The District wants $26 million in public incentives

[Steve]

I don't know or remember, but what type of money did the COJ give to the developer of The Peninsula?  San Marco Place? The Strand?

There definitely were incentives given for these three. Peninsula and the Strand are the save developer, San Marco Place was a different group.

However, that's a little different situation. This was vertical high-rise construction of residential when ZERO existed. When you're the first, some money is available.

My concerns here with the money is not the amount per se, but I'm not sure I see land on the outskirts of the Southbank of Downtown being a huge economic driver.

This isn't a historic rehab - that is a one of a kind building unique to Jacksonville. This is vacant land!

I'd say this: if they want COJ to pay for roads that would be public road and have public benefits (like connecting to parks, shops, etc.), I'm open to that. But to subsidize mid-rise construction? I'm not feeling it

(This is all with the caveat that I need to take time and really understand the ask here).

[Steve]

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2018-01-11/special-council-committee-will-scrutinize-development-deal-district

Elements not pleased with the committee. That's a shame.

Well....I'll say this: Brosche nominating Shellenberg to lead the committee is a little......biased. Clearly Shellenberg already has his mind made up. Now, Shellenberg could be crazy or he could be dead on in his reasoning - I don't know. But, having someone who has already publicly blasted this thing doesn't scream of impropriety.

[thelakelander]

Don't both the Shipyards and District proposals include huge swaths land on the waterfront that are completely public?  Isn't that partly what the city investment in the District is for?

Yes, they both do.

[jaxnyc79]

Don't both the Shipyards and District proposals include huge swaths land on the waterfront that are completely public?  Isn't that partly what the city investment in the District is for?

Huge is a relative term.  Louisville Waterfront Park is 85-acres.  I think the reference was to waterfront green-space that would be as iconic and compelling as what's in Louisville.  Not just a heavily landscaped front yard for a complex.

[thelakelander]

To be honest, we don't maintain the downtown parks with these facilities already. Restore the green spaces along McCoys and Hogans creeks and we'll have a downtown park system that's a lot better than any isolated park on the edge of the urban core could be. They'd not only energize DT, but Brooklyn, Mixon Town, Springfield, Eastside and Sugar Hill too. Green space should be included at the Shipyards and JEA sites but it should be integrated with a mix of other uses. With no mix of uses, we'd be making a regional suburban designed park that won't effectively be integrated with the downtown core.

No one is undermining the idea of cleaning up creeks, just that a large riverfront green space in the midst of what will someday be the "critical mass" part of downtown, serving as a regional civic gathering place, could be catalytic.   

Neither will be in the middle of anything. They're both on the edge of downtown.

[thelakelander]

Don't both the Shipyards and District proposals include huge swaths land on the waterfront that are completely public?  Isn't that partly what the city investment in the District is for?

Huge is a relative term.  Louisville Waterfront Park is 85-acres.  I think the reference was to waterfront green-space that would be as iconic and compelling as what's in Louisville.  Not just a heavily landscaped front yard for a complex.

Springfield Park, downtown's largest public space, is a mile long and covers around 40-acres currently. Tying it in with the riverwalk, the green spaces along McCoys and the spaces proposed with the Shipyards project would trump what Louisville has. However, it involves dusting off what we don't use and ignore.

[jaxnyc79]

To be honest, we don't maintain the downtown parks with these facilities already. Restore the green spaces along McCoys and Hogans creeks and we'll have a downtown park system that's a lot better than any isolated park on the edge of the urban core could be. They'd not only energize DT, but Brooklyn, Mixon Town, Springfield, Eastside and Sugar Hill too. Green space should be included at the Shipyards and JEA sites but it should be integrated with a mix of other uses. With no mix of uses, we'd be making a regional suburban designed park that won't effectively be integrated with the downtown core.

No one is undermining the idea of cleaning up creeks, just that a large riverfront green space in the midst of what will someday be the "critical mass" part of downtown, serving as a regional civic gathering place, could be catalytic.   

Neither will be in the middle of anything. They're both on the edge of downtown.

I said "what will someday be critical mass."  It's not as though we can supplant the old Barnett buildings with a 70-acre park, but the Shipyards is close enough, and if it ends up as a 70-acre riverfront park, a critical mass could potentially develop fairly proximal to it.

[jaxnyc79]

Don't both the Shipyards and District proposals include huge swaths land on the waterfront that are completely public?  Isn't that partly what the city investment in the District is for?

Huge is a relative term.  Louisville Waterfront Park is 85-acres.  I think the reference was to waterfront green-space that would be as iconic and compelling as what's in Louisville.  Not just a heavily landscaped front yard for a complex.

Springfield Park, downtown's largest public space, is a mile long and covers around 40-acres currently. Tying it in with the riverwalk, the green spaces along McCoys and the spaces proposed with the Shipyards project would trump what Louisville has. However, it involves dusting off what we don't use and ignore.

I sort of think of downtown and Springfield as separate communities.  Downtown, I thought, was below State Street and down to the riverfront.  The region's greatest natural asset is the St. Johns River and what better way to showcase it than to put a massive civic space right alongside it.  Springfield park might be nice too (never been there) and worth maintaining, but I'm addressing waterfront park space in my definition of Downtown Jacksonville.

