Metro Park: Nat'l Park Srvc Says "No" to Swap

[jaxlongtimer]

Just in:

https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2021/01/20/shipyards-met-park-nps-swap.html?ana=e_jac_bn_breakingnews_breakingnews&j=90547012&t=Breaking%20News&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTXpRd01qa3pNVE0zTURRMCIsInQiOiI4T05pOHE2VTRDeFpicVFRNVZBV2dFUjBoMjg1UUpxV1dBTmhnTklDaSsxZ1MyQjhvM0I3dTA0emxWSGxwQUJTUGtvYW5La0tsa3dWRGc0V2pJVUpPdnBNVFZYUnVCbkdrQ1pqa3FrQ0tKUStnZE5rbENGa0lkNkR0RTRpUzFuRTZqeTVpTWJYeFdydnYwb0VuUGtJYlE9PSJ9

The National Park Service will not accept trading part of the Shipyards property for Metropolitan Park, according to an email from the National Parks Service seen by several people familiar with the situation.

While that does not mean the project is dead, it does mean that plans for Shad Khan's proposed development on the waterfront have, at the least, more hoops to jump through.

The expression of a lack of interest in the deal came from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, on behalf of the National Park Service, in response to an inquiry by the City of Jacksonville's Office of General Counsel regarding exchanging portions of the two parcels to allow Metropolitan Park to be developed.

The park is designated federal parkland, and the city agreed in the 1970s to preserve it as a park in perpetuity. For it to be developed, the city would have to find a new park site that the National Park Service deems comparable.

An email between the state and John C. Sawyer Jr., chief of the city's Governmental Operations Department, revealed that the National Park Service was not interested in accepting a piece of the 60-acre Shipyards property in exchange for a 13-acre parcel of Metropolitan Park, said Barbara Goodman, an international park consultant and former superintendent of the Timucuan Preserve.

"It is our understanding that the National Park Service has said no to the Shipyards as part of the swap," Goodman said. "They have determined, apparently, that the Shipyards property would not be sufficient or acceptable land to be included in a swap."

The Business Journal has requested a copy of the email from Sawyer and the city. Sawyer was not immediately available for comment.

Goodman clarified that she had not spoken to the National Park Service. The plan that the city presented to the Park Service was done as an unofficial inquiry rather than an official proposal.

"They [the city] have not submitted a formal package to swap the property – everything they've been doing has been informal and trying to get a lead on what the Park Service will do with the various proposals," Goodman said.

Downtown Investment Authority CEO Lori Boyer said she was aware of the email between FDEP and Sawyer, which she learned of during a Riverfront Parks Now meeting, and said she was in the process of seeking clarification on the subject. 

"I'm working to get additional information on Metropolitan Park," Boyer said. 

In a previous interview with the Business Journal, Boyer explained that acceptance or rejection of a proposed swap for Metropolitan Park didn't inherently mean any development would be impossible.

"There is a lot of interest in those properties – everything from MOSH to residential development – but the question now is what goes where," Boyer said. "In part, that's dependent upon whether you keep Metropolitan Park in its current location or do you relocate it. The response to the relocation of Metropolitan Park, yes or no, does not mean any of the other things are off the table – it just means the jigsaw pieces of the puzzle are moved around."

Goodman, who worked with the National Park Service for 33 years, explained the process of the swap. Metropolitan Park was initially created as federal parkland through a grant program which established it as parkland in perpetuity – and in order to reallocate the land for development, the city would have to swap it for "comparable lands."

"The National Park Service has rules for how this program is implemented, and in the rules it states the property cannot be purchased back," Goodman said. "In order to cut those strings, the only thing the city can do if the use of the land is no longer desired as a park is to look for other comparable lands."

Goodman said that this scenario is not particularly common, but it has been done before. However, she added that it's much more common for any parcel acquired via the NPS program to remain a park.

Nancy Powell, executive director of Scenic Jacksonville, said she hopes a public discussion about the situation can be had before a decision has been made.

Scenic Jacksonville, a non-profit advocacy organization with a goal of "preserving, protecting and enhancing the scenic character of Jacksonville," is part of the Riverfront Parks Now campaign — which includes other non-profit groups such as St. Johns Riverkeeper, Memorial Park Association and the Garden Club of Jacksonville — that advocates for a connected network of public green space and parks along downtown Jacksonville's riverfront.

"I don't understand why this is a secret – why isn't there a public conversation about what should happen to Metropolitan Park, including if the public wants there to be a swap?" Powell said. "This park is a public asset, so there should be a conversation about it."

[thelakelander]

LOL!!!!

[itsfantastic1]

Lenny Curry right now in 2021...

[Charles Hunter]

I like the quote from Nancy Powell, Executive Director of Scenic Jacksonville

"I don't understand why this is a secret – why isn't there a public conversation about what should happen to Metropolitan Park, including if the public wants there to be a swap?" Powell said. "This park is a public asset, so there should be a conversation about it."

