deal, Council Members Pittman, Gaffney, Carrico and Freeman still abstained from yesterday's vote, and may end up abstaining from the vote next week. Kind of defeats the purpose of separating it out so said Council members could vote on the overall package without conflict of interest.
Also, can Rory Diamond be bothered to go to more than one meeting every six months?
Absent again yesterday.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/jun/21/jaguars-stadium-of-the-future-agreement-clears-last-meeting-en-route-to-final-council-consideration/
And through it flies.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/politics/government/2024/06/25/jacksonville-city-council-passes-everbank-stadium-renovation-deal-with-jaguars-khan-deegan-cba/74195058007/
14-1, Mike Gay opposed, Carrico and Freeman abstaining, Diamond & Pittman not present. Next stop is the NFL owners' meeting in October.
Now to see if they'll actually work to pass the remaining $96 million of the Community Benefits Agreement.
This process felt...competent. Even the CBA debate, with the Jags remaining committed to their $100M and an equivalent 3-to-1 match above that, seemed even-tempered and worlds apart from the Lot J debacle.
It's nice.
I feel the complete opposite... There was almost zero accurate reporting on this deal & there has been really almost zero dialogue on the actual deal beyond the CBA. Still yet to see much of a counter response to the deal, other than a handful of reporters that are starting to ask questions. Not the biggest fan of Diamond, but everyone made him look like the bad guy for being the only vocal opponent to 'some' of the agreement.
Mike Gay's response is way too accurate. About 4 weeks to make sure the agreement is impartial? No way. Still very little clarity on several extremely important items. We went away from a $350M + 'other stuff' outlay for a normal 50/50 stadium split, to now more than $700M taxpayer commitment with a 30-year operational commitment. Be happy the Jags are staying (& I am) but we didn't get a deal by any real measure.
https://www.facebook.com/Elect.Mike.Gay/
I also would have to applaud 'some' special interest group... who figured out how to focus the entire deal on the CBA.
Fantastic result, legacy event for the City. Kudos to all those involved, especially the "faceless" auditors, lawyers, and staff members who did most of the heavy lifting. Extremely proud of my City today.
Very excited about this. The Stadium of course, but the extension of the NFL in Jacksonville for 30 more years is very sweet for me to see as the father of 2 young boys who get to grow up as fans.
Separate from this, I love putting $50+ million more into parks. I am still skeptical it will be enough, however. We cannot have value engineered parks on our riverfront. These need to be world class community amenities. Don't cut the coolest parts of parks designs. I can see Shipyards West park easily exceeding $50 million on it's own.
Look at the St. Pete Pier. It cost $92 million and opened in 2020. So dramatically reduced construction cost during it's construction. It is 26 acres vs 10 acres for Shipyards west, though. Hopefully it's enough.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on June 26, 2024, 07:38:31 AM
I feel the complete opposite... There was almost zero accurate reporting on this deal & there has been really almost zero dialogue on the actual deal beyond the CBA. Still yet to see much of a counter response to the deal, other than a handful of reporters that are starting to ask questions. Not the biggest fan of Diamond, but everyone made him look like the bad guy for being the only vocal opponent to 'some' of the agreement.
Mike Gay's response is way too accurate. About 4 weeks to make sure the agreement is impartial? No way. Still very little clarity on several extremely important items. We went away from a $350M + 'other stuff' outlay for a normal 50/50 stadium split, to now more than $700M taxpayer commitment with a 30-year operational commitment. Be happy the Jags are staying (& I am) but we didn't get a deal by any real measure.
https://www.facebook.com/Elect.Mike.Gay/
I also would have to applaud 'some' special interest group... who figured out how to focus the entire deal on the CBA.
A stadium deal was inevitable. And because of that, COJ had liitle negotiating leverage. Thus, from that perspective,the final result was indeed a good deal. It could have been worse and still pass city council. Thankfully, we have a better result.
QuoteLooks like a comparison has finally emerged.
https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/charlotte-leaders-consider-650m-toward-bank-america-stadium-renovations/3YV645GZXVHHLBRDLDHD5N7KBM/
Charlotte is now considering $650 million in renovations to Bank of America Stadium, to which the owners of the Carolina Panthers would add $150 million and then take on overruns and maintenance costs with a 20-year lease extension. It is unclear if there is a community benefits agreement. Their timeline is much faster for consideration, with a City Council vote expected on June 24th.
Charlotte passed their stadium deal (https://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/nfl/carolina-panthers/article289411400.html) the day before Jacksonville and I feel relieved that we got such a better deal in comparison. We didn't get everything that might have been liked but Shad Khan is at least putting real money in unlike David Tepper, with a longer lease term and better relocation protection. Things could have been much worse.
Hopefully this means Jax can now turn to other priorities (like again, passing the rest of the CBA). Housing, transit, healthcare, education, libraries, infrastructure like sewers, the jail, whatever is going to be done with the Prime Osborn.
When the final document drops, I encourage everyone here to go read it. You might think twice about this being any kind of deal given the terms there... this is probably one of the most lop-sided real estate transfers I have ever witnessed. Quite frankly, there isn't a comparison to this deal in the entire NFL. Yes, I read all 319 pages before it was amended & taken down to be edited.
Here are some more highlights to Gay's list:
- $25M credit becomes a city payable if the Jags decide not to exercise the option
- $25M credit can actually be used for more land than just the adjacent Shipyard parcel & that credit can at the full discretion of the Jags be used towards construction costs
- Jags essentially have a blanket easement for over 25+ acres of parking for 30 years
- City, on multiple expenses, increases their outlay with CPI, while the Jags don't in any part of the agreement
We have just "sold" more than 25 acres of land, on top of paying $700M+ to the Jags for the stadium/parks. And this is a deal?? Really hard to see it as such. We have a very loud echo chamber locally.
^Jax_Developer, what about Charlotte's deal (https://charlottenc.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6734026&GUID=807966C2-F000-4A0A-AC4F-5B6F34921C1D&Options=ID%7CText%7C&Search=Stadium)?
Congrats to Jacksonville... we all know stadium "deals" are in the eye of the beholder...but if you want an NFL franchise this is the price. Every NFL city goes through these painful negotiations eventually...
Quote from: marcuscnelson on June 26, 2024, 11:53:04 AM
QuoteLooks like a comparison has finally emerged.
https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/charlotte-leaders-consider-650m-toward-bank-america-stadium-renovations/3YV645GZXVHHLBRDLDHD5N7KBM/
Charlotte is now considering $650 million in renovations to Bank of America Stadium, to which the owners of the Carolina Panthers would add $150 million and then take on overruns and maintenance costs with a 20-year lease extension. It is unclear if there is a community benefits agreement. Their timeline is much faster for consideration, with a City Council vote expected on June 24th.
Charlotte passed their stadium deal (https://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/nfl/carolina-panthers/article289411400.html) the day before Jacksonville and I feel relieved that we got such a better deal in comparison. We didn't get everything that might have been liked but Shad Khan is at least putting real money in unlike David Tepper, with a longer lease term and better relocation protection. Things could have been much worse.
Hopefully this means Jax can now turn to other priorities (like again, passing the rest of the CBA). Housing, transit, healthcare, education, libraries, infrastructure like sewers, the jail, whatever is going to be done with the Prime Osborn.
Haven't really done much of a deep dive into either deal, but I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison.
-Charlotte is spending $650 million, with the Panthers spending $150 million on construction. The Panthers are on the hook for cost overruns and maintenance over the next 20 years, which is estimated at $421 million.
-Tepper also owns and brought MLS expansion team Charlotte FC to the city. They play 17 home games and average 36k per game, so they bring in additional "convention center funding", which Charlotte charges on every hotel room and bar tab/restaurant bill in the city. These are the funds Charlotte is using to pay for the improvements with.
-Tepper has spent $117 million in improvements to the stadium since 2018 and $381 million on MLS expansion for Charlotte FC, plus a health performance park, Charlotte FC's HQ and practice facility.
-A component of their construction project is creating a "park-like atmosphere outside the stadium with big LED screens that can be used for watch parties.
(https://images.mlssoccer.com/image/private/t_photogallery_3x/mls-clt/ntui4xwcgrbsorgadvhv.jpg)
This is a great deal for the city and I'm proud to have gotten to work on the process that got us here. It's one of the best deals ever struck with a major league team for a city of our size, and the community benefits agreement is already the biggest ever agreed to by an NFL team. It's fantastic that we've gotten the Downtown parks funding now -- now we just need to get the rest of the CBA done and get the NFL to approve in the fall.
