Littlepage: Room to hope for dramatic improvements at Shipyards

[thelakelander]

At the end of the day, the city could end up with the Shipyards in its ownership again.  Its something to keep on the radar.

The news earlier this month about The Shipyards and downtown wasn't good.

Word came that the developer of the riverfront project, LandMar, was late paying its property taxes (about $485,000) and was technically in default on its agreement with the city.

Ron Barton, the executive director of the Jacksonville Economic Development Commission, said in an interview that the situation needs to be monitored carefully but it's not time to "run around with our hair on fire - yet."

Barton said LandMar still has several weeks to fix the tax bill.

It's also not time to quit planning for that critical piece of downtown.

LandMar has already spent $19 million on the public improvements that were required in its development agreement with the city.

Much of that money went into bulkheads. Wide concrete paths that will become the extension of the Northbank Riverwalk are also in place.

Barton said the rest of the public improvements - pavers, landscaping, streetscapes, etc. - will be completed no matter what happens to the rest of the development because letters of credit to ensure that were required.

One of those improvements involves the westernmost pier that juts into the St. Johns River.

That could be - and should be - a showpiece for downtown.

Original plans called for a giant, sail-like sculpture that certainly would have been eye-catching.

Barton said in an earlier interview that several ideas are being considered. Here's another one:

Jacksonville's maritime history is rich and should be celebrated.

It already is to some degree at the Jacksonville Maritime Museum, which is tucked away in a small building on the Southbank Riverwalk by the Main Street bridge.

The museum is filled with artifacts and exhibits, but many more are locked away in warehouses because of the limited space.

A larger museum on The Shipyards' pier, with perhaps a historic sailing ship tied alongside, would attract people downtown and give out-of-town visitors something else to do.

Anyway, that's just another idea to throw into the mix.

In this economy, finding the money to pay for anything is going to be difficult.

But creating a successful downtown is like putting pieces of a puzzle together. The pier could be a very big piece of that.

With the real estate market in the dump, it's not surprising that LandMar is having trouble with The Shipyards project.

Hopefully, that bumpy road will be smoothed out and the condominiums and other development can be completed, adding needed value to the city's tax rolls and creating more activity downtown.

But if the worst happens and LandMar defaults on its development agreement with the city, the city will get ownership of the valuable riverfront property plus the completed public improvements.

Let's make those improvements the best they can be. This bad economy can't last forever and we should be ready to roll when it improves.

http://www.jacksonville.com/opinion/columnists/ron_littlepage/2009-04-28/story/room_to_hope_for_dramatic_improvements_at_shipyar

[Doctor_K]

Putting an expanded Maritime Museum at the Shipyards location would definitely be a fresh and interesting idea.  Especially with the whole "let's tie up a museum sailing ship at the pier" part.  At first blush, that's not a half-bad idea.

Couple that with Maxwell House doing something along the lines of a street-side cafe or some other attraction that's been mentioned around here previously, and it would go a long way into connecting the Sports District with the rest of Downtown proper with destinations along Bay Street rather than just residences.

Throw in streetcar and voila!

[Deuce]

we should be ready to roll when it improves.

I'm unofficially officially declaring "Let's roll!" the rallying cry against the economic downturn.

From wiki:

For a period of time after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the phrase to some in the United States came to symbolize heroism, self sacrifice and initiative in a tough situation.

All three of these are needed to get us out of this economic morass.

[ChriswUfGator]

Call me old-fashioned, but if LandMar has spent $19 million on street/walkway/bulkhead improvements for COJ, then maybe we can cut them a break on a $400k tax bill?

I mean, this is still worlds better than the last go-around at the shipyards, where we paid $40 million to an Atlanta developer who literally just stole the money and used it to build a subdivision in Atlanta, and didn't so much as move a shovelful of dirt here. Worst part is, a loophole in their contract let them get away with it.

[JeffreyS]

I hope Landmar can get this done but at least it sounds like the city covered it's @$$ on this one.

[Jason]

I kind of agree with you Chris but I'm not up to spped on all of the details of the agreement or the relationship between the City and LandMar.

