QuoteThere's no telling how many trees have died to provide the newsprint needed to carry the stories about the city's obligation to provide parking for The Jacksonville Landing being solved.
Here's one example published in 2001:
"Finally fulfilling a 16-year-old agreement with the owner of The Jacksonville Landing, the City Council last night approved $3 million toward the construction of a new downtown parking deck designed to make the riverfront shopping and dining mall more accessible to the public."
Didn't happen, and now nine years later, the fight is about to get even nastier.
On one side is Mayor John Peyton and his administration.
Ron Barton, the executive director of the Jacksonville Economic Development Commission, released his most recent ideas for solving the Landing's parking woes earlier this week.
One was to let Landing patrons park for free in the city-owned Water Street garage.
It's only a five-minute walk from the garage to the Landing, and I had made that same suggestion several years ago.
That must have been on a winter day. When I walked the path Tuesday evening, when it was just 80 degrees, it was a bit warm. In summer's 95 degree heat, it's not going to happen.
And let's just say the sidewalks there aren't exactly pedestrian friendly. Scratch that idea.
Barton's second idea is to provide free parking in the courthouse lot on weekends and after 6 p.m. on weekdays.
Same problem. It's about a five-minute walk to the Landing. Besides that option always has been available, and Landing customers don't use it.
Barton's third proposal is for the city to give $2.2 million to the owners of the SunTrust building across the street from the Landing to build a parking garage, which would have 200 spaces set aside for the Landing on weekends and after 6 p.m. on weekdays.
Enter the other side of this fight, Toney Sleiman, now the Landing's owner.
Sleiman maintains that the only way he can attract the nationally known restaurants needed to revitalize the Landing is to have guaranteed parking, especially for the lunch-time crowd.
Barton's ideas are a flop at that, Sleiman says. He's also miffed at the idea of the city spending $2.2 million to help SunTrust build a garage.
That money, in his view, is part of the $3.5 million the city promised for Landing parking through previous agreements that fell through.
He wants to use that money to buy a surface lot near the Omni that he says will solve his parking problems.
The Peyton administration disagrees.
I asked Sleiman if there was room for compromise. I know Peyton doesn't want to budge.
No, Sleiman said. He wants a complete divorce from the city. And we all know that the only ones who benefit from a bitter divorce are the lawyers.
Sleiman is going straight to the City Council, and council President Richard Clark said Wednesday he will introduce legislation supporting Sleiman's plan.
Sleiman has the better argument. The city has dropped the ball on its obligation for more than two decades. If Sleiman believes this will work, give him the go-ahead and let's finally be done with it.
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/400904/ron-littlepage/2010-04-22/sleiman-has-stronger-case-landing-parking-issue
From conversations I had over the weekend, I believe that sentiment is swingly wildly in the Landing's favor. It is time we write our councilmen/women and mayor to weigh in on our support for this issue!
Historic building restoration funds might be used to buy parking lot for The Jacksonville Landing
Source URL: http://jacksonville.com/business/2010-04-28/story/historic-building-restoration-funds-might-be-used-buy-parking-lot
By David Bauerlein
A bill filed Tuesday with Jacksonville City Council would take $3.5 million from a trust fund for restoring historic downtown building and use the money to help The Jacksonville Landing buy a parking lot.
City Council President Richard Clark filed the bill.
Toney Sleiman, owner of The Landing, has said the downtown mall needs more dedicated parking so he can recruit nationally-known restaurants. Clark's bill supports Sleiman's position.
Mayor John Peyton has opposed Sleiman's proposal because it would not add more parking to the downtown.
At Peyton's request, Jacksonville Economic Development Commission Executive Director Ron Barton proposed setting aside parking in the city-owned Water Street Garage for patrons and employees of The Landing.
Barton also said the city could spend $2.2 million to ensure 200 spaces are available for The Landing's needs on weeknights and weekends at a parking garage that would be privately built across the street from the mall.
Parking for The Landing has been a long-running issue for the city. Barton said the city's current obligation is to provide parking for The Landing if the mall were to build a new parking garage.
The historic preservation trust fund has been used by the city to help turn abandoned buildings into residences. The city does not currently have any proposals before the council for using the trust fund money, but the old Barnett Bank building and the Laura Street Trio would be candidates for the funding if an investor stepped up in the future with a plan for the buildings.
