Metro Jacksonville

At the end of the day, the city could end up with the Shipyards in its ownership again.  Its something to keep on the radar.

QuoteThe news earlier this month about The Shipyards and downtown wasn't good.

Word came that the developer of the riverfront project, LandMar, was late paying its property taxes (about $485,000) and was technically in default on its agreement with the city.

Ron Barton, the executive director of the Jacksonville Economic Development Commission, said in an interview that the situation needs to be monitored carefully but it's not time to "run around with our hair on fire - yet."

Barton said LandMar still has several weeks to fix the tax bill.

It's also not time to quit planning for that critical piece of downtown.

LandMar has already spent $19 million on the public improvements that were required in its development agreement with the city.

Much of that money went into bulkheads. Wide concrete paths that will become the extension of the Northbank Riverwalk are also in place.

Barton said the rest of the public improvements - pavers, landscaping, streetscapes, etc. - will be completed no matter what happens to the rest of the development because letters of credit to ensure that were required.

One of those improvements involves the westernmost pier that juts into the St. Johns River.

That could be - and should be - a showpiece for downtown.

Original plans called for a giant, sail-like sculpture that certainly would have been eye-catching.

Barton said in an earlier interview that several ideas are being considered. Here's another one:

Jacksonville's maritime history is rich and should be celebrated.

It already is to some degree at the Jacksonville Maritime Museum, which is tucked away in a small building on the Southbank Riverwalk by the Main Street bridge.

The museum is filled with artifacts and exhibits, but many more are locked away in warehouses because of the limited space.

A larger museum on The Shipyards' pier, with perhaps a historic sailing ship tied alongside, would attract people downtown and give out-of-town visitors something else to do.

Anyway, that's just another idea to throw into the mix.

In this economy, finding the money to pay for anything is going to be difficult.

But creating a successful downtown is like putting pieces of a puzzle together. The pier could be a very big piece of that.

With the real estate market in the dump, it's not surprising that LandMar is having trouble with The Shipyards project.

Hopefully, that bumpy road will be smoothed out and the condominiums and other development can be completed, adding needed value to the city's tax rolls and creating more activity downtown.

But if the worst happens and LandMar defaults on its development agreement with the city, the city will get ownership of the valuable riverfront property plus the completed public improvements.

Let's make those improvements the best they can be. This bad economy can't last forever and we should be ready to roll when it improves.

http://www.jacksonville.com/opinion/columnists/ron_littlepage/2009-04-28/story/room_to_hope_for_dramatic_improvements_at_shipyar

Putting an expanded Maritime Museum at the Shipyards location would definitely be a fresh and interesting idea.  Especially with the whole "let's tie up a museum sailing ship at the pier" part.  At first blush, that's not a half-bad idea.

Couple that with Maxwell House doing something along the lines of a street-side cafe or some other attraction that's been mentioned around here previously, and it would go a long way into connecting the Sports District with the rest of Downtown proper with destinations along Bay Street rather than just residences.

Throw in streetcar and voila!

Quotewe should be ready to roll when it improves.

I'm unofficially officially declaring "Let's roll!" the rallying cry against the economic downturn.

From wiki:

QuoteFor a period of time after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the phrase to some in the United States came to symbolize heroism, self sacrifice and initiative in a tough situation.

All three of these are needed to get us out of this economic morass.

Call me old-fashioned, but if LandMar has spent $19 million on street/walkway/bulkhead improvements for COJ, then maybe we can cut them a break on a $400k tax bill?

I mean, this is still worlds better than the last go-around at the shipyards, where we paid $40 million to an Atlanta developer who literally just stole the money and used it to build a subdivision in Atlanta, and didn't so much as move a shovelful of dirt here. Worst part is, a loophole in their contract let them get away with it.

I hope Landmar can get this done but at least it sounds like the city covered it's @$$ on this one.

I kind of agree with you Chris but I'm not up to spped on all of the details of the agreement or the relationship between the City and LandMar.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 29, 2009, 09:48:02 AM
Call me old-fashioned, but if LandMar has spent $19 million on street/walkway/bulkhead improvements for COJ, then maybe we can cut them a break on a $400k tax bill?

I mean, this is still worlds better than the last go-around at the shipyards, where we paid $40 million to an Atlanta developer who literally just stole the money and used it to build a subdivision in Atlanta, and didn't so much as move a shovelful of dirt here. Worst part is, a loophole in their contract let them get away with it.

The original developer, TriLegacy, was local and had nothing to do with Atlanta to my knowledge.  They spent money on the bulkheads as I remember.

Quote from: vicupstate on April 29, 2009, 10:06:10 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 29, 2009, 09:48:02 AM
Call me old-fashioned, but if LandMar has spent $19 million on street/walkway/bulkhead improvements for COJ, then maybe we can cut them a break on a $400k tax bill?

I mean, this is still worlds better than the last go-around at the shipyards, where we paid $40 million to an Atlanta developer who literally just stole the money and used it to build a subdivision in Atlanta, and didn't so much as move a shovelful of dirt here. Worst part is, a loophole in their contract let them get away with it.

The original developer, TriLegacy, was local and had nothing to do with Atlanta to my knowledge.  They spent money on the bulkheads as I remember.

Yeah, well, you remembered wrong.

Most of the money got transferred to the corporate accounts, and used for other non-related projects.

If you still disagree, you're welcome to go argue with the Times-Union:

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/091207/met_198799990.shtml

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 29, 2009, 05:44:49 PM

Quote from: vicupstate on April 29, 2009, 10:06:10 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 29, 2009, 09:48:02 AM
Call me old-fashioned, but if LandMar has spent $19 million on street/walkway/bulkhead improvements for COJ, then maybe we can cut them a break on a $400k tax bill?

I mean, this is still worlds better than the last go-around at the shipyards, where we paid $40 million to an Atlanta developer who literally just stole the money and used it to build a subdivision in Atlanta, and didn't so much as move a shovelful of dirt here. Worst part is, a loophole in their contract let them get away with it.

The original developer, TriLegacy, was local and had nothing to do with Atlanta to my knowledge.  They spent money on the bulkheads as I remember.

Yeah, well, you remembered wrong.

Most of the money got transferred to the corporate accounts, and used for other non-related projects.

If you still disagree, you're welcome to go argue with the Times-Union:

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/091207/met_198799990.shtml

There is no reference  in this article of 1) TriLegacy being from Atlanta, 2) no reference to them spending money on an Atlanta housing development or 3) transferred any money to corporate accounts unrelated to the project.   

I should have stated that SOME of the money was spent on bulkheads, I did not mean to imply that it was ALL spend on bulkheads.  I also remember they paid off the mortgage on the property with some of the proceeds.  Advertising and marketing probably accounted for some too, since they obviously did do some of that.  I don't know where every dime went, but no wrongdoing was found, so you can't just make up accusations of what they did with the money.   

Quote from: vicupstate on April 29, 2009, 08:48:59 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 29, 2009, 05:44:49 PM

Quote from: vicupstate on April 29, 2009, 10:06:10 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 29, 2009, 09:48:02 AM
Call me old-fashioned, but if LandMar has spent $19 million on street/walkway/bulkhead improvements for COJ, then maybe we can cut them a break on a $400k tax bill?

I mean, this is still worlds better than the last go-around at the shipyards, where we paid $40 million to an Atlanta developer who literally just stole the money and used it to build a subdivision in Atlanta, and didn't so much as move a shovelful of dirt here. Worst part is, a loophole in their contract let them get away with it.

The original developer, TriLegacy, was local and had nothing to do with Atlanta to my knowledge.  They spent money on the bulkheads as I remember.

Yeah, well, you remembered wrong.

Most of the money got transferred to the corporate accounts, and used for other non-related projects.

If you still disagree, you're welcome to go argue with the Times-Union:

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/091207/met_198799990.shtml

There is no reference  in this article of 1) TriLegacy being from Atlanta, 2) no reference to them spending money on an Atlanta housing development or 3) transferred any money to corporate accounts unrelated to the project.  

I should have stated that SOME of the money was spent on bulkheads, I did not mean to imply that it was ALL spend on bulkheads.  I also remember they paid off the mortgage on the property with some of the proceeds.  Advertising and marketing probably accounted for some too, since they obviously did do some of that.  I don't know where every dime went, but no wrongdoing was found, so you can't just make up accusations of what they did with the money.  

Did you even bother to read the article before spouting off?

This is a direct quote:

Quote"The condo, retail and office project was halted in 2004 after the city determined TriLegacy had spent $22 million of city money on development other than public improvements, Mullaney said."

