The District signs deal for a riverfront hotel on the Southbank

[Tacachale]

^Neither. It's just an unproven area for investors competing with many proven areas, both in the region and elsewhere.

[vicupstate]

As far as incentives for private projects, vs. public infrastructure, I think the public should get the majority of such funding. BUT, I think it is a mistake to do only public infrastructure.  That was what the city did with Phillip Randolph Blvd. and it did not light the fire there.  I do think going to the other extreme is just as unsuccessful, which has been what the city has by and large done in the last 20-30 years.   

[vicupstate]

Just read the T0U article and it does not sound good. It seems that at a minimum the buyer has purposely stalled things to prevent paying interest while the clean-up and slip reviews are being done. HOPEFULLY, they are only asking for money for infrastructure, which would at least be somewhat ordinary.  If they truly want to city to buy the land, I would call the whole deal off.   

[Tacachale]

As far as incentives for private projects, vs. public infrastructure, I think the public should get the majority of such funding. BUT, I think it is a mistake to do only public infrastructure.  That was what the city did with Phillip Randolph Blvd. and it did not light the fire there.  I do think going to the other extreme is just as unsuccessful, which has been what the city has by and large done in the last 20-30 years.   

The city hasn't gone to any "extremes" with incentives downtown. It has vacillated between offering good incentives that had productive results (11E, the Carling, Adams Mark, etc. in the 90s, and the Laura Street Trio recently), and doing nothing. It reflects the attitudes of many people around here which fluctuate wildly between those who want a better downtown and see the necessity of incentives, and those who don't want to spend the money to get the things we want (or don't care about downtown). Unfortunately, it's strongly tied to who's in the mayor's office at any given time.

[MusicMan]

Did the original accepted bid call for the City to provide incentives or to do the site prep?

Also judging from the current prices being paid for real estate in San Marco , both residential and commercial on the South Bank riverfront area, I would say the term "unproven area for investors" is not accurate.  See The Peninsula/The Strand and the current selling price there for reference.  I think it is safe to say that area is considered 'better' than the North Bank downtown CBD.

And if anyone thinks the idea of the City retaining ownership of the land while a developer manages the improvements please check out the current situation with The Landing to know we absolutely do not want to do this again.  If they (Rummell and friends) can't close the deal they negotiated 3 years ago PUT IT BACK OUT ON THE MARKET.

[Tacachale]

Did the original accepted bid call for the City to provide incentives or to do the site prep?

Also judging from the current prices being paid for real estate in San Marco , both residential and commercial on the South Bank riverfront area, I would say the term "unproven area for investors" is not accurate.  See The Peninsula/The Strand and the current selling price there for reference.  I think it is safe to say that area is considered 'better' than the North Bank downtown CBD.

Of course it's a safer bet than the Northbank. You also don't see developments flying up in the Northbank, except for those with incentives. And yes, it's unproven for investors compared to other parts of town and other markets with healthier downtowns. Buying a building that's already complete is a lot different than building a new one from scratch.

[vicupstate]

As far as incentives for private projects, vs. public infrastructure, I think the public should get the majority of such funding. BUT, I think it is a mistake to do only public infrastructure.  That was what the city did with Phillip Randolph Blvd. and it did not light the fire there.  I do think going to the other extreme is just as unsuccessful, which has been what the city has by and large done in the last 20-30 years.   

The city hasn't gone to any "extremes" with incentives downtown. It has vacillated between offering good incentives that had productive results (11E, the Carling, Adams Mark, etc. in the 90s, and the Laura Street Trio recently), and doing nothing. It reflects the attitudes of many people around here which fluctuate wildly between those who want a better downtown and see the necessity of incentives, and those who don't want to spend the money to get the things we want (or don't care about downtown). Unfortunately, it's strongly tied to who's in the mayor's office at any given time.

Let me clarify my point. It has been 'extreme' by being too heavy on the incentives rather than infrastructure.  Going 80-100% EITHER way is a mistake, given where DT JAX is currently, IMO.  A 70/30 to 30/70 range seems to work better with that mixing changing over time as the revival takes hold.

The private incentives INDIVIDUALLY have not been extreme in MOST cases, such as the ones you mentioned.  That said, some have been bad. LaVilla Seafood (which never made ANY sense), Brewster Hospital, the Harbormasters deal from long ago.  A few probably should have gotten money, but were turned down. 

I would agree that there were periods when no incentives or infrastructure spending was provided and that was also sapped momentum.