Quote from: CityLife on June 26, 2024, 03:08:33 PM
Quote from: marcuscnelson on June 26, 2024, 11:53:04 AM
QuoteLooks like a comparison has finally emerged.
https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/charlotte-leaders-consider-650m-toward-bank-america-stadium-renovations/3YV645GZXVHHLBRDLDHD5N7KBM/
Charlotte is now considering $650 million in renovations to Bank of America Stadium, to which the owners of the Carolina Panthers would add $150 million and then take on overruns and maintenance costs with a 20-year lease extension. It is unclear if there is a community benefits agreement. Their timeline is much faster for consideration, with a City Council vote expected on June 24th.
Charlotte passed their stadium deal (https://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/nfl/carolina-panthers/article289411400.html) the day before Jacksonville and I feel relieved that we got such a better deal in comparison. We didn't get everything that might have been liked but Shad Khan is at least putting real money in unlike David Tepper, with a longer lease term and better relocation protection. Things could have been much worse.
Hopefully this means Jax can now turn to other priorities (like again, passing the rest of the CBA). Housing, transit, healthcare, education, libraries, infrastructure like sewers, the jail, whatever is going to be done with the Prime Osborn.
Haven't really done much of a deep dive into either deal, but I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison.
-Charlotte is spending $650 million, with the Panthers spending $150 million on construction. The Panthers are on the hook for cost overruns and maintenance over the next 20 years, which is estimated at $421 million.
-Tepper also owns and brought MLS expansion team Charlotte FC to the city. They play 17 home games and average 36k per game, so they bring in additional "convention center funding", which Charlotte charges on every hotel room and bar tab/restaurant bill in the city. These are the funds Charlotte is using to pay for the improvements with.
-Tepper has spent $117 million in improvements to the stadium since 2018 and $381 million on MLS expansion for Charlotte FC, plus a health performance park, Charlotte FC's HQ and practice facility.
-A component of their construction project is creating a "park-like atmosphere outside the stadium with big LED screens that can be used for watch parties.
(https://images.mlssoccer.com/image/private/t_photogallery_3x/mls-clt/ntui4xwcgrbsorgadvhv.jpg)
Yeah Marcus, as Citylife details, the Charlotte stadium services their FC team also. Moreover, the Charlotte deal is a near 50/50 split over the 20 year period. $688M from TSE from 2018-2045 vs. $650M from Charlotte from 2025-2029. When you factor when funds were spent, the city of Charlotte is still paying near a 50/50 split for a multi-purpose arena. TSE owns their stadium.
Charlotte, to my knowledge, also has no major obligation for major expenses as well. Meaning, the city doesn't pay more than few million a year for their obligations to keep things going. The Jags, like several other smaller-market stadiums, outlay a significant amount annually for their operations. In fact, their council members have bragged about that component of the deal.
The headlines looks way more "crazy" than the actual deal.. contrast that with Jacksonville's reporting... in which the majority of the population sill thinks this is a 50/50 or 55/45 deal still. It's not.
(Also Khan didn't walk into a dumpster fire a few years ago, he's had the team for a bit).
Charlotte's deal is obviously lopsided and it's for a stadium the taxpayers don't own. The rest of the team's money is coming over 20 years so the number isn't as big as it sounds in 2024 dollars. Just kind of the nature of the game at this point. Jax obviously got the better deal, and in a smaller market.
My only real issue with the bill now are the additional terms. If the deal terms started & ended (with a few tweaks) to the general outline provided a few weeks back, I would completely agree with you Tacachale.
I have serious concern with the additional terms that were put in there. I primarily work with land out of everything else & the terms surrounding the parking quotas, the Jags "credit" & who gets what revenue have some serious cause for concern. Ultimately, it's on the Jags to make right by this agreement above all else, because most of the agreement gives them the right to act.
I appreciate your work like I have said before. I wish the citizens, council, whatever, had the ability to meaningfully request adjustments to the agreement. We should be able to ask for more than the Mayor, respectfully. The focus on the CBA was very disheartening to me, after reading through the agreement's entirety. I believe some aspects have loopholes.
Quote from: Tacachale on June 27, 2024, 09:40:33 AM
Charlotte's deal is obviously lopsided and it's for a stadium the taxpayers don't own. The rest of the team's money is coming over 20 years so the number isn't as big as it sounds in 2024 dollars. Just kind of the nature of the game at this point. Jax obviously got the better deal, and in a smaller market.
Plus, we get a roof.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on June 27, 2024, 11:23:31 AM
I appreciate your work like I have said before. I wish the citizens, council, whatever, had the ability to meaningfully request adjustments to the agreement. We should be able to ask for more than the Mayor, respectfully. The focus on the CBA was very disheartening to me, after reading through the agreement's entirety. I believe some aspects have loopholes.
City Council had the opportunity to do that as they did with Lot J, they decided not to aside from the CBA split. Not like the Mayor can unilaterally pass this deal herself, especially with the poor starting leverage the city already had because I doubt anyone was willing to walk away. I'm sure this deal isn't perfect, but it's better than where we started and I'm happy it's done and it's not completely horrific so we can move on. Absolutely need to pass the rest of the CBA though.
https://www.clevelandbrowns.com/news/a-letter-to-cleveland-browns-fans-across-northeast-ohio-and-beyond
Another proposed deal that puts ours into perspective. 50-50 true split on cost for a $2.4B new stadium. Private investment to be or exceed $1B from the team for the surrounding entertainment district.
Cleveland is a fairly comparable NFL market to ours. Thankfully, their team isn't looking for 50 acres of parking for free & they aren't forcing the city/state to invest beyond the price of the stadium. Better yet, they aren't giving their owner $25M for free.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on August 08, 2024, 07:35:22 AM
https://www.clevelandbrowns.com/news/a-letter-to-cleveland-browns-fans-across-northeast-ohio-and-beyond
Another proposed deal that puts ours into perspective. 50-50 true split on cost for a $2.4B new stadium. Private investment to be or exceed $1B from the team for the surrounding entertainment district.
Cleveland is a fairly comparable NFL market to ours. Thankfully, their team isn't looking for 50 acres of parking for free & they aren't forcing the city/state to invest beyond the price of the stadium. Better yet, they aren't giving their owner $25M for free.
Lol, the plan where they're leaving Cleveland? Yeah, great deal.
Lol, good copout. It's not like we have a consolidate government or anything like that. Oh, and I'm sure moving outside the city limits has never happened before. LMFAO.
The City of Cleveland is financing a stadium outside of its limits?
The county & state are the targets for the new location. No ink is down yet. To Tacachale's dismay, the City of Cleveland actually offered to stay at their lakefront location for $461M of public incentives. Less than 50% of anticipated costs.
https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/city-of-cleveland-pitches-461-million-deal-to-keep-browns-stadium-on-lakefront
The Browns leaving their lakefront stadium and building a domed stadium in a suburb is such a Browns move lol.
Its hard for me to see in scenario of the Jags building a stadium in St. Johns, Nassau, Clay or Baker (or literally any other area of town outside of the Sports & Entertainment District) as a positive for Jacksonville.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 08, 2024, 10:20:24 AM
Its hard for me to see in scenario of the Jags building a stadium in St. Johns, Nassau, Clay or Baker (or literally any other area of town outside of the Sports & Entertainment District) as a positive for Jacksonville.
I mean... that's a pretty loaded statement. Are you also okay with 50 acres of parking for 30 years in our Sports & Entertainment District? I for one am against Stroads & massive parking lots downtown... which completely engulf our current stadium. Are these investments really going to pan out?
Let's not kid ourselves, if the COJ didn't spend close to 50% of its CIP budget downtown, where would things be at? Let's not act like district 7 is the only district still recovering from consolidation. Why we would spend a billion+ downtown, to then give 50 acres of parking to the Jags is absolutely astonishing.
Time will expose the truth. It's amazing how fast the rhetoric has changed between administrations and how little people care. This money is also for Duval County, but it certainly doesn't seem that way.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on August 08, 2024, 11:06:22 AM
Let's not kid ourselves, if the COJ didn't spend close to 50% of its CIP budget downtown, where would things be at?
So you're saying we shouldn't spend hundreds of millions to move the jail out of downtown? I thought that was the main thing killing the vibrancy. Now it's parking lots?
Quote from: Captain Zissou on August 08, 2024, 11:52:49 AM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on August 08, 2024, 11:06:22 AM
Let's not kid ourselves, if the COJ didn't spend close to 50% of its CIP budget downtown, where would things be at?
So you're saying we shouldn't spend hundreds of millions to move the jail out of downtown? I thought that was the main thing killing the vibrancy. Now it's parking lots?
Good try! Lol. Keep reaching.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on August 08, 2024, 11:06:22 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 08, 2024, 10:20:24 AM
Its hard for me to see in scenario of the Jags building a stadium in St. Johns, Nassau, Clay or Baker (or literally any other area of town outside of the Sports & Entertainment District) as a positive for Jacksonville.
I mean... that's a pretty loaded statement. Are you also okay with 50 acres of parking for 30 years in our Sports & Entertainment District? I for one am against Stroads & massive parking lots downtown... which completely engulf our current stadium. Are these investments really going to pan out?