I don't see much ambiguity there, do you? They got $$$$$, and didn't spend it where they were supposed to. Specifically, they spent it on other development (not at that site), as is clearly mentioned in the article. End of story.

If you have any further problems, as I said before, go argue with the Times-Union.

Here is an article from 2004.  The "development" mentioned by Mullaney may stand for money not spent on public improvements.

QuoteTHE SHIPYARDS Answers, please
Florida Times-Union, The (Jacksonville, FL) - Thursday, December 2, 2004

A Duval County grand jury exploring how a blockbuster downtown riverfront project flopped can perform a significant public service.

Questions outnumber answers on what happened with The Shipyards , the biggest proposed development in downtown Jacksonville history.

The city paid The Shipyards ' developer TriLegacy $36.5 million from 2001 to 2003 to build a riverfront park, expand the Northbank riverwalk and widen Bay Street.

TriLegacy , headed by property owners Carlton and Jeff Spence, planned to complement the city work with an $860 million project of condos, a hotel, shops and offices. City officials projected a successful Shipyards complex would generate $502 million in new property taxes over three decades while fueling downtown growth.

But the city work didn't get done, the project fizzled and fingers point from both sides of the deal.

In a lawsuit the city prepared but never filed, officials claimed TriLegacy inappropriately spent millions for private -- not public -- purposes, such as paying off a mortgage on the property, buying pro football skybox seats and paying for lobbyists.

The developers, meanwhile, maintain they abided by the contract and did nothing wrong. They say the contract allowed for use of public funds on private work -- such as advertising and marketing -- so long as developers eventually spent an amount equal to the city funds on the public improvements.

City officials -- along with John Delaney, the mayor when this deal came together -- say TriLegacy misled the city on its use of the money. TriLegacy disagrees.

Company records obtained by the city indicate that more than a year ago the developers had lawyers researching default and "liability . . . for misuse of loan funds."

Though concerning, that does not mean wrongdoing occurred.

Several troubling questions remain, including: What really happened to all those millions? Were city officials misled? Where did City Hall go wrong with the contract and its monitoring of the work?

The grand jury -- with subpoena power and the ability to call witnesses for testimony -- should examine the roles of the city and TriLegacy with equal fervor. It would be a mistake to focus only on one or the other.

The city's miscues must be identified with suggestions on how to better protect the public's interests in the future.

If the evidence warrants criminal charges involving TriLegacy , the State Attorney's Office has a civic duty to pursue them or recommend them to the proper jurisdiction. If no charges are in order, explain why.

Regardless of the grand jury's conclusions, city officials note they are already upgrading procedures, and they also contend taxpayers are protected with The Shipyards .

A recent city settlement with TriLegacy allows another developer to resume the project without more city funds. If that developer doesn't work out, the city will gain control of the property and up to $14 million.

Officials point out the prime waterfront land is worth more than the city paid TriLegacy to develop it.

That's reassuring -- but only to a point.

Taxpayers deserve to know how this mess happened and to be confident that new safeguards will help prevent future problems.

http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?p_product=NewsBank&p_theme=aggregated5&p_action=doc&p_docid=106F9526C8C8EA5E&p_docnum=6&p_queryname=6

ChrisW,

The Shipyards deal was a private /public partnership to develop a PRIVATE development with  adjoining PUBLIC space.  If the TriLegacy group spent money on the PRIVATE portion of the SHIPYARDS, then that is not money spent on 'other development'. 

The city was not just getting public park space out of the deal, it also would receive property taxes from the PRIVATE development that would occur.

Your original and subsequent posts stated that the money was spent on a DIFFERENT SITE, (ie not the Shipyards property) but on property in Atlanta.   

TriLegacy maintained that as long as $36 million was spent on the PUBLIC components before completion, that they would have fulfilled their end of the contract.  The city should have stipulated when and how the money would be spent.  The city has signed numerous lousy contracts, but a contract is a contract.  The jury found TriLegacy not to be in violation of any laws or the contract. 

Obviously Trilegacy intended to pay for private construction costs from the public money, and then pay for the the public improvements after closing on some of the units in the project.  Site work was done on-site during the time TriLegacy owned it, as well as sales support and marketing and payoff of the mortgage.   

For you to say that money was spent on projects totally unrelated to the the Shipyards is NOT supported by anything I have read, INCLUDING the article you linked.   

Quote from: thelakelander on April 29, 2009, 10:05:01 PM
Here is an article from 2004.  The "development" mentioned by Mullaney may stand for money not spent on public improvements.

QuoteTHE SHIPYARDS Answers, please
Florida Times-Union, The (Jacksonville, FL) - Thursday, December 2, 2004

A Duval County grand jury exploring how a blockbuster downtown riverfront project flopped can perform a significant public service.

Questions outnumber answers on what happened with The Shipyards , the biggest proposed development in downtown Jacksonville history.

The city paid The Shipyards ' developer TriLegacy $36.5 million from 2001 to 2003 to build a riverfront park, expand the Northbank riverwalk and widen Bay Street.

TriLegacy , headed by property owners Carlton and Jeff Spence, planned to complement the city work with an $860 million project of condos, a hotel, shops and offices. City officials projected a successful Shipyards complex would generate $502 million in new property taxes over three decades while fueling downtown growth.

But the city work didn't get done, the project fizzled and fingers point from both sides of the deal.

In a lawsuit the city prepared but never filed, officials claimed TriLegacy inappropriately spent millions for private -- not public -- purposes, such as paying off a mortgage on the property, buying pro football skybox seats and paying for lobbyists.

The developers, meanwhile, maintain they abided by the contract and did nothing wrong. They say the contract allowed for use of public funds on private work -- such as advertising and marketing -- so long as developers eventually spent an amount equal to the city funds on the public improvements.

City officials -- along with John Delaney, the mayor when this deal came together -- say TriLegacy misled the city on its use of the money. TriLegacy disagrees.

Company records obtained by the city indicate that more than a year ago the developers had lawyers researching default and "liability . . . for misuse of loan funds."

Though concerning, that does not mean wrongdoing occurred.

Several troubling questions remain, including: What really happened to all those millions? Were city officials misled? Where did City Hall go wrong with the contract and its monitoring of the work?

The grand jury -- with subpoena power and the ability to call witnesses for testimony -- should examine the roles of the city and TriLegacy with equal fervor. It would be a mistake to focus only on one or the other.

The city's miscues must be identified with suggestions on how to better protect the public's interests in the future.

If the evidence warrants criminal charges involving TriLegacy , the State Attorney's Office has a civic duty to pursue them or recommend them to the proper jurisdiction. If no charges are in order, explain why.

Regardless of the grand jury's conclusions, city officials note they are already upgrading procedures, and they also contend taxpayers are protected with The Shipyards .

A recent city settlement with TriLegacy allows another developer to resume the project without more city funds. If that developer doesn't work out, the city will gain control of the property and up to $14 million.

Officials point out the prime waterfront land is worth more than the city paid TriLegacy to develop it.

That's reassuring -- but only to a point.

Taxpayers deserve to know how this mess happened and to be confident that new safeguards will help prevent future problems.

If the article was written in 2004, I'd assume it lacked the benefit of hindsight and all the information gained in two different investigations. The article I posted was written later, and I'd assume by that time the contributors had a better idea of where of the money went.

Quote from: vicupstate on April 29, 2009, 11:04:29 PM
ChrisW,

The Shipyards deal was a private /public partnership to develop a PRIVATE development with  adjoining PUBLIC space.  If the TriLegacy group spent money on the PRIVATE portion of the SHIPYARDS, then that is not money spent on 'other development'. 

The city was not just getting public park space out of the deal, it also would receive property taxes from the PRIVATE development that would occur.

Your original and subsequent posts stated that the money was spent on a DIFFERENT SITE, (ie not the Shipyards property) but on property in Atlanta.   

TriLegacy maintained that as long as $36 million was spent on the PUBLIC components before completion, that they would have fulfilled their end of the contract.  The city should have stipulated when and how the money would be spent.  The city has signed numerous lousy contracts, but a contract is a contract.  The jury found TriLegacy not to be in violation of any laws or the contract. 

Obviously Trilegacy intended to pay for private construction costs from the public money, and then pay for the the public improvements after closing on some of the units in the project.  Site work was done on-site during the time TriLegacy owned it, as well as sales support and marketing and payoff of the mortgage.   

For you to say that money was spent on projects totally unrelated to the the Shipyards is NOT supported by anything I have read, INCLUDING the article you linked.   

Vic,

I'm not sure where the debate is here. Have you seen that friggin' site??? Trilegacy didn't spend a DIME on it.

