The District signs deal for a riverfront hotel on the Southbank

[KenFSU]

^That's the much bigger fear. However, the JEA site won't be any worse than it is now if nothing comes together. The Trio is more of a problem as the buildings will have that much more time to decay.

Thankfully, Southeast/Molasky has $8 million reasons to finish the Trio in a timely fashion.

[Steve]

^Really?

I honestly don't get the lack of faith. Someone mentioned that they understood the Trio + Barnett taking years, but not this project. To me, 29 acres of brownfield on the river seems every bit as complicated as four old buildings in disrepair. And just like the District, the Trio went through years of delays, tenet announcements, bureaucratic holdups, and public doubt. Now, I walk to work each morning and witness the Barnett being brought back to life.

Not sure why Element go through all the trouble of successfully bidding on the project, spending millions on the master plan and environmental certification, vetting hotel/grocery/theater tenets, going through the DDRB approval process, filing for approval for 125 marina slips, partner with JU, etc. if it wasn't in good faith. Clearly some investment from the public sector will be necessary to make the project viable, even if it's just infrastructure (roads, utilities, a riverwalk extension, etc.).

Personally, I think Rummell has earned more than the benefit of the doubt in terms of his commitment to Jacksonville. Hell, he helped convince the NFL to bring the Super Bowl to Jacksonville, Florida. Not even 2017 Jacksonville. 2005 Jacksonville. He launched One Spark. And he's got more high-profile development experience than anyone in Jax.

I've said it for the last two years, but I still think the District breaks ground 3-5 years before the Shipyards.

My problem is what I feel like is a lack of transparency. To be fair, part of this is on JEA.

I don't think Rummel is a POS, but if he asks for incentives from the city then that would be in bad taste, outside of any environmental cleanup. Outside of any environmental issues, it's vacant land. Unless there is some amount of parkland or some other public land, this wouldn't be an incentive project.

[jaxnyc79]

The city really needs to clamp down on offering economic incentives for these projects.  It's just sad and pathetic for developers to keeping feeding from the trough, to keep asking for special set-asides from a city that isn't that rich and with a ton of social welfare needs.  And why do they want these incentives, for buildings which, in most cases, house relatively well-off people.  I know I'm wishy-washy on this.  I want downtown vibrancy, but I'm increasingly uneasy with the city's incentives policy.  I believe in investing downtown, making it a clean and safe place for investment, and even building catalysts for investment and development - like riverfront parks, pocket parks, etc.  But hand-outs to developers or property tax rebates really should stop. 

If there was a comprehensive strategy to re-brand downtown just the way it is...that would be much more cost-efficient.  Throwing out ideas: Downtown as the abode of the cognoscenti.
Downtown as the place of Innovators and Differentiators.
Thought Revolutionaries don't live in cookie-cutter 'burbs or at the end of a cul-de-sac.
Suburbia-Home of Minivan-Coasting Fatties...The Fittest People Live In Walkable Urbanity.
Downtown: A Place to Reclaim Your Heritage.

Like, seriously, get aggressive.  At the same time, how many policy-makers actually live downtown? Lol. 

[KenFSU]

Downtown: A Place to Reclaim Your Heritage.

What could possibly go wrong 

[jaxnyc79]

Downtown: A Place to Reclaim Your Heritage.

What could possibly go wrong 

If that's in reference to Confederate statues, ha, well I'm ok with them on display, as long as they're counterbalanced with the symbols of the country's progress, and as long as the write-ups on the statues tell the entire story.  I like the idea of walking along the streets of Jax and seeing the city's evolution on grand display.  This is what it was, this is what it is, love it or hate it, it's the truth and it's different.  That makes the streetscape interesting.  What else am I supposed to see - a bunch of chain stores and landscaping I might see in Anywhere, USA?  A showcase of the past, rather than a celebration of it.  A celebration of uniqueness though.

[thelakelander]

The city really needs to clamp down on offering economic incentives for these projects.  It's just sad and pathetic for developers to keeping feeding from the trough, to keep asking for special set-asides from a city that isn't that rich and with a ton of social welfare needs.  And why do they want these incentives, for buildings which, in most cases, house relatively well-off people.  I know I'm wishy-washy on this.  I want downtown vibrancy, but I'm increasingly uneasy with the city's incentives policy.  I believe in investing downtown, making it a clean and safe place for investment, and even building catalysts for investment and development - like riverfront parks, pocket parks, etc.  But hand-outs to developers or property tax rebates really should stop.

Downtown is not healthy enough to significantly grow and revitalize without incentives and tax rebates. I'd actually argue that we need to be more aggressive with them.....like Philly, Charlotte and Detroit back in the early 2000s.

Bring the District concept as urban infill for several abandoned blocks in LaVilla or Sugar Hill or through the adaptive reuse of historic Northbank buildings, then incentives make a lot of sense. With that said, I'm skeptical of anything on the Southbank needing public assistance....especially riverfront property.

