Plan to lure 1,000 Everbank jobs downtown

[tufsu1]

The issue is that the city has not honored a 20 year old obligation to the Landing, and that is very sad.

not entirely true...as has been stated here ad nauseum, the agreement between the City and Landing owners has been amended several times...the version currently in effect requires the City to pay JLI $3.5 million WHEN they CONSTRUCT additional parking.

So screw sleiman and the Landing?

What are you talking about TUFSU?

I think you are going to have to put aside your dislike of him---as are a bunch of people if we want the whole city to move forward together.

nope...as I've said Stephen, this is a two-way street....the City AND Sleiman need to come together and find a solution both parties can agree on

[thelakelander]

However, it is time to address the real elephant in the room.  The Landing is functionally and structurally obsolescent.  A good part of it needs to be demolished or significantly reworked if anyone hopes to draw in new, desirable retailers.  ....and Sleiman knows this.  That is probably why he isn't putting any money into the place.

Sleiman actually proposed doing what you've stated when he first purchased the Landing.  However, he wanted to actually own the land underneath the buildings before spending millions in them.  Unfortunately, he and the city could never come to an agreement and so it sits.  I'm hoping with a new mayor, this issue can be revisited and resolved.

[chipwich]

Sleiman actually proposed doing what you've stated when he first purchased the Landing.  However, he wanted to actually own the land underneath the buildings before spending millions in them.  Unfortunately, he and the city could never come to an agreement and so it sits.  I'm hoping with a new mayor, this issue can be revisited and resolved.

I remember that Lake. If I recall orrectly, he was proposing a $250 million redevelopment that looked amazing, except for the fact that he was asking for about $200 million in incentives and for the land to be sold to him.   Not exactly fair for the public to subsidize a millionaire's pet project.  The citizens wouldn't exactly reap too many benefits from his windfall.

Also, I am ok with selling the land as long as we a put 300 page list of covenants and restrcitions on it.  I am sure Sleiman is a nice enough guy, but I wouldn't trust any private entity with owning that land outright.  He could easily block access to the riverwalk, charge for entry, fail to up keep the space, etc.  In all fairness, the only tangalable differences between the current 99 yr lease and owning the property are: future salability of the asset and perfromance clauses that can be enforced in a lease.  It seems he wants neither of those to bother him and that makes me question his true intentions.

I am not trying to attack the guy.  He is a good suburban developer.  He seems like a nice enough guy who is trying to run a legitimate center downtown.  I just don't think he is taking care of the property well enough nor does he have any real plan to fix it at this time.  To belabor the Everbank deal with the Landing's parking issue seems unfair and downright backwards to me.

[vicupstate]

^^ If memory serves, the original lease was 49 or 50 years and has not been extended to my knowledge.  That would leave 24-25 years left on it. No one would spend 10 million, let alone $100 million on a project that they would have to potentially surrender in 25 odd years.

If I have the details wrong, someone please chime in.   

[fieldafm]

In all fairness, the only tangalable differences between the current 99 yr lease and owning the property are: future salability of the asset and perfromance clauses that can be enforced in a lease.  It seems he wants neither of those to bother him and that makes me question his true intentions.

See, and this boils down to not having a true understanding of the reality of the situation.

One of the problems is with the lease structure and the language in the lease.  It's not a 99 year lease.  If a bank is to finance a project under a leasehold agreement, typically they want the lease to extend x number of years past the financing terms(or at least run through the duration of the financing terms).  Some of the language is also less than favorable.  If you want to meet me downtown sometime this weekend, I'll explain it in more detail.

For that type of expansion originally envisioned, he's got to own the land... plain and simple.

he was proposing a $250 million redevelopment that looked amazing, except for the fact that he was asking for about $200 million in incentives

That is an exageration, and I'm sure you know that(amount of incentives)... but some other people around here are going to take that figure and run with it to fuel their hatred of someone they more than likely have not had any personal or business dealings with(but have sure spent money or perhaps worked at one of his properties).

I totally agree.  But it cant be a solution to 'who is the real asshole?'.

It has to be 'What works best for the downtown, keeps our commitments, and leaves something better for the next generation.'

Bingo, and this newest parking garage fiasco was just not done in good faith to the overall welfare of the urban core and the agreement the city is charged to keep.  This administration can't be over quick enough.  I'll give credit where credit is due... and Peyton deserves credit for certain things downtown.  But the city has had enough of this childish crap.

[simms3]

^^ If memory serves, the original lease was 49 or 50 years and has not been extended to my knowledge.  That would leave 24-25 years left on it. No one would spend 10 million, let alone $100 million on a project that they would have to potentially surrender in 25 odd years.

If I have the details wrong, someone please chime in.   

I'm sure there are options. 

The ground lease is not the hindrance and not an excuse.  Ground leases are a common occurrence and everybody deals with them.  Parts of strip malls are on ground leases, too.  They're everywhere.  I think it is good that the city owns the land along the riverfront for reasons already discussed.  A ground lease is less complicated for that property than a land sale involving serious covenants and easements and licenses.

And in all fairness, who honestly thinks Sleiman will even own the Landing for another decade?  Come on.

[fieldafm]

^^ If memory serves, the original lease was 49 or 50 years and has not been extended to my knowledge.  That would leave 24-25 years left on it. No one would spend 10 million, let alone $100 million on a project that they would have to potentially surrender in 25 odd years.

