Metro Jacksonville

QuoteTwo of downtown's premier apartment buildings - renovated with tens of millions of dollars in city loans and grants - have hit a financial snag that has the developer asking for relief.

The Carling and 11 East Forsyth combined have racked up a $1.5 million operating deficit over the past six years, according to documents Vestcor Cos. submitted to the Jacksonville Economic Development Commission.

The negative cash flow doesn't necessarily mean taxpayers' investment in the historic buildings will go sour or that taxpayers will be fronting additional money, but the struggle to attract residential and commercial tenants raises questions about the viability of Jacksonville's urban center.

Vestcor Chairman John Rood said the losses are unsustainable. If the city can't help, he said he'll need to seek another investor for assistance, but stopped short of saying he'd close or sell the buildings.

The 11 East renovations were completed in 2003. The Carling opened in 2005. Vestcor reported two years of balanced budgets before the buildings it manages began losing money.

A $373,734 operating deficit was first reported in 2006, followed by bigger losses the next two years. Through Sept. 30 this year, the company said the buildings were $278,009 in the red.

"We didn't come running to the city in the first hour of negative cash flow. ... We continued to put money into it," Rood said. "I don't do this lightly. I hate the thought of going before City Council and saying I'm not doing what I said I could do."

The city was the primary lender for the renovations, but Vestcor's balance sheet shows the development group put up an additional $3.6 million to help ends meet and cover cost overruns.

Vestcor Chief Financial Officer Clarence S. Moore said millions of dollars in private equity also came into play.

Rood said a tough real estate market is largely to blame, but the city's help is still needed. His staff submitted a two-part recovery plan to the JEDC this month.

The Jacksonville-based company is asking for interest-only payments, temporarily setting aside principle debt, for the next three years on roughly $34 million in city-financed, 20-year loans on the buildings.

Vestcor also wants the city to provide incentives aimed at filling empty ground-floor commercial space: low-interest loans for stores, restaurants and other tenants.

Between the two buildings, there are 227 residential units and 16,199 square-feet of commercial space. Vestcor officials say about 80 percent of the apartments and 17 percent of the commercial space are occupied.

The buildings' residential occupancy rate is in line with most downtown housing projects, but a study by international real estate company CB Richard Ellis shows the Jacksonville percentage is below average.

Nationally, the study says apartment buildings are 93 percent occupied, noting that it's a low percentage compared with previous years.

JEDC Executive Director Ron Barton said he first reviewed Vestcor's request Tuesday. He expects to have a recommendation on how to move forward by next week, but it likely won't be voted on until his board's formal meeting in February.

He said Vestcor's plight does not seem far off from that of other downtown developers as the housing market continues to recover, but Vestcor was the one asking for help. He said the company seems to have a sound business model suffering from a lack of customers, but the market should eventually change that.

Because it's a city-backed plan to renovate historic buildings, he said, it behooves the city to help.

"The pressure here is we're the primary lender. We're like any other major lender that has a commercial portfolio. You have to look at it," Barton said.

Barton said Vestcor has been making all its loan payments. Debt service between the two buildings costs about $1.1 million annually. Even so, he said the second part of the company's request - commercial development loans - may be difficult to grant.

Although city incentives were common for downtown development projects in the first part of this decade, a recent Times-Union analysis of the health of the core found the incentives dried up just as residential plans were picking up steam. Many of those projects subsequently failed to materialize.

Barton said the JEDC isn't opposed to investing more in the Vestcor buildings, but is unsure how to free up money amid a city budget crunch.

"We have to look at it as a business decision," he said.

At 11 East, which once housed a Starbucks, there are no tenants in the street-level commercial spaces. The Carling has vacancies as well but is home to several street-level businesses, including a barber shop and an art gallery.

Mayor John Peyton has been saying the city should invest more in downtown real estate because of its concentration of cultural attractions and readily available city services. It's a stance that's developed in recent months, long after the city shut down the JEDC's downtown development arm to streamline costs in 2006 and after Peyton mainly had been prioritizing the development of Jacksonville's deepwater ports and the Cecil Commerce Center.

Peyton spokeswoman Misty Skipper said the mayor did not want to discuss the Vestcor issue until all sides meet to talk over the specifics of the request.

Vestcor bought the downtown buildings for $4.75 million.

The company received $17.8 million in city financing with a 1.5 percent interest rate to renovate the Lynch Building, a 17-story tower built in 1926 that was once home to American Heritage Life insurance. It became 11 East.

The city gave Vestcor a $16.5 million loan at 1.4 percent interest, along with a $5 million grant, to renovate the former Roosevelt Hotel on East Adams Street into The Carling.

There are about 2,600 residents in downtown Jacksonville. City planners say 10,000 is the number needed to attract the offices, stores, restaurants and nightspots that will build a vibrant core.

Downtown Vision Executive Director Terry Lorince said she was unaware of the cash-flow problems with the Vestcor buildings but wasn't surprised, considering the overall housing economy.

"We all want to see more residential down here. We want it to succeed," Lorince said. "What we need to figure out is how to get past this and get back on track."

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-12-30/story/downtown_jacksonville_housing_developer_asks_city_for_more_help

QuoteThe Jacksonville-based company is asking for interest-only payments, temporarily setting aside principle debt, for the next three years on roughly $34 million in city-financed, 20-year loans on the buildings.

Vestcor also wants the city to provide incentives aimed at filling empty ground-floor commercial space: low-interest loans for stores, restaurants and other tenants.

I would think these are doable.  The city should have been offering incentives for the commercial space all along...

My partners and I have been interested in the retail space (11 east) since June. No one can give us straight answers. The staff have no clue so they transfer me to the listing agent and I never can get anyone to return my calls. We were ready to go $$$ but now lost interest due to the lapse in customer service with the agent(s).

This is bad news.  I guess this explains why Rood has no interest in the Barnett building.

I have a hard time understanding why this property isn't making money.  A suburban property would not have grants and mega-low interest rates.  It also would have a pool to maintain, which isn't exactly cheap.  I realize the renovation costs were high, but so is new construction, as would be required in the burbs.

Questions:

How are other Vestcor properties doing locally?  The same or higher occupancy? 

How do DT rents compare with Vestcor's suburban properties?

Would a rent reduction result in higher occupancy and better total revenue?

What rents are being sought on the commercial space?  Is it reasonable for the DT market?

I used to live in 11 East when it first opened. The building back then was top notch, the tenants were young hip professionals and the building was full.  By the time I left, the building was plain old dirty.  The hallways smelled, the carpets stained and the quality of tenants went WAY DOWN. You would see vandalism in the elevators and hallways.

People with a descent job are not going to stand for this lack of quality.  They will move across the river to The Strand.  The Strand is immacualte and has a pool.................

Quote from: vicupstate on December 30, 2009, 07:50:07 AM
What rents are being sought on the commercial space?  Is it reasonable for the DT market?

the rents are quite reasonable...in fact, Starbucks had a really sweet deal...Stephendare can tell you more about it.

It sounds like the suburban apartment company is having problems becoming a city apartment company. They don't figure enough maintenance. They can't get occupancy up. They don't do well at commercial real estate management of the first floor retail.

Well they have already received $21 Million Dollars, courtesy of the City Council, and they need more? Did it ever occur to anyone that this is a tax dodge and/or write off for Vescor? Why should they put money into something when they already have money from the taxpayers again? I agree stephendare, meter bufoons go overboard to substanciate their existance.....but hay! Free money for the City coffers right?

I don't think it's a tax dodge, vestcor has said all along they could make more money on a suburban project, which they are constantly putting up.  They recently completed a brand new student housing complex on kernan called The Flats; in my opinion, a much more calculated and promising return on investment.  They originally, or at least claimed, to be doing the projects as a way to help spark revitalization.  I can't vouch for 11 East, but I live in the Carling and it is always in immaculate condition.  The Party hall is always being rented out.  From what I gather, it's at 90% occupancy as well.  11 E evidently is the problem.  I can agree that there can be a good amount of confusion trying to talk to the commercial leasing agents though.  Finally, both communities are very comparable with the residential rental rates.  It shouldn't be any suprise that with the current real estate markets the first places to take a hit will be "trailblazer" spots like downtown.

Quote from: undergroundgourmet on December 30, 2009, 07:24:27 AM
My partners and I have been interested in the retail space (11 east) since June. No one can give us straight answers. The staff have no clue so they transfer me to the listing agent and I never can get anyone to return my calls. We were ready to go $$$ but now lost interest due to the lapse in customer service with the agent(s).

What kind of space do you need? I gather some sort of bakery?

QuoteIt sounds like the suburban apartment company is having problems becoming a city apartment company. They don't figure enough maintenance. They can't get occupancy up. They don't do well at commercial real estate management of the first floor retail.

That is what it sounds like to me too. Vestcor should have done more homework on their investment. Hood sits there and says they are sound financially, but they still want a better deal. OK, City should extend the loan for longer out with higher rates at the end, to make up for givinga break now to them. The City needs to make this deal stand on its own, as they should with every deal. No interest now, for higher rates, and a pre-payment penalty, we as citizens, need to get a return on the money.

Quote from: stephendare on December 30, 2009, 11:12:57 AM
The management of the retail spaces is pretty terrible in fact.   No one is able to talk to anyone who can give a straight answer on terms or rates.  That is the common complaint.

But a real problem is the difficulty in getting basics anywhere near. 

Everyone ive met that lived in the spaces ended up moving out because they were constantly going to the suburbs to eat and get entertainment.

It was one thing when Starbucks was still there, at least you could get coffee and a pastry on saturday and sunday afternoon (on sunday especially, Starbucks was literally the only gig in town), but when they left it became problematic.  It was just as easy to go to San Marco and get lunch and do some shopping.

And of course, there is the problem with people being hassled by parking enforcement when they visited.

The Parking enforcement goons as a matter of course identify the few places that have much traffic and would circle the block waiting for 30 seconds overtime violations in order to meet their quota.

Nothing quite like living in a building that your friends and associates will get penalized for visiting.

Again, its an unfair penalty that only affects downtown residents and no other part of the city.

If the city would simply invest in a few small business loans, and fire Bob Carles city destroying bungholes, there would be a remarkable turnaround in downtown.

Do the Carling and 11E not offer validation for guests that have to pay to park?

I respect Mr. Rood and Vestcor and am a big supporter of Downtown.

But, nonetheless, I have a real concern about more dollars from the City.  First, if this project had been a home run money maker, would he have called the City and offered to share the "unexpected" returns?  Well, why should the City share in the "unexpected" losses?

Second, Mr. Rood is a very successful and astute businessman and developer.  He cut his best deal with the City originally and found the risks acceptable.  And, as a died-in-the-wool Republican, he should stick to his conservative "principles" and refuse to ask for corporate welfare in this situation.  The City should not give his company assistance when we can not fund basic needs of the population, schools, and non-profits helping the community or be able to balance the City budget.  I don't see the support for this.

Where is it written that when you do business involving the taxpayers, you should be assured of no losses?  If that is what the City must do to get projects done, then maybe we don't need the project that bad.

I have already suggested, as have others, that the best way to revive Downtown isn't through incentives of dollars, but rather in infrastructure and amenities just like those provided for suburban areas:  good schools, parks, transit, security, street friendliness, etc.  Do this and no developer will need more assistance along the lines Vestcor is requesting.

$21 Million to this date, courtesy of the Jacksonville taxpayer! I agree with stjr's take on the situation.......more infrastructure downtown would be nice instead of taxpayer dollars! stephendare's take is right on the nose........silly City Hall, level the blanking playingfield! BRT will transform downtown right.........along with the proposed dedicated bus lanes and that will cost us how many millions? Once again......no plan, no vision  and definitely no sense/cents.....take your pick!

QuoteWhere is it written that when you do business involving the taxpayers, you should be assured of no losses?  If that is what the City must do to get projects done, then maybe we don't need the project that bad.

The parking garage deal for the courthouse and sports district are in fact not only guaranteed NOT to lose money, but to get an 8% ROI.   


I too am leary of putting still more money in this, but my mind is still open to learning more.  I think the culprit is the Strand is taking a lot of their tenants and new jobs are not being created in the area either. 

I think most of us are leery at the prospect of coughing up more money to vestcor.  What would be the alternative?  Suppose they decide they have lost enough money...  What they seem to be asking for is to reduce their repayment to interest only for a period of three years.

Quote from: stephendare on December 30, 2009, 04:13:19 PM
Downtown wouldnt need any incentives if it was allowed to play on an even playing field.

Higher taxes than the rest of the City.  Penalties for visitors, harrassment of customers and residents, recurrent traffic shutdowns and isolation from the flow of business, and the co location of every pathology service organization in the city.

No other part of town has to deal with this nonsense----which is totally the result of City policy and administration.

If you removed these egregious downsides of the downtown, no one would have to be incentivized at all.

of course logic would serve that if you take away all the "impediments", you should also take away things like Art Walk, annual festivals, fireworks, tax rebates, etc.

That would be removing all incentives and playing on a level field...would downtown really do better under that scenario?

stephendare..........I agree! I see City Hall doing nothing what so ever to entice anyone or anything to better downtown! Laura St improvement........whoopee! No infrastructure to support living downtown and Vesco has already gotten $21 Million Dollars worth to this point..........I don't care they just want to refinance the payments or delay! Mr Meserve is on the Council just to give Rood an in (like he needs one more right?) but he had better recluse himself. SA's office maybe charging him directly from the $106K he received from Vescor for just making sure people stayed at the table during some of those Mayport smoke filled room wheeling and dealings!

