The city moves to terminate the Landing's lease agreement.

[Kerry]

For what it is worth; from wikipedia.  It looks like Sleiman was the one who was supposed to build the garage and not the City.

In 2003, the Rouse Company announced it would sell the Jacksonville Landing to local developer Toney Sleiman for $5.1 million.[5] The Florida Times-Union revealed that Sleiman, who bought the buildings but not the city-owned land, would not have to pay the $100,000 rent required by the City of Jacksonville for the land until the city provided the 800 parking spaces it had promised the previous owners.[6]

In 2010, the 23-year obligation was finally resolved. The Jacksonville City Council passed a bill to contribute $3.5 million toward Sleiman's purchase of an existing parking lot across from the Landing. That money included a 20-year parking validation program at a cost of $2.5 million to the city. Mayor John Peyton vetoed the bill, but the council voted unanimously to override the veto.[7]

[fieldafm]

For what it is worth; from wikipedia.  It looks like Sleiman was the one who was supposed to build the garage and not the City.

In 2003, the Rouse Company announced it would sell the Jacksonville Landing to local developer Toney Sleiman for $5.1 million.[5] The Florida Times-Union revealed that Sleiman, who bought the buildings but not the city-owned land, would not have to pay the $100,000 rent required by the City of Jacksonville for the land until the city provided the 800 parking spaces it had promised the previous owners.[6]

In 2010, the 23-year obligation was finally resolved. The Jacksonville City Council passed a bill to contribute $3.5 million toward Sleiman's purchase of an existing parking lot across from the Landing. That money included a 20-year parking validation program at a cost of $2.5 million to the city. Mayor John Peyton vetoed the bill, but the council voted unanimously to override the veto.[7]

The acquisition of the (existing) Enterprise Center parking lot never materialized (lots of politics involved with the former Jacksonville Economic Development Commission and Mayor's office derailed that deal), and the City then redirected that $3.5mm to Parador Partners to build their own parking garage adjacent to the Suntrust Building (3/4 of that garage is dedicated to Suntrust tenants). The Landing still got their parking validation money... but the money to build a dedicated parking facility never came to fruition (still after 30 years). Parador initially claimed that they would not be using their heavily subsidized parking garage to flip the property, but then secretly struck a behind-closed-doors deal to revoke the clawback language in that development agreement... allowing them to flip the majority of the office condos they owned in the Suntrust Building along with their sparkling new parking garage for a massive profit. In effect, the City (aka John and Jane taxpayer) subsidized a property flipper. Parador also fleeced their office condo tenants by overbilling them for multiple maintenance charges and pocketed the extra cash in the form of kickbacks from a shady contractor, and the main principal of Parador was found guilty of felony fraud for his role in this extortion.

This is what happens when politicians pick winners and losers in downtown development.  Meanwhile, the Landing still struggles.... mainly due to politics. For crying out loud, the City won't even maintain the landscaping (their responsibility) or fix the damn docks.

It looks like Sleiman was the one who was supposed to build the garage and not the City.

Absolutely FALSE.

[fieldafm]

Parking for the Landing or any other project Downtown wouldn't be so much of an issue if we had some decent mass transit circulating/delivering people from large edge parking garages/lots surrounding and/or already within the Downtown core (or God forbid, actually transporting people from the burbs!) like most cities strive to do - along with those who might actually desire to try and live sans automobile altogether.  This would be best for Downtown on many levels and would be far cheaper than continuing to build a dedicated garage for every Downtown project on land that would be better used for supporting greater density and activity in the core.

IMHO, a big reason Downtown suffers is that every other block has to host a parking garage effectively acting as a black hole for any urban energy that might be otherwise developed.

Reading through the lease and development agreement between COJ and Rouse, it is clear that Rouse entered into the agreement with the understanding that downtown Jax would look a lot different today than its actual present-day state. There is language involving more hotel capacity, more residential capacity than what exists today.... and along with the dedicated parking issue (still unresolved after 30 plus years, and Rouse sued the City for damages decades before Sleiman ever sued the City over the exact same issue), there is also a provision that the lease could be terminated and financial damages would be due to Rouse if the Skyway ever was torn down or ceased operations. Rouse was very concerned with dedicated parking, a functional (fixed) mass transit system downtown, having proper security and being part of a growing downtown that would have many more residents, office workers and hotel rooms than what exists today. The City is not very good as a real estate developer, the development agreement they entered into with Rouse is a very good example of this fact. The City has consistently failed to live up to their responsibilities in regards to that agreement... both in micro-level Landing-specific issues and more macro-level downtown development issues.