If I have the details wrong, someone please chime in.   

I'm sure there are options. 

The ground lease is not the hindrance and not an excuse.  Ground leases are a common occurrence and everybody deals with them.  Parts of strip malls are on ground leases, too.  They're everywhere.  I think it is good that the city owns the land along the riverfront for reasons already discussed.  A ground lease is less complicated for that property than a land sale involving serious covenants and easements and licenses.

And in all fairness, who honestly thinks Sleiman will even own the Landing for another decade?  Come on.

Again, you are proving my point.  There is reality.  Then there are those that just don't care for the person behind the deal.

As far as river access(you will find very few people on this board more in tune with public access to the river then me)... one needs to look no further to the type of deal the city struck with Fidelity.  Selling the land will not close down the Riverwalk.  Again reality vs Operation Fox Sleiman strikes again.

Meanwhile, the core hangs in the balance.  It's time for everyone to grow up and start fixing our broken downtown.

[thelakelander]

I agree with fieldafm on this one.  Selling the land underneath the Landing would be no different than selling the Shipyards property to entities like LandMar.  Also, I have no problem with Sleiman selling the property and making a profit as long as the retail center is put in a position to actually generate one.

[simms3]

OK, selling the land is not a problem, per se.  That's not what I was saying.  It would be legally more complicated to sell the land and enjoy the same situation, that's what I was saying.

Also, not owning the land is not really a problem.  Everyone would love to see a better center there from Sleiman to the city to all of us, but now owning the land is not prohibiting it.  If ground leases were a problem in real estate, hardly any deals would get done.  Better the city owns the land than another private developer because at least the city is guaranteed to be largely on the same page as far as what they want for the property rather than two developers who have not entered into a JV.

[chipwich]

To add onto what Simms stated.  Ground leases are common and I am sure Slieman has options in his lease (or at least can get some added into the lease).  This may be easier said than done when dealing with the city.

Field- I honestly can't find the article regarding how much incentives Sleiman was asking for the last go around, so I will back off my ~$200 million number.  I don't want to spread false information (though I do remember that number (or something near it) really sticking out at me back in 2003.  

Also, I am not so sure anyone on here is really out here trying to outfox Sleiman.  I for one hope he suceeds and has a really successful development.  It would benefit everyone (the city, residents, tenants, tourists, and himself as LL).  I am not sure I want any developer benefiting from too many city incentives.  For goodness sake though, let's not let this parking garage stand in the way of a big company moving its operations to downtown.

[fieldafm]

If ground leases were a problem in real estate, hardly any deals would get done.

Ground leases AREN'T a problem in commercial real estate and are quite common.. provided they meet certain conditions.  I can assure you, the world of commercial finance is not conspiring in Operation Fox Sleiman.  That world very much likes Sleiman Enterprises.

It would be legally more complicated to sell the land and enjoy the same situation, that's what I was saying.

I don't follow you.  With all due respect, you're over your head on this one.

[fieldafm]

For goodness sake though, let's not let this parking garage stand in the way of a big company moving its operations to downtown.

Peyton's good b/c he is distracting you with this smoke and mirrors stuff.  The parking garage is seperate than the incentives package for Everbank.

This may be easier said than done when dealing with the city.

Come down to the jazz fest this weekend, I'll explain it in better details.

[simms3]

If ground leases were a problem in real estate, hardly any deals would get done.

Ground leases AREN'T a problem in commercial real estate and are quite common.. provided they meet certain conditions.  I can assure you, the world of commercial finance is not conspiring in Operation Fox Sleiman.  That world very much likes Sleiman Enterprises.

It would be legally more complicated to sell the land and enjoy the same situation, that's what I was saying.

I don't follow you.  With all due respect, you're over your head on this one.

I don't think I'm in over my head on this one, field.  Contracts would have to be completely renegotiated with a land sale, and with the complications of this particular land it would be a big drawn out thing.  Covenants, restrictions, easements, and licensing agreements would all come into play and certain local lawyers would have a field day.  That in itself makes it more complicated than the current situation.  Also, if I'm not mistaken, the city has run into issues with CSX and Fidelity in the past regarding the Riverwalk, especially CSX.  Those landowners and others really held up the process of expanding the Riverwalk in the early 2000s.  CSX is still really hostile towards the Riverwalk.

[simms3]

The only thing that makes the sale of the land under the Landing easier is the fact that the city already owns it, making setting up the easements and regulations easier.  Sleiman does not seem like the kind of guy who will deal happily with the city, though.  It's one thing for two developers to duke it out, and it's another thing when it's the city versus Sleiman.

[fieldafm]

You're really talking so far around the issue now.  It's nice to throw around words like 'easement', 'licensing agreements'(not sure how that applies to financing) and 'covenants', but that doesn't have a thing to do with the price of tea in China... nor the issues surrounding the Landing.

Fidelity, had a land swap deal with the city to finish the Riverwalk, worked an agreement(with many other parties) for RAM to exist and worked hand in hand with the city to open a public floating dock on the Riverwalk.  They do not restrict access to the river in any way.  Btw, the impact of driving down the pilings when building the dock almost caused much of the country's back end mortgage operations to be temporarily suspended b/c it was effecting the computers/servers in the building.