Why this is a secret? Because this is the Lenny Curry administration, the public is, at best, an annoyance that must be dealt with when making backroom deals.

[jaxlongtimer]

Lot J was, in part, dependent on Phase II in Metro Park.  Without Phase II, imagine the increased odds that Lot J would be a failure.  Thank goodness Lot J was voted down.

This is just another reason Lot J wasn't ready for prime time.  Curry and the Jags should have had a handle on Metro Park's fate before putting Lot J up for approval.  One more reason Curry was in over his head and the Jag's were rushing things to get a money grab from the taxpayers.

[MusicMan]

Just checking, but is The Shipyards site shovel ready, or is remediation STILL needed here? 

[fieldafm]

Just checking, but is The Shipyards site shovel ready, or is remediation STILL needed here?

The majority of the work done at the Shipyards site revolved around shoring up the bulkhead. About 1,500 ft of new bulkhead structures were added, one of the piers was removed, and if I recall there was some dredging in between two of the piers.

Site-wide remediation never took place, save for the excavation of soil along the waterfront and introduction of backfill between the new bulkheads.


All of that work was essentially paid for by taxpayers, whereas the developer took down draws against a COJ mortgage held on the property as work was completed. That 's why COJ has had the property in its possession since roughly 2009- as they were able to foreclose on the mortgage and recover the asset as part of the developer's bankruptcy proceeding.

Unless it was refinanced into a broader bond re-issuance last year, taxpayers are still paying interest on that original bond that paid for the bulkhead work.

Here is the Shipyards from 2007. Bonus points if you can make out the construction of the Peninsula condos on the Southbank in the background.

[marcuscnelson]

Well... wow.

If they couldn't convince the Trump Administration to let them have the park for development, they're completely screwed now.

I guess Shad will have to really rev up the rendering machines.

[landfall]

Development as it relates to the Jags is toast now. As said if they can't get a deal done under a Trump administration they're screwed with the new leadership. I'd be stunned if we even see a compromise. It was all or nothing. I expect insane demands on the stadium upgrades as the final throw of the dice and more International games. I can't see relations between the Jags and potentially a future no voting Mayor like Carlucci or Hazouri being anything but strained.

[fieldafm]

Development as it relates to the Jags is toast now.

I think that's a stretch, with all due respect. There is plenty of land to develop. All of this below is owned by the City, and none of these parcels are parkland. This land, as with Lot J, requires remediation.





The biggest difference between the actual Shipyards property vs Lot J/Metro Park.. is that the latter is directly next to Dailys Place.  In that respect, lots M, N and P to the East of Lot J (shown below, essentially the old Coliseum site) as well as the current practice fields... are all developable parcels that don't have breached slur walls underground spreading contaminants into a retention pond.  None of those options also require additional tens of millions of dollars to recreate a park (planting grass along the river does not count as 'parkspace').






I also don't read that article and come to the conclusion that the final word on Metro Park has been written. The article and informal email chain only emphasizes what we already knew to be true.... that any effort to swap Met Park faces many uphill battles.

[marcuscnelson]

^Yeah, hold on now. There should still be plenty of options. Developing on other lots, or at the Shipyards proper, or coming back to the table on Lot J with a deal that isn't completely ridiculous. This being the final straw to their development efforts says more about them than it does about the city.

[Papa33]

If iguana is trying to create a "sports complex neighborhood", certainly they can figure out how to build around met park and highlight it as the amenity it ought to be.

[fieldafm]

If iguana is trying to create a "sports complex neighborhood", certainly they can figure out how to build around met park and highlight it as the amenity it ought to be.

Agreed.

[jaxlongtimer]

If iguana is trying to create a "sports complex neighborhood", certainly they can figure out how to build around met park and highlight it as the amenity it ought to be.

This makes sense to me.  We should build on the north side of Bay Street wherever the City already owns the riverfront land on the south side.  Having the riverfront green should be an amenity for all of Downtown dwellers, workers and visitors.  The City's waterfront holdings would be the envy of most any City elsewhere.

As Lake suggests, Khan and the City have lots of parking lots around the Stadium to play with.  And, there is an abundance of non-riverfront land in the Downtown core to develop.  I like the idea of urban living but only if there is substantial green space to chill or recreate in.  Nothing beats adding access to a great waterway.  Every other City, just about, understands this concept except us.  Glad there is now a coalition of groups advocating for same here and the City needs to heed their counsel.

[Ken_FSU]

Nate Monroe nailed this one about a month back.

Curry, Hughes, and the OGC made no friends throughout this process.

And the right to pay back the grant and develop the land never existed in the feds' opinion (hence the payback bill being revoked), even though that language actually is in the original agreement from the 80s.