Frankly, COJ is wasting time (and taxpayer money) with these lawsuits and motions to evict.

[JBTripper]

Seems to me the City has a problem with finishing what it starts. Jacksonville never finished the Landing with the requisite parking, so the Landing flamed out rather quickly and the City has been looking to scrap the whole thing and start over ever since. Jacksonville never finished the Skyway, which would function much better if it extended to UF Health, down Bay Street, into Brooklyn and San Marco, so now the City is in the process of scrapping that in favor of an untested mode of public transit.

[jaxnyc79]

Part of this is a misrepresentation of history...

Don't think Sleiman's vision is the one that delivers any sort of ideal on the spectrum with something like the Ferry building, and I don't think a visionary for downtown Jax would premise any sort of enhancement on a parking garage,

In the retail world dedicated parking is a real thing. All the vision in the world won't land you certain types of tenants if you don't have the dedicated parking or foot traffic they require. I think we all can agree that DT Jax and the Landing don't have the foot traffic necessary to fill +100k square feet of retail. Would anyone say that Rouse didn't have vision because their festival marketplace concept included dedicated parking for their tenant and consumers? After all, their marketplace concept was one of the most successful urban redevelopment retail concepts of the 1980s. Many of their former centers in popular tourist destinations are still successful today....and in many cases, they include dedicated parking.

and let the whole zone, the most salient zone you've got, turn into a black eye for the city, one that might take a generation to recover from.

I remember going to the Landing when it first opened. I also remember it right before Sleiman took over. IMO, compared to what it was in the 1980s, it was already outdated and largely vacant. The real decline came just as soon as most of the original tenants bailed as soon as their first lease was up. Since 2003, it's been constant redevelopment and parking negotiation talk. It's spanned three mayoral terms, so the discussion has been start and stop depending on who was in office and what their position was towards Sleiman. Again, if Brown would have been reelected, I'm pretty sure the Landing would be in the process of being redeveloped as we speak.....and dedicated parking would have been a part of it.

To me, a big reason a $40 million at cost shopping complex was sold for $5 million is that implied in the cost is that you'd have to make improvements to make it work in place of the city's defaults.

No, Rouse wanted out and Sleiman offered to buy them. If a higher offer came, I'm sure Rouse would have taken the money, parking problem be damned.

Use that massive discount and solve the parking problem yourself, and once things are humming, sue the city for nonconformance.  You love the city, don't let your structures turn into a shanty

Where would you have built a garage? The city owns the land. You can't just plop something up on someone else's property if they aren't a willing partner.

I'll do a property survey of downtown, evaluate availabilities, perform some due diligence, and come back to you with a proposal on how I would've taken the savings from a discounted/distressed real estate transaction to establish dedicated parking to give a moribund shopping center a shot at viability.  All of that as an alternative to getting something on the cheap and in a state of distress, and then once my name is tied to it, waiting for a nonconfirming counterparty to suddenly be spurred into action.  I thought this was a message board, but if it's an RFP bulletin for projects, let me come back to you.

Look, I'm constantly critical of the city of Jax, but I also feel a lazy and imprudent city and Sleiman deserve each other.  I do, however, expect more of the private sector.  Municipalities are often disasters administratively and from time to time, in part because of the diverse and distracted constituencies they serve.  Sleiman bought in to an investment with a defaulting counterparty and lack of "good control," and in the absence of additional welfare from an already defaulting counterparty, has decided to do little to enhance it and instead is really sticking it to the people and the branding of their fair city. All This while the city has subsidized his very wealth because of subsidizing the suburban sprawl along which his monuments to sprawl sit (right, the city subsidizes sprawl to the detriment of downtown, yes)?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

tl;dr

With $35M in market rate savings, land could have been purchased and a garage could have been built, and we'd be having a different discussion right now.

[jaxnyc79]

Part of this is a misrepresentation of history...

Don't think Sleiman's vision is the one that delivers any sort of ideal on the spectrum with something like the Ferry building, and I don't think a visionary for downtown Jax would premise any sort of enhancement on a parking garage,

In the retail world dedicated parking is a real thing. All the vision in the world won't land you certain types of tenants if you don't have the dedicated parking or foot traffic they require. I think we all can agree that DT Jax and the Landing don't have the foot traffic necessary to fill +100k square feet of retail. Would anyone say that Rouse didn't have vision because their festival marketplace concept included dedicated parking for their tenant and consumers? After all, their marketplace concept was one of the most successful urban redevelopment retail concepts of the 1980s. Many of their former centers in popular tourist destinations are still successful today....and in many cases, they include dedicated parking.

and let the whole zone, the most salient zone you've got, turn into a black eye for the city, one that might take a generation to recover from.