Quote from: stephendare on December 30, 2009, 04:57:42 PM
Neighborhoods have events like that all the time, and you know as well as I do that the BID acts much like a merchant's association except that it raises its funds through a self imposed property tax.

Yes...DVI is partially funded through a special assessment (tax) along with money from the City itself (also derived from taxes/fees)...among other things, these funds support the monthly ArtWalks.

Your earlier post seemed to decry the additional taxes forced on downtown businesss and suggested removing them (level the playing filed)...at a minimum, that idea would seriously jeopardize the ArtWalk program.

all I know stephen is that almost every successful downtown in America has a similar organization to DVI...and they are usually funded through special assessments.

As such, I would contend that the extra taxes are hardly the reason our downtown isn't flourishing.

But don't trust me...check with the International Dowtown Association

www.ida-downtown.org/

And, oh yeah, just about every other major city also has parking meters downtown.

Quote from: stephendare on December 30, 2009, 07:13:45 PM
This doesnt change the fact that downtown has to deal with things that no other area of town has to deal with.

agreed...but it also has many advantages over other areas of town...some of which (like the Riverwalks) were created to incentivize downtown.

Stephen - The COJ Administrations have not had a growth policy for downtown since the Godbold Administrations. The exodus of businesses proves it.

QuoteDowntown isn't through incentives of dollars, but rather in infrastructure and amenities just like those provided for suburban areas:  good schools, parks, transit, security, street friendliness, etc.

STJR - The empty buildings could serve as schools, if there is a need, but there are only 2500 residents downtown, do we build a grade, middle and high school to represent those small numbers, or instead bus them to respective schools? La Villa is right down the street, I mean, does it really make sense? Expand La Villa, it has the land, and create more solutions downtown, again IF THERE IS A NEED.

Businesses did not leave downtown because of the schools, parks, transit, security or street friendliness, whatever that might be or have been, they left because they got a better deal to move by a developer. The owners of the buildings downtown have to get hungry and realize they are in a fight with Gate Parkway, one they will lose, if they do not get together and fight.

I don't mind giving Rood a no-interest extension, so long as he pays for the no-interest years with more fees later in the loan. The money has to be paid for the cost of the loan, if not now, then later. We, the bank, have to make sure we get a good return on our money.

As a former resident of The Carling, I understand and have fully experienced what it is like to live downtown.  I think the initial investment and partnership with Vestcor was smart and well intentioned.  It is smart public/private partnerships that allow many cities to jumpstart growth and private investment in neglected areas.  The renovations of these buildings are also an example of the city preserving history and not tearing it down.  Hard to believe, I know!!!

Unfortunately, the current situation has dual-sided responsibility.  This is yet another example in a continuous line of failures for our city government.  At the time of the initial venture to add housing in this area, there should have been a push for everything else to go with it as well.  I'm sure the city thought adding these residents would be enough by itself to create a vibrant downtown.  However, intelligent city planners with a vision and a plan know that the residents themselves are not enough.  They could have chosen the Laura/Adams Street area to make a push for other amenities as well.  Our current development plan in Jax is to scatter some money here and then I guess they just pray, instead of finishing the job before moving on!  I also blame the marketing dept. and management of Vestcor for not being proactive and definitely out of touch.  They could have invested in small business partnerships in the buildings to add amenities for their residents.  The Starbucks in 11 E was so awesome while it lasted.  I saw that as a creative way to attract business.  Unfortunately, when the free rent was up, the corp. closed it.  

Having spent the past 2 years living downtown, I am with the others who are tired of having to drive to everything I need.  Isn't the point of living in an urban area so one doesn't have to drive everywhere?  The city doesn't realize this yet.  Again development in the urban core is an unanswered prayer right now.

FYI, I am moving in a few weeks to the Tinseltown area where I have free parking and I can walk to a 24 drug store, a Publix, a dry cleaners, numerous dining establishments of varying ethnicity, etc.   It is also much closer to UNF where I will be working on my masters and the rent is less!  I tried downtown living for 2 years in this city, and I guess you can call me a quitter.  I'm okay with that. LOL

One of the biggest mistakes the city made was not doing anything with the Landing before the super bowl came.  That was an opportunity to really do something nice in the heart of the core and within walking distance of 11 East, the Carling, the library and the Knight Lofts and we pissed it all away over nothing.  That redevelopment plan would have included many of services that downtown's few residents have to drive outside of the core to access today.  Instead, all we ended up with is a pocket park on Main that no one wanted.

With that said, if Jacksonville were smart, we would immediately look into finally resolving the Landing issue and pushing for a redeveloped facility to anchor the Laura Street streetscape project and provide downtown residents with some valuable services they don't currently have access to.

Lake - Woaaaa Nelly. The grocery store, the services, they were going to come with the library space, WHICH STILL SITS EMPTY, Vestcor should have made it more attractive to have the library and thus create a space for the services that the residents would have used, as well as most of downtown. There are still empty shells of buildings downtown that could become grocery/drug stores, in a partnership with Publix/CVS, or another chain, but the issue now is numbers, 2500 residents downtown is not enough to build a new fountain.

So a developer is going to have to get a sweetheart deal on a building, get incentives to lease the space to a groc/drug store, and the city will have to think LOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGGG TERM with its packages. Landing needs to be fixed, I agree, we need more parking and the space across at Hogan and Water is the solution in a parking deck, something Jax downtown loves to build, with retail on the ground floor as well. But really, how many people live a block or 2 from the Landing? All those empty retail shops on Bay before Ocean, and we can't get one supermarket merchant? The city needs to pay someone $10,000 to open a downtown supermarket. It would be worth it!

You're right, its a numbers game.  A full size grocery store like Publix (their smallest model is 28k sf)isn't coming downtown when there is already a Winn-Dixie in DT and a Publix a short drive away in Five Points.  I heard that out of the mouth from their head guy myself when MJ did a presentation for Lakeland's LEDC a few years back. 

However, even though the residential population is insignificant, something like a Walgreens or CVS should be feasible with 50,000 DT workers in the area.  Even DT Tampa and Birmingham have pharmacies.  Both of them also don't have huge residential population bases.  Also, while a Publix may be unrealistic, in a location like the Landing, a small local grocer (think 5,000sf or less) could be feasible.  When I look at the Landing, I see an opportunity for clustering and connectivity.  It would be great to have these things open in individual buildings all across DT but they would probably end up dying just like the 11 East Starbucks.  The Landing's mall doesn't really work for specialty retail but a reconfiguration of the building could make it viable for waterfront entertainment uses on one end and critical retail and service spaces (i.e. pharmacy, dry cleaners, mini-grocer, etc.) on the other.  All clumped together in one spot and they have a chance at stimulating enough pedestrian traffic to keep each other afloat.

Lake - I agree, a CVS or Walgreens like the one at Park and King that has basics, milk, bread, eggs, some other cold items, could work to tie people over in a pinch. From the landing, 5 points is a good mile to 1.5 away, so probably would be someone other than Publix or Winn Dixie. Whole Foods, in a mini version? Have the city create the farmer's market at Whole Foods, in a carnival atmosphere, create the same fun and buzz of the RAM. City has to buy into it though, too much for the sole proprietor to take on right now.

Orlando's DT is light years ahead of ours (in terms of vibrancy and residential population), plus it had no existing grocer and they still had to toss in city money to get a Publix to open there a year or two ago.

There's no market for a full sized grocery in DT Jax.  Over the years, I've laid out several grocery stores and shopping centers for Regency Center and Publix.  From what I recall, a grocery store that size needs a built in residential population base of around 20k or so.  DT is no where near that, there's already a Winn-Dixie there and it will have less of a chance for another major grocer when Publix finally builds in San Marco.  The only wildcard would be to toss serious incentives at someone to subsidize their financial loss for going into a market that can't support them.  But if money is to be tossed around, it should go to more viable projects.

Anyway, they should definitely do some type of farmer's or seafood market at the Landing along Independent Drive.  That would be a good use of currently underutilized space.

Lake - I never said full sized groc. Heck, 5 points is even too big. You need a bodega size, like in NYC, which is why a Whole Foods model would be best, with fresh items outside and the other items inside, in a retail, maybe double-spaced shop.

Landing would not be my choice, I'd put it between 11E and Carling, or on Laura, within a block of where most people could get to it with a few blocks. No one really shops at the Landing now, if Sleiman wanted a groc/drug store there, he would have already incentivized it to happen. Pretty obvious that is not on the top of their list.

QuoteLake - I never said full sized groc. Heck, 5 points is even too big. You need a bodega size, like in NYC, which is why a Whole Foods model would be best, with fresh items outside and the other items inside, in a retail, maybe double-spaced shop.

Oh, I agree.  However, I'm not aware of Whole Foods having bodega sized stores in their chains. They are typically larger or just as large as the average Publix.  Btw, at 28k sf, the Five Points Publix is their smallest model.

QuoteLanding would not be my choice, I'd put it between 11E and Carling, or on Laura, within a block of where most people could get to it with a few blocks. No one really shops at the Landing now, if Sleiman wanted a groc/drug store there, he would have already incentivized it to happen. Pretty obvious that is not on the top of their list.

No one shops at the Landing because there's no reason to shop there.  Open up the courtyard to DT, flip the mall inside out so storefronts can directly face Independent Drive and solve the parking situation and it can be a viable destination for needed DT services as well as entertainment and dining. Also, Sleiman's original plan included Walgreens as a tenant, facing Laura Street.  The MJ guys got to visit the architect and see the construction documents back before the Big Idea plan came online.  However, like many chains (I've also designed stores for them), they require guaranteed number of parking spaces, which is something the Landing can't currently offer, thus no deal.

So fix the parking first at the Landing? And they will come?

Fix the parking and renovate the building and they will.  Its a great site and location.  Its really downtown's public square.  Problems and all, it still attracts more visitors than any other place in DT.  Unfortunately, ever since it opened two decades ago, its had a fundamental design problem (parking) that has limited its viability.

Doubt it. Our residents dont see downtown as a place to visit unless its a holiday and its time to watch fire works.

Quote from: brainstormer on December 30, 2009, 08:11:52 PM
Unfortunately, the current situation has dual-sided responsibility.  This is yet another example in a continuous line of failures for our city government.  At the time of the initial venture to add housing in this area, there should have been a push for everything else to go with it as well.  I'm sure the city thought adding these residents would be enough by itself to create a vibrant downtown.  However, intelligent city planners with a vision and a plan know that the residents themselves are not enough.  They could have chosen the Laura/Adams Street area to make a push for other amenities as well.  Our current development plan in Jax is to scatter some money here and then I guess they just pray, instead of finishing the job before moving on!  I also blame the marketing dept. and management of Vestcor for not being proactive and definitely out of touch.  They could have invested in small business partnerships in the buildings to add amenities for their residents.  The Starbucks in 11 E was so awesome while it lasted.  I saw that as a creative way to attract business.  Unfortunately, when the free rent was up, the corp. closed it.  

These comments go back to the points posted under our top 10 things to move Downtown forward (see http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,6638.0.html ).

We must make Downtown LIVABLE.  What makes it LIVABLE will have the dual benefit of attracting businesses with WORKERS.  The priorities for livability are convenient everyday services, outdoor spaces for recreation and reflection, safety, good transit connectivity, and, for families, schools within a reasonable distance (yes, La Villa is fine but it's a magnet school as I understand it so it may not be open for general education).

Pretty streets, pocket parks, Landing-style shopping, events and tourist stores, fireworks, incentives for corporate jobs and new development downtown, etc. are nice but are not the urgent priorities to jump start residential living. Suburban living proves this everyday.  People primarily move to the suburbs for schools, connectivity, green spaces, safety, and everyday shopping without specific incentives other than the subsidy we give developers by having the taxpayers provide such services at little or no costs.  They will travel for miles for jobs and events.

The way to bridge where we are now to the Downtown of the future is to immediately provide 24/7 urban core connectivity to those stores, services, and other immediate needs for existing Downtown residents until such time as we have enough of them to bring such services Downtown.  This would easily be accomplished today by PCT's and buses, and tomorrow by streetcars, to Riverside, San Marco, and Springfield.  By such connectivity, one combines the TOTAL buying power of all these surrounding areas with Downtown to create enough support for the highest level of urban core services.

This in turn comes back to the oft cited need for City Hall, JEDC, JTA, JAA, JEA, JPA, FDOT, MPO, State and Federal legislative delegations, and all other supporting casts to jointly meet and work TOGETHER for a common vision of Downtown (and, for that matter, the rest of the City).

Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on December 30, 2009, 10:06:41 PM
Doubt it. Our residents dont see downtown as a place to visit unless its a holiday and its time to watch fire works.

Its not about trying to make it a place for suburbanites to visit.  Its about making DT and the urban core a self sustaining mixed-use community.  If you can do that, you'll create a vibrant downtown and you won't have to focus on pulling in suburbanities with gimmicks and one trick pony projects.

Dont our festivles and holidays do that already?

QuotePeople primarily move to the suburbs for schools, connectivity, green spaces, safety, and everyday shopping without specific incentives other than the subsidy we give developers by having the taxpayers provide such services at little or no costs.

So in essense, you are saying everyone who moves to the suburbs has kids (need for school) is in PTA (for connectivity purposes), can't find a park in the city with the most parks in Florida (need those woods in Mandarin), needs a sidewalk and bike path to ride little Johnie and susie around (most of Mandarin and southside neighborhoods don't have sidewalks or bike paths), and of course we need our shopping (when the very same shopping existed downtown decades ago). Glad to know that all the people who move to the suburbs are nicely wrapped in the same bow.