And the bulkheads, etc., that you're referencing are all things that the CURRENT developer had to come install, because Trilegacy left the site pretty much exactly as they found it.

So then let me ask you this: Where did $22 million of the $36.5 million they received actually go?

If it went to other public improvement, why don't you post something that shows that? I've certainly posted an article backing up my own points, so why don't you do the same? Let's see all these new sidewalks and crap that Trilegacy spent that money on...LOL

It DID NOT HAPPEN. They paid off their own "loans" they'd made to the project with that money, as a way to legally "obtain" the cash free and clear, and then spent it in other places. It's all in the article I posted, and in about 100 other articles online. There really isn't any room for debate here bud.

If I remember, I believe they did do some work on that site.  Later today, I'll search the library archives and see what I can pull up from around that time.

Bay street was widened and they put up a nice wroght iron fence and entry, complete with anchors... oh and finished some of the remaining remediation/demolition necessary for the Superbowl.

(http://ktransit.com/transit/NAmerica/ussouth/neworleans/norl-lr01.jpg)

The tragic side story here is that the City gave away $36 Million dollars which went into the ether. Turned around if they gave my Company that much money, we would have a Vintage Streetcar from North Riverside to A. Phillip Randolph. In turn this same streetcar line would spur enough development that "The Shipyards" towers would look small. So Jacksonville, get off your wallet and lets build a boom machine.  

OCKLAWAHA

Yes, $36 million for a streetcar line would go a long way in stimulating development in the urban core.  However, to be fair, in return to the city's $36 million given to Tri Legacy, they ended up as the owner of a 44-acre remediated waterfront site.  So even though it was bad publicity, the city did not end up in the hole.

St. Charles, NOLA!
Great photo, Ock...

Quote from: Jason on April 30, 2009, 10:54:43 AM
Bay street was widened and they put up a nice wroght iron fence and entry, complete with anchors... oh and finished some of the remaining remediation/demolition necessary for the Superbowl.

Presumably that was the portion of the $36.5 million that they did not misappropriate.

Remember, they got $36.5 million, they're 'only' accused of swindling $22 million. The $14.5 million left over that they didn't steal is plenty enough to widen some sidewalks and put up a fence. But that doesn't change the fact that they ran off with the other $22 million, using a dubious legal loophole.

Quote from: thelakelander on April 30, 2009, 11:53:33 AM
Yes, $36 million for a streetcar line would go a long way in stimulating development in the urban core.  However, to be fair, in return to the city's $36 million given to Tri Legacy, they ended up as the owner of a 44-acre remediated waterfront site.  So even though it was bad publicity, the city did not end up in the hole.

That's some dubious accounting there, Lake.

I bet that property is still valued at its appraisal back when the deal went down. If you marked its value down to whatever it's really worth now that the Florida real estate bubble has popped, the City is no doubt sitting on a huge loss. It will all come out soon enough.

I dunno... Extreme High Exposure Land like that is something that many blue - chip corporations would kill for. I think that factor alone makes it somewhat bubble proof. Certainly with the Billions in development that is following streetcar lines around the nation (Even now in the midst of a "bust") it would be interesting to see what we would get with both river frontage and Streetcar On Bay (SOB). The city and/or CofC seems to be doing a very poor job of marketing that waterfront, some of that land has been empty forever. A Supertall on one of those lots would appear from I-95 Northbound to be in or near the roadway as you approach the city from the South. Something that would have all 700 Gazillion people on the super slab "see the elephant".

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 30, 2009, 02:11:28 PM
I dunno... Extreme High Exposure Land like that is something that many blue - chip corporations would kill for. I think that factor alone makes it somewhat bubble proof. Certainly with the Billions in development that is following streetcar lines around the nation (Even now in the midst of a "bust") it would be interesting to see what we would get with both river frontage and Streetcar On Bay (SOB). The city and/or CofC seems to be doing a very poor job of marketing that waterfront, some of that land has been empty forever. A Supertall on one of those lots would appear from I-95 Northbound to be in or near the roadway as you approach the city from the South. Something that would have all 700 Gazillion people on the super slab "see the elephant".

OCKLAWAHA

Well I certainly hope you're right, and it turns out the City will be made whole when/if this thing finally sells to someone who's serious about owning something besides a vacant lot. Otherwise, we'll have just pissed away even more public tax dollars that are sorely needed in other places.

Chris,

I do not have to prove how TriLegacy spent every cent that they received. YOU have to prove that they DID spend money on a site OTHER THAN the Shipyards, because that was YOUR accusation.  And to be technical, you have to prove it was spent in Atlanta.

I have seen the site with heavy equipment on it while TriLegacy was in possession of it.  Bulkhead and piling repair work is not something you will SEE the results of unless you are scuba diving in the St. Johns.  Since much (all?) of the site was underwater at some point, at least an inspection of the bulkheads would be logical.

I have also seen and been inside the sales center, which had a paved lot, a fence, an architectural model and a complete model kitchen.  I have seen and met the realtors inside. I have seen the glossy sales materials.  I've seen ads in newspapers and magazines numerous times. All of those things cost money.

I saw the design that nationally known Saski Associates of Boston did for the entire site.  TriLegacy had obtained a building permit for the first building.  That could not have happened without a full set of plans, so obviously, they paid architect and engineering fees to somebody.  It has already been established that they paid off the mortgage on the property with funds received from the city. 

The gist of the disagreement was that the city thought that the funds would be spent ONLY on public improvements and TriLegacy thought the the funds could be spent on anything related to the project so long as the full amount was spent EVENTUALLY on the public improvements.  The jury and  State's attorney agreed that TriLegacy did not break the law or the contract.  Obviously it was a poorly written contract from the city's side.

YOU have alleged that TriLegacy took virtually the entire amount and spent none of it on the Shipyards site (the public or private portions), but instead invested it in an Atlanta subdivision.  I have yet to see proof of that. 

If I remember correctly, LandMar assumed Tri Legacy's debt to the city when they took over.  Of course they may now have to default on that.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 30, 2009, 01:34:41 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on April 30, 2009, 11:53:33 AM
Yes, $36 million for a streetcar line would go a long way in stimulating development in the urban core.  However, to be fair, in return to the city's $36 million given to Tri Legacy, they ended up as the owner of a 44-acre remediated waterfront site.  So even though it was bad publicity, the city did not end up in the hole.

That's some dubious accounting there, Lake.

I bet that property is still valued at its appraisal back when the deal went down. If you marked its value down to whatever it's really worth now that the Florida real estate bubble has popped, the City is no doubt sitting on a huge loss. It will all come out soon enough.

If the city ends of with the land, assuming LandMar bails, its a public asset.  In this day its rare for cities to get their hands on 44 acres of developable downtown waterfront property that has already been cleaned and includes a new concrete bulkhead.  It would be a second chance to do the right thing with the property.  By this, I mean draw up a development plan that secures the desired amount of public waterfront space, while creating well positioned parcels that can be purchased by multiple parties for infill urban development.  Its always better to put your eggs in multiple baskets than to continuously place all your hopes and dreams on the success of big one trick ponies (ex. LandMar, Kuhn).

Quote from: vicupstate on April 30, 2009, 08:44:31 PM
Chris,

I do not have to prove how TriLegacy spent every cent that they received. YOU have to prove that they DID spend money on a site OTHER THAN the Shipyards, because that was YOUR accusation.  And to be technical, you have to prove it was spent in Atlanta.

I have seen the site with heavy equipment on it while TriLegacy was in possession of it.  Bulkhead and piling repair work is not something you will SEE the results of unless you are scuba diving in the St. Johns.  Since much (all?) of the site was underwater at some point, at least an inspection of the bulkheads would be logical.

I have also seen and been inside the sales center, which had a paved lot, a fence, an architectural model and a complete model kitchen.  I have seen and met the realtors inside. I have seen the glossy sales materials.  I've seen ads in newspapers and magazines numerous times. All of those things cost money.

I saw the design that nationally known Saski Associates of Boston did for the entire site.  TriLegacy had obtained a building permit for the first building.  That could not have happened without a full set of plans, so obviously, they paid architect and engineering fees to somebody.  It has already been established that they paid off the mortgage on the property with funds received from the city. 

The gist of the disagreement was that the city thought that the funds would be spent ONLY on public improvements and TriLegacy thought the the funds could be spent on anything related to the project so long as the full amount was spent EVENTUALLY on the public improvements.  The jury and  State's attorney agreed that TriLegacy did not break the law or the contract.  Obviously it was a poorly written contract from the city's side.

YOU have alleged that TriLegacy took virtually the entire amount and spent none of it on the Shipyards site (the public or private portions), but instead invested it in an Atlanta subdivision.  I have yet to see proof of that. 