[vicupstate]

Call me old-fashioned, but if LandMar has spent $19 million on street/walkway/bulkhead improvements for COJ, then maybe we can cut them a break on a $400k tax bill?

I mean, this is still worlds better than the last go-around at the shipyards, where we paid $40 million to an Atlanta developer who literally just stole the money and used it to build a subdivision in Atlanta, and didn't so much as move a shovelful of dirt here. Worst part is, a loophole in their contract let them get away with it.

The original developer, TriLegacy, was local and had nothing to do with Atlanta to my knowledge.  They spent money on the bulkheads as I remember.

[ChriswUfGator]

Call me old-fashioned, but if LandMar has spent $19 million on street/walkway/bulkhead improvements for COJ, then maybe we can cut them a break on a $400k tax bill?

I mean, this is still worlds better than the last go-around at the shipyards, where we paid $40 million to an Atlanta developer who literally just stole the money and used it to build a subdivision in Atlanta, and didn't so much as move a shovelful of dirt here. Worst part is, a loophole in their contract let them get away with it.

The original developer, TriLegacy, was local and had nothing to do with Atlanta to my knowledge.  They spent money on the bulkheads as I remember.

Yeah, well, you remembered wrong.

Most of the money got transferred to the corporate accounts, and used for other non-related projects.

If you still disagree, you're welcome to go argue with the Times-Union:

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/091207/met_198799990.shtml

[vicupstate]

Call me old-fashioned, but if LandMar has spent $19 million on street/walkway/bulkhead improvements for COJ, then maybe we can cut them a break on a $400k tax bill?

I mean, this is still worlds better than the last go-around at the shipyards, where we paid $40 million to an Atlanta developer who literally just stole the money and used it to build a subdivision in Atlanta, and didn't so much as move a shovelful of dirt here. Worst part is, a loophole in their contract let them get away with it.

The original developer, TriLegacy, was local and had nothing to do with Atlanta to my knowledge.  They spent money on the bulkheads as I remember.

Yeah, well, you remembered wrong.

Most of the money got transferred to the corporate accounts, and used for other non-related projects.

If you still disagree, you're welcome to go argue with the Times-Union:

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/091207/met_198799990.shtml

There is no reference  in this article of 1) TriLegacy being from Atlanta, 2) no reference to them spending money on an Atlanta housing development or 3) transferred any money to corporate accounts unrelated to the project.   

I should have stated that SOME of the money was spent on bulkheads, I did not mean to imply that it was ALL spend on bulkheads.  I also remember they paid off the mortgage on the property with some of the proceeds.  Advertising and marketing probably accounted for some too, since they obviously did do some of that.  I don't know where every dime went, but no wrongdoing was found, so you can't just make up accusations of what they did with the money.   

[ChriswUfGator]

Call me old-fashioned, but if LandMar has spent $19 million on street/walkway/bulkhead improvements for COJ, then maybe we can cut them a break on a $400k tax bill?

I mean, this is still worlds better than the last go-around at the shipyards, where we paid $40 million to an Atlanta developer who literally just stole the money and used it to build a subdivision in Atlanta, and didn't so much as move a shovelful of dirt here. Worst part is, a loophole in their contract let them get away with it.

The original developer, TriLegacy, was local and had nothing to do with Atlanta to my knowledge.  They spent money on the bulkheads as I remember.

Yeah, well, you remembered wrong.

Most of the money got transferred to the corporate accounts, and used for other non-related projects.

If you still disagree, you're welcome to go argue with the Times-Union:

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/091207/met_198799990.shtml

There is no reference  in this article of 1) TriLegacy being from Atlanta, 2) no reference to them spending money on an Atlanta housing development or 3) transferred any money to corporate accounts unrelated to the project.  

I should have stated that SOME of the money was spent on bulkheads, I did not mean to imply that it was ALL spend on bulkheads.  I also remember they paid off the mortgage on the property with some of the proceeds.  Advertising and marketing probably accounted for some too, since they obviously did do some of that.  I don't know where every dime went, but no wrongdoing was found, so you can't just make up accusations of what they did with the money.  

Did you even bother to read the article before spouting off?