Let's not kid ourselves, if the COJ didn't spend close to 50% of its CIP budget downtown, where would things be at? Let's not act like district 7 is the only district still recovering from consolidation. Why we would spend a billion+ downtown, to then give 50 acres of parking to the Jags is absolutely astonishing.
Time will expose the truth. It's amazing how fast the rhetoric has changed between administrations and how little people care. This money is also for Duval County, but it certainly doesn't seem that way.
I'm 100% of the team not leaving city limits or moving outside of downtown. I'm also 100% against taking out a large swath of another urban core neighborhood for a new stadium. I can't speak for everyone, but location is important to me.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 08, 2024, 12:22:08 PM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on August 08, 2024, 11:06:22 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 08, 2024, 10:20:24 AM
Its hard for me to see in scenario of the Jags building a stadium in St. Johns, Nassau, Clay or Baker (or literally any other area of town outside of the Sports & Entertainment District) as a positive for Jacksonville.
I mean... that's a pretty loaded statement. Are you also okay with 50 acres of parking for 30 years in our Sports & Entertainment District? I for one am against Stroads & massive parking lots downtown... which completely engulf our current stadium. Are these investments really going to pan out?
Let's not kid ourselves, if the COJ didn't spend close to 50% of its CIP budget downtown, where would things be at? Let's not act like district 7 is the only district still recovering from consolidation. Why we would spend a billion+ downtown, to then give 50 acres of parking to the Jags is absolutely astonishing.
Time will expose the truth. It's amazing how fast the rhetoric has changed between administrations and how little people care. This money is also for Duval County, but it certainly doesn't seem that way.
I'm 100% of the team not leaving city limits or moving outside of downtown. I'm also 100% against taking out a large swath of another urban core neighborhood for a new stadium. I can't speak for everyone, but location is important to me.
I'm 100% against the city using 50 acres of DT for parking. The city had no obligation to create a parking agreement. The lack of logic here is just mind-blowing.
Then we should negotiate how we want to address parking within the scope of the project. I don't see how 50 acres of the site can be dedicated to only parking, assuming the plan is to also develop a mixed-use district around the stadium. At some point, some vertical parking element would need to be added to the mix.
It should have never been included in the first place. Same with the $25M credit that can be applied to multiple parcel, with a 2025 appraisal that can be executed within 7 years.
Every other deal, literally, every other deal, you guys can try to find will not include such sweeping language. It really feels like a circus locally - entrusting locals to get it right - not understanding how these creative deals absolutely kill future development. Instead, we opt for a route which will be forced to include public negotiations & incentives.
Zero issues with them staying downtown.
Just saying... Buffalo? The "other" CBA deal right? Model for our deal? Suburb. There is no logic from 'the other side' here. I don't mean to be rude, it's just the facts.
The 3 big lots at the stadium currently half the 50 acre total
Lot J - 10 acres
Lot Z - 7 acres not including adjacent garage
Lots C & D - 8 acres
This isn't even mentioning the fairgrounds, grass lots, Tailgaters parking, etc.
Plus Shad says they're building a neighborhood
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/aug/07/shad-khan-were-building-a-neighborhood-in-jacksonville/
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 08, 2024, 01:31:06 PM
The 3 big lots at the stadium currently half the 50 acre total
Lot J - 10 acres
Lot Z - 7 acres not including adjacent garage
Lots C & D - 8 acres
This isn't even mentioning the fairgrounds, grass lots, Tailgaters parking, etc.
Plus Shad says they're building a neighborhood
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/aug/07/shad-khan-were-building-a-neighborhood-in-jacksonville/
All on your dime. ;)
Had the city not agreed to the parking and $25M credit, what impact (if any) would it have had on the stadium split? Either these pot-sweeteners were needed to seal the deal, or else the Jags would have extracted concessions of similar value elsewhere (maybe a less favorable split on the stadium) -- or, maybe our negotiators were hoodwinked, though our consultants were the same ones Buffalo used.
Only the people directly involved really know how hard-won those concessions are.
It does feel wonky, however, that we're committing to parking in the same footprint as a planned future development. This feels like an agreement that is destined for renegotiation. No doubt there's hundreds of millions in additional taxpayer cost yet to be requested for the entertainment district, and no doubt Shad does not really want 50 acres of surface lots surrounding his our new stadium.
Still, staying downtown was the only option because renovation was the only option. No other counties are willing to subsidize the stadium. Building a new stadium in the burbs of Duval (where??) may have produced a more favorable split -- maybe -- but would have cost more overall.
Splitting the entertainment district out feels like a risk hedge. Risk hedges cost money. It likely would have been a better deal all in for the city to negotiate in one big package. But the Jags are now secured for 30 years and if the city cannot afford what Shad wants for the district, they can decline without the threat of losing the Jags. As we see rumblings of budget deficits on the horizon, this could be the outcome we get. No doubt Council will be sympathetic, but if we can't afford it, we can't afford it. Purely speculating, I think the aforementioned concessions likely reflect the intrinsic option value of that risk hedge that will soothe Shad's aching wallet if he is rebuffed on his request for incentives on the entertainment district.
I for one love having my taxes subsidize the profiteering efforts of billionaires, all so I can pay $20 to park, $12 for a crappy slice of pizza, and $15 for a Bud Light on top of the astronomical prices of tickets even in the nosebleeds.
I don't care that downtown is dead most of the time, and that our infrastructure is crumbling around the city, or that we have needlessly complicated one-way streets that stifle the development of long vacant properties throughout downtown, alls I care about is being taxed to pay for football and having to shell out $100+ of personal funds on football to watch the Jags get destroyed on the field in person
/s
Quote from: Jax_Developer on August 08, 2024, 01:23:07 PM
It should have never been included in the first place. Same with the $25M credit that can be applied to multiple parcel, with a 2025 appraisal that can be executed within 7 years.
Every other deal, literally, every other deal, you guys can try to find will not include such sweeping language. It really feels like a circus locally - entrusting locals to get it right - not understanding how these creative deals absolutely kill future development. Instead, we opt for a route which will be forced to include public negotiations & incentives.
Zero issues with them staying downtown.
Just saying... Buffalo? The "other" CBA deal right? Model for our deal? Suburb. There is no logic from 'the other side' here. I don't mean to be rude, it's just the facts.
I don't think you can put everyone in the same boat. For example, I don't care about what Buffalo is doing. I also don't care about stadium projects in the suburbs. I am personally biased to the use of a CBA to finally address a century of disinvestment in a local historic African American community. I'm all ears for good examples that other communities and teams have done in this arena with their stadium deals. Otherwise, I fall in the general camp of stadium deals being a loser for the public, including the examples you've mentioned. However, I'll admit, what I value isn't going to be the same as the average person on either side of this discussion.
I'm not for the Jags moving locations. The unfortunate reality is that we have shot ourselves in the leg while attempting to run a sprint. The process for renegotiations is laborious & Khan will utilize incentives that are legally available to him at this very moment. I don't see how the city can deny his plans. They have hindered any other developer from ever taking on projects on these parcels because the cost of construction for parking spaces (per SF) will skyrocket development costs.
I don't care what Buffalo, Cleveland or Charlotte are doing either, but I certainly will compare those deals to ours to see what "deal" we got. To argue that Cleveland's deal is "bad" because they are moving out of DT is dishonest to the conversation here. I think this deal could have been left at the 55/45 split (lol) & the Jags would have still negotiated one of the best stadium deals of the modern era. Now, there will be this cry for more CBA funds, while nobody important acknowledges this crazy parking arrangement & how it essentially has killed any future private development (besides Iguana Investments).
No argument that we handicapped ourselves -- that was a given the second we declared that losing the Jags was not an option. It's true that any stadium-adjacent development will need to be done with Iguana...but I think there's a chance we see it stagnate for some time if we don't have the money.
The public really didn't like the stadium deal (6%-47% approval, depending on the poll & specific question you pick). At all. They liked the CBA funds (81%). Setting aside the debate over whether the CBA is well-conceived, what's obvious is that the public wants the city spending money on priorities other than the stadium (58%). If the city kills or scales back additional CBA funds, funds an entertainment district, and then moans about deficits impacting homeless services, transit, trash, infrastructure, and actual downtown development, then they'll have acted against the public will at every step along the way. Even in Jacksonville, I imagine that would come at a steep political cost (ever the "optimist," I guess).
Even if it is a "bad" deal (it is not) it is more important to Jacksonville to have the Jaguars with a "bad" deal (including the accompanying Sports & Entertainment District, which includes a Four-Season Hotel, and rejuvenation of one of its most underserved but historic neighborhoods) than to lose all of that.
If people want to live in Birmingham, Louisville, or some other Southern City without a Big Four sports franchise, those options exist. Jacksonville, thankfully, will never be like that.