I've fully proven my point Vic, and posted a TU article which indicates they misappropriated $22 million.

You, on the other hand, have done nothing but spout off your undocumented opinion, without posting so much as a shred of proof. End of story. If you want to continue this debate further, then come up with some evidence beyond your own opinion.

Not sure you have proved a thing Chris...  You alledged...

Quotedeveloper who literally just stole the money and used it to build a subdivision in Atlanta, and didn't so much as move a shovelful of dirt here.

Vic said... is contending this is not true and you have not shown any evidence to the contrary.

The ball is actually in your court. :)

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 01, 2009, 04:08:17 PM
Not sure you have proved a thing Chris...  You alledged...

Quotedeveloper who literally just stole the money and used it to build a subdivision in Atlanta, and didn't so much as move a shovelful of dirt here.

Vic said... is contending this is not true and you have not shown any evidence to the contrary.

The ball is actually in your court. :)

Quit nit-picking. The important point in my statement was clear: The developer misappropriated money.

I proved that, read the article. You're disingenuously trying to re-focus attention on a minor and unimportant sub-point, by alleging that I'm wrong because, even though it's clear they misappropriated money, I haven't shown they spent it in Atlanta. Gimme a break. LOL

My point was clearly about the misappropriation of money. Vic then tried to disagree, saying they spent the money as they were supposed to, or on other COJ improvements. When I demonstrated that to be false, he then tried pulling the same trick you are and re-focusing on the Atlanta thing. So fine, forget Atlanta, that wasn't my point. My point was that they misappropriated money, and I was indeed correct.

If they misappropriated money why didn't the grand jury indict them?

Quote from: urbanlibertarian on May 01, 2009, 08:31:48 PM
If they misappropriated money why didn't the grand jury indict them?

Blame our likely future mayor, Rick Mullaney, for that one.

He royally screwed up drafting the contract, and Trilegacy fully exploited it. Even though what they did was clearly wrong by anyone's standard, the language in the contract was so ambiguous as to leave some question about whether it was criminal.

Way to go COJ! Where do I sign up for my free $40 million?

Your accusation was that they spent NO money on the Shipyards project at all.  That they basically took the money and hit the road.  You haven't provided ONE SHRED of evidence that they have spent ANY of that MONEY in Atlanta, or Alaska or ANYWHERE outside the 45 acre boundaries of the project.

Linking one article about the controversy surrounding the situation, which makes NO MENTION of ANY MONEY spent on outside projects of TriLegacy does NOT prove your point in any way.

I have listed several things that collectively prove that millions have been spent on the site and/or project while TriLegacy owned it.  Are you suggesting that the architects, engineers, realtors, newspapers, magazines, marketing companies, earthmovers, etc. all just DONATED their materials and services.  I'm sorry I can't provide you with receipts, but many people saw the same ads, marketing materials,etc.

The link below mentions that the building and regulatory permits were obtained for the first building, something which could not have happened without a signifcant amount of professional fees being spent.  Your own link referred to the mortgage payoff, so unless someone donated that too, that is multi-millions in itself.

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/062603/bus_12883407.shtml (http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/062603/bus_12883407.shtml)

This link discusses the sales center and landscaping that was done for it.

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/111502/bus_10973921.shtml (http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/111502/bus_10973921.shtml)
             

Quote from: vicupstate on May 01, 2009, 09:51:50 PM
Your accusation was that they spent NO money on the Shipyards project at all.  That they basically took the money and hit the road.  You haven't provided ONE SHRED of evidence that they have spent ANY of that MONEY in Atlanta, or Alaska or ANYWHERE outside the 45 acre boundaries of the project.

Linking one article about the controversy surrounding the situation, which makes NO MENTION of ANY MONEY spent on outside projects of TriLegacy does NOT prove your point in any way.

I have listed several things that collectively prove that millions have been spent on the site and/or project while TriLegacy owned it.  Are you suggesting that the architects, engineers, realtors, newspapers, magazines, marketing companies, earthmovers, etc. all just DONATED their materials and services.  I'm sorry I can't provide you with receipts, but many people saw the same ads, marketing materials,etc.

The link below mentions that the building and regulatory permits were obtained for the first building, something which could not have happened without a signifcant amount of professional fees being spent.  Your own link referred to the mortgage payoff, so unless someone donated that too, that is multi-millions in itself.

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/062603/bus_12883407.shtml (http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/062603/bus_12883407.shtml)

This link discusses the sales center and landscaping that was done for it.

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/111502/bus_10973921.shtml (http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/111502/bus_10973921.shtml)
             

Vic, quit putting words in my mouth, it's getting ridiculous. My point was that they misappropriated public money.

If you re-read my posts, that is readily obvious. I was in fact correct, as even your own sources indicate. Let it go...

Sorry Chris. I'd like to agree with a fellow gator but I have to side with the others. Go reread your first post. You might think we're nitpicking on a minor issue, but this was the entire substance of your original statement, which prompted Vic's first rebuttal. I'd say that you haven't proven a single claim from your original post. it is from that point that YOU began to backtrack from your initial statement.

I'll also acknowledge that I have a strong bias against exaggerations. For future reference, when you're making a bold assertion, be sure it's grounded fully in reality and don't overstate the truth when trying to make your point. In my eyes, even if your premise is correct, this only serves to weaken your argument.

Quote from: ProjectMaximus on May 02, 2009, 04:04:17 AM
Sorry Chris. I'd like to agree with a fellow gator but I have to side with the others. Go reread your first post. You might think we're nitpicking on a minor issue, but this was the entire substance of your original statement, which prompted Vic's first rebuttal. I'd say that you haven't proven a single claim from your original post. it is from that point that YOU began to backtrack from your initial statement.

I'll also acknowledge that I have a strong bias against exaggerations. For future reference, when you're making a bold assertion, be sure it's grounded fully in reality and don't overstate the truth when trying to make your point. In my eyes, even if your premise is correct, this only serves to weaken your argument.

B.S.

These were my first posts on page 1 of this thread, I'll even highlight the relevant portions to be helpful. The Atlanta thing was a minor sub-point. As you can clearly see from my own words, the developer's taking of public money was my primary point.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 29, 2009, 09:48:02 AM
Call me old-fashioned, but if LandMar has spent $19 million on street/walkway/bulkhead improvements for COJ, then maybe we can cut them a break on a $400k tax bill?

I mean, this is still worlds better than the last go-around at the shipyards, where we paid $40 million to an Atlanta developer who literally just stole the money and used it to build a subdivision in Atlanta, and didn't so much as move a shovelful of dirt here. Worst part is, a loophole in their contract let them get away with it.

And I clearly proved my point way back on page 1:

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 29, 2009, 05:44:49 PM

Quote from: vicupstate on April 29, 2009, 10:06:10 AM

The original developer, TriLegacy, was local and had nothing to do with Atlanta to my knowledge.  They spent the money on the bulkheads as I remember.

Yeah, well, you remembered wrong.

Most of the money got transferred to the corporate accounts, and used for other non-related projects.

If you still disagree, you're welcome to go argue with the Times-Union:

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/091207/met_198799990.shtml

And...

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 29, 2009, 09:36:30 PM
Did you even bother to read the article before spouting off?

This is a direct quote:

Quote"The condo, retail and office project was halted in 2004 after the city determined TriLegacy had spent $22 million of city money on development other than public improvements, Mullaney said."

I don't see much ambiguity there, do you? They got $$$$$, and didn't spend it where they were supposed to. Specifically, they spent it on other development (not at that site), as is clearly mentioned in the article. End of story.

If you have any further problems, as I said before, go argue with the Times-Union.

So quit trying to put words in my mouth.

My point was clearly regarding regarding the misappropriation of public money, right from the beginning. Vic is trying to conveniently re-frame the debate around a minor sub-point/comment, in order to avoid acknowledging that he was wrong about TriLegacy misappropriating public money.

What I said was clear. If you can read all of my comments, which were posted way back on page 1 of this thread, and really believe that my point was about Atlanta, then I don't know what to tell you, except that you have clearly misunderstood my comments, and that the misunderstanding certainly didn't originate on my end. That clearly was never my point or primary concern.

I'm confused.  If the main point is the money was misappropriated, yet the grand jury failed to indict, then that means, in the eyes of the courts, that Trilegacy did not misappropriate the funds, regardless of other opinions.

Regardless of a shaky contract, both parties agreed to it and the grand jury could not indict.  If the contract language allows for so-called loopholes, then it means it is open to interpretation and Trilegacy acted within the bounds of the contract since there was no ruling of wrongdoing.