QuoteThis would easily be accomplished today by PCT's and buses, and tomorrow by streetcars, to Riverside, San Marco, and Springfield.  By such connectivity, one combines the TOTAL buying power of all these surrounding areas with Downtown to create enough support for the highest level of urban core services.

Why would people come downtown when there is nothing to see? You can't build transit systems to nowhere. You start with businesses, they provide the tax revenue to incentivize more residential and pretty soon you can build you bus, rail, taxi lines from wherever to downtown, but it all starts with businesses. The City has no money, and you have to grow revenue to move to part B of residents then services. Without MONEY, you can't so much as build a cardboard box.

Quote from: mtraininjax on December 30, 2009, 10:19:45 PM

QuotePeople primarily move to the suburbs for schools, connectivity, green spaces, safety, and everyday shopping without specific incentives other than the subsidy we give developers by having the taxpayers provide such services at little or no costs.

So in essense, you are saying everyone who moves to the suburbs has kids (need for school) is in PTA (for connectivity purposes), can't find a park in the city with the most parks in Florida (need those woods in Mandarin), needs a sidewalk and bike path to ride little Johnie and susie around (most of Mandarin and southside neighborhoods don't have sidewalks or bike paths), and of course we need our shopping (when the very same shopping existed downtown decades ago). Glad to know that all the people who move to the suburbs are nicely wrapped in the same bow.

QuoteThis would easily be accomplished today by PCT's and buses, and tomorrow by streetcars, to Riverside, San Marco, and Springfield.  By such connectivity, one combines the TOTAL buying power of all these surrounding areas with Downtown to create enough support for the highest level of urban core services.

Why would people come downtown when there is nothing to see? You can't build transit systems to nowhere. You start with businesses, they provide the tax revenue to incentivize more residential and pretty soon you can build you bus, rail, taxi lines from wherever to downtown, but it all starts with businesses. The City has no money, and you have to grow revenue to move to part B of residents then services. Without MONEY, you can't so much as build a cardboard box.

What reason would you suggest that people choose suburbs if not these?

My point is that not everyone makes those decisions in a nice wrapped bow. DT used to have all of these same options. It is all about choice and now about costs. When gas was 4 dollars a gallon JTA saw ridership it had not seen in years. As gas rises, people will move back in toward where they work, so now, right now, is the time to grow downtown with businesses and lure the workers closer to downtown and out of the suburbs. The biggest enemy for DT is St. Johns Town Center and its continued growth.

Quote from: mtraininjax on December 30, 2009, 10:19:45 PM
Why would people come downtown when there is nothing to see? You can't build transit systems to nowhere. You start with businesses, they provide the tax revenue to incentivize more residential and pretty soon you can build you bus, rail, taxi lines from wherever to downtown, but it all starts with businesses. The City has no money, and you have to grow revenue to move to part B of residents then services. Without MONEY, you can't so much as build a cardboard box.

The only way transit would stimulate growth and economic development would be to develop a fixed guideway system that connects actual existing destinations and where high densities of residential population exist with downtown being a stop along the way.  For example, something that would go from Riverside to Springfield connecting Park & King, St. Vincents, Five Points, Fidelity, BCBS, Prime Osborn, Downtown, Springfield and Shands.  In this case, DT is just a stop along a line of various destinations.  The benefit would be the core would have a viable transit line and blighted spots along the way (i.e. Brooklyn, LaVilla, Cathedral District, etc.) would become attractive infill development locations.  In the end, all of the isolated communities grow to combine to be one significant walkable self sustaining urban core.  

For those who need proof, just take a look at just about every American city that has opened a streetcar or LRT line since 2000.  The amount of success is staggering.

Mtrain your are right about STJTC, but this has been the way of thinking here. Put everything good as far away from DT as possible. On the same token not everyone wants to live DT, but some do and why would you want to live in DT Jax. City should ask itself that question?

Quotewhy would you want to live in DT Jax. City should ask itself that question?

Keith - Good question. Answer is pretty simple, if you had everything you NEEDED for life downtown, and costs were less for you and your family and you had a mindset for downtown life, why wouldn't you live downtown? For me, I am pretty simple, I need a few things, I need 1) dry cleaner, 2) bank, 3) Grocery, 4) restaurants, 5) gas station, 6) and access to road to travel to business buildings on Southside and Westside. I'd also like to get out to the FYC, but I could switch that out for the River Club. I have access to parks, I have access to the internet for entertainment, I could even attend more arts downtown, since I'd have no excuse. My mindset is that I could live downtown, and I wanted to before the Shipyards never materialized. My parents have a unit ready in the Peninsula on the 38th floor, if anyone is interested. I'd live there, I used to live in Seascape at the beach, so high rise is fine for me, but you have to have the right mindset for it.

My wife and I go downtown and stay in the Hyatt or Crown Plaza a few times year, just to stay downtown and walk or take the taxi across the river. Most people in the suburbs never experience what living is all about, especially in an urban core, and it will only get better, I firmly believe that, and I know the next Mayor will grow downtown. I'd pay more in taxes to see a revitalized downtown.

Quote from: mtraininjax on December 30, 2009, 10:19:45 PM
So in essense, you are saying everyone who moves to the suburbs has kids (need for school) is in PTA (for connectivity purposes), can't find a park in the city with the most parks in Florida (need those woods in Mandarin), needs a sidewalk and bike path to ride little Johnie and susie around (most of Mandarin and southside neighborhoods don't have sidewalks or bike paths), and of course we need our shopping (when the very same shopping existed downtown decades ago). Glad to know that all the people who move to the suburbs are nicely wrapped in the same bow.

Mtrain, I don't think you are really reading my posts or, if so, you have your mind so set on something, you can't see the alternative point being made.

We have NO parks with ball fields and trails Downtown.  Connectivity refers to transit options, not the PTA.  I never said everyone moves to the 'burbs for ALL the reasons cited, but for at least one, if not several of them.  My point was that almost none of the reasons is supported adequately Downtown so why move there?  Downtown may have had these things in the past but when they were lost, so went the residents.  There is no common "bow", but as humans, we mostly have common "basic" needs.  Downtown is insufficient in meeting them and the 'burbs aren't.  The proof is, as you note, evident by the location of the "rooftops".  

QuoteWhy would people come downtown when there is nothing to see? You can't build transit systems to nowhere. You start with businesses, they provide the tax revenue to incentivize more residential and pretty soon you can build you bus, rail, taxi lines from wherever to downtown, but it all starts with businesses. The City has no money, and you have to grow revenue to move to part B of residents then services. Without MONEY, you can't so much as build a cardboard box.

Again, this completely misses my point.  I am advocating that RESIDENTIAL will drive the upturn to Downtown, not businesses or "something to see" as you advocate.  I explained how I would do it and you short circuited my points to make yours.   We are not on the same page but please don't reconstruct my comments to suit yours.  Thanks.

QuoteI am advocating that RESIDENTIAL will drive the upturn to Downtown

How can residential grow downtown? If residential was to drive downtown, all the apartments and condos would be full downtown and there would be demand for more. What am I missing in your point(s)? You have my attention.

QuoteWe have NO parks with ball fields and trails Downtown.

Perhaps you do not have a baseball diamond. Do you really need one? You do have Kids Campus with its open spaces, met park, in San Marco you have the Balis park, or in Springfield, Klutho park. For many years there was a trail downtown along the northbank, and while it may not classify as a "trail", you can ride your non-motored bike from RAM all the way to Berkman, and over the bridge into San Marco.

You are correct though, I could not find a ball field downtown, except the Baseball Grounds of Jacksonville. Perhaps we can ask the City Council for money for one, that is if it will grow more residential units for downtown.

There is a ballpark in Klutho Park, which once served as the central recreational space for DT and Springfield.  Its a lot closer to the Northbank core than the stadium district.  The problem is that we draw these imaginary borders around DT instead of attempting to reconnect it with nearby urban districts. 

On the flip end, most of the new suburban areas of town have less parks and trails then downtown.  Instead you have to drive miles to a regional park.

Quote from: mtraininjax on December 30, 2009, 11:26:35 PM

QuoteI am advocating that RESIDENTIAL will drive the upturn to Downtown

How can residential grow downtown? If residential was to drive downtown, all the apartments and condos would be full downtown and there would be demand for more. What am I missing in your point(s)? You have my attention.

Mtrain,  this is the best I can do to make it clear:

1. Provide Downtown the bundle of basic amenities desired by most people to meet their minimum standards for choosing an area to live in.  Some amenities will need to be offered creatively until they can be supported exclusively by Downtown residents.  One way is to have JTA offer frequent, 24/7 transit connections to join all the urban core areas to achieve the needed numbers to support everyday retail and service needs.
2. Demand will naturally increase for Downtown living options given that it is now on par with other options from a livability standpoint for many (will never be all).  The market will sort out price competitiveness.  
3. As residential living gradually increases (will take awhile to reach the "takeoff" threshold - we need to be patient) it will attain a level that will attract a corresponding increase in Downtown oriented everyday retail and services.
4. With sufficient residential numbers and supporting retail/services, Downtown will become of greater interest to professional firms and small businesses whose owners/key employees are attracted to Downtown living.
5. With a self-sustaining and newly perceived  (e.g. if it's safe enough to live in, it must be safe enough to visit) Downtown will become attractive to progressive corporations and attractions/events for both Downtown residents and visitors.  Downtown residents will be the ultimate promoters of Downtown, not the City.
6.  Downtown will follow the footsteps of other great Downtown rebirths from here.

Quote from: thelakelander on December 30, 2009, 11:56:47 PM
On the flip end, most of the new suburban areas of town have less parks and trails then downtown.  Instead you have to drive miles to a regional park.

Lake, it's not the distance, it's the connectivity.  Connectivity for Downtown is walking, biking, or mass transit, or why live there.  In the 'burbs, its the auto for now.  Measuring time, it's far more convenient for most to travel in the 'burbs by car for a few miles than to go 10 or 20 blocks Downtown.  As you and Ock have noted, we need good PCT, bus, and streetcar connectivity 24/7 to the needed amenities with frequent and reliable headways to bridge the gap.  Anything less will hold Downtown living back.

I agree.  I've been saying connectivity has been the main overlooked element in this redevelopment puzzle since MJ went live.  On the surface, its not as sexy as building an movie theater or building a highrise but it packs a more powerful punch.

STJR - Let me see if I understand your core belief....you want the citizens of Jacksonville to give up their automobile, live downtown, and use public transportation to go to their destinations? A hum and spoke system in essence where all transportation funnels back into the core from the outlying areas.

It is interesting, it works in cities with real transportation problems. Jacksonville does not have a real transportation problem right now. Our roads are relatively unclogged. We are not to the transportation stage that demands that people can travel faster and more efficiently using public transportation, than their own car. Would I like a MARTA style system to take me from downtown to the beach or heck, I'd take a OCK-styless JTA trolley from Avondale to Downtown every weekend if they had it, but you will have a very hard sale to get people to first give up their cars to travel unless gas gets to be 5 or 6 bucks a gallon, in which case, we had already have the basic services you discuss.

But its a chicken and egg game here, how do you get services downtown first for residents? Only way I see it is to incentivize the services. Dry Cleaner, groc/drug store, all need to be incentivized by the City first. Someone needs to drink the Koolaid and fall down the rabbit hole, we need a first, it won't be pretty, but we need to learn from it and grow the services. We have 2500 residents already. Next would be to incentivize other businesses to come down, first one gets the prize, the others get to learn from the first.

Connectivity will be great, but you have to get people out of their cars, and the only way I see to get them out, and stay out, is through high costs of fuel. We saw it briefly with 4 dollar gas.

NYC has the most extensive subway in the country and its streets are still congested.  You will never get people out of their cars. That's really not the point.  Transit connectivity is more about giving people viable mobility options and place making or city shaping.  Provide true efficient, frequent and reliable connectivity between established destinations and you won't need incentives to open businesses in a place that's simply not ready for them.  With connectivity, you expand your market base.  This has been clearly evident in similar sized cities that have made this investment.  With a struggling DT core, Jax needs to seriously consider this issue before writing it off.

I think what he's saying is that DT must become a place where people want to live.Its really not that right now. It must have all the ingredients to substain a community. And no matter what transportation options are some people are not going to give up their cars. I belive STJR mentioned that. We may not be at a stage where a system like Marta is needed, but I hope we dont continue to rely on building roads. Not everyone can afford a car. High fuel will make people drive and spend less probably not stop driving.

Lake I was thinking the same thing as many times I have been to New York. I was with out a car for 8 months in ATL one time. Thank God for Marta. I couldnt imagine being trapped in Jax without a car.That would be miserable.

QuoteThis has been clearly evident in similar sized cities that have made this investment.  With a struggling DT core, Jax needs to seriously consider this issue before writing it off.

Lake - Do you have some examples in numbers of how this investment in transportation has helped transform downtown areas into thriving environments? Not doubting you, I would just like to see some empirical data and not just some names of cities. I want to see how they have grown before and after. I just a bit more skeptical, I suppose. I don't see how an expanded transit system could and will bring life to downtown.

Manhatten is a bad example too, it is constrained by water on both sides. Do you have another example of bad traffic in an urban area where geographic constraints do not add to the traffic problem?

Mtrain, you dont think how vastly Jax is spread out is a constraint?

QuoteI think what he's saying is that DT must become a place where people want to live.Its really not that right now. It must have all the ingredients to substain a community. And no matter what transportation options are some people are not going to give up their cars. I belive STJR mentioned that. We may not be at a stage where a system like Marta is needed, but I hope we dont continue to rely on building roads. Not everyone can afford a car. High fuel will make people drive and spend less probably not stop driving.