[jaxnyc79]

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2018-01-11/special-council-committee-will-scrutinize-development-deal-district

Elements not pleased with the committee. That's a shame.

Well....I'll say this: Brosche nominating Shellenberg to lead the committee is a little......biased. Clearly Shellenberg already has his mind made up. Now, Shellenberg could be crazy or he could be dead on in his reasoning - I don't know. But, having someone who has already publicly blasted this thing doesn't scream of impropriety.

If that means going overboard in the wrong direction to potentially protect tax payers, I will take it. Maybe if we had someone like that during the Delaney pension deals, this city's budget would not have been screwed beyond belief for decades. For too long this government has bent the tax payer over to benefit itself and to benefit developers.

Perhaps this deal is the greatest deal in the history of Jax.Maybe it is a boondoggle. Hopefully this committee will review it thoroughly and make the best decision. However, if they are going to make a mistake, I will take a mistake of no deal over the alternative.

I like Shellenberg's skepticism, and respect it.  And this Munz must be an amateur.  It's a huge PR gaffe to get into a war of words with a guy whose skepticism is rooted in taxpayer concern.  Just pull together an amazing and persuasive presentation for the committee. 

[thelakelander]

Don't both the Shipyards and District proposals include huge swaths land on the waterfront that are completely public?  Isn't that partly what the city investment in the District is for?

Huge is a relative term.  Louisville Waterfront Park is 85-acres.  I think the reference was to waterfront green-space that would be as iconic and compelling as what's in Louisville.  Not just a heavily landscaped front yard for a complex.

Springfield Park, downtown's largest public space, is a mile long and covers around 40-acres currently. Tying it in with the riverwalk, the green spaces along McCoys and the spaces proposed with the Shipyards project would trump what Louisville has. However, it involves dusting off what we don't use and ignore.

I sort of think of downtown and Springfield as separate communities.  Downtown, I thought, was below State Street and down to the riverfront.  The region's greatest natural asset is the St. Johns River and what better way to showcase it than to put a massive civic space right alongside it.  Springfield park might be nice too (never been there) and worth maintaining, but I'm addressing waterfront park space in my definition of Downtown Jacksonville.

Yeah, I tend to view downtown by what its actual development pattern is. Historically, Springfield Park was the northern border running the length of DT with Springfield on the opposite side. It's where all the old grand buildings still stand. It has the baseball fields, architecture, history, waterway, monuments that make for a great urban space. The best places in my opinion, use and build upon the things that make them unique and special. I don't believe the river should be the deciding factor for green space. I offer Metropolitan Park as an example of a large riverfront green space that failed partially due to its isolation.

[Steve]

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2018-01-11/special-council-committee-will-scrutinize-development-deal-district

Elements not pleased with the committee. That's a shame.

Well....I'll say this: Brosche nominating Shellenberg to lead the committee is a little......biased. Clearly Shellenberg already has his mind made up. Now, Shellenberg could be crazy or he could be dead on in his reasoning - I don't know. But, having someone who has already publicly blasted this thing doesn't scream of impropriety.

If that means going overboard in the wrong direction to potentially protect tax payers, I will take it. Maybe if we had someone like that during the Delaney pension deals, this city's budget would not have been screwed beyond belief for decades. For too long this government has bent the tax payer over to benefit itself and to benefit developers.

Perhaps this deal is the greatest deal in the history of Jax.Maybe it is a boondoggle. Hopefully this committee will review it thoroughly and make the best decision. However, if they are going to make a mistake, I will take a mistake of no deal over the alternative.

That's a pretty broad brush. I can manage my money so tightly in my personal life that I never see a movie, don't pay for internet access, and walk to work/ride a bike to work every day. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Like you said, this may or may not be a good idea. I just don't like having someone so outspoken about the project be leading the committee  about it. It's like having someone who hates dogs be on the board of the Humane Society.

The Council committee isn't the final vote - I have no doubt this has to go to council. He certainly has the right to advocate his position.

If I were the Council President, I'd throw Shellenberg and a downtown advocate on the committee (maybe Boyer), with neither of them leading it. Council committees are generally 5 person committees for something like this. That would be a true neutral view of things.

[fieldafm]

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2018-01-11/special-council-committee-will-scrutinize-development-deal-district

Elements not pleased with the committee. That's a shame.

Well....I'll say this: Brosche nominating Shellenberg to lead the committee is a little......biased. Clearly Shellenberg already has his mind made up. Now, Shellenberg could be crazy or he could be dead on in his reasoning - I don't know. But, having someone who has already publicly blasted this thing doesn't scream of impropriety.

If that means going overboard in the wrong direction to potentially protect tax payers, I will take it. Maybe if we had someone like that during the Delaney pension deals, this city's budget would not have been screwed beyond belief for decades. For too long this government has bent the tax payer over to benefit itself and to benefit developers.

Perhaps this deal is the greatest deal in the history of Jax.Maybe it is a boondoggle. Hopefully this committee will review it thoroughly and make the best decision. However, if they are going to make a mistake, I will take a mistake of no deal over the alternative.