Quote from: JaxNole on May 02, 2009, 09:33:04 AM
I'm confused.  If the main point is the money was misappropriated, yet the grand jury failed to indict, then that means, in the eyes of the courts, that Trilegacy did not misappropriate the funds, regardless of other opinions.

Regardless of a shaky contract, both parties agreed to it and the grand jury could not indict.  If the contract language allows for so-called loopholes, then it means it is open to interpretation and Trilegacy acted within the bounds of the contract since there was no ruling of wrongdoing.

More people commit crimes than are actually convicted, I think we can all agree on that one. Look at OJ.

COJ clearly didn't intend to just hand over a free $22 million. That was not the purpose or intent of the contract.

Also, even though they tried to get an indictment and failed, COJ did wind up suing TriLegacy civilly, though I'm not sure whatever happened with it. You can have civil misappropriation that isn't necessarily criminal. Two different standards of proof, civil is preponderance of the evidence and criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt. That they weren't convicted criminally doesn't mean they didn't misappropriate.

Help a fellow Gator Nole out here: Does the contract state explicitly how Trilegacy could use the funds?

Quote from: JaxNole on May 02, 2009, 09:51:28 AM
Help a fellow Gator Nole out here: Does the contract state explicitly how Trilegacy could use the funds?

Yup. http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/print.html&client=printer&f=123&t=6106

This is the best part:

QuoteAs their lawyers had argued to the city, the Spences told the Times-Union there had been no misuse of public money. They said money from a city bond issue was pooled with their private funds but that nothing in their arrangement with the city prohibited that.

A contract that the city and TriLegacy signed in 2001 said city money should be spent "for purposes consistent with the expenditures of proceeds of tax exempt bonds."

They said expenses that were listed in the draft lawsuit, including travel to Bermuda and buying an NFL skybox, were legitimate business costs that TriLegacy would cover with private funds. The men said Hamilton Traylor, TriLegacy's president, flew to Bermuda to examine docks built by a contractor who wanted to build The Shipyards' marina. Skybox seats were marketing tools, they said, used to woo or reward customers signing up for the project's $750,000 condominiums.

The developers said they don't understand why, in April, City Hall began questioning their work. Carlton Spence said his first hint of trouble was when Mayor John Peyton called and said the city wanted to perform a financial review. City officials have said the Jacksonville Economic Development Commission was reviewing grants to developers and asked TriLegacy for information about how it had spent public money, then had city lawyers follow up when the company provided information that was too general.

I suppose you have to give their lawyers credit for being so creative in coming up with those utterly laughable bull$h!t excuses for how Bermuda vacations and NFL skyboxes were somehow legitimate expenditures, but nevertheless I think anyone with 3 brain cells can see through that veil.

So you really going to try and argue that jetting to Bermuda and buying NFL skyboxes were legitimate project expenses?

Or would you want to argue that vacations and NFL skyboxes are consistent with the purposes of public bond issues?

Pick your poison...

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 02, 2009, 08:44:35 AM

Quote from: ProjectMaximus on May 02, 2009, 04:04:17 AM
Sorry Chris. I'd like to agree with a fellow gator but I have to side with the others. Go reread your first post. You might think we're nitpicking on a minor issue, but this was the entire substance of your original statement, which prompted Vic's first rebuttal. I'd say that you haven't proven a single claim from your original post. it is from that point that YOU began to backtrack from your initial statement.

I'll also acknowledge that I have a strong bias against exaggerations. For future reference, when you're making a bold assertion, be sure it's grounded fully in reality and don't overstate the truth when trying to make your point. In my eyes, even if your premise is correct, this only serves to weaken your argument.

B.S.

These were my first posts on page 1 of this thread, I'll even highlight the relevant portions to be helpful. The Atlanta thing was a minor sub-point. As you can clearly see from my own words, the developer's taking of public money was my primary point.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 29, 2009, 09:48:02 AM
Call me old-fashioned, but if LandMar has spent $19 million on street/walkway/bulkhead improvements for COJ, then maybe we can cut them a break on a $400k tax bill?

I mean, this is still worlds better than the last go-around at the shipyards, where we paid $40 million to an Atlanta developer who literally just stole the money and used it to build a subdivision in Atlanta, and didn't so much as move a shovelful of dirt here. Worst part is, a loophole in their contract let them get away with it.

Wow...I'm not sure what to make of you. Maybe you need to just pause for a moment and try and take an overview of the situation? Can you be objective or is your entire existence on these boards to work on your lawyer skills and debate from whatever position you're handed?

You have proven a point throughout this thread which I can fully agree with, and which the facts support. All I am saying is that you can't possibly stand by your initial post. And to think you highlighted what was relevant is a joke, seeing as you are now choosing "what was relevant." The notion that your subsequent posts should indicate what you meant is also silly...when I read your first post there werent any subsequent posts. In any case, lets go through your highlighted portions:
1) they stole $40 million: wrong (you later revised that to 22 mill)
2) didnt so much as move a shovel of dirt here: wrong (if you meant public property you should have said that)
3) loophole in the contract let them get away with it: wrong (since this is based on the above premise being correct. There may have been a loophole, but it didnt allow them to get away with what you specifically said they did.)

Then there's the other two comments you made...
1) Atlanta developer: wrong
2) used the money to build a subdivision in ATL: wrong.

Hence, my problem with your original post. I sincerely hope you get my point about not exaggerating. It's just me and there are other people who arent gonna be bothered by it, but when I read something like your first post, which I knew nothing about, and my reaction is to accept what you say at face value and all the emotions that go with it...when I later realize that it isn't completely true, you automatically lose a bit of credibility. It's one thing to exaggerate and make it clear youre being over the top, but another thing entirely if you're not.

As for the rest of what you've said since, I think it's clear the city lost out in this deal and there were plenty of misappropriated funds (though, sadly, some of these tactics probably arent unique to trilegacy) I agree with this and am definitely no trilegacy sympathizer as Vic seems to be.

Quote from: ProjectMaximus on May 02, 2009, 01:06:10 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 02, 2009, 08:44:35 AM

Quote from: ProjectMaximus on May 02, 2009, 04:04:17 AM
Sorry Chris. I'd like to agree with a fellow gator but I have to side with the others. Go reread your first post. You might think we're nitpicking on a minor issue, but this was the entire substance of your original statement, which prompted Vic's first rebuttal. I'd say that you haven't proven a single claim from your original post. it is from that point that YOU began to backtrack from your initial statement.

I'll also acknowledge that I have a strong bias against exaggerations. For future reference, when you're making a bold assertion, be sure it's grounded fully in reality and don't overstate the truth when trying to make your point. In my eyes, even if your premise is correct, this only serves to weaken your argument.

B.S.

These were my first posts on page 1 of this thread, I'll even highlight the relevant portions to be helpful. The Atlanta thing was a minor sub-point. As you can clearly see from my own words, the developer's taking of public money was my primary point.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 29, 2009, 09:48:02 AM
Call me old-fashioned, but if LandMar has spent $19 million on street/walkway/bulkhead improvements for COJ, then maybe we can cut them a break on a $400k tax bill?

I mean, this is still worlds better than the last go-around at the shipyards, where we paid $40 million to an Atlanta developer who literally just stole the money and used it to build a subdivision in Atlanta, and didn't so much as move a shovelful of dirt here. Worst part is, a loophole in their contract let them get away with it.

Wow...I'm not sure what to make of you. Maybe you need to just pause for a moment and try and take an overview of the situation? Can you be objective or is your entire existence on these boards to work on your lawyer skills and debate from whatever position you're handed?

You have proven a point throughout this thread which I can fully agree with, and which the facts support. All I am saying is that you can't possibly stand by your initial post. And to think you highlighted what was relevant is a joke, seeing as you are now choosing "what was relevant." The notion that your subsequent posts should indicate what you meant is also silly...when I read your first post there werent any subsequent posts. In any case, lets go through your highlighted portions:
1) they stole $40 million: wrong (you later revised that to 22 mill)
2) didnt so much as move a shovel of dirt here: wrong (if you meant public property you should have said that)
3) loophole in the contract let them get away with it: wrong (since this is based on the above premise being correct. There may have been a loophole, but it didnt allow them to get away with what you specifically said they did.)

Then there's the other two comments you made...
1) Atlanta developer: wrong
2) used the money to build a subdivision in ATL: wrong.

Hence, my problem with your original post. I sincerely hope you get my point about not exaggerating. It's just me and there are other people who arent gonna be bothered by it, but when I read something like your first post, which I knew nothing about, and my reaction is to accept what you say at face value and all the emotions that go with it...when I later realize that it isn't completely true, you automatically lose a bit of credibility. It's one thing to exaggerate and make it clear youre being over the top, but another thing entirely if you're not.