Let the debate begin - is this where the money should come from? Personally, I think you can find a better source for the money than to rob it from this fund.
I'm in favor of solving the Landing's parking problem but I'm not a fan of raiding money set aside for historic preservation to do so. Imo, the money proposed for Metropolitan Park's upgrades should be shifted.
I took part in the March of Dimes walk last Saturday that ended behind the T-U Center. I parked in the Courthouse lot and walked to the event. It was sad to see so few people at the Landing on my walk back. We stopped into the toy store and there was a decent crowd but most of the other places were pretty dead.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 28, 2010, 01:28:01 PM
I'm in favor of solving the Landing's parking problem but I'm not a fan of raiding money set aside for historic preservation to do so. Imo, the money proposed for Metropolitan Park's upgrades should be shifted.
+1
is it shortsighted of me not to care that it's being taken away from this historic building restoration fund thingy? perhaps, but at this point it doesn't matter to me. this needs to get going now, and we need to wait out this administration until they finally kick rocks. i bet a smarter group downtown could figure out how to replenish that diverted money.
What if 100% of the rent payments Sleiman would have to begin making were put into the Historic building fund?
Updated story:
QuoteMatt Carlucci, who made reuse of historic buildings a centerpiece of his tenure as council president, said taking money from the trust fund is the kind of act that erodes people’s trust in government.
“For a council president to do it is, I think, absolutely outrageous,†Carlucci said when told of the proposal.
Carlucci, who no longer serves on council, said he wants to speak with Clark about the bill.
The remainder of the story can be read here: http://jacksonville.com/business/2010-04-28/story/historic-building-restoration-funds-might-be-used-buy-parking-lot
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 28, 2010, 03:57:58 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on April 28, 2010, 01:28:01 PM
I'm in favor of solving the Landing's parking problem but I'm not a fan of raiding money set aside for historic preservation to do so. Imo, the money proposed for Metropolitan Park's upgrades should be shifted.
+1
+2
I would be okay with this: Use the money from the Historic fund, but with this caveat: Rent payments from Sleiman would be used to pay back the historic preservation money. If a project comes along, and the funds in there are not enough for a project, but are within 3.5 million (the amount Sleiman is requesting from the city), issue bonds to take advantage of the development, then use the Sleiman rent money to pay back the bonds.
Advantages: Sleiman gets his parking lot, the money is paid back, and if opportunity knocks, we can answer the door. Yes, it would cost more with bonds, but think of it this way - we haven't seen Landing rent money in a decade, so what's another three years, frankly? Obviously Peyton isn't in a hurry to start collecting.
Why isn't any of this money available for Fire Station #5? If they can raid it for the Landing, why don't they raid it for what it was intended for originally?! ???
QuoteBarton also said the city could spend $2.2 million to ensure 200 spaces are available for The Landing's needs on weeknights and weekends at a parking garage that would be privately built across the street from the mall.
If the City had $2.2 million for parking without raiding this fund (?) per Ron Barton, they would need only $1.3 million more from this fund or other sources to hit $3.5 million for the Landing. That would leave plenty for the Fire Station too. Everyone wins. A political utopia!
stjr............I agree! If $2.2 Million is available what is the problem? Station #5 could be saved yet I see no one stepping up to the line! It looks to me like the same old song and dance, smoke and mirror this administration has become famous for no matter what Misty says! Johnny does not have to make a legacy or build an ediface, its is already in place!
(arguing both sides here)
^Keep in mind that part of the thing with the fire station is you need a real proposal from the private sector, then the city could help out. I'm in favor of a public-private partnership on this, but I think the city just doing the whole thing on their own is a bit of an issue, because of the long term maintenance thing.
Now, I agree that the city could be doing more to foster a public-private relationship, such as coming up with how much they will kick in, then issuing an RFP for the thing that must include moving it, or working a deal with Fidelity.
I'm having a hard time believing the Landing's problems are all due to lack of parking. Tony is the strip center king and must believe customers need to be able to park at the front door. Can the surface lot be rented by Sleiman at night? We've seen no movement on Sleiman's part to open up the Landing and change it in ways that will pull more people in.
And I am definitely opposed to taking money from the historic trust fund.
^National tenants have parking requirements and the Landing doesn't have the necessary 24/7 "dedicated" parking to land them. This has been a problem since the day the center opened, so its a much larger issue than Toney. Its something all major retail centers have to deal with and provide unless they are located in an environment with good mass transit and heavy pedestrian traffic.