That's a pretty broad brush. I can manage my money so tightly in my personal life that I never see a movie, don't pay for internet access, and walk to work/ride a bike to work every day. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Like you said, this may or may not be a good idea. I just don't like having someone so outspoken about the project be leading the committee  about it. It's like having someone who hates dogs be on the board of the Humane Society.

The Council committee isn't the final vote - I have no doubt this has to go to council. He certainly has the right to advocate his position.

If I were the Council President, I'd throw Shellenberg and a downtown advocate on the committee (maybe Boyer), with neither of them leading it. Council committees are generally 5 person committees for something like this. That would be a true neutral view of things.

Boyer is on the committee with Schellenberg, along with Gulliford, Garrett Dennis and Sam Newby.
Beyond being in commercial real estate by trade, Schellenberg is also the Council liaison to JEA and actually sits in on JEA board meetings... so he has some valuable perspective on this deal.  The fact that the principals of Elements are crying about how unfair this committee is after having negotiated secret handshake deals behind closed doors that uses taxpayer money to underwrite their own personal fortunes... does not exactly inspire confidence.

You know there are already ways to pay for infrastructure financing for DRIs like the District... CDDs, MUDs, land-secured bonds, required
dedication, in lieu fees, mobility fees, etc that don't involve a municipality using taxpayer money to purchase the land and then rob a TIF blind in order to pay for roads, utility lines, sidewalks, bulkheads and sewer lines (meaning nearby properties are underwriting these development costs, instead of the actual developer).

[ProjectMaximus]

I like Shellenberg's skepticism, and respect it.  And this Munz must be an amateur. It's a huge PR gaffe to get into a war of words with a guy whose skepticism is rooted in taxpayer concern.  Just pull together an amazing and persuasive presentation for the committee.

That's hilarious. Not that I don't agree with you (didnt read the article and not gonna dive into the details yet) but you should google Michael Munz to understand the irony.

[Tacachale]

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2018-01-11/special-council-committee-will-scrutinize-development-deal-district

Elements not pleased with the committee. That's a shame.

Well....I'll say this: Brosche nominating Shellenberg to lead the committee is a little......biased. Clearly Shellenberg already has his mind made up. Now, Shellenberg could be crazy or he could be dead on in his reasoning - I don't know. But, having someone who has already publicly blasted this thing doesn't scream of impropriety.

If that means going overboard in the wrong direction to potentially protect tax payers, I will take it. Maybe if we had someone like that during the Delaney pension deals, this city's budget would not have been screwed beyond belief for decades. For too long this government has bent the tax payer over to benefit itself and to benefit developers.

Perhaps this deal is the greatest deal in the history of Jax.Maybe it is a boondoggle. Hopefully this committee will review it thoroughly and make the best decision. However, if they are going to make a mistake, I will take a mistake of no deal over the alternative.

That's a pretty broad brush. I can manage my money so tightly in my personal life that I never see a movie, don't pay for internet access, and walk to work/ride a bike to work every day. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Like you said, this may or may not be a good idea. I just don't like having someone so outspoken about the project be leading the committee  about it. It's like having someone who hates dogs be on the board of the Humane Society.

The Council committee isn't the final vote - I have no doubt this has to go to council. He certainly has the right to advocate his position.

If I were the Council President, I'd throw Shellenberg and a downtown advocate on the committee (maybe Boyer), with neither of them leading it. Council committees are generally 5 person committees for something like this. That would be a true neutral view of things.

Boyer is on the committee with Schellenberg, along with Gulliford, Garrett Dennis and Sam Newby.
Beyond being in commercial real estate by trade, Schellenberg is also the Council liaison to JEA and actually sits in on JEA board meetings... so he has some valuable perspective on this deal.  The fact that the principals of Elements are crying about how unfair this committee is after having negotiated secret handshake deals behind closed doors that uses taxpayer money to underwrite their own personal fortunes... does not exactly inspire confidence.

You know there are already ways to pay for infrastructure financing for DRIs like the District... CDDs, MUDs, land-secured bonds, required
dedication, in lieu fees, mobility fees, etc that don't involve a municipality using taxpayer money to purchase the land and then rob a TIF blind in order to pay for roads, utility lines, sidewalks, bulkheads and sewer lines (meaning nearby properties are underwriting these development costs, instead of the actual developer).

Schellenberg is a crank and fairly anti-Downtown, and sometimes subject to pretty backward thinking (like his HRO vote). But it doesn't mean he's wrong on this issue.

[MusicMan]

I'll repeat: three years down the road and the developer is now, AT THE LAST MINUTE, completely changing all the details of how this is being paid for. And the changes involve someone else (namely me and you) paying for what appears to be a hell of a lot. This was supposed to close last year and out of nowhere the developer just completely rewrote the financing and asked for another extension. BS if you ask me.

I've sold enough real estate to know this is NOT how you operate.  The $26 million subsidy should have been discussed at least a year ago.

Rummell tried to reframe this and he is 100% wrong. It's because of last minute changes like he is proposing that nothing gets done around here.