As for the rest of what you've said since, I think it's clear the city lost out in this deal and there were plenty of misappropriated funds (though, sadly, some of these tactics probably arent unique to trilegacy) I agree with this and am definitely no trilegacy sympathizer as Vic seems to be.

Clearly, you see my main point was in fact about misappropriation of funds, correct?

Though you're still nit-picking, it's evidently not doing you much good, since you've already had to acknowledge that much in your latest post.

It's clear from my posts that Atlanta was simply a side-comment, if I'm wrong on that then great, it doesn't affect the point I made. You are being ridiculous and disingenuous in your interpretation.

If you say it does, then answer this question: Did the developer misappropriate funds or not?

And is $22 million any less wrong than $40 million? Quit playing silly semantic games and dodging my point. Either they took money or they didn't.

I do not think Vic is a trilegacy sympathizer... we just know emotional exaggeration when we see it.  The points you have made are entirely correct.  :)

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 02, 2009, 01:16:27 PM
Clearly, you see my main point was in fact about misappropriation of funds, correct?

Though you're still nit-picking, it's evidently not doing you much good, since you've already had to acknowledge that much in your latest post.

It's clear from my posts that Atlanta was simply a side-comment, if I'm wrong on that then great, it doesn't affect the point I made. You are being ridiculous and disingenuous in your interpretation.

If you say it does, then answer this question: Did the developer misappropriate funds or not?

And is $22 million any less wrong than $40 million? Quit playing silly semantic games and dodging my point. Either they took money or they didn't.

Chris, I think we're just two very different people. If you still dont get it, you never will. Which is fine...I may be very much in the minority with my mindset. But I'll just say it one last time...

there's a huge difference between 40 million and 22 million when one is the truth and one isnt. Same with Atlanta. They are minor details...but why did you choose to lie over such minor details then? You would've been very convincing had you not.

I can absolutely assure you I am not being disingenuous in my interpretation of your first post. Ridiculous is in the eye of the beholder, i suppose, but I hardly think that it's ridiculous to expect facts to be presented as they really are. This definitely isn't semantics either, and YOU have to admit that your first post did not at all make clear what your subsequent "main point" would be.

I read your first post and I thought, wow, what a terribly malicious thing they did. I read Vic's response and I thought, interesting, but what does he know? I saw your reply and I thought, BURN!! Chris got him good. Then I read the article you posted, and it became evident you couldnt back up your claims. It doesn't matter that your intentions were more or less correct, the fact that you greatly exaggerated the situation weakened your argument in my mind. And from now on, when I read what you say I can no longer trust it. Doesn't mean you won't be right most of the time, it just means I'm hesitant to believe you. And it doesn't mean everyone will think the same way I do. As I somewhat alluded to before, I have a rather personal reason for my extreme distaste for people making exaggerations (portrayed as reality) in an attempt to strengthen their arguments.

Anyway, I'm stepping away from this debate now cause there's nothing more for me to say. I have no dispute with your modified allegations. This seems very legit and essentially what everyone has been crying about for so long. And I accept that you may not agree with my view of exaggerations, since I have said time and time again that this might just be my personality. But do not tell me I'm being disingenuous or arguing semantics.

Quote from: ProjectMaximus on May 03, 2009, 03:19:29 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 02, 2009, 01:16:27 PM
Clearly, you see my main point was in fact about misappropriation of funds, correct?

Though you're still nit-picking, it's evidently not doing you much good, since you've already had to acknowledge that much in your latest post.

It's clear from my posts that Atlanta was simply a side-comment, if I'm wrong on that then great, it doesn't affect the point I made. You are being ridiculous and disingenuous in your interpretation.

If you say it does, then answer this question: Did the developer misappropriate funds or not?

And is $22 million any less wrong than $40 million? Quit playing silly semantic games and dodging my point. Either they took money or they didn't.

Chris, I think we're just two very different people. If you still dont get it, you never will. Which is fine...I may be very much in the minority with my mindset. But I'll just say it one last time...

there's a huge difference between 40 million and 22 million when one is the truth and one isnt. Same with Atlanta. They are minor details...but why did you choose to lie over such minor details then? You would've been very convincing had you not.

I can absolutely assure you I am not being disingenuous in my interpretation of your first post. Ridiculous is in the eye of the beholder, i suppose, but I hardly think that it's ridiculous to expect facts to be presented as they really are. This definitely isn't semantics either, and YOU have to admit that your first post did not at all make clear what your subsequent "main point" would be.

I read your first post and I thought, wow, what a terribly malicious thing they did. I read Vic's response and I thought, interesting, but what does he know? I saw your reply and I thought, BURN!! Chris got him good. Then I read the article you posted, and it became evident you couldnt back up your claims. It doesn't matter that your intentions were more or less correct, the fact that you greatly exaggerated the situation weakened your argument in my mind. And from now on, when I read what you say I can no longer trust it. Doesn't mean you won't be right most of the time, it just means I'm hesitant to believe you. And it doesn't mean everyone will think the same way I do. As I somewhat alluded to before, I have a rather personal reason for my extreme distaste for people making exaggerations (portrayed as reality) in an attempt to strengthen their arguments.

Anyway, I'm stepping away from this debate now cause there's nothing more for me to say. I have no dispute with your modified allegations. This seems very legit and essentially what everyone has been crying about for so long. And I accept that you may not agree with my view of exaggerations, since I have said time and time again that this might just be my personality. But do not tell me I'm being disingenuous or arguing semantics.

I'm not the one who's "not getting it". I backed up my point just fine. Did you even read the second article I posted?

So for you to be correct, then I suppose you really believe that vacations to Bermuda and NFL Skyboxes were legitimate project expenses? And that they are consistent with the intended purpose of a public bond offering? Gimme a break...

And yes, you are both being disingenuous AND arguing semantics. How exactly am I wrong, when they clearly misappropriated at least $22 million dollars? The silly counterpoints you've introduced, mainly that I was wrong about where they spent the money they stole (e.g. not in Atlanta...sorry, was going off memory on that one), or slightly off on the actual amount (and stealing $22 million of public money is no less wrong than stealing $40 million), are plainly myopic and silly. My point from the beginning was CLEARLY that they misappropriated public funds. And guess what: They did.

We've already been through this, and you've already tried to re-frame the debate to suit your convenience. You tried pulling Vic's B.S. trick and saying the misappropriation of money wasn't 'really' my point, so I went through my first 3 posts on this topic way back on page 1 of this thread (before you ever posted) and highlighted the relevant portions for you, establishing that this was indeed my point. So I guess if you still have issues with that, go back and re-read Reply #34 in this thread. I've already shot this crap down once, I'm not going through it piece-by-piece again.

You keep stating that I haven't backed up my point, when in reality I've posted two different articles, showing that they misappropriated at least $22 million dollars in public money, and spent it on ridiculous things that even their lawyers were scrambling to come up with lame excuses for. You, meanwhile, have posted absolutely nothing but your own opinion.

So for me to be "wrong" as you say, then wouldn't you need to demonstrate that they didn't take money? Where exactly have you done that? You haven't. You want to sit here with your blinders on like a 3 year old who wants its rattle, saying "you haven't proven your point", when I've already posted sources that indeed DO prove my point, and you meanwhile have posted nothing of your own.

So if you really want to debate whether I'm wrong, then let's hear you justify how NFL Skyboxes and flights to Bermuda are somehow legitimate uses of public money...

And the only part of your statement I'm in agreement with you on is that, yes, we are clearly two very different people. And of course, I loved your classic message-board tactical 101 trick with "Oh I have nothing further to say and I'm not going to participate in this anymore blah blah blah, but wait...here...let me write 17 more paragraphs and get the last word in first...". Really dredging the bottom of barrel on that one. That's an oldie-goldie...did you sneeze when you dusted that one off?

Quotethe fact that you greatly exaggerated the situation weakened your argument in my mind. And from now on, when I read what you say I can no longer trust it. Doesn't mean you won't be right most of the time, it just means I'm hesitant to believe you.

I completely agree...

Quotemainly that I was wrong about where they spent the money they stole (e.g. not in Atlanta...sorry, was going off memory on that one), or slightly off on the actual amount

And if you had something similar to this immediately no one would be questioning your arguments.  The main point may very well be valid... the method with which you portrayed them was not.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 03, 2009, 08:55:09 AM
I'm not the one who's "not getting it". I backed up my point just fine. Did you even read the second article I posted?

So for you to be correct, then I suppose you really believe that vacations to Bermuda and NFL Skyboxes were legitimate project expenses? And that they are consistent with the intended purpose of a public bond offering? Gimme a break...

