Khan, Jaguars expect Lot J development to begin early 2020

[Captain Zissou]

Last thing - Curry has become a true embarrassment to the city these last few months.

From the Twitter behavior.

To the weird call to arms against the Times-Union.

To backing out of the Christmas Tree lighting (I was in Hemming that night; pathetic to be scared off by that small protest; protip - you don't want protestors to use your kids' names, don't post personal info about your kids on the same account that you use to shout down Council members, troll the general public, and trying to get @'d by your favorite hip-hop artists).

To the odd sports-radio appearances.

Dude needs to go.

Does this sound like anyone else in government....?  He's just following the trump playbook.  That was his base that got him elected, but even they are tiring of his antics.  I know his hope was to use this job as a springboard further into the GOP, but he may not be welcome anymore.  Kahn definitely wouldn't take him.  Kahn may want what he believes is best for Jacksonville, but if Curry wasn't holding the purse strings kahn would never go into business with him. Curry is just the man in position, so Kahn is being chummy to get at the money.  I hope everyone has taken a good hard luck at curry's true colors.

[thelakelander]

P.S. As a good Christian boy, it's absolutely appalling to hear the "God wants Lot J!" rhetoric from Gaffney and other faith leaders, as if it's some kind of religious crusade.

EXCEEDINGLY patronizing, condescending, and tone deaf in our current climate.

12 years of Catholic school and I never once heard anything about God preaching the virtues of luxury hotels and residential at the expense of the poor.

To me, might be the most disgraceful, insulting to the populace declaration of this entire ordeal.

I'm really confused how most of our politicians fail to make common sense arguments to support their position on Lot J. Overall, it's a bad deal and there's no way around it (outside of moving the project from Lot J itself to save millions and speed up its development) but it doesn't take a lot of hard work to spin potential real life benefits from the idea of infill development in the sports district in general. People make way too much money to not be able to figure this out, this deep into the process.

[Ken_FSU]

^It's baffling, right?

[jaxlongtimer]

P.S. As a good Christian boy, it's absolutely appalling to hear the "God wants Lot J!" rhetoric from Gaffney and other faith leaders, as if it's some kind of religious crusade.

EXCEEDINGLY patronizing, condescending, and tone deaf in our current climate.

12 years of Catholic school and I never once heard anything about God preaching the virtues of luxury hotels and residential at the expense of the poor.

To me, might be the most disgraceful, insulting to the populace declaration of this entire ordeal.

The Mayor and Khan "own" Gaffney.  He will do and say anything to appease them.  If he can squeeze out any benefits for Eastsiders it will be merely collateral in nature and more likely a response by the Jags to the community push back to Lot J than anything Gafffney advocated for.  Gaffney should realize he is just being used for the optics.

Meanwhile, (per below) Newby thinks Khan will spend $100 million with minority contractors.  Given the hyper-inflated costs estimates, and backing out the remediation expenses, this would likely be 40% to 50+% of construction dollars in my estimate.  Based on typical City contracting targets, I don't see that happening unless said contractors act more as fronts for others.

Interestingly, Brenda Priestly Jackson said she is still not on board and made a notable comment about additional concessions regarding legal liabilities related to the clean up.  And, Pittman apparently didn't say anything quotable.  Sounds like 2 out of 4 may still be on the fence.

JACKSONVILLE, Fla — City leaders are throwing their support behind plans to develop Lot J in Downtown Jacksonville.

Council Member Reginald Gaffney was joined by several colleagues in front of City Hall for a press conference Wednesday morning regarding the development.

Gaffney said a large number of people who live on the Eastside support the plans to redevelop Lot J.
Ultra slo-mo camera records light bouncing!
featured by

"When you look at Lot J, it would not only benefit my district but Northeast Florida as a whole," Gaffney said. "For small businesses struggling during this pandemic, it's going to be a boost to small businesses."

The proposed Lot J development would entail a public-private partnership with Shad Khan and the Cordish Companies to bring a live entertainment district, 350 apartments in two mid-rise buildings, and at least 120 boutique hotel rooms to the land currently used as a parking lot in the Downtown sports complex.

Gaffney was joined by three city council members including Brenda Priestly Jackson, JuCoby Pittman and Sam Newby. Several local business and faith leaders also joined in the press conference on the steps of City Hall.

Gaffney says the Jaguars, owner Shad Khan and the Cordish companies are showing a commitment to invest in the city with the proposed $450 million development.

"The Jaguars are committed to Jacksonville, that's why Lot J is so important. You wouldn't have to take your team somewhere else to meet your financial needs if you had it in Jacksonville," Gaffney said.

Brenda Priestly Jackson, who says she was supporting Gaffney in solidarity at the press conference says she is not on board with the Lot J deal yet.