It's a bad deal in the eyes of anyone who doesn't care about the Jags, or views them as a nice perk but not a necessity.
To those who view having an NFL team as core to the City's identity, this a pretty good deal.
It's pretty hard to bridge a fundamental gap like that. Personally, I thought the CBA was a clever way of benefiting both sides (even if unequally). It's obviously up for debate.
Quote from: Joey Mackey on August 08, 2024, 05:32:14 PM
Even if it is a "bad" deal (it is not) it is more important to Jacksonville to have the Jaguars with a "bad" deal (including the accompanying Sports & Entertainment District, which includes a Four-Season Hotel, and rejuvenation of one of its most underserved but historic neighborhoods) than to lose all of that.
If people want to live in Birmingham, Louisville, or some other Southern City without a Big Four sports franchise, those options exist. Jacksonville, thankfully, will never be like that.
Look at my post history. Have never indicated I wanted the Jags to leave. I goto the games regularly. I'll say it for the hundredth time, the deal should have been left at the stadium deal split. The deal would have been "good" if we left it there.
The facts remain that our city chose to create a parking agreement across 50+ acres. Our city chose to outline terms that place the parking agreement in automatic default - as I write this. Our city continues to support completion grants downtown while we never took Khan's stadium proposal seriously (not my words). Nobody is analyzing the impacts from these mistakes because there is no real consequence right now. These mistakes will cost the city tens, probably, hundreds of millions of dollars over this agreement. It will be another administration's issue. A tale as old as time.
Meanwhile, we debate a CBA that is truly irrelevant when you compare the extremely obvious future outlay the city will have - to maintain the required parking agreement...
for less than 10 days a year. Incredible negotiations from Iguana. They somehow got 50+ acres of downtown land locked up... for basically nothing. ::)
Got it. You think its a bad deal. That's pretty clear. I for one, am not trying to change your mind.
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on August 08, 2024, 08:12:55 PM
It's a bad deal in the eyes of anyone who doesn't care about the Jags, or views them as a nice perk but not a necessity.
To those who view having an NFL team as core to the City's identity, this a pretty good deal.
It's pretty hard to bridge a fundamental gap like that. Personally, I thought the CBA was a clever way of benefiting both sides (even if unequally). It's obviously up for debate.
It's the biggest CBA in NFL history, and will get bigger once the remainder passes Council. And the bulk of the money the city's putting in are things we already were or should have been doing anyway. It's a great deal that only gets better in comparison to other major league stadium deals, though hopefully, it represents a trend of cities getting bigger and better CBAs that spread the benefits more widely in the community when they build stadiums.
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on August 08, 2024, 02:13:49 PM
Had the city not agreed to the parking and $25M credit, what impact (if any) would it have had on the stadium split? Either these pot-sweeteners were needed to seal the deal, or else the Jags would have extracted concessions of similar value elsewhere (maybe a less favorable split on the stadium) -- or, maybe our negotiators were hoodwinked, though our consultants were the same ones Buffalo used.
Only the people directly involved really know how hard-won those concessions are.
It does feel wonky, however, that we're committing to parking in the same footprint as a planned future development. This feels like an agreement that is destined for renegotiation. No doubt there's hundreds of millions in additional taxpayer cost yet to be requested for the entertainment district, and no doubt Shad does not really want 50 acres of surface lots surrounding his our new stadium.
Still, staying downtown was the only option because renovation was the only option. No other counties are willing to subsidize the stadium. Building a new stadium in the burbs of Duval (where??) may have produced a more favorable split -- maybe -- but would have cost more overall.
Splitting the entertainment district out feels like a risk hedge. Risk hedges cost money. It likely would have been a better deal all in for the city to negotiate in one big package. But the Jags are now secured for 30 years and if the city cannot afford what Shad wants for the district, they can decline without the threat of losing the Jags. As we see rumblings of budget deficits on the horizon, this could be the outcome we get. No doubt Council will be sympathetic, but if we can't afford it, we can't afford it. Purely speculating, I think the aforementioned concessions likely reflect the intrinsic option value of that risk hedge that will soothe Shad's aching wallet if he is rebuffed on his request for incentives on the entertainment district.
Couple things here -- both sides are committed to building out the entertainment district, but it wasn't feasible to get it together along with the stadium deal. That will change the parking lot situation, events, etc. even more dramatically than just the stadium and parks projects.
Also, we did explore a new stadium build (in the stadium district) but the numbers aren't there. Though it's certainly the case that the city (under this or any other administration) would never consider a football stadium deal outside of Downtown, as not only would that have all the costs of a new build, it wouldn't have the benefits of the current location. Nor do the surrounding communities have the resources to make a bid themselves as is.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 08, 2024, 12:45:53 PM
Then we should negotiate how we want to address parking within the scope of the project. I don't see how 50 acres of the site can be dedicated to only parking, assuming the plan is to also develop a mixed-use district around the stadium. At some point, some vertical parking element would need to be added to the mix.
Yeah, there's going to be considerable change in this area in the next several years, let alone the next 30. Structured parking, etc. is pretty much a guarantee.
Just would like to say that even if this discussion changes no minds, I find it very edifying and have learned a lot from it.
I'm very curious about why the entertainment district wasn't feasible at the same time. A timing issue? Funding? Signs point to tighter times ahead across the board.
To Jax_Developer, in no way do I think the CBA is "irrelevant." Certainly open to debate on the priorities contained within and even the TVM vs. Nominal dollars argument, but I think we previously agreed the RoR itself, even after TVM adjustments, was pretty decent. Questions of where those dollars are spent--well, everybody wants more, right?
I still think this parking agreement was a way of guaranteeing the city comes back for the entertainment district. If the handshake commitment is there anyway, it explains why the city isn't concerned with such a concession. It's hardly the first ROFR-ish situation we've willingly negotiated. Doesn't change the fact that finances will dictate what we can do in totality.
[/pure uneducated speculation...again]
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on August 08, 2024, 11:48:49 PM
Just would like to say that even if this discussion changes no minds, I find it very edifying and have learned a lot from it.
I'm very curious about why the entertainment district wasn't feasible at the same time. A timing issue? Funding? Signs point to tighter times ahead across the board.
To Jax_Developer, in no way do I think the CBA is "irrelevant." Certainly open to debate on the priorities contained within and even the TVM vs. Nominal dollars argument, but I think we previously agreed the RoR itself, even after TVM adjustments, was pretty decent. Questions of where those dollars are spent--well, everybody wants more, right?
I still think this parking agreement was a way of guaranteeing the city comes back for the entertainment district. If the handshake commitment is there anyway, it explains why the city isn't concerned with such a concession. It's hardly the first ROFR-ish situation we've willingly negotiated. Doesn't change the fact that finances will dictate what we can do in totality.
[/pure uneducated speculation...again]
Timing and resources mostly. It was an asshaul to get just this deal signed and sealed in time (and it still needs the NFL approval, and certain parts are still working their way through the Land Use and Zoning process, and part of the CBA still got pushed back, etc., etc.). Just a big, complicated deal.
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on August 08, 2024, 11:48:49 PM
Just would like to say that even if this discussion changes no minds, I find it very edifying and have learned a lot from it.
I'm very curious about why the entertainment district wasn't feasible at the same time. A timing issue? Funding? Signs point to tighter times ahead across the board.
To Jax_Developer, in no way do I think the CBA is "irrelevant." Certainly open to debate on the priorities contained within and even the TVM vs. Nominal dollars argument, but I think we previously agreed the RoR itself, even after TVM adjustments, was pretty decent. Questions of where those dollars are spent--well, everybody wants more, right?
I still think this parking agreement was a way of guaranteeing the city comes back for the entertainment district. If the handshake commitment is there anyway, it explains why the city isn't concerned with such a concession. It's hardly the first ROFR-ish situation we've willingly negotiated. Doesn't change the fact that finances will dictate what we can do in totality.
[/pure uneducated speculation...again]
Very much appreciate the genuine dialogue. I'm completely fine being the minority here & I respect that other people view it as a good deal but just believe not enough detail has come to light.
But, the CBA at it's core is a distraction. Is it a good ROI? Yes totally, when you only factor in the CBA only. Idk if anyone has listened to the finance committee, but here is their meeting on August 6th (or so I hope). (https://jaxcityc.granicus.com/player/clip/5882?view_id=1&redirect=true)
In this meeting, our council members, realized that they have zero jurisdiction over the CBA. Zero. Let's just say, you can listen to their reaction in the video. Now, they are trying to fix that for the 905 legislation. This is another example of the deal being forced in a timetable that was not appropriate. Every news outlet, council meeting etc. was all about this one item - that we now are admitting was passed in error. The mayor & the Jags will have exclusive dealing on that CBA money & let's just say... this is another example of us, the citizens, needing to trust the powers that be.