And yes, you are both being disingenuous AND arguing semantics. How exactly am I wrong, when they clearly misappropriated at least $22 million dollars? The silly counterpoints you've introduced, mainly that I was wrong about where they spent the money they stole (e.g. not in Atlanta...sorry, was going off memory on that one), or slightly off on the actual amount (and stealing $22 million of public money is no less wrong than stealing $40 million), are plainly myopic and silly. My point from the beginning was CLEARLY that they misappropriated public funds. And guess what: They did.

We've already been through this, and you've already tried to re-frame the debate to suit your convenience. You tried pulling Vic's B.S. trick and saying the misappropriation of money wasn't 'really' my point, so I went through my first 3 posts on this topic way back on page 1 of this thread (before you ever posted) and highlighted the relevant portions for you, establishing that this was indeed my point. So I guess if you still have issues with that, go back and re-read Reply #34 in this thread. I've already shot this crap down once, I'm not going through it piece-by-piece again.

You keep stating that I haven't backed up my point, when in reality I've posted two different articles, showing that they misappropriated at least $22 million dollars in public money, and spent it on ridiculous things that even their lawyers were scrambling to come up with lame excuses for. You, meanwhile, have posted absolutely nothing but your own opinion.

So for me to be "wrong" as you say, then wouldn't you need to demonstrate that they didn't take money? Where exactly have you done that? You haven't. You want to sit here with your blinders on like a 3 year old who wants its rattle, saying "you haven't proven your point", when I've already posted sources that indeed DO prove my point, and you meanwhile have posted nothing of your own.

So if you really want to debate whether I'm wrong, then let's hear you justify how NFL Skyboxes and flights to Bermuda are somehow legitimate uses of public money...

And the only part of your statement I'm in agreement with you on is that, yes, we are clearly two very different people. And of course, I loved your classic message-board tactical 101 trick with "Oh I have nothing further to say and I'm not going to participate in this anymore blah blah blah, but wait...here...let me write 17 more paragraphs and get the last word in first...". Really dredging the bottom of barrel on that one. That's an oldie-goldie...did you sneeze when you dusted that one off?

lol...you can have the last word. Go ahead and respond to this...I promise I won't reply to you on this topic again unless something completely new is brought to the table. But I just want to tell you that I was not and am not being disingenuous, and it's becoming rather offensive that you keep saying that. I told you exactly how I reacted to your posts...nothing is fabricated, and I could care less about trying to win an argument with you. As far as the message board tactic you're referring to...I'm hardly a veteran of message boards and have never once thought about how to get the last word in. I simply stated that I had nothing more to say because I (anticipating you would continue to argue facts that I had already said I agreed with) didn't want you to call me out for disappearing. Again, I won't respond after this, but it's because I don't feel like going in circles, not because I'm running away. (BTW...i wrote 17 paragraphs after I said that? That was my conclusion...if my eyes work properly there were just 4 more sentences after that)

How bout working on your reading comprehension? I haven't debated any of your facts. I just disputed your first post, and the fact that I was supposed to know what you really meant just from reading that first post.

Here's my last paragraph again from earlier. It's still entirely applicable, and I'll highlight the part that (for the sake of this thread and our civility) I will say is the most important sentence.

QuoteAnyway, I'm stepping away from this debate now cause there's nothing more for me to say. I have no dispute with your modified allegations. This seems very legit and essentially what everyone has been crying about for so long. And I accept that you may not agree with my view of exaggerations, since I have said time and time again that this might just be my personality. But do not tell me I'm being disingenuous or arguing semantics.

EDIT: I included a personal attack that, in retrospect I don't think belongs in a thoughtful discussion. Sorry.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 03, 2009, 08:58:26 AM

Quotethe fact that you greatly exaggerated the situation weakened your argument in my mind. And from now on, when I read what you say I can no longer trust it. Doesn't mean you won't be right most of the time, it just means I'm hesitant to believe you.

I completely agree...

Quotemainly that I was wrong about where they spent the money they stole (e.g. not in Atlanta...sorry, was going off memory on that one), or slightly off on the actual amount

And if you had something similar to this immediately no one would be questioning your arguments.  The main point may very well be valid... the method with which you portrayed them was not.

I didn't exaggerate the situation, I was just going off memory in the beginning, and this thing happened 5 years ago. Considering the elapsed time, I'd say I did pretty darn good. I said they misappropriated public money, and indeed they did.

And as to to the rest of your comment, I can count many more examples of exaggerated rhetoric, useless twisting of words, and childish argument tactics in the comments of the two other posters in this discussion than I can find in my own.

And even then, my Atlanta misstatement was just me trying to go off memory, it wasn't some 'attempt' to achieve anything in the discussion...unlike the other two with their crusade to re-frame the debate around a minor non-issue to avoid acknowledging they were incorrect.

Quote from: ProjectMaximus on May 03, 2009, 04:29:49 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 03, 2009, 08:55:09 AM
I'm not the one who's "not getting it". I backed up my point just fine. Did you even read the second article I posted?

So for you to be correct, then I suppose you really believe that vacations to Bermuda and NFL Skyboxes were legitimate project expenses? And that they are consistent with the intended purpose of a public bond offering? Gimme a break...

And yes, you are both being disingenuous AND arguing semantics. How exactly am I wrong, when they clearly misappropriated at least $22 million dollars? The silly counterpoints you've introduced, mainly that I was wrong about where they spent the money they stole (e.g. not in Atlanta...sorry, was going off memory on that one), or slightly off on the actual amount (and stealing $22 million of public money is no less wrong than stealing $40 million), are plainly myopic and silly. My point from the beginning was CLEARLY that they misappropriated public funds. And guess what: They did.

We've already been through this, and you've already tried to re-frame the debate to suit your convenience. You tried pulling Vic's B.S. trick and saying the misappropriation of money wasn't 'really' my point, so I went through my first 3 posts on this topic way back on page 1 of this thread (before you ever posted) and highlighted the relevant portions for you, establishing that this was indeed my point. So I guess if you still have issues with that, go back and re-read Reply #34 in this thread. I've already shot this crap down once, I'm not going through it piece-by-piece again.

You keep stating that I haven't backed up my point, when in reality I've posted two different articles, showing that they misappropriated at least $22 million dollars in public money, and spent it on ridiculous things that even their lawyers were scrambling to come up with lame excuses for. You, meanwhile, have posted absolutely nothing but your own opinion.

So for me to be "wrong" as you say, then wouldn't you need to demonstrate that they didn't take money? Where exactly have you done that? You haven't. You want to sit here with your blinders on like a 3 year old who wants its rattle, saying "you haven't proven your point", when I've already posted sources that indeed DO prove my point, and you meanwhile have posted nothing of your own.

So if you really want to debate whether I'm wrong, then let's hear you justify how NFL Skyboxes and flights to Bermuda are somehow legitimate uses of public money...

And the only part of your statement I'm in agreement with you on is that, yes, we are clearly two very different people. And of course, I loved your classic message-board tactical 101 trick with "Oh I have nothing further to say and I'm not going to participate in this anymore blah blah blah, but wait...here...let me write 17 more paragraphs and get the last word in first...". Really dredging the bottom of barrel on that one. That's an oldie-goldie...did you sneeze when you dusted that one off?

lol...you can have the last word. Go ahead and respond to this...I promise I won't reply to you on this topic again unless something completely new is brought to the table. But I just want to tell you that I was not and am not being disingenuous, and it's becoming rather offensive that you keep saying that. I told you exactly how I reacted to your posts...nothing is fabricated, and I could care less about trying to win an argument with you. As far as the message board tactic you're referring to...I'm hardly a veteran of message boards and have never once thought about how to get the last word in. I simply stated that I had nothing more to say because I (anticipating you would continue to argue facts that I had already said I agreed with) didn't want you to call me out for disappearing. Again, I won't respond after this, but it's because I don't feel like going in circles, not because I'm running away. (BTW...i wrote 17 paragraphs after I said that? That was my conclusion...if my eyes work properly there were just 4 more sentences after that)

Good luck with law, man. Your stubborn attitude and narrow-mindedness should serve well, eh? How bout also learning to read? I haven't debated any of your facts. I just disputed your first post, and the fact that I was supposed to know what you really meant just from reading that first post. And sorry for the cheap shots up there...but if you're gonna dish it, I hope you can take it too.

Here's my last paragraph again from earlier. It's still entirely applicable, and I'll highlight the part that (for the sake of this thread and our civility) I will say is the most important sentence.