"I will not support Lot J or any other development that precludes the ability of us to take care of the everyday needs of our neighbors with the quality of life," Priestly Jackson said.

Priestly Jackson suggested at least one change to the deal.

"If you can offload the liability for the mitigation and cleanup of Lot J to the developer if you can have future indemnification for any future litigation brought on Lot J to the developer, that's a return on investment that's incalculable because you can bet your bottom dollar that folks will always sue the city because we have the deep pockets," Priestly Jackson said.

"To have indemnification and development going forward, with that, I'm very encouraged by that, again, if first, the numbers show we are able to take care of the needs were charged to do first, infrastructure, first responders and quality of life," Priestly Jackson added.

The return on investment could fall below projections according to Matt Carlucci, the City Council's Finance Committee Chair.

"We'll be lucky to get it up to 50 cents to the dollar in my opinion, after speaking with our council auditors," Carlucci said.

Carlucci believes a market study and feasibility study should've been done on the front end.

"It's a backwards way of economic development if you ask me, and that's my struggle, this a $200 million, actually closer to 400 million when you put in the interest that the taxpayers will be paying. And we don't even know what it's going to look like," Carlucci added.

Councilman Sam Newby, in support of Gaffney remains optimistic over the deal, which was screened and approved by the Downtown Investment Authority last month.

"If this goes through, $100 million is going to go to minority businesses, and guess who minority businesses hire? Minority people, so let's just keep that in mind," Newby said.

Newby says he believes the deal should be voted up or down on Jan. 7.

Gaffney believes that regardless of the dollar amount, Khan has shown and will show he wants to invest in the city with the proposed development.

"I'm grateful as a city leader he's willing to invest in my community, to help me grow my community, regardless of how many dollars he gave us," Gaffney said.

The project is expected to be voted on by Jacksonville City Council in early January. It would commit taxpayers footing roughly half the bill of $450 to $482 million.

The deal has drawn criticism over its cost, the largest of any development project in city history.

https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/local/city-leaders-to-discuss-lot-j-development-in-downtown-jacksonville/77-df9700f3-6339-458b-9a82-69439aa8e9cf

[thelakelander]

Meanwhile, (per below) Newby thinks Khan will spend $100 million with minority contractors.  Given the hyper-inflated costs estimates, and backing out the remediation expenses, this would likely be 40% to 50+% of construction dollars in my estimate.  Based on typical City contracting targets, I don't see that happening unless said contractors act more as fronts for others.

Khan is a minority. So giving the Jags incentives money technically is giving money to a minority for this project. How does that play into that $100 million? Anyway, while it's cool to have some short term construction jobs, it would be good to hear more about the long term benefits to the Eastside....outside of the footprint of Lot J. How can this be used to pull more traffic up on A. Philip Randolph so small businesses in the actual neighborhood can benefit from their proximity to the stadium and sports district?

Interestingly, Brenda Priestly Jackson said she is still not on board and made a notable comment about additional concessions regarding legal liabilities related to the clean up.  And, Pittman apparently didn't say anything quotable.  Sounds like 2 out of 4 may still be on the fence.

Anytime you're pulling from the general fund, it's going to be at the expense of the things that Priestly Jackson is fighting for. It is, what it is. We can't squeeze blood out of a turnip and money doesn't grow on trees. So we have choices and sacrifices to make.

[Ken_FSU]

Interesting article on resiliency measures.

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/2020/12/31/guest-column-lot-j-project-includes-resiliency-plan/4059204001/

[thelakelander]

Good letter. One question I would have is what are the infrastructure costs for Lot J, in comparison to what the costs would be for a property that may not have the same needs, contamination and resiliency requirements? I ask because I wonder at what point do the infrastructure costs rise to a level to where it makes more long term financial sense to have more development density on Lot J than what it has been reduced to now? Should the low rise, strip mallish style stuff be shifted to another location and the Lot J site be used for more urban development to help justify the higher site development costs?

[jaxjags]

The Lot  J  infrastructure is listed at $77 million(Dailey Record article October 8,2020).  The District infrastructure is listed at $58 million (Dailey Record article Dec. 22,2020). Similar projects both on the river. It would be interesting to compare the details of these plans to see if some of this difference is due to resiliency plans.

[fsu813]

I preface this with saying I'm definitely not a development expert, but could the apparent discrepancy in cost be resiliency related?

Ie) the extra money would be used for (likely) flooding infrastructure in the coming decades.

Bump.

[Ken_FSU]

The Lot  J  infrastructure is listed at $77 million(Dailey Record article October 8,2020).  The District infrastructure is listed at $58 million (Dailey Record article Dec. 22,2020). Similar projects both on the river. It would be interesting to compare the details of these plans to see if some of this difference is due to resiliency plans.

What's classified as "infrastructure" for both projects is very, very different, so it's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison.