The whole parking thing is such a mess even if there is a goal "one-day" to build an entertainment district. It will cost $150M+ to construct 5000+ structured parking spaces... an amount that eclipses any CBA benefit. Also the $25M credit is not just $25M... it is quite literally a free option that can applied to any parking parcels with a 2025 appraisal - that can be executed in 7 years. I'm just saying... anyone in the business knows that's worth way more than $25M. If the land with billions of projects within a square mile appreciates just 5% per year, that credit is now worth $35M+. Let's not calculate opportunity cost.
Add up just the credit & throw in 2,000 spots for structured parking. We would have been better off just giving the money to the Eastside than forming these one-sided agreements. The CBA is really a feel good activity at this point.
I strongly encourage everyone who disagrees with me to listen to that finance committee video. It is about 15 minutes long.
Anything that is auto centric, such as a suburban stadium surrounded by thousands of parking spaces is a no no to me. It's anti urban and I also am not a fan of increased pollution or drunk driving. If we are going to invest in this sort of thing it should be close to an existing critical mass.
I have to say... I have certainly enjoyed this thread/ discussion/ conversation. Widely divergent viewpoints, well represented. Can the parking lots be used for other things? Warped Tour? Welcome to Rockville type stuff?
Maybe if JTA offered quality urban core mass transit the parking lot issue wouldn't be so critical.
The greater Downtown area keeps trying to compete with the suburbs by insisting on parking to match associated facilities. That is a losing proposition (see the exodus of offices from the core) that also diminishes what a Downtown should be. Not insisting on robust mass transit in the urban core is a missed opportunity of Downtown to distinguish itself from the suburbs.
If the stadium district wants to be considered part of Downtown (a doubtful status in my mind given its distance from the core), it should mimic the same demands a real downtown requires and build in a much more substantial and permanent mass transit component than the current token buses JTA runs on game days (and, even at that, not for any other stadium events, as a rule, other than maybe FL-GA).
Aside from green spaces, our failure to have circulating urban core mass transit is a major component to our failing Downtown.
LMFAOOOO. There it is folks. In black & white. Quite the circus and a massive waste of effort on the most meaningless portion of the bill. The Jags really worked the city in this agreement.
QuoteJacksonville attorney Paul Harden, a lobbyist for the Jaguars, said the team believed the 33-year period "may be a little long and dilute the impact" of the funding.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/sep/06/not-so-fast-committee-returns-to-work-on-community-benefits-agreement/
They are basically suggesting to the council special committee to not water the bill down. Glad the council is reconsidering.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 07, 2024, 08:01:04 PM
They are basically suggesting to the council special committee to not water the bill down. Glad the council is reconsidering.
Agreed. 15 years is still too long but a fair compromise to the 33 years originally approved by this committee. Hopefully this thing gets put to bed from the city's side at council on Tuesday and we can get to work.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 07, 2024, 08:01:04 PM
They are basically suggesting to the council special committee to not water the bill down. Glad the council is reconsidering.
Rules for me & not for thee. They quite literally are admitting their CBA contribution is "a little long" and their funds will "dilute the impact" of the CBA. Why did we focus so much time on this CBA? There is no legitimate argument, in my opinion, that any funds from the Jags beyond about Year 10 will have any impact for the current residents. Rather, investors in these areas will be the ones who really benefit. Sound familiar?
We can't borrow on any Jaguars funds nor decide how they are spent in the CBA & yet we have a soft commitment of $150M to funding to this bill that is "locked-in" for whatever timeframe is decided by council. Moreover, we as the citizens were sold on the idea that this CBA was somehow a net positive in the deal but the reality is that the Jaguars are not okay with 1:1 spending. They want a positive return, even with the "community" portion of the bill. That is absurd & the fact this has not been called out is another testament to the lack of effective reporting in this town. I could give a crap what political hat you wear.
The whole thing makes absolutely zero logical sense. The city should have requested a number in a much more realistic timeframe, even if it is smaller. It seems it's all about the big price tag, and I'm sure it makes the headlines seem better. We "beat" the Buffalo Bills' CBA, yet their CBA is 100% team funded through anticipated stadium spending. Does anyone really think the Jags won't be clearing $3M in alcohol profits per year in their subsidized stadium? Or from their future parking lots that will be subsidized by taxpayers?
The Eastside residents will not see these benefits & people like me will reap these benefits 10-20 years down the road. Really sad & depressing to see this type of agreement applauded here. I would like to think that people on the Jaxson are more informed on these deals, but there seems to be a pretty heavy resentment towards acknowledging the massive short comings of this deal.
- Less than 50:50 split for the Stadium
- Less than 50:50 split for the CBA
- 0:100 split for any other items in the Jags Agreement
- 50+ acres of newly restricted city owned property
QuoteRules for me & not for thee. They quite literally are admitting their CBA contribution is "a little long" and their funds will "dilute the impact" of the CBA. Why did we focus so much time on this CBA? There is no legitimate argument, in my opinion, that any funds from the Jags beyond about Year 10 will have any impact for the current residents. Rather, investors in these areas will be the ones who really benefit. Sound familiar?
Unless I'm missing something, the original proposed agreement had COJ funding $30 million within the first 3 years? The council committee diluted that timeline.
QuoteWhy did we focus so much time on this CBA?
Because the negative impact of displacement and gentrification is a serious community concern.
QuoteThe Eastside residents will not see these benefits & people like me will reap these benefits 10-20 years down the road.
It won't be a handout but I'm pretty confident that Eastside residents and business owners will be in position to benefit from the CBA before people like you will. I've personally sat in enough neighborhood meetings about their portion of the CBA to understand how it will most likely be structured and used there.
QuoteThe whole thing makes absolutely zero logical sense. The city should have requested a number in a much more realistic timeframe, even if it is smaller. It seems it's all about the big price tag, and I'm sure it makes the headlines seem better. We "beat" the Buffalo Bills' CBA, yet their CBA is 100% team funded through anticipated stadium spending. Does anyone really think the Jags won't be clearing $3M in alcohol profits per year in their subsidized stadium? Or from their future parking lots that will be subsidized by taxpayers?
From the Eastside community perspective, I could care less about beating Buffalo, how their deal is structured or what the Jags will make in alcohol profits. These points are for someone else to debate. I can only provide detail about ongoing Eastside initiatives, the community vision and how funding will be potentially used to boost that work.
I think the gap in perception is driven by different expectations. Personally, I figured taxpayers getting hosed was pretty much a given any time we sit down with an NFL franchise. My personal assessment isn't that this is a "good" deal -- but rather that it is, at the margins, favorable relative to my expectations going in.
My theory is that the major concerns with the deal you raised were probably going to be part of any deal -- "table stakes," so to speak. If that's true, any CBA money from the Jags (diluted or not) is a marginal benefit. As I mentioned before, if that assumption doesn't hold and the splits and parking issues were actually fungible up or down dependent on the amount of CBA funding...then it becomes impossible to assess the deal unless we get a look into the different options offered there, which of course we never will.
Speaking only for myself, I don't disregard the concerns you've raised. Aside from the parking, which I will be fascinated to see interact with the entertainment district, I'm simply not surprised by the responsibility splits and I feel the CBA is a clever perk to soften the blow--like 6 months free Disney+ when Verizon forces a plan switch and bumps your price $10/month. It still sucks, you're basically paying for the freebie, but...you're still better off accepting the freebie than not. Unless you just want to dump Verizon altogether.
P.S. -- Regardless of the stadium deal, the city should be funding Eastside community improvements and the downtown parks anyway. I'd be glad to see that money allocated even if the Jags didn't match at all.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on August 13, 2024, 12:15:12 AM
Maybe if JTA offered quality urban core mass transit the parking lot issue wouldn't be so critical.
The greater Downtown area keeps trying to compete with the suburbs by insisting on parking to match associated facilities. That is a losing proposition (see the exodus of offices from the core) that also diminishes what a Downtown should be. Not insisting on robust mass transit in the urban core is a missed opportunity of Downtown to distinguish itself from the suburbs.
If the stadium district wants to be considered part of Downtown (a doubtful status in my mind given its distance from the core), it should mimic the same demands a real downtown requires and build in a much more substantial and permanent mass transit component than the current token buses JTA runs on game days (and, even at that, not for any other stadium events, as a rule, other than maybe FL-GA).
Aside from green spaces, our failure to have circulating urban core mass transit is a major component to our failing Downtown.
Back to parking for a moment... I noted in the aerials of Hard Rock Stadium yesterday what appears to be much larger acreage of surface parking lots around the stadium compared to Everbank. Just wondering if this is actually the case?
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on September 09, 2024, 02:29:25 PM
I think the gap in perception is driven by different expectations. Personally, I figured taxpayers getting hosed was pretty much a given any time we sit down with an NFL franchise. My personal assessment isn't that this is a "good" deal -- but rather that it is, at the margins, favorable relative to my expectations going in.
