Curry's Plan for the Landing Revealed

[Kerry]

In the core the river should be urbanized.  In suburbia the riverfront should be publicly owned.  Again, Jax gets it ass-backwards.

While Jax certainly gets things wrong, can you find an example where a government owns riverfront property across 840 square miles.

In the US that is a hard, but globally it isn't uncommon.  The government doesn't have to necessarily own it - just regulate it.  I just figured since it is already privately owned we would have to buy it.  A few years ago Georgia banned most development within 75 feet of any waterway.  Some now want to extend that to 1000'.  Ellen Dunham-Jones, New Urbanist Professor at Georgia Tech, has a video where she mentions it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRXW9SMo4AE

I'm a little more absolute.  If it was up to me, there would be no private ownership of waterfront land and development would be forbidden between the nearest street and the water (which means a street would roughly follow the riverbank).  Basically development|street|green|water|green|street|development.  You can see this in practice in some parts of Jax already.  For example, Alexandria Place just southeast of San Marco.  Imagine all of the waterways in Jax looking like this location.  Another I am familiar with is Edgemere Park in Oklahoma City.  How these places can exist and planners/developers can think about using waterfront any other way is beyond me.

[remc86007]

^I don't understand how that would work financially. Isn't a large portion of Jax's property tax revenue derived from the high values of waterfront property?

[Captain Zissou]

Until very recently, Alexandria Place park had stagnant water, poorly maintained park space, and it flooded quite frequently.  Let's definitely do that all over town.

[Kerry]

^I don't understand how that would work financially. Isn't a large portion of Jax's property tax revenue derived from the high values of waterfront property?

The value would just move across the street.  They would have open space AND water view so it would probably be even more valuable.

[Kerry]

Until very recently, Alexandria Place park had stagnant water, poorly maintained park space, and it flooded quite frequently.  Let's definitely do that all over town.

That is because upstream and downstream isn't built the same way.  If it was flooding like that wouldn't happen.  Anyhow, if you don't like that example I have literally hundreds of them like River Blvd in the Riverside area, Bayshore in Tampa, S Ocean Blvd and Flagler Dr in Palm Beach, and Beach St in Daytona.

This isn't my idea - it has been done around the world for 10,000 years.  I just happen to think it is better than private backyards fronting public water.  Anyhow, sorry for the diversion - back to un-urbanizing the urban core.

[MEGATRON]

Have fun footing the bill for those takings claims.

[Kerry]

Have fun footing the bill for those takings claims.

Yeah, the mistake was made long ago and fixing it now on a grand scale is cost prohibitive.  Doesn't mean we can't start at the core and work our way out, even if all we got from it was the river between the Hart Bridge and I-95 and some creek frontage going inland.  As an example, I would replace the current banks of the river in this area with something like this instead of the broken rocks and crappy wall we have now (yes I know that City already has an issue maintaining grass).

This is my last comment on this tangent as we are straying away from the topic.  Maybe I'll start a River Urbanization thread.

Not the best example but all I can find right now.

[Steve]

^I don't understand how that would work financially. Isn't a large portion of Jax's property tax revenue derived from the high values of waterfront property?

The value would just move across the street.  They would have open space AND water view so it would probably be even more valuable.

No they wouldn't (at least not at the same value). Like it or not, a big part of the value is for people to have their own frontage of the river. These folks don't want the general public to walk in front of their property blocking their view of the river.

I'm not saying it's always right, and yes, there may be a bit of elitism in that view, but this is reality. Property values reflect this because they are based on a percentage of the value of the dirt+improvements (not new news, I know). That dirt becomes much less valuable if you have a section of common land in between (oh and BTW, now the COJ is responsible for the bulkhead....that should go good).

Instead, I think this makes more sense: Throughout the city, but more in the center of the city for all to enjoy, ensure that a fair amount of riverfront property is true quality public parkland. Yes, this means that the city will need to mow the grass more often than they do now. But, let's make those places truly special. If the entire waterfront is a "park" from Clay County to Mayport, it makes it much less special and much more difficult to maintain in a quality manner.

[KenFSU]

Pre-trial conference on the parking lot was this afternoon.

$4.3 million in taxpayer dollars, just to spite Sleiman on the auxiliary parking lot.

Can you imagine how many storefronts we could fix up, or how many small business grants we could offer, or how many other positive changes we could effect with that money? We could turn could completely redo Hemming and turn it into something out of Savannah with $4 million.

City, Landing owners must resolve city's payback for parking lot

After the City of Jacksonville changed its tune on whether Landing Owners Sleiman Enterprises should accept ownership of a parking lot adjacent to the downtown landmark, a 2015 case between the two parties will now focus on exactly how much money the city should pay back to the real estate developer.

Attorneys representing the two entities, in a pre-trial conference on Tuesday, disagreed on whether the city owes the $4.3 million Sleiman Enterprises paid for the parking lot or $4.7 million, which included the parking lot price in addition to $350,000 contractual entitled parking credits.

Full story: https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/06/19/city-landing-owners-must-resolve-citys-payback-for.html

[Kerry]

Pre-trial conference on the parking lot was this afternoon.

$4.3 million in taxpayer dollars, just to spite Sleiman on the auxiliary parking lot.

Can you imagine how many storefronts we could fix up, or how many small business grants we could offer, or how many other positive changes we could effect with that money? We could turn could completely redo Hemming and turn it into something out of Savannah with $4 million.

I only need about $75,000 to bring my idea to market.

[Steve]

Pre-trial conference on the parking lot was this afternoon.

$4.3 million in taxpayer dollars, just to spite Sleiman on the auxiliary parking lot.

Can you imagine how many storefronts we could fix up, or how many small business grants we could offer, or how many other positive changes we could effect with that money? We could turn could completely redo Hemming and turn it into something out of Savannah with $4 million.

City, Landing owners must resolve city's payback for parking lot

After the City of Jacksonville changed its tune on whether Landing Owners Sleiman Enterprises should accept ownership of a parking lot adjacent to the downtown landmark, a 2015 case between the two parties will now focus on exactly how much money the city should pay back to the real estate developer.

Attorneys representing the two entities, in a pre-trial conference on Tuesday, disagreed on whether the city owes the $4.3 million Sleiman Enterprises paid for the parking lot or $4.7 million, which included the parking lot price in addition to $350,000 contractual entitled parking credits.

Full story: https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/06/19/city-landing-owners-must-resolve-citys-payback-for.html

Unreal. While Curry isn't really responsible for this terrible Peyton mess that we're in, just split the difference and move on!

I'm saying that in jest, but this one's insane. It seems like this one is going to go through to Sleiman. But, without a larger Landing Agreement I don't see Sleiman just tossing up a parking garage or anything for that matter.

[remc86007]

^I agree. From what I've read about the situation, this going to court shows a lack of leadership in my opinion.

[vicupstate]

^^ So does this mean that coj gets ownership of the East lot, but has to pay Sleiman back $4.3-4.7mm?   

[KenFSU]

^^ So does this mean that coj gets ownership of the East lot, but has to pay Sleiman back $4.3-4.7mm?   

Correct, though technically, the city never lost ownership of the lot. Sleiman, in desperate need of parking, paid the city $4.3 million for that parcel years ago, but even after taking Sleiman's money, the city wouldn't close on the sale and officially transfer the land to Sleiman. Sleiman eventually had to sue to try to get his money back. The city was initially resistant, but now they're trying to expedite a refund as part of their effort to boot Sleiman.

Yet Sleiman's the bad guy in the situation.

[Keith-N-Jax]

What a nightmare you can never move forward when you're constantly moving backwards