This is a direct quote:

"The condo, retail and office project was halted in 2004 after the city determined TriLegacy had spent $22 million of city money on development other than public improvements, Mullaney said."

I don't see much ambiguity there, do you? They got $$$$$, and didn't spend it where they were supposed to. Specifically, they spent it on other development (not at that site), as is clearly mentioned in the article. End of story.

If you have any further problems, as I said before, go argue with the Times-Union.

[thelakelander]

Here is an article from 2004.  The "development" mentioned by Mullaney may stand for money not spent on public improvements.

THE SHIPYARDS Answers, please
Florida Times-Union, The (Jacksonville, FL) - Thursday, December 2, 2004

A Duval County grand jury exploring how a blockbuster downtown riverfront project flopped can perform a significant public service.

Questions outnumber answers on what happened with The Shipyards , the biggest proposed development in downtown Jacksonville history.

The city paid The Shipyards ' developer TriLegacy $36.5 million from 2001 to 2003 to build a riverfront park, expand the Northbank riverwalk and widen Bay Street.

TriLegacy , headed by property owners Carlton and Jeff Spence, planned to complement the city work with an $860 million project of condos, a hotel, shops and offices. City officials projected a successful Shipyards complex would generate $502 million in new property taxes over three decades while fueling downtown growth.

But the city work didn't get done, the project fizzled and fingers point from both sides of the deal.

In a lawsuit the city prepared but never filed, officials claimed TriLegacy inappropriately spent millions for private -- not public -- purposes, such as paying off a mortgage on the property, buying pro football skybox seats and paying for lobbyists.

The developers, meanwhile, maintain they abided by the contract and did nothing wrong. They say the contract allowed for use of public funds on private work -- such as advertising and marketing -- so long as developers eventually spent an amount equal to the city funds on the public improvements.

City officials -- along with John Delaney, the mayor when this deal came together -- say TriLegacy misled the city on its use of the money. TriLegacy disagrees.

Company records obtained by the city indicate that more than a year ago the developers had lawyers researching default and "liability . . . for misuse of loan funds."

Though concerning, that does not mean wrongdoing occurred.

Several troubling questions remain, including: What really happened to all those millions? Were city officials misled? Where did City Hall go wrong with the contract and its monitoring of the work?

The grand jury -- with subpoena power and the ability to call witnesses for testimony -- should examine the roles of the city and TriLegacy with equal fervor. It would be a mistake to focus only on one or the other.

The city's miscues must be identified with suggestions on how to better protect the public's interests in the future.

If the evidence warrants criminal charges involving TriLegacy , the State Attorney's Office has a civic duty to pursue them or recommend them to the proper jurisdiction. If no charges are in order, explain why.

Regardless of the grand jury's conclusions, city officials note they are already upgrading procedures, and they also contend taxpayers are protected with The Shipyards .

A recent city settlement with TriLegacy allows another developer to resume the project without more city funds. If that developer doesn't work out, the city will gain control of the property and up to $14 million.

Officials point out the prime waterfront land is worth more than the city paid TriLegacy to develop it.

That's reassuring -- but only to a point.

Taxpayers deserve to know how this mess happened and to be confident that new safeguards will help prevent future problems.

http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?p_product=NewsBank&p_theme=aggregated5&p_action=doc&p_docid=106F9526C8C8EA5E&p_docnum=6&p_queryname=6

[vicupstate]

ChrisW,

The Shipyards deal was a private /public partnership to develop a PRIVATE development with  adjoining PUBLIC space.  If the TriLegacy group spent money on the PRIVATE portion of the SHIPYARDS, then that is not money spent on 'other development'. 

The city was not just getting public park space out of the deal, it also would receive property taxes from the PRIVATE development that would occur.

Your original and subsequent posts stated that the money was spent on a DIFFERENT SITE, (ie not the Shipyards property) but on property in Atlanta.   

TriLegacy maintained that as long as $36 million was spent on the PUBLIC components before completion, that they would have fulfilled their end of the contract.  The city should have stipulated when and how the money would be spent.  The city has signed numerous lousy contracts, but a contract is a contract.  The jury found TriLegacy not to be in violation of any laws or the contract. 