My theory is that the major concerns with the deal you raised were probably going to be part of any deal -- "table stakes," so to speak. If that's true, any CBA money from the Jags (diluted or not) is a marginal benefit. As I mentioned before, if that assumption doesn't hold and the splits and parking issues were actually fungible up or down dependent on the amount of CBA funding...then it becomes impossible to assess the deal unless we get a look into the different options offered there, which of course we never will.
Speaking only for myself, I don't disregard the concerns you've raised. Aside from the parking, which I will be fascinated to see interact with the entertainment district, I'm simply not surprised by the responsibility splits and I feel the CBA is a clever perk to soften the blow--like 6 months free Disney+ when Verizon forces a plan switch and bumps your price $10/month. It still sucks, you're basically paying for the freebie, but...you're still better off accepting the freebie than not. Unless you just want to dump Verizon altogether.
P.S. -- Regardless of the stadium deal, the city should be funding Eastside community improvements and the downtown parks anyway. I'd be glad to see that money allocated even if the Jags didn't match at all.
I pretty much feel the same way.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on September 09, 2024, 01:02:14 PM
Really sad & depressing to see this type of agreement applauded here. I would like to think that people on the Jaxson are more informed on these deals, but there seems to be a pretty heavy resentment towards acknowledging the massive short comings of this deal.
Not to be overly blunt but... so what? No matter what, we were going to spend a lot of money to keep the NFL, they had all of the leverage going in, the CBA isn't perfect, we know all of these things. We knew that back in May,
you knew that back in May:
Quote from: Jax_Developer on May 16, 2024, 12:53:03 PM
I want the Jaguars to stay. I want a stadium deal. I want the Eastside to benefit. All that said, we have $70M of unmatched city dollars (on top of the other tens of millions of dollars) going towards just parks stuffed into the deal...
This deal represents a lot of what is wrong with local policymaking. Want a stadium deal only? Fine, don't include $300M+ of "other" spending on top of $70M. The fine prints read that the OUTEAST & Community funds will be paid equally over 30 years. I can 100% guarantee that the $70M unmatched city funds will not be over 30 years, rather in 5 or less. (Probably why the Jags are not matching any funds.)
Where's the real analysis in this deal? Zero analysis around NPV vs. Future Value of Money. All the dollars are the same in this example. How much does the city actually benefit from the extra spending?
The stadium deal itself isn't what will displace the Eastside, it's all the Four Seaons, Parks, Lot J... etc. all coming together that will do it. Why shovel that onto the general taxpayer? Private ventures on public land should be able to cover that concern.
The real win of this deal (from a basic deal summary) are the reworked terms of how the Jags & the COJ will operate the stadium. I like what Donna is doing, I just don't understand the reasoning at play here.
We wanted to stay in pro sports, they wanted to get paid handsomely for it, it's not that complicated. Whatever acknowledgement you're looking for isn't going to fix that. I think it's fair to say that there's clearly been an effort to have
some sort of benefit beyond purely the stadium by itself, which is at least better than Charlotte got. The city could have requested lots of things, but if we weren't willing to walk away (which everyone knows we weren't) then the NFL had no real obligation to accept. At this point the deal is done and we'll have to deal with whatever consequences there are when they arrive.
@Lake, it sounds like that you are okay to spend $3 of COJ money to get $1 for the Eastside. That is essentially what is happening in this deal. Why not just spend $3 to get $3 for the Eastside? Also stating "Because the negative impact of displacement and gentrification is a serious community concern" isn't really addressing the issue here at all. This Stadium Deal will only further gentrification & the market since the deal was announced has proved that. Again, please explain how funding 10+ years from now that we can't leverage will do anything to help what you stated? Hell, 5 years... You could care less about Buffalo, but the point remains that the city/state didn't need to come out of pocket to get that commitment like the Jags have. Again, we have less than 50:50 split & also supposedly these CBA's are for the betterment of disenfranchised communities. The Jags were also able to turn that into a positive monetary return for their own dollar... that we have already subsidized.
@Marcus. If you have been following the legislation & watched any of the meetings, you would have also realized that this deal was not done back in May & has since been tweaked multiple times in minor ways. You, Lake, & others have defended this deal, to be blunt, because of the CBA. The CBA is quite literally the distraction for the bull. How hard have you really looked into this deal? It is comical to see the Jags own lawyer completely dismantle their own logic for their own CBA funding. It's a money grab & these most recent comments prove that. This also demonstrates the willingness of the Jags to flex their muscle in the agreement for which we need their mercy. Aka, back to the $25M credit & parking agreement. There has been quite a bit of dialogue & discussion since May, and it has only exposed that this deal was rushed. No other way to say it. City Council realized that only a month or so ago. The parking deal will absolutely blow up in our faces or we will pay handsomely in another fashion. 12 months or less & you can quote this post. We can cherry pick deals all we want, but looking at just the bottom-line numbers for a deal, is not genuine to this discussion at all. I've said before several times, that containing this deal with the stadium was all that was needed for us to do. We tried a little too hard here & will reap the rewards of that.
@Jaxlongtimer, I'm sure its similar, but if you look at the aerial around the stadium, the land is not a single-purpose & it's not anywhere near Downtown. Our 50+ acres are for Jags games, the FL GA game and that's about it. Some of the acreage gets utilized for smaller events/concerts but nowhere near what is utilized for Jags games (which is again less than 10 days a years).
@JaxoNOLE, I do agree with most of what you are saying. I'm fine with being hosed a little as a taxpayer for an NFL team. As someone who hopes to see our city improve, this deal has served as a major hurdle for our stadium district to ever truly turn around. Perhaps what's more frustrating, is to know that there will likely be a series of agreements made in the next 5 years, that will ask the taxpayer for more $$, with the promise of a flashy stadium "entertainment" district. We will of course do it, because otherwise, the land will sit vacant for the next 30 years. That's the true crime in this whole agreement. Our hands have been tied behind our backs - quite literally. Khan has moved all his chess pieces in place to get everything he wanted - with the taxpayer fronting a significant portion of the cost in anything he is involved in when it comes to DT Jacksonville. (Not the beaches though!)
Quote from: Jax_Developer on September 09, 2024, 08:05:49 PM
@Lake, it sounds like that you are okay to spend $3 of COJ money to get $1 for the Eastside. That is essentially what is happening in this deal. Why not just spend $3 to get $3 for the Eastside? Also stating "Because the negative impact of displacement and gentrification is a serious community concern" isn't really addressing the issue here at all. This Stadium Deal will only further gentrification & the market since the deal was announced has proved that. Again, please explain how funding 10+ years from now that we can't leverage will do anything to help what you stated? Hell, 5 years... You could care less about Buffalo, but the point remains that the city/state didn't need to come out of pocket to get that commitment like the Jags have. Again, we have less than 50:50 split & also supposedly these CBA's are for the betterment of disenfranchised communities. The Jags were also able to turn that into a positive monetary return for their own dollar... that we have already subsidized.
I'm okay with significant money being allocated to a neighborhood that has lacked investment for decades. It just appears that this stadium deal is what's needed to finally make that investment become more than lip service. Our unfortunate reality is without the Jags deal, the Eastside may as well be Moncrief, in terms of COJ actually putting up a significant bit of short term money in the community.
Eastside CBA discussion aside, I don't expect Jax to beat the NFL on a stadium deal. All stadium deals are generally money losers for second and third tier cities....Buffalo included. If Jax wants to be on the side of winning a deal based on ROI with the NFL, then the answer is going the route of San Diego and saying goodbye. That option isn't on the table and has never been.
QuoteAlso stating "Because the negative impact of displacement and gentrification is a serious community concern" isn't really addressing the issue here at all. This Stadium Deal will only further gentrification & the market since the deal was announced has proved that.
Time will tell but without a doubt, focusing on a stadium deal without attempting to provide a neighborhood with resources to better control its own destiny will simply further gentrification by leaving said neighborhood 100% at the mercy of the market with no alternatives in place.
QuoteAgain, please explain how funding 10+ years from now that we can't leverage will do anything to help what you stated? Hell, 5 years...
$30 million in funding within the first three years or so could significantly revamp APR Blvd and better position the property owners and businesses to prosper from the stadium investment and the critical mass of consumers that will be within walking distance. A TIF keeping money within the area that has been siphoned for decades to help subsidize suburbia would be an additional boost to Eastside neighborhoods. The additional annual commitment flowing into the neighborhood could have a positive by boosting neighborhood organizations and ongoing programs to resolve heirs property, financial assist vulnerable residents and stimulate additional affordable and market rate housing. No matter which way we spin it, no of this is getting funding or being seriously talked about if the Jags deal didn't materialize in this particular neighborhood. We have decades of city history to suggest the past would continue being more of the same in the future.