I remember going to the Landing when it first opened. I also remember it right before Sleiman took over. IMO, compared to what it was in the 1980s, it was already outdated and largely vacant. The real decline came just as soon as most of the original tenants bailed as soon as their first lease was up. Since 2003, it's been constant redevelopment and parking negotiation talk. It's spanned three mayoral terms, so the discussion has been start and stop depending on who was in office and what their position was towards Sleiman. Again, if Brown would have been reelected, I'm pretty sure the Landing would be in the process of being redeveloped as we speak.....and dedicated parking would have been a part of it.

To me, a big reason a $40 million at cost shopping complex was sold for $5 million is that implied in the cost is that you'd have to make improvements to make it work in place of the city's defaults.

No, Rouse wanted out and Sleiman offered to buy them. If a higher offer came, I'm sure Rouse would have taken the money, parking problem be damned.

Use that massive discount and solve the parking problem yourself, and once things are humming, sue the city for nonconformance.  You love the city, don't let your structures turn into a shanty

Where would you have built a garage? The city owns the land. You can't just plop something up on someone else's property if they aren't a willing partner.

That's just it, the discount to cost had a reason for being, and that was the lack of a garage.  Rouse wanted out because the Landing was an impaired asset, and wasn't getting any better for lacking dedicated parking for patronage.  So, acquire the asset at a discount due to the impairment, address and fix the impairment, and then the asset is in a position to start to recover, yes?

[thelakelander]

I'll do a property survey of downtown, evaluate availabilities, perform some due diligence, and come back to you with a proposal on how I would've taken the savings from a discounted/distressed real estate transaction to establish dedicated parking to give a moribund shopping center a shot at viability.  All of that as an alternative to getting something on the cheap and in a state of distress, and then once my name is tied to it, waiting for a nonconfirming counterparty to suddenly be spurred into action.  I thought this was a message board, but if it's an RFP bulletin for projects, let me come back to you.

Yes, it's a message board that's been around since the time Sleiman purchased the place. Many of the older members here have seen history play out real time. So if new interpretations pop up that don't align with what took place don't take it too hard if a post or two pops in to try and add a little history and understanding back into the discussion.

Look, I'm constantly critical of the city of Jax, but I also feel a lazy and imprudent city and Sleiman deserve each other.  I do, however, expect more of the private sector.  Municipalities are often disasters administratively and from time to time, in part because of the diverse and distracted constituencies they serve.  Sleiman bought in to an investment with a defaulting counterparty whose viability is under threat because the land underneath is owned by the defaulting counterparty, and has decided to do nothing to really stick it to the people. All This while the city has subsidized his very wealth because of subsidizing the suburban sprawl along which his monuments to sprawl sit (right, the city subsidizes sprawl to the detriment of downtown, yes)?

Ok I'm not really debating this. I'm just questioning the reality of someone spending millions of their money on land they don't own (with an owner they're in dispute with) and calling that a good investment. I fail to see the logic in doing so.

[thelakelander]

How do you know the amount Rouse took was directly tied to the cost of a garage? Perhaps it had less to do with a garage and more to do with Rouse not believing Jax was a viable market for their product? After all, they were sold on downtown being just as vibrant as Baltimore's Inner Harbor...back in the 1980s! +30 years have passed and we're still nowhere close.

[jaxnyc79]

I'll do a property survey of downtown, evaluate availabilities, perform some due diligence, and come back to you with a proposal on how I would've taken the savings from a discounted/distressed real estate transaction to establish dedicated parking to give a moribund shopping center a shot at viability.  All of that as an alternative to getting something on the cheap and in a state of distress, and then once my name is tied to it, waiting for a nonconfirming counterparty to suddenly be spurred into action.  I thought this was a message board, but if it's an RFP bulletin for projects, let me come back to you.

Yes, it's a message board that's been around since the time Sleiman purchased the place. Many of the older members here have seen history play out real time. So if new interpretations pop up that don't align with what took place don't take it too hard if a post or two pops in to try and add a little history and understanding back into the discussion.

Look, I'm constantly critical of the city of Jax, but I also feel a lazy and imprudent city and Sleiman deserve each other.  I do, however, expect more of the private sector.  Municipalities are often disasters administratively and from time to time, in part because of the diverse and distracted constituencies they serve.  Sleiman bought in to an investment with a defaulting counterparty whose viability is under threat because the land underneath is owned by the defaulting counterparty, and has decided to do nothing to really stick it to the people. All This while the city has subsidized his very wealth because of subsidizing the suburban sprawl along which his monuments to sprawl sit (right, the city subsidizes sprawl to the detriment of downtown, yes)?