[MusicMan]

My biggest question is; Why can't they close on the deal now, like they proposed?  There is no answer out there. Just another extension. I do a fair amount of real estate, and both parties SHOULD be chomping at the bit to get this closed so that the future can begin to unfold over there.  JEA gets their money, and Rummel can start to prepare the ground for all these partners he supposedly has lined up.  Any extension AT THIS POINT is bad news. You can pretty much bank on at least one more.

It's like the folks over at Publix San Marco. WAITING for market conditions to support their investment. Biggest difference is Rummell has not even closed on the property.  As I said before, there really is no excuse. Close on the deal or let someone else try.  The parcel for all practical purposes got a clean bill of health from Florida DEP. LETS GO!!

[jaxnyc79]

My biggest question is; Why can't they close on the deal now, like they proposed?  There is no answer out there. Just another extension. I do a fair amount of real estate, and both parties SHOULD be chomping at the bit to get this closed so that the future can begin to unfold over there.  JEA gets their money, and Rummel can start to prepare the ground for all these partners he supposedly has lined up.  Any extension AT THIS POINT is bad news. You can pretty much bank on at least one more.

It's like the folks over at Publix San Marco. WAITING for market conditions to support their investment. Biggest difference is Rummell has not even closed on the property.  As I said before, there really is no excuse. Close on the deal or let someone else try.  The parcel for all practical purposes got a clean bill of health from Florida DEP. LETS GO!!

The posts here are alluding to the fact that Rummel wants government incentives to develop the JEA riverfront property.  If Rummel won't get assurances of those incentives, he probably doesn't want to close on the Real Estate transaction.  Curry is in a tough spot because he's pretty much committed to giving incentives to the Shipyards - Shad Khan has flown him all over the country on a "Tour of Possibilities," and I imagine it's politically untenable to approve grand packages of incentives for both the Shipyards and the District.  The City should get out of the business of awarding incentives...of picking winners and losers.  If a free market producer can't put together a product downtown that the market will support and absorb, then the idea of living and playing downtown hasn't been branded well enough for the local citizenry, and Jax doesn't deserve the product.  If open space and waterfront can't get people downtown, then it's a wrap folks. 

[thelakelander]

^To play devil's advocate, the downtown market struggles because the suburban market is heavily subsidized. There's no SJTC, UNF or IKEA without the public first fronting billions for infrastructure like JTB and I-295 East Beltway since the 1970s. Without such investments and public policy driving development away from the core, the city would be naturally denser and struggling inner ring neighborhoods like Emerson and Mixon Town would be more desirable today......and the SJTCs, UNFs and IKEAs of the world would have still found their way to town, as long as the population is sufficient to support their product. So in reality, we haven't had an actual "free market" since WWII. With that said, I'm not of the belief that the Southbank needs any incentives.

[jaxnyc79]

^To play devil's advocate, the downtown market struggles because the suburban market is heavily subsidized. There's no SJTC, UNF or IKEA without the public first fronting billions for infrastructure like JTB and I-295 East Beltway since the 1970s. Without such investments and public policy driving development away from the core, the city would be naturally denser and struggling inner ring neighborhoods like Emerson and Mixon Town would be more desirable today......and the SJTCs, UNFs and IKEAs of the world would have still found their way to town, as long as the population is sufficient to support their product. So in reality, we haven't had an actual "free market" since WWII. With that said, I'm not of the belief that the Southbank needs any incentives.

You're right that the transit side of sprawl was largely financed by state and federal governments, although not so much by the city.  But even then, these are public roads, not private ones.  Everyone in Jax can drive along Butler Blvd or I-295.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but once you hit the gates of Deerwood Country Club, everything within those gates was, for the most part, privately funded and is maintained on an ongoing basis by the Association, with notable exceptions of course.  I ask, were any incentives directly awarded to the developers of Deerwood Country Club, so that some governmental rebate actually enhanced the ROI for Deerwood's investors?

If the District or Shipyards Project wants well-laid sidewalks, road diets, park spaces and plazas, river walks and river access points, kayak launches, public art, all accessible to the public but adjacent to their projects to make those projects more appealing, I'm all for that!  But no rebates. 

[jaxnyc79]

I'm of the belief that a strong Jeffersonian streak courses through the veins of many of the people in Jax, and that streak is anathema to downtown's prospects.   

[Tacachale]

Not giving incentives for downtown projects is a great way to see more nothing happen there. There would be no Laura Street Trio or basically any of the residential buildings and hotels that have been built in the last 20 years.