My point is that before you can have a transit system, you have to have the business downtown to help pay for the services to sustain life and community. Without people living, eating, sleeping, working downtown, you don't need a transit system. Our city does not have the money to grow without revenue. Best way to get revenue and benefit downtown is to grow the core with more businesses. It adds workers downtown and expands the need for services downtown, (has anyone played Sim City?) by growing the tax base, you have funds for the downtown services and can then afford to build a transit system to send people for more complex products and services elsewhere in the county, but it all starts with growing the tax revenue downtown, and I only see business growth/development as the first building block, I don't see transit as the first block as others do.

LOL I liked SIM City and yes went broke many times, but hey skyline would rival NY or Chicago. Not to mention my domed stadium.

QuoteMtrain, you dont think how vastly Jax is spread out is a constraint?

Keith - What does that have to do with a 24/7 transit system? I'd rather use my car to get to Baldwin than having to Hub/spoke to a downtown core then out to Baldwin and wonder if and when the next transit vehicle can or will return me back to downtown. I'm willing to pay 4 dollars a gallon or more for the freedom, and the new roads are fine, put a toll on them, I would rather use the car and roads, even with tolls.

Nothing just saying that should be consider a constraint as well as by being trapped by water. Also just because you would rather drive you car doesnt mean everyone else in the region does.

We're not trapped by water though. Our city is not against the Ocean as NY or SF is or even LA. Our county is, but the city is 12 miles or so as the crow flies to the Ocean and there are vast forests open between the downtown and the ocean.

Keith - You are free to take the bus if you choose, I'd rather drive to my destinations on the First Coast. I don't believe a new transit system will save downtown.

Well a negative attitude certainly will not. Everyone is free to do what they please I would imagine. Reading back through the thread I don't see where anyone said that a new transit would save DT. The Bus comment was really unnecessary.

Keith - Apparently you did not read how STJR plans to revitalize downtown with transit:

QuoteOne way is to have JTA offer frequent, 24/7 transit connections to join all the urban core areas to achieve the needed numbers to support everyday retail and service needs.

JTA does provide the Skyway, but what else do they provide? Bus service. What other transit connections would JTA offer?

Sorry to have offended you.

Again, I do not see how a transit system offering 24/7 connections will revitalize downtown as the first building block.

He listed alot of things, remember these are just plans and ideas. Key word was (One way). He mentioned others as was as a whole not seperately. Not sure if that would be the first building block or starting point. I do believe the city and JTA need to work side by side. Jax is really in a tough situation IMO.

Got me thinking on transit ideas for downtown, found this from an old article back in April 2009: (Anyone else know that Orlando offers free bus service, paid for by garage fees???)

QuoteAfter many years of stumbling, America finally seems to be dedicated to the goal of getting transit right. The Environmental Defense Fund has just issued a report highlighting 11 of the most forward-looking and successful local programs across the country. They are:

Streetcars in Portland, Oregon: This system saves 70 million miles of car travel a year, sparked a local streetcar building industry, created billions of dollars worth of vital downtown development and is super, super sharp-looking.

The Orange bus line in Los Angeles: Dedicated bus lanes built over an old rail right of way create a service that’s “like a train on rubber tires.” With 22,000 riders, it’s getting three times as much traffic as was projected. A nice stations, bike facilities, low fares, and service every six minutes are among the features that make it a hit with commuters.

Van Pool in Kings County, CA: In the rural San Joaquin valley this very successful ride sharing program is used extensively by agricultural workers. In 2007, it was responsible for eliminating nearly 400,000 vehicle trips.

“Flex route” buses in Price William County, VA: The sprawling exurbs of this county are well served by this system that allows the buses to deviate from a fixed route in order to pick up and drop off riders.

Highway shoulders as dedicated bus lanes in the Twin Cities: This program is a lot cheaper than building a new lane, and creates advertises itself as the buses zoom past frustrated drivers stuck in congested highway traffic.

Bus rapid transit in Eugene, Oregon: When the city rolled out its BRT program, bus ridership doubled. The service has exclusive right of way over most of its route network and fancy hybrid eco-buses that make everyone on board feel like a rock star.

Bus shuttles for train stations in New Jersey: The shuttles pick up commuters and bring them to the nearest train station, reducing car dependence and the need for station parking.

“The Rapid” in Grand Rapids, Michigan: An example of a well-planned, well run transit program for a small city. Its flexible, innovative and has created strong economic benefits.

Free, high-quality downtown bus service in Orlando: The LYMMO bus is free, runs on a dedicated lane, and is paid for with a tax on parking garage fees.

“Bikestation” bicycle transit hubs: Now installed in 9 cities, including Chicago, these can include 24 hour bike parking, locker rooms with showers, and repair shops.

Select Bus Service in NYC: Features designated lanes, off-board fare collection, priority at traffic lights (i.e. they turn green for the bus), and entrance through any door.

Link to free bus service downtown in Orlando, http://www.golynx.com/?id=1155575

Is this what the new bus lanes in Jax will bring? If downtown commuter service were free, why not use it to travel downtown, could really be a boon to growth.

mtrain...the Portland example you have listed above is a very large fare free zone (although it was shrunk some this year)...it is funded by, yep you guessed it, a special tax.

Orlando's LYMMO system is purely a downtown loop and isn't really similar to our planned BRT service...the first phase of the Jax. system will run in downtown and the southbank in exclusive Lanes...but they will not be separated by a barrier and other vehicles will be permitted to use them during non-peak hours.

As for having free downtown commuter service in Jax., I believe the two all-day trolleys serving downtown are free.

Quote from: mtraininjax on December 31, 2009, 01:17:36 AM

QuoteThis has been clearly evident in similar sized cities that have made this investment.  With a struggling DT core, Jax needs to seriously consider this issue before writing it off.

Lake - Do you have some examples in numbers of how this investment in transportation has helped transform downtown areas into thriving environments? Not doubting you, I would just like to see some empirical data and not just some names of cities. I want to see how they have grown before and after. I just a bit more skeptical, I suppose. I don't see how an expanded transit system could and will bring life to downtown.

Manhatten is a bad example too, it is constrained by water on both sides. Do you have another example of bad traffic in an urban area where geographic constraints do not add to the traffic problem?

Sure mtrain.  Do you want links to actual studies or will a couple of articles from across the country be enough?  Here are two articles from a quick google search.

QuoteDesire Grows for Streetcars
Cristian Lupsa, Christian Science Monitor
February 5, 2007


Columbus, Ohio, might not be your image of booming America, but Mayor Michael Coleman says an explosion of jobs and immigration have made it the second-fastest-growing city in the Midwest from 2000 to 2005 (after Indianapolis). Now in his second term, Mayor Coleman is determined to shape Ohio's largest urban area â€" once No. 3 behind Cleveland and Cincinnati â€" into a 21st-century city.

His plan includes a streetcar system that would connect Columbus's spread-out downtown attractions, and bring an estimated 6 to 1 return on the initial investment, according to a city-commissioned study. They are riding streetcars into the 21st century? Is this "Back to the Future"? Well, yes.

After Portland, Ore., launched the first modern streetcar system in 2001, cities and towns from coast to coast â€" impressed by the financial success of Portland's venture â€" have followed suit or examined the possibility of returning the forgotten vehicles to their streets. While not a solution to traffic congestion or pollution, streetcars have proved to be an attractive amenity to revitalized downtowns, encouraging street life and community, boosting development, and promoting energy-efficient transportation.

"Streetcars aren't going to change the world, but they'll do their part," says Jim Graebner, a Denver-based consultant and chairman of the streetcar subcommittee for the American Public Transportation Association in Washington.

Mr. Graebner was involved in plans for more than 30 streetcar systems in the past couple of decades â€" half a dozen of which came to be. He says the vehicles are sure to return as cities themselves come back. Streetcars, he adds, don't need dedicated tracks â€" the tracks are integrated into street traffic. And they're pedestrian friendly.

But this is not a retro-transit fashion fad; it's nostalgia with a grass-roots twist. Most projects are championed not by transit authorities, but by mayors and advocacy groups. They are paid for by public/private partnerships, with little money from the Federal Transit Administration. The FTA continues to fund mostly larger people-moving enterprises, such as commuter rails. Streetcars, advocates say, are for people in growing downtowns, not commuters.

"The streetcar is not a toy or a gimmick," says Charles Hales, a senior vice president of HDR Engineering, a consulting firm in Omaha, Neb. "It's a necessary response to people's return to the cities."

Mr. Hales, who was instrumental in developing Portland's system, says the city wanted to create "development-oriented transit" as opposed to the traditional "transit-oriented development." The former aims to encourage developers to build high-density areas, where driving a car becomes an inconvenience. Couldn't buses, which are cheaper, do the same? They might, advocates say, but "have you seen developers write checks for buses?" Tracks, Hales says, show the city's commitment.

Streetcars fueled urban growth in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but as cars took over after World War II and fueled urban sprawl, most cities uprooted tracks.

Columbus is not a mass-transit city â€" it's car territory, but Coleman says he is persuaded a streetcar will make a difference to jobs, connectivity, and development. Still, he'll take it one step at a time â€" having most recently appointed a committee to examine how to pay for an initial two-mile route without raising taxes.

The average price for a mile of track ranges from $8 million to $25 million, one-third to one-fifth the cost of commuter rails and subways, Graebner says. The reason more than 40 cities are exploring streetcars today, he says, is that all systems opened recently have produced handsome returns. According to figures from local officials and data advocacy groups:

• Tampa, Fla., spent more than $55 million on its system and attracted more than $1 billion in investments.

• More than 100 projects, worth around $2.5 billion, were built along the $100-million Portland line.

• The $20-million line in Little Rock, Ark., attracted about $200 million in development.

• Kenosha, Wis., with a population just shy of 100,000, built the cheapest system ($5.2 million for two miles of track). It brought in about $150 million in development.

Advocates don't argue that streetcars are synonymous with development, but that's missing the point, according to "Street Smart," a recent report by Reconnecting America, a nonprofit that promotes urban development that integrates public transportation. "You want development to happen next to a streetcar so people won't get into a car and drive," says Gloria Ohland, a vice president of communications for Reconnecting America.

In other words, the streetcar helps build denser urban areas. Michael English, vice president of the board running the Tampa system, says the city planned its routes not to take cars off the Interstate, but to provide alternatives to driving short routes. The lines connect Tampa's historic district to a burgeoning downtown.

"We need to rethink sprawl," says Len Brandrup, director of transportation in Kenosha. "We believe in capitalism, but we have few tools to get people out of cars and into public transportation."

And that's the big question: Can streetcars be efficient means of transit? Robert Dunphy, an expert on transportation and infrastructure at the Urban Land Institute in Washington, is not entirely convinced. Mr. Dunphy likes streetcars, but views them as amenities. Most of those operating today â€" with the exception of those in larger cities such as Portland or San Francisco â€" fall into that category.

Lisa Gray, director of the nonprofit Charlotte Trolley, calls the local streetcar (currently closed while the city connects it to a new light rail line) an "attraction." It's not transit, she says, but a "moving museum" that happens to serve as transit. Ms. Gray says the vehicles are a great gathering point, and a way for local citizens to connect with the past. "When the trolley was the only mode of transportation, people met their neighbors on it, she says. "This notion of traveling is connected to community."

Streetcar advocates often talk about the trolley's power to create "place." That's exactly why they'll work in downtowns, Hales says. Graebner adds that they are more intimate transportation than buses.

Dunphy says streetcars have a hipper appeal. "People who are users of public transport are fine with buses," he says. "Streetcars are for people who don't use public transportation." Dunphy isn't arguing that streetcars should remain museum pieces, but wonders whether their resurgence can address the American transportation conundrum: "it's a lot easier to get people to support public transit than to get them on it."

http://blumenauer.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1477

QuoteFrom the WSJ Real Estate Archives
A Streetcar Named Aspire: Lines Aim to Revive Cities
by Thaddeus Herrick
From The Wall Street Journal Online
June 26, 2007

As a transportation system, this city's $63 million streetcar line is a dud.

Since the project opened in 2002, its financial losses have exceeded expectations. Last year ridership declined 10% to its lowest level yet. And the vintage system spans only 2.4 miles between the edge of downtown and a historic district called Ybor City.

"It goes from no place to nowhere," says Hillsborough County Commissioner Brian Blair, an opponent of the project.

But proponents say Tampa's Teco Line Streetcar System has delivered on another front: helping to spur development. Some $450 million in residential and retail space is complete along the route, most of it in the Channel District, a once-languishing maritime neighborhood. With another $450 million in development underway and $1.1 billion in the planning stages, local officials expect the district to be home to as many as 10,000 residents within the next decade.

Like stadiums, convention centers and aquariums, streetcars have emerged as a popular tool in the effort to revitalize downtowns in the U.S. About a dozen cities, from Madison, Wis., to Miami, are planning lines. But while research shows that big-ticket projects such as ballparks largely fail to spawn economic development, evidence is mounting that streetcars are indeed a magnet.

Streetcar systems are slower, less expensive and smaller than light rail, with cars that carry a maximum of 125 people and the average line 2-3 miles long. The cars are powered by electricity and run on tracks, which developers tend to favor because they suggest a sense of permanence, unlike bus routes, which can be changed overnight.

In Kenosha, Wis., city officials say a two-mile line helped generate 400 new residential units and the redevelopment of a 69-acre industrial site into a waterfront park. The streetcar line in Little Rock, Ark., has sparked revitalization of the city's River Market and warehouse district. In Seattle, a new $52 million streetcar line is scheduled to open in December that will shuttle riders between downtown and South Lake Union, a formerly industrial area that is being redeveloped by Microsoft Corp. billionaire Paul Allen.