Btw, I'm also opposed to taking money from the historic trust fund. The city should go back and subtract the money from whatever project it was shifted to. If its Metropolitan Park, which many claim it is, so be it.
Quote from: Kay on April 29, 2010, 10:24:21 AM
I'm having a hard time believing the Landing's problems are all due to lack of parking. Tony is the strip center king and must believe customers need to be able to park at the front door. Can the surface lot be rented by Sleiman at night? We've seen no movement on Sleiman's part to open up the Landing and change it in ways that will pull more people in.
And I am definitely opposed to taking money from the historic trust fund.
It's not quite that simple. These big corporate chains have a list of qualifications that any potential landlord has to meet. It's not your normal situation, the big guys have landlords begging them to come in, not the other way around.
One of the first items on the list is they have statistical studies done for all their different floorplans, and they know that for a location with XX amount of traffic they want XX amount of parking available at the location depending on the time. If the landlord can't provide that, he doesn't make it past the first round.
The current parking situation at the Landing probably wouldn't have enough spaces to qualify for a single Cheesecake Factory, let alone support the rest of the center. The only reason the initial corporate tenants moved in back when it was first built was the contractual promise of parking, and when that promise wasn't met (and traffic suffered accordingly) they left, except Hooters.
Parking is a must, if they really want to continue to have this thing operate as what it is, a mall. Again, I think a better model is a multipart entertainment venue like Church Street Station was in the 90's, but Sleiman wants his downtown mall, so if that's going to work they need the parking or they're not going to attract any tenants anyone would want to go to, and the place will continue to languish. There are only so many people who will drive down there and get a parking ticket just to look at asian gift stores, cell phone accessories, and football jerseys. The restaurants mainly survive on the lunch crowd, and on whoever's downtown for business or staying at the Omni. There's no real reason to go there for most people.
If you want people to go there, you have to give them a reason to go. To get the reason to lease from you, you have to meet their qualifications. The egg comes before the chicken on this one.
ChriswUFGator............I do agree with your take on the situation! Parking is a requirement plain and simple and until that issue is addressed the "Landing" will continue to struggle to survive! Johnny is a buffon and has not vision or plan for downtown and it is evident now more than ever! Silly Boy Blunder!
QuoteAgain, I think a better model is a multipart entertainment venue like Church Street Station was in the 90's, but Sleiman wants his downtown mall, so if that's going to work they need the parking or they're not going to attract any tenants anyone would want to go to, and the place will continue to languish.
Actually, Sleiman does not want a downtown retail mall. He wants the same thing you and many others want, which is aa entertainment and dining oriented waterfront center. However, he's seeking a major national restaurant chain, or two, or three, to anchor the center. Like national retailers, those restaurant chains (like Cheesecake Factory, Grand Lux Cafe, Red Robin, etc.) also have minimum dedicated parking requirements that must be met.
Sleiman now sees the Landing as more of a restaurant and entertainment destination than a shopping center, and is targeting tenants such as bars and family-style restuarants....
In conjunction with a city project that includes converting Laura Street to a two-way road from the Landing at Independent Drive to Monroe Street, Sleiman also wants to remove the white coquina façade on the west side of the building and create entries directly into the center from the street level. He’s also negotiating with several national chain restaurants to move into the Landing, but those deals are contingent on Sleiman creating more parking.[/quote]
Read more: Sleiman: A man with a plan for The Jacksonville Landing - Jacksonville Business Journal: http://jacksonville.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2009/11/16/focus4.html
Just shows you that the city simply pays lip service to the idea of "downtown revitalization". What can we do RIGHT now that costs little or nothing, thats the city's motto. No lasting, groundbreaking changes because, you have to admit, there's no votes in downtown. People that live in Mandarin would rather have new traffic lights for Mandarin, not another parking garage for downtown.
Until we get people in office that are serious about having a vibrant, bustling downtown instead of stupid barber shop owners-turned-councilmen who would rather taunt and demean people that have darker skin than themselves, nothing will happen. Not to mention the rest of the First Baptist Church City Hall and Council.
This backwards city is an embarrassment.
^Now that you mention it, its pretty embarrassing that downtown's council representative is more passionate about a Muslim sitting on the Human Rights Commission than the state of the district he is elected to serve. No wonder the place continues to struggle despite tons of money being invested within the district.