[thelakelander]

^To play devil's advocate, the downtown market struggles because the suburban market is heavily subsidized. There's no SJTC, UNF or IKEA without the public first fronting billions for infrastructure like JTB and I-295 East Beltway since the 1970s. Without such investments and public policy driving development away from the core, the city would be naturally denser and struggling inner ring neighborhoods like Emerson and Mixon Town would be more desirable today......and the SJTCs, UNFs and IKEAs of the world would have still found their way to town, as long as the population is sufficient to support their product. So in reality, we haven't had an actual "free market" since WWII. With that said, I'm not of the belief that the Southbank needs any incentives.

You're right that the transit side of sprawl was largely financed by state and federal governments, although not so much by the city.

The city is certainly involved in the development of federal and state infrastructure, as well as its own streets. Those type of infrastructure projects are built in cities that don't want them. In addition, the proliferation of sprawl is also driven by autocentric land use policies that separate land uses and encourage lower densities. As the population spreads out, the local costs rise in the form of police, fire, education, recreational, utility infrastructure, etc. needed to support the spread out, less dense population.  At the end of the day, it's a ponzi scheme that ultimately puts the public in debt while a few influential landowners profit.

But even then, these are public roads, not private ones.  Everyone in Jax can drive along Butler Blvd or I-295.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but once you hit the gates of Deerwood Country Club, everything within those gates was, for the most part, privately funded and is maintained on an ongoing basis by the Association, with notable exceptions of course.  I ask, were any incentives directly awarded to the developers of Deerwood Country Club, so that some governmental rebate actually enhanced the ROI for Deerwood's investors?

Wasn't Deerwood developed by the Skinner family on land acquired by Richard Green Skinner for turpentine in 1899? With that in mind, do you think Deerwood would be there today if the Skinner family had to pay for I-95, Baymeadows Road or Southside Boulevard to provide access to that area of their land? The donation of land or selling of land for the state to then construct the infrastructure at the public's expense certainly improves the ROI for investors. If the investors had to bare the cost of the infrastructure providing access and frontage, it would not look like it is today. That area would more than likely be closer to the layout of density of neighborhoods built in an area when the developers had to bare the brunt of the infrastructure to connect them to the rest of the world (ex. like a Riverside, Springfield or San Marco). 

If you inherited a few thousand acres and you want to make some real money off of it. Find a way to get the public paying for the major up front infrastructure costs providing access to the middle of it. Your ROI will skyrocket when you can start selling that newly found prime commercial frontage to fast food restaurants, strip malls, garden apartments and track home subdivisions. With that said, this isn't just as Jax thing. It's part of a economic game that's been in play since we started favoring cars over people. It's also an acknowledgement that the market is anything but free. Incentives in DT are not really doing anything but leveling the playing field a bit. If you want a real free market, downtown isn't where the process for correction should start. In the grand scheme of things, downtown incentives equate to nothing more than a pothole on I-95.

[jaxnyc79]

I'm not making light of your points, I'm just saying that we get the government and the land use policies we deserve.  Auto centric land use policies resulted from a largely auto-centric populace...from auto-centric market demand.  This auto-centricity is, perhaps, more pronounced in a place like Jax with its abiding Jeffersonian principles.

Downtowns are not without major infrastructure needs, and population density can put an intense strain on infrastructure.  I've read the arguments about inner city infrastructure versus suburban infrastructure.  I don't quite know the answer.  I just don't know if extending a highway so that Deerwood can materialize and remain largely self-sufficient, necessarily puts downtown at a competitive disadvantage.  I conjecture that downtown lost its competitive edge versus suburbia because auto-centric suburbia was shiny and new, and technologically accessible.  Second, suburbia appealed to a Jeffersonian underbelly in a place like Jax.  Third, cars and suburbia afforded segments of Jax with the means to escape dispossessed and struggling minority neighborhoods.  And once people (and perhaps the biggest taxpayers) were in the 'burbs, policies and policy-makers had to respond to the shifting desires of constituents.

At any rate, I'm a huge believer in Downtowns and in walkability because I really do believe it's healthy for the soul of America, even if people don't broadly know it yet.  But to get to where we want to be, I believe in a re-branding of Downtown so that it's a compelling option for the marketplace, i.e. the people who would live and recreate there.  I don't believe in doling out cash to individual property developers, while withholding from others who've been there all along.  Just doesn't feel right.  In the long-run, I think it does more harm than good.  Doling out cash directly to a wealthy guy like Rummel probably sows the wrong seeds.  But again, I'm open to changing on this. 

[thelakelander]

I'm back to typing on the phone now but Deerwood isn't close to being self sufficient and auto centric policies aren't driven by auto centric market demand. Growth patterns in this country are driven by those invested in making money off of it. We the consumers are simply sheep, but that discussion is for another day. There's a market for downtown, as proven by the current occupancy rate. However, that market isn't necessarily for overpriced, upscale living. If Rummell wants incentives, it would be interesting to see why he needs them when it appears his neighbor is currently building their apartment development without them.