And in Portland, Ore., the poster child for such development, officials say the streetcar system has helped bring $2.7 billion in investment within two blocks of its 3.6 mile line, much of it in the 24-hour hub known as the Pearl District. "It's one of the most vibrant neighborhoods in the city," says Richard Brandman, deputy planning director for Metro, the Portland area's regional government.

Still, streetcars face considerable odds because they vie for the same money as transportation projects designed to serve the suburbs. This has been particularly true at the federal level, where funding has long depended on how quickly projects can move people from one point to another. Streetcars, which average under ten miles per hour, are at a distinct disadvantage. By contrast, light rail moves at 20 to 60 miles per hour.

Congress sought to change the odds in 2005 with the creation of Small Starts, a Federal Transit Administration program designed to fund small-scale transportation systems, including streetcars. But streetcar proponents have been largely reluctant to pursue funding under the program, saying the FTA still favors high-speed transit such as buses.

Paul Griffo, a spokesman for the FTA, says that both mobility and development factor into the funding of transportation projects. But so far Small Starts has recommended four projects, all of them bus rapid transit, an emerging transportation alternative in which a bus operates in a designated lane much like subway or light rail with stops about every half mile.

In the meantime, cities have relied on a patchwork of public and private money to help fund their streetcar systems, hoping to tap into a demographic shift in which young professional and empty nesters are moving downtown. Streetcars are especially popular among urban planners because they encourage the sort of density that allows for offices to be developed alongside homes, shops and restaurants.

"Streetcars are not designed to save time," says Mr. Blumenauer. "They're designed to change the way neighborhoods are built."

While streetcars lack speed and mobility, proponents say the role they play in urban development makes them a worthy transportation choice. They argue that by helping to draw development to urban areas such as downtowns, and by providing a transportation link in those areas, streetcars reduce the need for extra lanes of highways to the suburbs and limit the need for cars in and around downtowns.

In several cities, such as San Francisco and New Orleans, streetcars have never gone out of style as transportation systems. But many more were shut down following World War II in favor of buses.

That was the case in Tampa. The city once had one of the largest electric streetcar systems in the Southeast, with well over 100 cars and more than 50 miles of track.

In the mid-1980s, prompted in large part by nostalgia, a group calling itself the Tampa and Ybor City Street Railway Society set about to restore one of Tampa's derelict streetcars. Out of that effort evolved a broader downtown redevelopment campaign in which a new streetcar system was proposed, linking the city's convention center and the former cigar-manufacturing hub of Ybor City.

 
Tampa's Teco Line Streetcar System links the entertainment district of Ybor City to the city's convention center at the edge of downtown.  

But county officials saw the focus on downtown as trivial compared with the needs of the larger Tampa-St. Petersburg metropolitan area, where the majority of 2.7 million people rely heavily on their cars to get to and from work. County leaders such as Mr. Blair, formerly a Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority board member, ridiculed the $600,000 replica streetcars as costly toys.

"The concern was the use of public money," says Steven Polzin, a former regional transit authority board member who is a director of public transit research at the University of South Florida's Center for Urban Transportation Research. "Tampa-area roads are wanting for resources."

But the controversy did little to deter development in the Channel District, a 212-acre stretch of land where the city has agreed to grant tax breaks for developers. Developers say they were also drawn by the streetcar line. Fida Sirdar, president of Key Developers Group LLC, for example, is spending several hundred thousand dollars to build a pedestrian walkway connecting the York Station streetcar stop to his Place at Channelside, a $100 million 244-unit condominium. "It's a big plus," he says.

In May, the Tampa City Council voted to extend the streetcar line by about a third of a mile into downtown, using federal money already in hand. By linking downtown and the burgeoning Channel District, officials hope they can transform the streetcar line into more of a commuter system, expanding the hours of operation and raising revenue.

Still, Tampa's streetcar line is still largely a tourist attraction, drawing 389,770 riders last year, more than half of them out-of-town visitors. A $4.75 million endowment set up to operate the streetcar system for 10 years is losing about $1 million a year. And Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio says she doesn't intend to put more money into the line, which the city owns jointly with Tampa's regional transit authority.

"Somebody is going to have to step up," says Ed Crawford, a spokesman for the regional transit authority. "It's clear we can't go on this way."

-- Jennifer S. Forsyth contributed to this article.

http://www.realestatejournal.com/propertyreport/newsandtrends/20070626-herrick.html


What investment or subsidizing of a business or development can bring the city back the type of return streetcars have done for Tampa, Portland, Little Rock or Kenosha?  You could fund a streetcar connecting Riverside and Five Points to the Northbank/Landing for the same costs the city wants to dump into upgrading Metro Park.  In the process, you'll tie in popular existing destinations (Five Points, Landing), major employment centers (BCBS, Fidelity, CSX), dense residential (Riverside), cultural (Cummer, Performing Arts Center) and recreational (riverwalk, Memorial Park, Riverside Park) uses, while spurring infill development in the areas between (Brooklyn, LaVilla).  Giving Vestcor money to renovate a building won't do this.  Bribing Publix to open a grocery won't do this.  Putting a park on the riverfront won't do this either.

As for being slow and saying they can't facilitate commuting needs, that really depends on the system (route, frequency, stop spacing, etc.) one is designing.  If you want and design a tourist line (i.e. Tampa), that's what you'll get.  If you want one that will move commuters and you design it for that purpose (i.e. Portland), that's what you'll get.

Quote from: mtraininjax on December 31, 2009, 02:36:26 AM
Link to free bus service downtown in Orlando, http://www.golynx.com/?id=1155575

Is this what the new bus lanes in Jax will bring? If downtown commuter service were free, why not use it to travel downtown, could really be a boon to growth.

The LYMMO hasn't stimulated economic development in DT Orlando. Buses simply don't have the power to do this like rail does.

Would be a tragedy and travesty if these beautiful buildings and developments closed down. Would like to say I hope the City can help, but the city has its own problems and can hardly help itself.

"HU"

Quote from: mtraininjax on December 31, 2009, 12:44:32 AM
STJR - Let me see if I understand your core belief....you want the citizens of Jacksonville to give up their automobile, live downtown, and use public transportation to go to their destinations? A hum and spoke system in essence where all transportation funnels back into the core from the outlying areas.

Mtrain, once again, you fail to fully grasp the words in front of you for whatever reason.  Here, as you yourself excerpted, is the relevant quote:

QuoteOne way is to have JTA offer frequent, 24/7 transit connections to join all the urban core areas to achieve the needed numbers to support everyday retail and service needs.

Nowhere is there mention of a hub and spoke or any connections to the outlying suburbs and I have no idea how you got to that thought.  I merely talked about connectivity to the various URBAN CORE areas and even named them in several places as Riverside, San Marco, and Springfield.  All the discussion that follows your misinterpretation (I am being generous) is totally off point from my post.

Please, please, read the words carefully.  Each is there for a reason.  Thanks.

Vescor can go to a normal bank to obtain funding if their business plan is viable! Taxpayers have paid far more than their fair share($21 Million plus to this date) Downtown will not be revitilized with BRT and even if there were a "No Fare" zone downtown ....I don't think that will spark much of anything! Residents are one thing, infrastructure to support residents is not there to support residents......so which comes first the chicken or the egg? City Hall has no vision, no plan  nor any idea's.............maybe its time for metrojax to get involved beyond just discussing the issue because if we wait for City Hall to take the lead.........well we can't get any worse than where we are now>

Quotemaybe its time for metrojax to get involved beyond just discussing the issue because if we wait for City Hall to take the lead

Behind closed doors we are getting involved and have been involved for a few years now.  2010 should be an interesting year.

QuoteNowhere is there mention of a hub and spoke or any connections to the outlying suburbs and I have no idea how you got to that thought.  I merely talked about connectivity to the various URBAN CORE areas and even named them in several places as Riverside, San Marco, and Springfield.  All the discussion that follows your misinterpretation (I am being generous) is totally off point from my post.

STJR - Have you been to Downtown Jacksonville? You do know that there is a central HUB at the end of the North line of the Skyway, correct? It feeds most of the buses that go all over the city, whenever I take the bus from Avondale I have to catch a new bus to the Southside or any other location from this central hub.

It acts as the central clearing house for most bus operations. My point was that if and when the City has money for a 24/7 transit solution with buses, why not use the central hub already in place, or the proposed transit center, when and if it ever finds money as well? Do you understand? If not, we can agree to disagree. I am moving on in 2010.

another article about Vestcor's situation.

QuoteThe Carling, which opened in 2006, cost an estimated $25.5 million, of which the developer received a $15.5 million low-interest loan and $5 million in grants as part of a public financing package. Of the $22.4 million spent to restore 11 E. in 2003, Vestcor received a $17.8 million low-interest government loan.

The buildings, which have 227 residential units combined, were about 95 percent occupied during the first few years, when interest in Downtown living was still high, Rood said.

But as the economy weakened and interest in downtown waned, so to did the occupancy levels, which are now 83 percent for the Carling and 76 percent for 11 E. Rents too, which now range from $800 to $2,000, have steadily dropped at both properties. And although the 16,199 square feet of commercial space at the bottom of the buildings were never completely full, that is now down to about 17 percent occupied.

full article: http://jacksonville.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2009/12/28/daily21.html?ana=tt3245

Quote from: mtraininjax on January 01, 2010, 12:59:34 AM
STJR - Have you been to Downtown Jacksonville? You do know that there is a central HUB at the end of the North line of the Skyway, correct? It feeds most of the buses that go all over the city, whenever I take the bus from Avondale I have to catch a new bus to the Southside or any other location from this central hub.

I totally disown our current JTA designed and managed transits systems in any mode.  I have always referred to what I think we SHOULD do, not what we ARE doing.  Unfortunately, the gulf between the two is wide.

Connections to the outlying suburbs has zero to do with my original thought about how to rebuild downtown through residential attractiveness.  So, why bring it up at all?

Regardless, happy 2010 to all.

Vescor and Rood got a grant from the city for $5 Million Dollars? Let those suckers eat cake or twinkies I don't care! They have received the last dime from the City if I have anything to say about it! I don't care if it is just paying interest or whatever............no more money! Where is their business plan....why can't they go through a bank like normal investors.........why does the City have to be a bank for someones grandiose plans. The City is close to becoming bankrupt at this very time and we are supposed to cough more for the inner circle? NO!

The city banked their plans because projects involving the historic preservation of buildings that large are not feasible in DT Jax.  If the Laura Trio, Barnett, Ambassador or any other significant historic structure in DT is to be saved, as long as DT isn't vibrant, they'll need incentives as well.

lake............I am just concerned with one thing at a time! Vescor and Rood got a grant of $5 Million Dollars......a grant mind you, not a loan, not an extension but an out right grant.............here is free money take this $5 Million Dollars and its yours! (This is courtesy of the JEDC and where do they get their money from? Taxpayers once again!) Then you take into account the $21 Million Dollars in low interest money that they received, courtesy of the taxpayers once again, and I would have to ask .......where does one draw the line at? A case could be made both ways on this, but I have to ask..........why come to the City? Don't they have banks or credit lines to draw on? Why does the taxpayer have to foot the bill just one more time? I am getting tired of maintaining the "Bank of Taxpayer" while City Hall, JEDC and all of the other buffoon Agency's spend, spend spend without any regard of where their operating money really comes from! It is time to stop now! This particular issue must not receive anymore taxpayer money for whatever reason.

QuoteBut as the economy weakened and interest in downtown waned, so to did the occupancy levels, which are now 83 percent for the Carling and 76 percent for 11 E. Rents too, which now range from $800 to $2,000, have steadily dropped at both properties. And although the 16,199 square feet of commercial space at the bottom of the buildings were never completely full, that is now down to about 17 percent occupied.

The gist of the problem is that when the occupancy were near normal levels, it was successful, when it dropped significantly from that level, it started to lose money.  Even a standard suburban project at 76% occupancy would likely lose money. I suspect.

So the question is why has it dropped so much?  Obviously the economy is part of it, but the Vestcor suburban projects should be experiencing the same thing.  Are they, and to the same extent?

The lack of amenties and services DT could be part of it, but even when the occupancy was high, that was the case as well.

My theories...

1) The residents tired of waiting on the businesses and amenties that they ANTICIAPTED would arrive, but haven't yet
2) The loss of momentum DT generally, made the residents lose hope that a vibrant environment would ever occur.
3) A declining job base DT, shrank the potential market
4) a combinaton of the above
5) Something else

I feel bad for Vestcor because they took a chance on DT residential when virtually no one else would.  Just as private banks are renegotiating loans, perhaps Jax should at least consider doing the same on this one.  There is at least the possibility that the city will end up owning these buildings via foreclosure.  DOes anyone think that would be a good thing ??

Regardless, I think the city should try to determine why the occupancy level has dropped and what can be done about that.         

ok...for all those who seem opposed to grants or low interest loans for good projects like Carling and 11E, what would you propose instead?

I would argue that these kinds of investments are huige in that it allowed 2 historic buildings to be saved and rehabbed, more people to move downtown, and could spur other projects.

In fact, I heard about one tonight....apparently the owners/developers of Hotel Duval in Tallahassee may be planning to open a boutique hotel downtown sometime in the next year.