QuoteAnyway, I'm stepping away from this debate now cause there's nothing more for me to say. I have no dispute with your modified allegations. This seems very legit and essentially what everyone has been crying about for so long. And I accept that you may not agree with my view of exaggerations, since I have said time and time again that this might just be my personality. But do not tell me I'm being disingenuous or arguing semantics.

Thanks, but my allegations aren't 'modified'. My point from the beginning was they misappropriated public money, and indeed they did. You and Vic keep trying to paint me into some corner by re-framing the debate around a minor and unimportant sub-issue that was at most an ancillary side comment, and was never my point to begin with.

I think this whole thing is excessively silly. I may have been wrong about them spending their stolen money in Atlanta, but I certainly wasn't wrong about them stealing the money! I mean, come on, are you really trying to tell me you didn't get my point there? Pfffft! What's next? If I get shot, are the cops going to sit around arguing with me for 3 days instead of calling me an ambulance because I said the robber used a .38 and it was really a .45? Gimme an effin' break man, that's preposterous.

That whole line of argument is nothing but disingenuous semantic games. This issue only started when Vic tried arguing with me about the misappropriation issue, wound up being wrong, and then tried to fall to back on my Atlanta side-comment to save face. It now seems to have side-tracked the entire discussion, which was never about that to begin with. And you jumped right on the bandwagon.

And nobody's going to call you out for 'disappearing', but by the same token your 3rd-grade argument tactic of whining "I won't participate in this anymore..." while then writing 47 more paragraphs explaining why you think you're right and trying to get the last word in is just plain childish. Come on, that's not you 'anticipating' anything, it's just an inane attempt to make me look like the bad guy if I responded to your post. In what twilight-zone episode does that actually work? Evidently you still haven't learned a lesson, since you tried pulling the same old B.S. again in your latest post.

But anyway, I'll let it drop if that's what you want. I think this whole thing is pretty stupid. You and Vic's disingenuous attempt to conveniently re-frame the debate aside, my point was clear from the beginning, and TriLegacy clearly misappropriated public funds. I hope the next developer won't pull the same stunt. That is all I was trying to say.

Ask him about pizza parlor service... :)

TRL did knock down the music shed, clean up the site and yes, they were best known for building cold storage warehouses, not multi-million dollar residential buildings. The mayor, the general counsel, City Council, the JEDC (and mostly DDA) all had a large hand in this debacle.

After all the finger pointing and back slapping, even though nothing is on the site, it still looks better now, than it did when it was the dumpy Music Shed.

Quote from: mtraininjax on May 07, 2009, 01:23:17 AM
it still looks better now, than it did when it was the dumpy Music Shed.

$22 million dollars better? LOL

I have yet to hear ONE example of a misappropriation.  Everything mentioned has been related to the Shipyards site (the private part, or the public part). 

If money was spent on something OTHER than marketing or developng the 45 acre Shipyards site, then yes, THAT would have been a misappropriation.


As I mentioned before, the key disagreement is 'what was Trilegacy allowed to spend the money on?'  The city thought the PUBLIC improvements were the only thing allowed, period.  The Spences thought that it was proper to spend money on any aspect of the Shipyards project, provided the public improvements were eventually funded to the level of the public investment.  The city did not win it's case because it's expectations were not in the contract.

Considering that a key selling point of the condos was their proximity to an NFL stadium, and that  an NFL TEAM OWNER agreed to buy one of the units, the NFL Skybox does NOT seem unreasonable.   These condos were marketing at a price level where 'wining and dining' is expected and typical. Having Weaver live in the building made the other units more marketable.  If you don't believe 'prestige' and hob-knobbing matter in business deals, you are mistaken.     

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/022704/bus_14933108.shtml?jump=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsjobs.com%2F&IMAGE.x=0&IMAGE.y=0 (http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/022704/bus_14933108.shtml?jump=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsjobs.com%2F&IMAGE.x=0&IMAGE.y=0)

A Marina was part of the Shipyards project and getting permission to build one is no simple task.  If you can prove that Spence did not inspect a marina while in Bermuda, then that would indeed be a  misappropriation, but hardly a $22 million one.

The entire premise of your original post was that TriLegacy had no intention of doing anything other than ripping the city off, and that NO money was spent on the Shipyards project, but instead was diverted to OTHER projects.  I have listed several examples of money being spent on the project, and you have not given any examples of money being spent OUTSIDE of the project.

Had I been involved with Trilegacy, I would have wanted a clear understanding in the contract as to what the money could be spent on, and when.  The city should have wanted the same thing.  Had that taken place, this fiasco would never have happened. Given the city has a large staff of lawyers, does real estate contracts perpetually, and is a multi-billion dolllar enterprise, I personally would fault the city more than Trilegacy for that ommission.   

Given the city did not persaude either the jury nor the State's attorney that Trilegacy was in default of the contract, the accusation that TriLegacy was maliciously motivated or misappropriated funds it totally without proof.  To state otherwise is to slander them.

I think TriLegacy was in over its head and should have gone to much greater lengths to protect itself and the city from these misunderstanding.  However, the property did belong to TriLegacy to been with, and it was the city's idea to have them do a project far different than what they originally planned (ie building cold storage warehouses).   The sad part is that they were probably just a few contracts from being able to break ground on the first building.  Had that happened, things might have worked out.               

I believe they broke ground on the first building.  I could have sworn they were doing foundation work on One Shipyard Place when the dispute between the two parties heated up.

Quote from: vicupstate on May 07, 2009, 09:47:19 PM
I have yet to hear ONE example of a misappropriation.  Everything mentioned has been related to the Shipyards site (the private part, or the public part). 

If money was spent on something OTHER than marketing or developng the 45 acre Shipyards site, then yes, THAT would have been a misappropriation.


As I mentioned before, the key disagreement is 'what was Trilegacy allowed to spend the money on?'  The city thought the PUBLIC improvements were the only thing allowed, period.  The Spences thought that it was proper to spend money on any aspect of the Shipyards project, provided the public improvements were eventually funded to the level of the public investment.  The city did not win it's case because it's expectations were not in the contract.

Considering that a key selling point of the condos was their proximity to an NFL stadium, and that  an NFL TEAM OWNER agreed to buy one of the units, the NFL Skybox does NOT seem unreasonable.   These condos were marketing at a price level where 'wining and dining' is expected and typical. Having Weaver live in the building made the other units more marketable.  If you don't believe 'prestige' and hob-knobbing matter in business deals, you are mistaken.    

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/022704/bus_14933108.shtml?jump=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsjobs.com%2F&IMAGE.x=0&IMAGE.y=0 (http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/022704/bus_14933108.shtml?jump=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsjobs.com%2F&IMAGE.x=0&IMAGE.y=0)

A Marina was part of the Shipyards project and getting permission to build one is no simple task.  If you can prove that Spence did not inspect a marina while in Bermuda, then that would indeed be a  misappropriation, but hardly a $22 million one.

The entire premise of your original post was that TriLegacy had no intention of doing anything other than ripping the city off, and that NO money was spent on the Shipyards project, but instead was diverted to OTHER projects.  I have listed several examples of money being spent on the project, and you have not given any examples of money being spent OUTSIDE of the project.

Had I been involved with Trilegacy, I would have wanted a clear understanding in the contract as to what the money could be spent on, and when.  The city should have wanted the same thing.  Had that taken place, this fiasco would never have happened. Given the city has a large staff of lawyers, does real estate contracts perpetually, and is a multi-billion dolllar enterprise, I personally would fault the city more than Trilegacy for that ommission.  

Given the city did not persaude either the jury nor the State's attorney that Trilegacy was in default of the contract, the accusation that TriLegacy was maliciously motivated or misappropriated funds it totally without proof.  To state otherwise is to slander them.

I think TriLegacy was in over its head and should have gone to much greater lengths to protect itself and the city from these misunderstanding.  However, the property did belong to TriLegacy to been with, and it was the city's idea to have them do a project far different than what they originally planned (ie building cold storage warehouses).   The sad part is that they were probably just a few contracts from being able to break ground on the first building.  Had that happened, things might have worked out.               

Are you kidding me?

Vacations to Bermuda and NFL Skyboxes? You think THOSE are legitimate expenses? ROFL

I don't care who buys a condo, that's NOT a legitimate use of public bond money. Give me a break...

I can't even believe you'd try to argue this one...

Quote from: thelakelander on May 07, 2009, 10:13:19 PM
I believe they broke ground on the first building.  I could have sworn they were doing foundation work on One Shipyard Place when the dispute between the two parties heated up.

They tore down the cruddy building, cut the grass, and put up a fence. No foundation work was ever done.

Go look yourself, it's an empty lot.