The District's $58 million figure includes all the roadways and utilities (around $30 million that is being funded by the bonds that Preston Hollow recently closed on), plus a $26 million contribution from the DIA for riverfront parks totaling 3.5 acres, a 1-acre pocket park, a 1,900-foot expansion of the Southbank Riverwalk and bulkhead construction, a walking trail around the development, a 100-space parking lot and the expansion of three roads for public access.

Lot J's $77 million infrastructure figure is inclusive of environmental remediation, filling the retention pond and re-routing the stormwater management system, structured parking garages, roadways, wayfairing signage, building the pads, and even the giant LED screen for the development.

If a large portion of the infrastructure investment is going toward resiliency efforts and making sure that the development is sustainable long-term, you'd think that SOMEONE on the developer or city side would be smart enough to be shouting this from the rooftops. It would certainly better help explain that large infrastructure investement to taxpayers.

To Lake's point, a lot more of the public investment for the District appears to be going toward net new public amenities and uses, rather than simply preparing a site with a lot of problems for construction.

[Ken_FSU]

P.S. Re: That Times-Union letter about resiliency.

The proposed plan includes raising all of Lot J to an elevation of +8 feet (NAVD) with minimum first-floor building elevations of +11 to +12 feet.

Would be interested to know, just strictly for the sake of my own curiosity and ignorance, how the resiliency efforts interplay with the remediation requirements.

For instance, if you'd need to install a three-foot soil cap to build at grade, would remediation be simpler with the resiliency efforts described above that essentialy "lift" the entire project 8-12 feet above the existing Lot J?

Would be cool if the cost of resiliency efforts at sites like Lot J and the Shipyards somehow mitigated some of the expense of the at-grade contamination, if that makes sense.

[thelakelander]

From my perspective, I doubt this is a $450 million project, in terms of development cost. What's proposed probably adds up to $200-$250 million at best. To this point, I still have not seen the estimated cost breakdown by component and how that compares to actual products that Cordish has developed recently. Only line items where a lot of fluff and unknowns can be tossed into it.

[jaxlongtimer]

It's interesting to note that even if Lot J is lifted 8 to 12 feet for resiliency, the adjacent stadium has substantial resiliency issues.  Does this indicate that when the time comes, we need to look at leveling the existing stadium and starting all over or do we take our chances and invest up to 1/2 to 1 billion dollars in the existing structure that will likely have a very limited future? 

I would think, regardless of the future needs of the Jags, the above question should be answered now as Lot J means nothing without the stadium.  Another ass-backwards issue on the table.

[jaxjags]

The Lot  J  infrastructure is listed at $77 million(Dailey Record article October 8,2020).  The District infrastructure is listed at $58 million (Dailey Record article Dec. 22,2020). Similar projects both on the river. It would be interesting to compare the details of these plans to see if some of this difference is due to resiliency plans.

What's classified as "infrastructure" for both projects is very, very different, so it's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison.

The District's $58 million figure includes all the roadways and utilities (around $30 million that is being funded by the bonds that Preston Hollow recently closed on), plus a $26 million contribution from the DIA for riverfront parks totaling 3.5 acres, a 1-acre pocket park, a 1,900-foot expansion of the Southbank Riverwalk and bulkhead construction, a walking trail around the development, a 100-space parking lot and the expansion of three roads for public access.

Lot J's $77 million infrastructure figure is inclusive of environmental remediation, filling the retention pond and re-routing the stormwater management system, structured parking garages, roadways, wayfairing signage, building the pads, and even the giant LED screen for the development.

If a large portion of the infrastructure investment is going toward resiliency efforts and making sure that the development is sustainable long-term, you'd think that SOMEONE on the developer or city side would be smart enough to be shouting this from the rooftops. It would certainly better help explain that large infrastructure investement to taxpayers.

To Lake's point, a lot more of the public investment for the District appears to be going toward net new public amenities and uses, rather than simply preparing a site with a lot of problems for construction.

Thanks Ken. That's the point Lake is making.  City is spending 50%  higher "infrastructure costs" for resiliency for a total development costs of a low density suburban type development. If the city spends $25 million or more on infrastructure because of the site, then I expect a high rise hotel, high rise residences and office tower as originally proposed. To me $77 million deserves density. If the market won't support that density today, then find a new site or change your approach. Instead of raising site 10 feet, only allow bottom floors to be retail or parking (in general as it is proposed). For the near future (probably as long as the stadium remains in the area) that will help minimize losses for a once in 20 year occurrence.

[thelakelander]

To me, what's proposed should be shifted to another site that doesn't require the millions that Lot J does in infrastructure.  If we're sticking with Lot J, then we need some real density, not a baby Town Center Parkway. Either way, more transparency is needed. You can't go from a $450 million project with multiple highrises to something significantly smaller and claim the development cost are still the same.