^New construction or in a historic building?

not sure yet...I think I know the answer but I need to check

^ I agree with you tufsu!  I would much rather give a grant for historic preservation, than see the buildings torn down and living history demolished.  In a way, it is sort of like the government's penance for ruining downtown in past decades.  Historical preservation grants and incentives should continue to be used as a tool for revitalization.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that Vescor got that money for a "Historic Preservation" did they? Infact the City has a habit of passing out our money for what is said to be that, but in reality is not.....the case of the Boys Club  comes most readily to mind! Are any of those three Buildings in the Historical Register?  If they are then that may lend credence to the Historical aspect .....if not, they I ask WTF?They have already received a healthy chunk of taxpayer money,either outright freebie, or at a lower interest rate than either you or I could receive trying to deal with our Bank in a normal business Environment! Why not use a Bank for this............if the City wishes to incentives with taxbreaks that's one thing, to use our tax money as an imitation bank is wrong! IMO a Bank should be involved in these kinds of loans......so I would have to ask, why not?

Both the Carling and 11 East (Lynch Building) are on the National Register of Historic Places:

http://www.preservationnation.org/resources/case-studies/loan-funds/lynch-building.html

http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/FL/Duval/state.html

In that case...........I stand corrected as to the Historical nature of those two bldgs! But still have to question about the validity of using City money,up front to pay for this! Incentives are one thing, but outright funding is something else! I would still have to ask ...........why do they not go through a Bank? I wish I could use free City money and low interest loans but will not even have that option!

I believe the city offers grants for historic preservation projects as well.  Perhaps that is where the $5 million came from.

Quote from: CS Foltz on January 02, 2010, 08:51:13 AM
In that case...........I stand corrected as to the Historical nature of those two bldgs! But still have to question about the validity of using City money,up front to pay for this! Incentives are one thing, but outright funding is something else! I would still have to ask ...........why do they not go through a Bank? I wish I could use free City money and low interest loans but will not even have that option!

Going from memory here, so I may be off on the details.....when Matt Carlucci was city council president, $20mm was set aside for grants to preserve historic properties.  The GRANTS for 11E and Carling were two of the project that received money, I believe.  The 20 W. Adams building (where construction started but since stopped) received about 200-400k as I recall.  I think some money was included for the Laura trio. I think the Dyal-Upchurch and/or Churchwell Lofts might have too.  Knight Lofts on Adams Street received incentives as well, although that might have been a different 'pot' of money from what Carlucci put in place.


http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/071101/bum_6650812.html
http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/072501/met_history.html

Quote"There's no question it is quicker, cheaper and easier to develop empty land for an apartment complex," said Mike Langton, a managing partner of LB Jax Development, which is trying to put loft apartments in a 81-year-old, three-story building on West Adams Street. "You just cannot renovate an old building as easily as you can build a new building."

http://jacksonville.com/business/2009-12-13/story/lights_dimming_on_jacksonvilles_bold_plans_for_downtown

QuoteAfter the city bought the trio in 2002, the Downtown Development Authority and Jacksonville Economic Development Commission approved an $18 million incentive package with Signet Development Ltd. to turn the buildings into housing with street-level shops.

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/051302/met_9388163.html

If you read through these, you will see that but for incentives there would be virtually NO residences DT, and significantly fewer revived historic buildings.

The reason Vestcor didn't go to a bank was either 1) the bank would not lend money for such a unique project with an unproven market, or 2) at standard rates, the project would not show a profit even with normal occupancy.  Despite the craziness of the last few years, banks prefer cookie-cutter subdivisions in the burbs, not risky pioneering projects.

When the city's incentives dried up, so did the projects, then the economy took care of whatever might have been left.   

Quotebanks prefer cookie-cutter subdivisions in the burbs, not risky pioneering projects.

Which is why NOW and for the next few years, I don't think we will see any new DT development for residential without significant investment by the City. Berkman 2 remains a skeleton of the past and it serves as a bleak reminder of the past DT residential revival. A change in the City policy won't happen without new leaders, as we agree on.

What about another project like Parks at the Cathedral, ie. new construction workforce housing?  The Parks has arguably been more successful than the highrise type of downtown residences.

The Parks got incentives as well.

Gentlemen......I can see where "Incentives" are going to be necessary with a project that is outside of a bank's purview or cookie cutter developments, but there has to be a limit based upon either square footage or the building relevance or just plain where it sits. COJ does not have unlimited funding to draw on, the taxpayers deserve conservation and common sense useage of their funds! Maybe an Economic Bond that can be bought or sold OTC, something that can used to fund investor involvement. Taxpayers can not be the only funding source or the fund-er of last resort! City Hall is not being imaginative, creative or think outside of the box! JEDC is not doing their job, but they sure do get their salary don't they? Their money comes from the taxpayers also! Incentives should be a tool, not a sole source provider!

Quote from: urbanlibertarian on January 02, 2010, 01:44:31 PM
What about another project like Parks at the Cathedral, ie. new construction workforce housing?  The Parks has arguably been more successful than the highrise type of downtown residences.

agreed...this project put 51 units (eyes) on the street...and has changed 4 street blocks!

I wouldn't mind seeing more projects like the Parks in the Cathedral District, LaVilla and Brooklyn.  Those areas are ripe for townhouse/rowhouse style development.

Not really familiar with that project........so I have to ask, City or Bank Funded?

both CS...Bank of America financed it through their well publicized urban redevlopment pogram...the City provided tax breaks for homeowners and rebuilt infrastructure (streets, pipes, sidewalks), and the adjacent Episcopal Church also helped out by giving some of the land

tusu1.........to me, that is the perfect picture of both City and Banking improvements. A mix of both rather than a full blown City financed escapade! Best of both worlds and that is what is needed! Neither one or the other allout but a collaboration!

Quote from: stephendare on December 30, 2009, 04:28:08 PM
how many years of the parking division would have been funded by 21 million, I wonder?

If you simply took the single project that has had to be incentivised as a result of these jackals, its right at about 25 years of the income produced by all of their collections and tickets.

We have sacrificed downtown in favor of the Meter Maids.

A couple of weeks ago I went Downtown and when I go I park on Ashley St. near  First Baptist and the Fire pension bldg. because there are two hour meters and less enforcement. I also drive through these areas on a regular basis. A day or two later I noticed the meters were gone. Whats going on? A few days later I notice more weters gone. I come over the Hart Bridge and notice some missing on Duval St. gone. A week later I call the parking meter division and asked them what is going on with the parking meters. They were unaware that a problem existed. WOW!

The next day I notice that they are fixing and replacing the two our meters with one hour meters. I get out and they inform me that the meters were being stolen. This was also happening on Church st. Were not talking one or two but dozens of meters. I'm in shock that they were unaware that the people who  work and monitor  that part of town were unaware that a problem existed.

Is anyone who lives Downtown aware of this crime wave?

I asked if they have filed police reports. Said they had.  All these businesses with outside surveilance cameras must have seen something. I talked with a security guard at a bank on Ashley st. and he said his surveilance cameras are on the other side of the street. All the meters were gone except one or two. For Downtown residents and businesses I'd be concerned. We have these taxpayer subsidized parking garages that are guaranteed an 8% return. Point is that the next time numbers come in I would say that you really have to question the validity of any revenue increases or decreases.

Stephan, How have the smart meters worked out? 

Stephen, Sorry for the spelling error.
Also to the issue of more money. I'd say No. If the council says yes then you have to have better enforcement of clawbacks in place to recoup the taxpayer investment. If the buildings are sold is there something in place to say that the taxpayer (banker) will recoup that investment.

Noone......as far as I am concerned, they can put those meters where the sun won't shine! There is no reason for meters other than just one more way to siphon funds out of the taxpayers pocket! If the City were truly interested in revitalizing downtown they would delete all meters and charge something when someone parks for longer than a 8 hr period............that should be long enough time to conduct whatever business one has to conduct downtown. Because of the meters, I don't go downtown unless absolutely required! I also agree, rates at any parking garage are too high and don't need to be increased!

CS...your anti-tax arguments are getting old...what ideas do you have for revitaziling downtown and moving the region forward that don't require increased public investment?

Quote from: tufsu1 on January 09, 2010, 02:20:12 PM
CS...your anti-tax arguments are getting old...what ideas do you have for revitaziling downtown and moving the region forward that don't require increased public investment?

I can't say we should eliminate public investment but we could and should take the current level of investment,  before consideration of adding to it, and deploy it a lot smarter than what our track record to date has been.

Additionally, there are many things that the City could accomplish through consistent and smart policies imposed on the private sector, such as good zoning, architectural reviews, traffic planning, land use, historic preservation, and requirements for friendly street level interfaces (i.e. setback standards, retail frontage, landscaping, signage, etc.), none of which would cost the taxpayers anything but would go a long way, if properly applied, toward revitalizing Downtown.

"Improvement districts" in which incremental increases in tax revenues from improvements made within a district would be another way to cost effectively improve Downtown.  Let's face it, if a parking lot or a 40 story tower resides on an existing Downtown block, the financial demands on the City aren't all that different, yet the tower pays dozens to a hundred times the taxes.  The City could afford to reinvest some of that "found" money in continuing to improve the area without sacrificing much elsewhere.

Isn't there already a downtown tax district?  Isn't that where Downtown Vision gets it's money?  How much does this tax bring in?  Of course, if you give tax waivers to encourage DT development, you are killing the funding source for DT improvements. 

stjr wrote: "Additionally, there are many things that the City could accomplish through consistent and smart policies imposed on the private sector, such as good zoning, architectural reviews, traffic planning, land use, historic preservation, and requirements for friendly street level interfaces (i.e. setback standards, retail frontage, landscaping, signage, etc.), none of which would cost the taxpayers anything but would go a long way, if properly applied, toward revitalizing Downtown."


If additional regulation were to promote business activity in general instead of favoring certain businesses and hurting others that would be a fluke.  COJ needs to make it cheaper and easier to do business DT (and throughout the city for that matter).  Zoning, arch. reviews, planning should be dramatically simplified or eliminated.  Tax relief should be secondary to that, IMHO.

Quote from: urbanlibertarian on January 09, 2010, 05:57:17 PM
If additional regulation were to promote business activity in general instead of favoring certain businesses and hurting others that would be a fluke.  COJ needs to make it cheaper and easier to do business DT (and throughout the city for that matter).  Zoning, arch. reviews, planning should be dramatically simplified or eliminated.  Tax relief should be secondary to that, IMHO.

Just like anything else, there is good and bad regulation.  Businesses and individuals actually pay substantially extra to be "regulated" in office parks and gated/master planned communities.  Good regulation can create value for all by insuring the right mix and minimum standards investors are looking for to be more likely of success.  What Downtown currently reflects is inconsistencies galore and the uncertainties created by that do much to scare investors and potential residents off.  Some level of regulation would give them assurance that their investments would have a minimal level of protection and that the environment they are seeking will be delivered.

Quote from: tufsu1 on January 09, 2010, 02:20:12 PM
CS...your anti-tax arguments are getting old...what ideas do you have for revitaziling downtown and moving the region forward that don't require increased public investment?

Big guy.......I am not anti-tax as you suggest! I am for effecient, cost effective government! I would like to see an even distrubution of tax incentives and low interest loans not favor the large companies (Vescor a $5 Million Dollar grant plus low interest loans of $21 Million Dollars.) There is plenty that could be accomplished with that kind of money. Consistent policies applied to the private sector, good zoning,landscaping,signage,set backs,pedestrian friendly street level,architectual reviews and the like. Simplify regulations instead of the hodge podge we have now which alot could be removed and no one would miss squat! I am a firm believer in operating within my budget and unless the City can demonstrate the same, I am against any new Tax's or Fee's and rightfully so! I don't see the City making the attempt and I have too? I see the current Administration just get a tax increase when they can't make ends meet! I say fire 229 AIMO's and save $27 Million dollars in cost, I say trim the fat out of the Budget for real, not some token effort like cutting the Veterens Day Parade. We just spent $130K for a Teal gate Party........I could start listing all of the failed efforts of this Administrations and the last one but would get writers cramp, but I see the Millions wasted to this date and don't care for the City's effort or stewardship of our tax dollars to date.

sorry CS, but that's what the Tea Party folks say...its called anti-tax!

Remember that being a part of a community means sometimes funding/supporting things that aren't for you, but for the greater good...the Tealgate Party is one of those things, as is Metro Park, Cecil Commerfce Center, etc.

As an example, I don't have kids but I'm not complaining about my local school taxes!

Mine have been grown for years and I am busy funding things that don't directly effect me all over Jacksonville, like a Court House, 11 East, Metro Park,Cecil Commerce Center,Ship Yards..............lets not forget JEA and JTA got their Budget Money approved by the City Council......oh yea and Johnny got that tax increase he wanted didn't he? I want efficient government.........don't know what the so-called Tea Party Clowns want  and don't care.............I want cost effective government and I will keep removing incumbents until I get it!

QuoteMine have been grown for years and I am busy funding things that don't directly effect me all over Jacksonville, like a Court House, 11 East, Metro Park,Cecil Commerce Center,Ship Yards.............I want cost effective government and I will keep removing incumbents until I get it!

CS - You are being short-sighted. The existing courthouse is over 50 years old, it is here to provide justice to criminals, and the city needs a new one for another 50 years. We can't fix what we have, its too old and is running with band-aids now. Metro Park is the downtown park, its not perfect, but it needs rehab, and its a good long term investment for downtown, same as Kids Campus. Ship Yards was a disaster and handled poorly by City, no argument from me.