Ok I'm not really debating this. I'm just questioning the reality of someone spending millions of their money on land they don't own (with an owner they're in dispute with) and calling that a good investment. I fail to see the logic in doing so.

Well why but the property in the first place.  Was he not aware the land underneath was owned by the city when he bought in?  If he doesn't see any bifurcation between the structures and land, then what exactly did he ever pay to own?  The better the structures and once the impairment issue is addressed, the better the prospects for good quality tenants and rising lease payments.  And doesn't Sleiman have a lease that will outlive his life expectancy...that's as good as owned.

[jaxnyc79]

How do you know the amount Rouse took was directly tied to the cost of a garage? Perhaps it had less to do with a garage and more to do with Rouse not believing Jax was a viable market for their product? After all, they were sold on downtown being just as vibrant as Baltimore's Inner Harbor...back in the 1980s! +30 years have passed and we're still nowhere close.

My post said rouse wanted out because the Landing was a flop and wasn't getting any better due to the lack of dedicated patronage. 

[jaxnyc79]

I'll do a property survey of downtown, evaluate availabilities, perform some due diligence, and come back to you with a proposal on how I would've taken the savings from a discounted/distressed real estate transaction to establish dedicated parking to give a moribund shopping center a shot at viability.  All of that as an alternative to getting something on the cheap and in a state of distress, and then once my name is tied to it, waiting for a nonconfirming counterparty to suddenly be spurred into action.  I thought this was a message board, but if it's an RFP bulletin for projects, let me come back to you.

Yes, it's a message board that's been around since the time Sleiman purchased the place. Many of the older members here have seen history play out real time. So if new interpretations pop up that don't align with what took place don't take it too hard if a post or two pops in to try and add a little history and understanding back into the discussion.

Yes, I've noticed the board has been around a long time and its old guard condescend to newcomers attempting to take a fresh look at problems and stalemates.  And perhaps there's no way to verify 100% accuracy in real time, but the old guard might be well-served in taking a friendlier tone to different points of view because with the current state of downtown Jax, there's no monopoly on solutions.

Look, I'm constantly critical of the city of Jax, but I also feel a lazy and imprudent city and Sleiman deserve each other.  I do, however, expect more of the private sector.  Municipalities are often disasters administratively and from time to time, in part because of the diverse and distracted constituencies they serve.  Sleiman bought in to an investment with a defaulting counterparty whose viability is under threat because the land underneath is owned by the defaulting counterparty, and has decided to do nothing to really stick it to the people. All This while the city has subsidized his very wealth because of subsidizing the suburban sprawl along which his monuments to sprawl sit (right, the city subsidizes sprawl to the detriment of downtown, yes)?

Ok I'm not really debating this. I'm just questioning the reality of someone spending millions of their money on land they don't own (with an owner they're in dispute with) and calling that a good investment. I fail to see the logic in doing so.

[thelakelander]

Well why but the property in the first place.  Was he not aware the land underneath was owned by the city when he bought in?  If he doesn't see any bifurcation between the structures and land, then what exactly did he ever pay to own?  The better the structures and once the impairment issue is addressed, the better the prospects for good quality tenants and rising lease payments.  And doesn't Sleiman have a lease that will outlive his life expectancy...that's as good as owned.

It could be as simple as he thought it was a good deal, his proposed revitalization plan would work and he saw COJ as a partner he could work with to resolve the issue amicably.

[jaxnyc79]

Well why but the property in the first place.  Was he not aware the land underneath was owned by the city when he bought in?  If he doesn't see any bifurcation between the structures and land, then what exactly did he ever pay to own?  The better the structures and once the impairment issue is addressed, the better the prospects for good quality tenants and rising lease payments.  And doesn't Sleiman have a lease that will outlive his life expectancy...that's as good as owned.

It could be as simple as he thought it was a good deal, his proposed revitalization plan would work and he saw COJ as a partner he could work with to resolve the issue amicably.

You don't do a deal with a defaulting counterparty premised upon adding obligations to that counterparty.  Sleiman should give up his investment, ask to be made whole, and let someone else come in with financial models and wherewithal to fix the impairment issue.  Those fixes should be financed by funding sources other than a defaulting city.  If that buyer doesn't exist, then the city government can be directly responsible for the oft-televised dump on the riverbank.

[thelakelander]

Or just sell the guy the land underneath the building at market value, take the cash and move on. At that point, it would be in his best interest to make money off the site.