QuoteYou could care less about Buffalo, but the point remains that the city/state didn't need to come out of pocket to get that commitment like the Jags have. Again, we have less than 50:50 split & also supposedly these CBA's are for the betterment of disenfranchised communities.
How familiar are you with the layout of Buffalo? How is the Buffalo CBA addressing the challenges in Buffalo's East Side? Orchard Park isn't even in City of Buffalo. I'm just failing to see how Buffalo's situation, deal and context can be viewed as apples to apples.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 09, 2024, 08:15:43 PM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on September 09, 2024, 08:05:49 PM
@Lake, it sounds like that you are okay to spend $3 of COJ money to get $1 for the Eastside. That is essentially what is happening in this deal. Why not just spend $3 to get $3 for the Eastside? Also stating "Because the negative impact of displacement and gentrification is a serious community concern" isn't really addressing the issue here at all. This Stadium Deal will only further gentrification & the market since the deal was announced has proved that. Again, please explain how funding 10+ years from now that we can't leverage will do anything to help what you stated? Hell, 5 years... You could care less about Buffalo, but the point remains that the city/state didn't need to come out of pocket to get that commitment like the Jags have. Again, we have less than 50:50 split & also supposedly these CBA's are for the betterment of disenfranchised communities. The Jags were also able to turn that into a positive monetary return for their own dollar... that we have already subsidized.
I'm okay with significant money being allocated to a neighborhood that has lacked investment for decades. It just appears that this stadium deal is what's needed to finally make that investment become more than lip service. Our unfortunate reality is without the Jags deal, the Eastside may as well be Moncrief, in terms of COJ actually putting up a significant bit of short term money in the community.
Eastside CBA discussion aside, I don't expect Jax to beat the NFL on a stadium deal. All stadium deals are generally money losers for second and third tier cities....Buffalo included. If Jax wants to be on the side of winning a deal based on ROI with the NFL, then the answer is going the route of San Diego and saying goodbye. That option isn't on the table and has never been.
The whole relocation fear thing can be discussed as a hypothetical forever. I highly doubt the Jags went into the agreement saying "if we don't get these very specific terms, we're out." I don't buy that for even a second. They make good coin in Jax & have a strong support system after years of losing. Few small market teams can really say that. Should've given them the 60:40 or 70:30 split & called it a day. The Eastside doesn't deserve the money anymore than the other 10+ neighborhoods that have had the same promise broken because of poor city finances. This deal makes those areas worse off in the LR while investors focus on the Eastside for the next decade.
^I added on some comments as you were responding.
QuoteThe Eastside doesn't deserve the money anymore than the other 10+ neighborhoods that have had the same promise broken because of poor city finances. This deal makes those areas worse off in the LR while investors focus on the Eastside for the next decade.
We will definitely have to agree to disagree on this point, which is totally okay with me. In my view, they all deserve funds and a lot more than $150 million. They've (all of these neighborhoods) been ignored for decades and have had billions moved out of them to fund economically unsustainable areas on the outskirts of the traditional core. Nevertheless, our reality is there is only one neighborhood with an NFL stadium sitting in the middle of it. So its going to face the brunt impact of this particular investment. So I understand and accept why this neighborhood would have a higher focus for this particular project. Now with this said, I'd love to see some form of a CBA incorporated into most projects of a certain size, regardless of what side of town they are on. However, that's an entirely different discussion that would include an overhaul of the city's zoning code.
There are some new developments here (as well as misconceptions in the thread). As this is being voted on tomorrow night, I'll break it down briefly.
*From the start, the Jaguars have been putting in $100 million into the CBA over 30 years. That's already more than the roughly $90 million Buffalo is putting in over 30 years. That money is targeted for a combination of Downtown parks (especially maintenance) the Eastside projects Ennis has been talking about, and several countywide initiatives (affordable housing, workforce development, homelessness initiatives and neighborhood parks/infrastructure).
*On top of that, the Jaguars are agreeing to put in another $50 million over 30 years as the city is putting in $150 million in a shorter timeframe. The city contributions aren't all new spending -- in fact a bulk of them are things the city is already doing like the Downtown parks, we're just putting the funding and timeline into them to get them done. The Jaguars money will go to maintenance and support for the next 30 years.
*It's gotten complicated, but the city contributions are broken down into $56 million for the Downtown parks (the number needed to finish them) to be spent in the next 5 years; $40 million for the Eastside to be spent within the next 7 years (but probably quicker) and $54 for the various countywide initiatives to be spent within the next 15 years (but again, probably quicker).
*The funding and projects are specifically allocated for particular things and a board will be stood up to oversee it over the life of the stadium deal.
*On a personal note, as both a staffer for the mayor and as an Urban Core advocate, I'm thrilled with the CBA and very much hope it passes out of council tomorrow. I'm looking forward to the smart investment in quality of life and in particular, the neighborhoods most susceptible to being impacted by the stadium reconstruction. This CBA will be a model for others and the Eastside investments will be a model for other neighborhoods in Jax and across the country.
The CBA was voted up by City Council. A lot of hard work went into this, and tomorrow we start on even more.
Wonderful! Very happy to see it move forward!
Congrats Bill, great work, huge win for Jax!
Awesome News!
Is the CBA mostly for the immediate surroundings of the stadium? Because the rot of the northbank core seems to be nearing a point of no return as time moves on...
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/sep/11/founder-of-dalton-agency-says-he-feels-forced-to-leave-downtown/
A significant portion is for the Northbank park projects.
Thanks all! Flying to Michigan today but I got up feeling over the moon. We also had pensions for cops and firefighters passed out last night, as well as a big women's health initiative, the initial funding for Jacksonville Journey Forward and many other items. The budget is up in two weeks which has a lot of other priorities for the year. Onward and forward!
Quote from: thelakelander on September 11, 2024, 11:28:15 AM
A significant portion is for the Northbank park projects.
Need to check the exact breakdown due to the recent changes, but between the Downtown parks and Eastside are the two biggest items. Most of the countywide stuff is coming from the city's portion. Dalton was speaking in favor of our new homelessness initiatives which hopefully will get funded and out the door in the budget vote on Sept. 24. All that probably deserves its own thread.
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on September 11, 2024, 11:09:01 AM
Is the CBA mostly for the immediate surroundings of the stadium? Because the rot of the northbank core seems to be nearing a point of no return as time moves on...
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/sep/11/founder-of-dalton-agency-says-he-feels-forced-to-leave-downtown/
Hoardes of mentally ill homeless aren't the problem!
QuoteCity Council locks in city's share of agreement with Jaguars for community improvements
Jacksonville City Council finalized putting up $150 million for a community benefits agreement and that commitment will attract the maximum $150 million match from the Jaguars in a partnership that will mainly direct spending to the Eastside neighborhood and downtown parks in walking distance of the stadium.
City Council agreed Tuesday to the full amount of city taxpayer dollars that Mayor Donna Deegan negotiated with the Jaguars for the community benefits agreement, which is a side agreement to the $1.4 billion renovation of the football stadium that will keep the Jaguars playing there for another 30 years.
The city's $150 million for the community benefits agreement will be on top of the $775 million it will pay toward the stadium reconstruction in tandem with Jaguars owner Shad Khan. City Council approved the stadium deal in June but spent another two months examining the community benefits agreement before finalizing it on a 13-2 vote Tuesday night.
QuoteAriane Randolph, who is the fourth generation of her family to live in the historically Black neighborhood, said Eastside residents "had a seat at the table and that was empowering" when the special committee did its work on the legislation.
"Residents like myself have been working very hard to advocate for our children to come back and make Eastside home and make Jacksonville home," she said. "So we want to continue that. This is just another step."
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2024/09/11/jacksonville-finalizes-community-benefits-agreement-with-jaguars/75165820007/
Pleased that the attempts to separate the CBA from the stadium were ultimately unsuccessful. Again, this deal isn't perfect, and at the end of the day it comes at real expense to taxpayers (even without new taxes) but it's something many wanted and hopefully it will benefit to keep the NFL in town. Now attention can turn to bigger issues like housing, transportation, healthcare, education, and other quality of life amenities.
The way I look at is that the CBA is about all these bigger issues. It won't resolve all our needs but it becomes another tool in the tool box. It's also not over. For example, the TIF concept is still out there and being debated.
Hey - I have a genius idea - rename it TrEverBank Stadium
:o
???
Excited to see actual improvements in that area. I'm speculating, but have to imagine, one of the first improvements will be repaving and generally beautifying APR Blvd, any idea when that would start?
The APR business district will be an Eastside priority. Based on what I know but not a liberty to say at the moment, if I had to guess, it will be a completely different and improved experience by the time the new stadium is completed.
Jags officially secured in Jacksonville through 2059.