Government is inefficient at best. You have unions at the Police and Fire, not to mention the employee union for city workers. We're screwed, because we have allowed the unions to dictate what government will and will not do. Most Mayors never fight them, because it never goes anywhere, as we are seeing now with Peyton and Cuba, who mostly fight in the papers between themselves.  The problems of Government cannot be fixed with 1 term council people. We need to rid ourselves of the unions and have people paid based on performance, not their pension.

mtraininjax.....Court House could have been renovated and refurbished for far less than $350  Million that we don't have now......Art Graham pushed for this several years ago and I agree with him. Just increasing urban sprawl and what do we get for it.......a new Court House no one asked for, voters approved $190 Million, right? Metro Park should have been done long before now and it needs to be cleaned up and pumps replaced, not gutted,concrete removed and grass planted (who got the contract to mow and trim?)Unions are a boil on the backside of progress now days, at one time they had a part to play.....not now in todays information age. Elected officials should be rated by the people who put them into office and they do so by re-electing them! If they have a proven track record for caring for their constituants and making decisions that benifit the whole, I wold vote for one again, but if they don't care about anyone but the GOB's ......sorry your gone! I want to see government spend no more than they have coming in, we don't need to the next Budget cycle in the hole right out of the blocks like we are going to be! Just because past Administrations did it does not make it right! If people were paid on performance........most people would be paying rather then receiving!

Quote from: CS Foltz on January 10, 2010, 07:18:59 AM
mtraininjax.....Court House could have been renovated and refurbished for far less than $350  Million that we don't have now......Art Graham pushed for this several years ago and I agree with him. Just increasing urban sprawl and what do we get for it.......a new Court House no one asked for, voters approved $190 Million, right? Metro Park should have been done long before now and it needs to be cleaned up and pumps replaced, not gutted,concrete removed and grass planted

#1 - you're clearly confusing Metro Park w/ Friendship Fountain

#2 - are you sure that one could renovate/expand the existing courthouse for less than $350 million?

#3 - the voters didn't approve any specific amopunt for BetterJax projects...they approved a list of projects that went along with a 1/2 cent sales tax...so far, nothing other than that sales tax money has been used for Better Jax. projects.

QuoteArt Graham pushed for this several years ago and I agree with him.

CS - I went to college with Art, he is a great guy, but also remember that his district included the areas of SJTC and all of the sprawl that people complain about now. Art did try and limit the heights of buildings in the area, lost the hotel that opened with Shula's, but for the most part, he did not want to see 10-story buildings, and I agree with him, in the area.

The existing courthouse is full of asbestos and other nasty items, refurb it fine, but where do you hold court while you refurb it? Let's move it to your house and invade your area of town, I am sure you want the criminals so close. Best to build new and something that will last for years and years to come.

Track records - LOL - Go read the local Resident for Riverside, avondale, Murray Hill, ortega, Corrigan has a blurb in there, asking him about future office, he TAKES credit for beginning the Riverside Artists Market, as if that was not Dr. Woods project, but Corrigan, who is my council person, has as much creativity as gum on the sole of my shoe. He has done nothing for this district, other than status quo. People who hold office should be leaders and visionaries with agendas to grow and expand their areas, not be caretakers. I laughed when I read it.

mtraininjax I understand! My first thought was to bring some barges in and tie them off across from the Hyatt! Seriously.......if barges aren't available, then use ships! Temp use only......could use downtown jail to hold and they could even have a nightcourt shift, which Moran has not seen fit to use! That way everything is close to where it is going on now! Would be more than happy to have it in my world, but nowhere big enough, nothing close but ship's or barges would do the trick! Cost is lots less then what we are going to end up paying for this, don't forget voters approved $190 Million not 350 Million! Corrigan belongs on the bottom of your shoe and he is not even in the caretaker category! Merserve who is mine belongs on the bottom of Corrigan's shoes!

CS...please tell us how your plan would "definitely" cost less than $350 million?

QuoteCost is lots less then what we are going to end up paying for this, don't forget voters approved $190 Million not 350 Million!

Lest we forget the promise by Tommy Hazouri that he would end the tolls, which he did, but still left us with the 1/2 cent tax to continue to pay for JTA. Do we need to say more about getting screwed by mayors and the taste that lingers?

Well, that was the deal given to voters - enact a 1/2 percent sales tax, to replace the tolls in place at the time.  If voters had turned down the referendum, we'd still have tolls - and by now they'd be using the E-Pass system, like in central Florida.

Here is an update on this issue:

QuotePeyton backs help for developer on 2 ailing downtown projects
Vestcor seeks interest-only payments for awhile on The Carling, 11 East Forsyth

    * By David Hunt
    * Story updated at 8:17 PM on Tuesday, Jan. 12, 2010

City Hall should help the Vestcor Cos. overcome a major operating deficit at its two downtown, city-financed apartment buildings, Mayor John Peyton said Tuesday.

The development company went to the Jacksonville Economic Development Commission in mid-December seeking relief for recurring losses at The Carling and 11 East Forsyth.

“Do we want to get in the apartment building business? No, but I think what they’re asking is very reasonable,” Peyton said.

Vestcor’s request, detailed in a Dec. 16 letter to JEDC head Ron Barton, is not a direct plea for cash. The Jacksonville-based company is asking for interest-only payments, temporarily setting aside principle debt, for the next three years on $34.3 million in city-financed loans.

Vestcor also wants the city to provide incentives aimed at filling empty ground-floor commercial space: low-interest loans for stores, restaurants and other tenants.

Although the buildings were heralded as prime examples of public-private partnership, Vestcor’s deficit on the properties has totalled $1.5 million over the past six years.

Peyton’s comments came during a meeting he called with the Times-Union to discuss possible solutions to Jacksonville’s ailing downtown. The newspaper’s “Downtown Dilemma” series, published last month, analyzed development hurdles in the urban core.

Regardless of Peyton’s support, Vestcor’s request is subject to JEDC and City Council approval.
Opinions on the council have been mixed. Some members said they didn’t want to comment before JEDC develops an official plan.

Councilman Clay Yarborough questions why taxpayers should help a failing private endeavor, but Councilman Art Shad said part of Vestcor’s problem is that the city didn’t spread more incentive money around downtown.
Nearby development could have supported the buildings, Shad said. He referenced the success Kansas City has seen in its roughly $4 billion public investment in downtown. City leaders recently took a trip to the Midwest city to explore options for Jacksonville’s development.

“We have to spend and spend and spend until it hurts,” Shad said.

Between the two apartment buildings, there are 227 residential units and 16,199 square-feet of commercial space. Vestcor officials say about 80 percent of the apartments and 17 percent of the commercial space are occupied.

In the early 2000s, the city sponsored the renovation project with $34.3 million in low-interest loans and a $5 million grant. Vestcor purchased the buildings for $4.75 million.

Barton, who previously said Vestcor has a good business model but has been the victim of a tough real estate market, did not return a phone call Tuesday.

Vestcor Chairman John Rood also did not return a phone call.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-01-12/story/peyton_backs_help_for_developer_on_2_ailing_downtown_projects

Just setting aside the principal for three years and making interest only payments does not seem right somehow! I don't see why a normal banking institution could not service this type of a problem! I mean the taxpayers are allready into this project  for a $5 Million Dollar grant and a low interest loan that's about $21 Million ($34.5 Million has been kicked around also, so I am not sure about the loan amount, but am confident about the grant) So why must we continue to foot the bill, I am still not too clear on this..........oh don't forget about the incentives for the first floor retail layout! At that rate, foreclose and hire professionals to run & rehab and lets start getting downtown up to speed!

ya know, if they had priced their commercial space at a level the allows small businesses to take a risk on downtown 5 years ago, they more than likely would have no current deficit and a bunch of cool little shops today. I don't get the business plan in asking $20 odd bucks a sq. ft for a space that can only be survived in by paying $10. It makes it unreal for anyone wanting to try a little shopkeeping.

Quote from: CS Foltz on January 12, 2010, 10:13:36 PM
Just setting aside the principal for three years and making interest only payments does not seem right somehow! I don't see why a normal banking institution could not service this type of a problem! I mean the taxpayers are allready into this project  for a $5 Million Dollar grant and a low interest loan that's about $21 Million ($34.5 Million has been kicked around also, so I am not sure about the loan amount, but am confident about the grant) So why must we continue to foot the bill, I am still not too clear on this..........oh don't forget about the incentives for the first floor retail layout! At that rate, foreclose and hire professionals to run & rehab and lets start getting downtown up to speed!

there's no "footing the bill"..as long as the interest payments are made, there is no discount...and the principal still gets paid over time!

nestliving............I agree! Short term cash without a long term outlook and they wonder why they can't get something going? tufsu I understand how that is to work...........what concerns me is they are having to finagle a deal to make interest only payments PLUS incentives for retail on the ground floors! They did not take that into consideration from the beginning? I know about the bottom falling out of the real estate market but so far all we have received for the money the City has given them is what? Lip service? This just does not sit well with me after coughing up what has already been provided!

I swear this will take on the life of the Moon River Pizza thread.....it will never die.

Quote from: CS Foltz on January 12, 2010, 10:34:49 PM
I know about the bottom falling out of the real estate market but so far all we have received for the money the City has given them is what? Lip service?

2 large historic buildings renovated and occupied...about 300 new downtown residents (that support the burgeoniong nightlife scene)....a really cool Starbucks (until corporate offices made them close as part of downsizing)....a downtown barbershop....an artist's cooperative....

Shall I keep going?

tufsu............if they are doing so good, why do they wish to make interest only payments? To me it look like their business plan did not take all possibilities into account........other than COJ is allways good for a touch and they happen to have an in with Johnny! So like I said before.......why not approach a banking institution rather than using my (and your) tax dollars?

Quote from: CS Foltz on January 13, 2010, 10:08:43 AM
tufsu............if they are doing so good, why do they wish to make interest only payments? To me it look like their business plan did not take all possibilities into account........other than COJ is allways good for a touch and they happen to have an in with Johnny! So like I said before.......why not approach a banking institution rather than using my (and your) tax dollars?

CS, what they are asking to do is restructure the loan, to REDUCE their ongoing expenses, and by extention, their losses.

How will getting a loan from a bank help?  That is just adding another expense.  They are not insolvent, they just want to stop the bleeding.  Restructuring with the CURRENT lien holder is the only way to do that.

You are not providing a viable alternative.

No business plan is based on a worst case scenario either, because virtually every worst case scenario involves red ink, thus no business plan would be profitable.  When this project is at normal occupancy levels, it is profitable, that would describe ANY rental project.

I do think that if lower rents on the commercial properties had been availbale previously, there would be a higher occupancy now and thus lower losses.  That is the only real fault I lay at Vestcor's feet.  17% occupancy for an extended time demands a reduction, IMO.

QuoteI know about the bottom falling out of the real estate market but so far all we have received for the money the City has given them is what? Lip service?

CS, you stated that all that the City has received from the developers of the Carling and 11E was "lip service".  TUFSU pointed out that they have provided 2 renovated buildings, new residents as well as other commercial activities.  I would say that is more than just lip service.  But we get it, you are pretty much anti anything that involves YOUR tax dollars.  Oh, and you're against any tax increases.

via today's Daily Record....


http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=530918 (http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=530918)


Finance approves Vestcor bill

A bill that would suspend principal payments on City-issued loans to The Vestcor Companies for 11E and The Carling Downtown was approved Monday by the Council Finance Committee, but support was not unanimous.

If Council passes the bill, the real estate development company would make interest payments only for the next three years. Jacksonville Economic Development deputy director Paul Crawford addressed the issue to the committee, citing the downturn in the economy as the chief reason for the request. The deferred payments would still be paid once the company maintains profitability, he said.

All finance committee members in attendance spoke on the issue. Council member John Crescimbeni questioned the fairness of such an action given the economic troubles personal businesses are facing. Council member Clay Yarborough agreed with the questioning.

“I personally believe the taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for this,” said Yarborough. “It’s not to say there aren’t folks out there who want a vibrant Downtown and want Downtown investment, and I’m not advocating we don’t do that, but in a matter of priorities and in the times we are facing right now with budget cutting, I don’t believe this is in the best interest of our taxpayers. I don’t believe it’s fair.”

Others agreed with the measure, given the alternative.

“The reality is we have to make a responsible fiscal decision based on the facts as they exist today,” said Jack Webb. “As far as being on the hook, we are on the hook. We are the note holder. The decision now is, ‘What do we do?’ The fact is, we are in the (real estate) game, we are in the market.”

Webb reminded the committee that the measure is principal deferment, not forgiveness, and it’s in the best interest of the taxpayers to avoid default. Council member Bill Bishop agreed, comparing the situation to what commercial banks are doing working with clients.

“I think it would be remiss on our part to give up now,” said Council member Don Redman.

The measure was approved 5-2.

It is amazing to me that Vescor has the temerity to ask for this! I am against this and have E Mailed my representative with my view! If this is done for Vescor .....why not others? Or is this just the GOB Network watching out for one of there own again?

Is this request neccessary for the continued viability of the building?

I don't see it as being entirely unreasonable, other than the smack of insider back scratching. So long as interest is being paid, and the principal is still owed, I could envision a bank working a similar deal with a mortgagee.

Quote from: buckethead on May 04, 2010, 11:55:48 AM
Is this request neccessary for the continued viability of the building?

I don't see it as being entirely unreasonable, other than the smack of insider back scratching. So long as interest is being paid, and the principal is still owed, I could envision a bank working a similar deal with a mortgagee.

As a banker, this is a scenario I encounter daily... 8 times a day, 14 days a week.  You have to look at each case's merits.  But in the end you can do nothing and cross your fingers and hope things don't get worse, or you can be proactive about your loan portfolio and make prudent decisions to ensure the viability of your business during these economic times.  The old way of doing business the last few years necessitate that bankers be much more prudent and actually have to make decisions based on commen sense(which was not done for many years).  

This quote sums it up.... “The reality is we have to make a responsible fiscal decision based on the facts as they exist today,” said Jack Webb. “As far as being on the hook, we are on the hook. We are the note holder. The decision now is, ‘What do we do?’ The fact is, we are in the (real estate) game, we are in the market.”

I am not in favor of principal forgiveness... but there are other ways to ensure your loan does not go south.  Working with an established developer to ensure your investment(the city CLEARLY has a substantial investment in the matter) does not deterioate further is the way business should be done.  Giving away grant money to people who know nothing about the real estate market and ultimately screw you over when they dont do what they say they can do, is not the way to do things.

Quote from: fieldafm on May 04, 2010, 01:28:11 PM

I am not in favor of principal forgiveness... but there are other ways to ensure your loan does not go south.  Working with an established developer to ensure your investment(the city CLEARLY has a substantial investment in the matter) does not deterioate further is the way business should be done.  Giving away grant money to people who know nothing about the real estate market and ultimately screw you over when they dont do what they say they can do, is not the way to do things.

Which is the case here?

Yes, Vestcor is an established company that is going to be here tomorrow.  They're not some fly-by-night 'developer' that has taken the city's money and run over the last 5 years.

These are unbelievably challenging economic times.  You can't just cross you arms and be stubborn and expect things to magically get better.  People can be upset b/c John Rood is behind the company(I don't personally know the man), and his political connections may rub people the wrong way... I understand that.  Lord knows this city has taken quite a few steps back b/c certain deals have been made at the benefit of a very select few.  I know how you feel. 

But, the company is stable(if thats even a word in today's economy) and they want their investment to succeed... sometimes the lender needs to make some concessions when it makes sense to do so that results in a win-win for all parties.  Otherwise you wind up with a situation in which everyone loses.  I think this is a win-win compromise.  It ensures the city's investment is more secure in a very shaky rental market and it ensures the urban core has the infrasctructure in place so when things do turn around, the groundwork is at the very least started.  Imagine if both of these beautiful renovations went south.  How does ANYONE win in that situation?

I tend to agree with that assessment.

+2

+3

Restructuring the note to allow interest only payments for a period of time seems the most sensible thing to do given the current economic environment.  Relative to what many other developers (and single family home owners, for that matter) are asking of their lenders, Vestcor's request is exceedingly reasonable.

Forgive my ignorance, but if the Council did not approve this, and if the debtor were unable to make the principle and interest payments, wouldn't the buildings just go into default and ultimately foreclosure?  At that point it is anyone's guess how much, if anything, it would bring at a sale and the city would probably end up losing money.  At least this way they are still making interest and they aren't lowering the principle any.  It really seems like a no-brainer to me if the company has been truthful and submitted proof that at the moment it simply cannot pay both the P and the I.

Treipoli1711.........you do realize that Vescor got two loans from the City for these bldgs? One @1.4% and the other at 1.5%..........total cost around $36.5 Million Dollars! I don't know about you but I could not get that kind of money at those rates. Where would you draw the line at............I am not comfortable with shoving more money into their hands and these loans were from an administration that is going to be $58 Million Dollars in the hole next budget cycle. I am not comfortable with this at all!

I know they got low interest loans.  How is this shoving money into their hands?  I do not believe saying "You basically are because you are not making them pay it" is an adequate answer due to the premise of my statement.

If the two options at this point are 1) Let them pay interest only with no principal reduction for 3 years or 2) They default and go into foreclosure, the city has to either eat the properties and let them sit vacant or sell them at foreclosure sale for a lot less than $36.5 million..

I am all for option 1.

I understand your viewpoint and concur to a degree! My issue is not everyone has that option! Is Vescor part of the GOB Network and can get bailed out because of it? I would say there are more than one business's that are having the exact same problem and I don't see JEDC giving them that option! Financial Institutions are concerned about the bottom and don't hesitate to pull someones plug because they have a money flow problem or force someone into foreclosure.

It is likely that the market value of this project is lower than the principal value of the loan.  A lot of developers would choose to walk away.  I don't know whether or not Rood personally guarantees the debt, but I think in this case he may actually be trying to honor his commitment to his GOB buddies.

Quote from: CS Foltz on May 04, 2010, 02:51:35 PM
Financial Institutions are concerned about the bottom and don't hesitate to pull someones plug because they have a money flow problem or force someone into foreclosure.

No one is pushing anyone into the foreclosure door right now... that I can assure you.  

This is not principal forgiveness nor does it amount to anyone giving anyone MORE money.  This is a sound business decision based on common sense and rational thought.  We should be so lucky in this city  :)

You need to get past the GOB rhetoric and look at the merits of the individual situation.  Bankers by and large need to do this as a whole, Lord knows they didnt for the past 5 years.

Those were my thoughts Miss Fixit.  Basically it seems to me that the alternative to letting them pay interest only is a bigger detriment to the city.

Whether all of this is GOB network, I am unqualified to answer.  If it is, the problem is with the loan in the first place, not working something out now.  

Quote from: fieldafm on May 04, 2010, 02:58:32 PM
  This is a sound business decision based on common sense and rational thought.

Except, shockingly, for where fair Councilman Yarborough comes in.  His quote about downtown revitalization seemed so convincing... =)

Fellow posters...........like I said .....I agree to a point! Something beats the hell out of nothing, unless the City wants foreclosure on $36.5 Million Dollars worth of buildings! This is the smartest thing the current administration has done in quite some time but I still have reservations because no bank is taking this tack! The intial loans should have not been done to start with! City does not have the expertise nor the outright money to squander in any fashion since it is Taxpayer money to begin with! The taxpayers are not in the business of banking nor are we a loan institution and yet this took place. Now the Council, whom I am suspicious of for common sense, will rubber stamp this!

With all due respect CS... I used to be a firecracker that was full of rhetoric.  Then I realized that you have to get past the rhetoric and start making decisions after careful examination of the task at hand.  Otherwise you end up with nothing while you pat yourself on the back for keeping a tight grip on to that rhetoric all the way to the bitter end.

Im all for no taxation without representation.  I hear ya, my friend.  But allowing two crown jewels of downtown preservation and revitilization to fail b/c we were all so blind and clouded by the rhetoric serves no one's best interest.

fieldafm.......much thanks but you could not offend me...........really! You do have a point....I have been in the Old American Heritage Building(11 East) back when it was empty and smelled badly! Installed the first Cell Site for Powertel on the roof back when there was little coverage in downtown. Now there are three more up there and back then I could see the possibilities and then some! Elevators did not work so had to muscle radio cabinets up the fire escape stairs in the dark............lots of fun! You do have a point regarding "crown jewels of preservation and revitalization" and you also have a point regarding payments of the interest until they can start paying the full amount back with an upswing in the local economy. But those loans should not have been made by JEDC to start with! City of Jacksonville is not a lending institution by any means and with the City $58 Million Dollars, still counting, in the hole next budget cycle where does anyone draw the line? Fiscal responsibility should be foremost  in the public servants minds but is not and that is my biggest grip! If everyone had access to the Bank of Jacksonville, great but we the people do not do we? Don't forget instead of cutting cost spending wise, John Boy wants a 4% increase in our property taxes to help balance the books..............so like I asked before where do we draw a line?

QuoteBut those loans should not have been made by JEDC to start with!

Had they not made those loans those buildings would not have been rehabbed and would currently be a part of our large inventory of empty downtown buildings.  Which would you rather have?

Quote from: cline on May 04, 2010, 04:25:37 PM

QuoteBut those loans should not have been made by JEDC to start with!

Had they not made those loans those buildings would not have been rehabbed and would currently be a part of our large inventory of empty downtown buildings.  Which would you rather have?

I'd rather have the buildings...they about the only residential that ties downtown together. Clearly they wouldn't have been possible without subsidies - it's not like the city threw money at the buildings - they offered an alternative solution because the building improvements would directly benefit the city's effort to improve downtown. Rehabilitating the building saves the taxpayers money by eliminating the need for new infrastructure (especially downtown) and improves the value of the surrounding buildings. These buildings were supposed to be a catalyst for downtown re-development but the other pieces to the puzzle for numerous reasons...cough cough Cameron Kuhn cough cough...I understand your point Foltz, but I think this is a bad example to apply it to. To be honest, your complaint is misplaced...it might find a better home with the rhetoric from the message board whiner wasteland of Jacksonville.com...

DOWNTOWN
Support the pioneers

Just a few years ago, downtown Jacksonville was saddled with two derelict high-rise buildings.
One was in such bad shape that every time it rained, water ran under the front door to the street.
John Rood and his Vestcor company came forward at the city’s request and refurbished the buildings into spectacular modern apartments.

Of course, the deal involved some grant money and low interest loans underwritten by the city.
No developer could take on such a project without those incentives, considering the risk of the location and amount of work required to save two historic, but dilapidated buildings.
Vestcor spent a lot of its own money, too, and saved the city the millions it would have cost to tear down the buildings.

The city assured Vestcor, and many other urban pioneers, that it would do its part to make downtown a safe, secure and attractive neighborhood. That has not happened. Vestcor has found it cannot attract or retain residential or commercial tenants due to the deplorable condition of downtown.
Complaints to City Hall from property owners and the few residents and merchants left downtown have fallen on deaf ears.

At this point, no one expects any progress until after the next local election.

It is not unreasonable to extend Vestcor’s debt payments by a few years. Rood is an honorable businessman.
He could easily walk away from the development, but won’t. Burdened by the terrible circumstances in downtown Jacksonville, he just needs more time to pay the loan back.

JERRY MORAN,
restaurateur,
Jacksonville

CS, Vestcor may be well-connected politically, but they were also QUALIFIED to do the project.   How many OTHER parties can say that? They were/are in the residential apartment ownership/management business.  They were the largest such corporation in Jax and I'd guess one of the biggest in the state.

Banks ARE renegotiating loans right now, so hte city is not acting any differently.

Sometimes the best you can do is MINIMIZE losses.  This is such a case.  They is no better alternative and when the loans were made, no one had a crystal ball to forsee the future.   You make the best decision you can based on the information at the time.  Two landmarks were saved. The Carling would probably be leveled by now, if it had not been rehabbed.        

Quote from: CS Foltz on May 04, 2010, 03:05:12 PM
but I still have reservations because no bank is taking this tack!

That is where you are misinformed.  Banks are indeed modifying loans(the Fed is even trying to force banks to forgive principal on mortgages right now, something I fundamentally do not agree with).  In fact, the booming loan modification industry has put plenty of unemployed former mortgage professionals back to work.

There is not much incentive for established real estate companies to invest downtown.  That's why the city has to come in and put forth incentives that spur that private investment(a practice done in all metropolitan areas).  But, that's neither here nor there b/c the debate as to whether the city should or shouldnt be a lender(all cities are, btw) has nothing to do with the cost of tea in China... nor does it have anything to do with whether the city should make the correct decision to modify a loan agreement in a rational manner as they are proposing to do with Vestcor.

Fellow posters .............I must point out City Of Jacksonville is not in the loan business but did make this money available, for whatever reasons, to Vescor. From a business point of view it makes perfect sense to modify said loan to a interest only payment for a limited time. But in the same breath, I have to point out, downtown has not been brought up to speed and until it is, we (the lowly taxpayers)will have interest only payments made to us on  loans totaling $36.5 Million Dollars. If we are lucky, we might get our money back within the time frame specified but until that happens ,I will continue to hold my breath!

The city does make loans and it also issues debt.  I appreciate your passion for holding government accountable for tax dollars(there is plenty of room for waste to be eliminated in our fair city), but to deny that the city is not in the loan business is just misinformed.

Which comes first the populace or the community? What do prospective and actual residents need to stay satisfied with current community cultural status or the expectation of cultural status? What is the cultural status of a community?

When you have residences like the Carling and 11 East the persons have invested in a lifestyle. If the surrounding community does not meet the expectations associated with that lifestyle then those who live there have to travel outside their community to meet their expectations. This then becomes incongruous which breeds discontent and the desire to vacate the residence.

These properties are essential to the revitalization of the urban community and they must be allowed to survive until city management, the council and the Mayor assign the revitalization to a entity capable of unifying the pods of grass root entrepreneurs and creators of culture. These then will become a NATURAL integration with not just the Carling and 11 East but many more residents that have the same expectations!

The potential is there, government inefficiency, factions and mismanagement MUST step aside and allow the those that have already begun the work to continue, which will inspire others to participate in the network of revitalization!

Well..............Government should not be in the loan business since they are supposed to be a manager of our tax dollars. JEDC can write all of the blank checks they wish but at some point someone has to produce money in order to back up what checks are being written. With no infrastructure downtown, which should be a private concern, City backed infrastructure is nonexistent so all of the tax incentives are a moot point.....along with the loans! There has to be a vision or a coordinated plan and there is not one! Historical significance should have a bearing but there does not seem to be much in the way of an effort at this end either This, to me, is a classic example of the cart before the horse! If you or I spend more than we have, there are penalty's so once again I have to ask................where do you draw the line?No government can continue  to spend what it does not have and this City is not well off financially.............$58 Million Dollars in the hole and counting kids!

Quote from: CS Foltz on May 07, 2010, 06:40:19 AM
Well..............Government should not be in the loan business since they are supposed to be a manager of our tax dollars.

umm....maybe its time for a government/civics class....governments at all levels do loans and bonds.

Quotegovernments at all levels do loans and bonds.

Yes, but should they? Especially when they know they stand to run deficits for up to 3 years ahead of time?

I don't know of any local or state government that is running a deficit...do you?

Aren't local and state governments prohibited by law from running a deficit?