Massive credit to:
Wayne Weaver, for committing to keeping the Jags in Jacksonville, even when they were averaging 45,000 a game during the 2008 recession and more lucrative markets were calling.
Shad Khan, for keeping the promise he made to Wayne Weaver when he bought the team, keeping the team here even when locals were unfairly calling him a carpetbagger with secret plans to move the team to London, and having the faith in Jacksonville to move forward with the construction of a $300 million office and Four Seasons development before a stadium agreement was even in place.
Mark Lamping, for having the foresight to get YEARS ahead of the stadium discussions, securing a deal before things got ugly with almost five years left to spare, and applying every single lesson learned from the Lot J fiasco forward when it came to transparency and public involvement.
Mayor Deegan, Mike Weinstein, and all the behind the scenes folks who helped push this across the finish line.
Say what you want about the on-field product - the NFL is great for Jacksonville, our stadium was due a makeover if we are to stay competitive as an event destination, and the NFL's approval of the agreement today is real milestone for the 904 and a giant screw you to all those nerds over the last 30 years who have said that Jacksonville isn't viable as an NFL market.
Real wild time capsule, this thread was:
https://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,6178.0.html
Very well said (as always) Ken.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 12, 2024, 05:32:27 PM
The APR business district will be an Eastside priority. Based on what I know but not a liberty to say at the moment, if I had to guess, it will be a completely different and improved experience by the time the new stadium is completed.
How amazing would it be to bury the arlington expressway between Hogan's Creek and the Gatorbowl Interchange?
AP article says this:
QuoteThe stadium will be the centerpiece of a downtown entertainment district in Jacksonville. A Four Seasons hotel and residences project is currently under construction as well as a new office building for the Jaguars, a shipyards project that will include a modern marina and eventually a University of Florida satellite campus that would bring in 10,000 graduate students to the area.
Wonder if we will hear an announcement on that now that the stadium deal is finalized.
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/nfl-owners-approve-jacksonvilles-1-203302407.html
Interesting quote from Mark Lamping regarding the proposed entertainment district. Sounds like they're not married to a specific location. Wonder where else they have in mind?
QuoteAn adjacent sports and entertainment development is on a back burner as Khan's Iguana Investments and the team finish the Four Seasons complex and the stadium. However, it's not forgotten.
"We think that at the sports complex is maybe the best location for it," Lamping said. "But those things need to happen in the right time, I can tell you, least, from my perspective, our plate is pretty full right now. But I have no doubt that Downtown Jacksonville will have a sports entertainment complex. It's just a question of where that is."
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/oct/15/stadium-deal-approved-shad-khan-mark-lamping-offer-insight-into-whats-next/
Perhaps the Fairgrounds site or something along the river adjacent to the Four Seasons complex. Whatever the site is, They seem to get the importance of clustering their investments together, so its likely still east of APR even if it isn't Lot J.
Quote from: Lostwave on October 16, 2024, 09:10:27 AM
Very well said (as always) Ken.
Thanks dude!
Quote from: CityLife on October 16, 2024, 01:53:55 PM
AP article says this:
QuoteThe stadium will be the centerpiece of a downtown entertainment district in Jacksonville. A Four Seasons hotel and residences project is currently under construction as well as a new office building for the Jaguars, a shipyards project that will include a modern marina and eventually a University of Florida satellite campus that would bring in 10,000 graduate students to the area.
Wonder if we will hear an announcement on that now that the stadium deal is finalized.
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/nfl-owners-approve-jacksonvilles-1-203302407.html
The last I heard (maybe two weeks ago), UF plans to make their announcement in November.
Genuinely don't have a clue where they've landed, I don't think a lot of people do, but I do get the vibe the indecision is holding a lot of things up.
Quote from: Zac T on October 16, 2024, 06:35:32 PM
Interesting quote from Mark Lamping regarding the proposed entertainment district. Sounds like they're not married to a specific location. Wonder where else they have in mind?
QuoteAn adjacent sports and entertainment development is on a back burner as Khan's Iguana Investments and the team finish the Four Seasons complex and the stadium. However, it's not forgotten.
"We think that at the sports complex is maybe the best location for it," Lamping said. "But those things need to happen in the right time, I can tell you, least, from my perspective, our plate is pretty full right now. But I have no doubt that Downtown Jacksonville will have a sports entertainment complex. It's just a question of where that is."
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/oct/15/stadium-deal-approved-shad-khan-mark-lamping-offer-insight-into-whats-next/
If UF doesn't go with the Jags, I wonder if the Fairgrounds might make sense for the Sports & Entertainment complex. Another option could be that 4.5 acre parcel West of the Four Seasons/Office Development. The Jags - per their lease agreement with the City - have committed to $100 million in private development at that site by 2032 (which sounds like is earmarked for medical or residential mixed use). I like Lot J more than both logistically, but you've got to wonder if the Jags and/or city are starting to have an oh shit moment about parking. There's not enough parking for the Four Seasons and Jags office tower, and the city doesn't seem it's going to be in a financial position in the short-term to sink $100 million+ into structured parking to accommodate sports complex development. Might not make the most sense to remove all those parking spots at the moment.
Removed from the Sports Complex area, I wonder if the jail site could make sense for the Sports & Entertainment complex, assuming the jail relocation happens. Might be too far from their other investments, but they were at one point considering partnering on a convention center pretty far West of the stadium. The timelines would kind of match up, and short of selling JEA, I'm not sure where we'd got ANOTHER billion on top of the stadium, jail relocation, and pension debt to actually build a shiny new convention center at that site. Probably makes more sense to stop gap with expanded exposition & convention space at the Hyatt, as Ennis has written about over the years.
To me, Ford on Bay would be the most intriguing site for a Jacksonville Live! like Sports & Entertainment complex, as it's kind of in the perfect central location to a) serve the CBD during the daytime during the week and on non-event nights, as the sports complex is too far of a trek, b) serve the sports complex during events, as well as the Florida Theater and Times-Union Center, which are all within six blocks max, c) act as that missing food hall element for Shipyards West, MOSH & Riverfront Plaza on either side of it, d) provide a missing entertainment element for expanded Hyatt Convention Space, e) complement one or two additional, not-yet-announced projects in the vicinity, f) pump some much needed life into the northbank. Of all the available spots, it's the most shovel-ready, centrally located, and scenic in terms of river views. You couldn't quite have the scale in terms of sheer acreage of options like Lot J, but you could also create some sick synergy with Bay Street/The Elbow directly across the street. It's the furthest from the stadium, but also feels like the site that would generate the most local revenue for the Jags 365-days a year.
^ I think they should maybe consider working with the Pearl Street development given that will be a source of mojo (to use Kahn's terminology) if it gets ultimately completed as planned. Given how much land they have accumulated with their desire to maybe add more adjacent properties, working with Kahn might be a win for both parties. Such a district in the heart of Downtown would be a big boost. Being back from the river could be an advantage considering resiliency issues. And, Beaver Street and Union/State would provide direct connectivity to both I-95 and the Arlington Expressway for easy access from the burbs and greater region.
Its too bad Maxwell House is there. Its kind of right where a sports and entertainment district should be.
Ford at the bay and jail and old courthouse sites could be some great mixed use res/hotel/retail district... it would tie it all together. But Maxwell House is a huge dead zone.
If the jail has to move, put a convention center there. Just be done with it. I would rather it go next to the Hyatt, but I think that conversation is going nowhere.
Quote from: Lostwave on October 17, 2024, 09:49:44 AM
Its too bad Maxwell House is there. Its kind of right where a sports and entertainment district should be.
Ford at the bay and jail and old courthouse sites could be some great mixed use res/hotel/retail district... it would tie it all together. But Maxwell House is a huge dead zone.
I love Maxwell House and selfishly hope that they stay. They employ hundreds at higher wages, have been there for a century plus and the coffee scent is a part of Jax's cultural identity. It would be cool to explore better integrating historic industry into the future things that people dream about for this old maritime district and former working waterfront. There's no money to build a new jail and new massive convention center. We'll all be dead before that happens. But I'm looking forward to seeing how UF's desire for a downtown campus will impact this topic if the LaVilla site is selected. Still Hyatt or bust for me on the convention center topic.
" e) complement one or two additional, not-yet-announced projects in the vicinity," Does Ken know something we don't know or is it wishful thinking? Perhaps this does have to do with UF. If they choose the fairgrounds maybe they don't want an entertainment center next door.
I think Ford on Bay would be a great location for it as it'd have the greatest impact on DT as a whole especially if it could complement an expanded exhibition hall at The Hyatt. This would help cement The Elbow as a true entertainment/nightlife destination for the city
Negotiations could have been way, way worse. Exhibit A Cleveland. Kudos again to everyone involved for keeping it professional and drama free.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/41986732/browns-sue-city-cleveland-seek-clarification-modell-law