Obviously Trilegacy intended to pay for private construction costs from the public money, and then pay for the the public improvements after closing on some of the units in the project.  Site work was done on-site during the time TriLegacy owned it, as well as sales support and marketing and payoff of the mortgage.   

For you to say that money was spent on projects totally unrelated to the the Shipyards is NOT supported by anything I have read, INCLUDING the article you linked.   

[ChriswUfGator]

Here is an article from 2004.  The "development" mentioned by Mullaney may stand for money not spent on public improvements.

THE SHIPYARDS Answers, please
Florida Times-Union, The (Jacksonville, FL) - Thursday, December 2, 2004

A Duval County grand jury exploring how a blockbuster downtown riverfront project flopped can perform a significant public service.

Questions outnumber answers on what happened with The Shipyards , the biggest proposed development in downtown Jacksonville history.

The city paid The Shipyards ' developer TriLegacy $36.5 million from 2001 to 2003 to build a riverfront park, expand the Northbank riverwalk and widen Bay Street.

TriLegacy , headed by property owners Carlton and Jeff Spence, planned to complement the city work with an $860 million project of condos, a hotel, shops and offices. City officials projected a successful Shipyards complex would generate $502 million in new property taxes over three decades while fueling downtown growth.

But the city work didn't get done, the project fizzled and fingers point from both sides of the deal.

In a lawsuit the city prepared but never filed, officials claimed TriLegacy inappropriately spent millions for private -- not public -- purposes, such as paying off a mortgage on the property, buying pro football skybox seats and paying for lobbyists.

The developers, meanwhile, maintain they abided by the contract and did nothing wrong. They say the contract allowed for use of public funds on private work -- such as advertising and marketing -- so long as developers eventually spent an amount equal to the city funds on the public improvements.

City officials -- along with John Delaney, the mayor when this deal came together -- say TriLegacy misled the city on its use of the money. TriLegacy disagrees.

Company records obtained by the city indicate that more than a year ago the developers had lawyers researching default and "liability . . . for misuse of loan funds."

Though concerning, that does not mean wrongdoing occurred.

Several troubling questions remain, including: What really happened to all those millions? Were city officials misled? Where did City Hall go wrong with the contract and its monitoring of the work?

The grand jury -- with subpoena power and the ability to call witnesses for testimony -- should examine the roles of the city and TriLegacy with equal fervor. It would be a mistake to focus only on one or the other.

The city's miscues must be identified with suggestions on how to better protect the public's interests in the future.

If the evidence warrants criminal charges involving TriLegacy , the State Attorney's Office has a civic duty to pursue them or recommend them to the proper jurisdiction. If no charges are in order, explain why.

Regardless of the grand jury's conclusions, city officials note they are already upgrading procedures, and they also contend taxpayers are protected with The Shipyards .

A recent city settlement with TriLegacy allows another developer to resume the project without more city funds. If that developer doesn't work out, the city will gain control of the property and up to $14 million.

Officials point out the prime waterfront land is worth more than the city paid TriLegacy to develop it.

That's reassuring -- but only to a point.

Taxpayers deserve to know how this mess happened and to be confident that new safeguards will help prevent future problems.

If the article was written in 2004, I'd assume it lacked the benefit of hindsight and all the information gained in two different investigations. The article I posted was written later, and I'd assume by that time the contributors had a better idea of where of the money went.

[ChriswUfGator]

ChrisW,

The Shipyards deal was a private /public partnership to develop a PRIVATE development with  adjoining PUBLIC space.  If the TriLegacy group spent money on the PRIVATE portion of the SHIPYARDS, then that is not money spent on 'other development'. 

The city was not just getting public park space out of the deal, it also would receive property taxes from the PRIVATE development that would occur.

Your original and subsequent posts stated that the money was spent on a DIFFERENT SITE, (ie not the Shipyards property) but on property in Atlanta.   

TriLegacy maintained that as long as $36 million was spent on the PUBLIC components before completion, that they would have fulfilled their end of the contract.  The city should have stipulated when and how the money would be spent.  The city has signed numerous lousy contracts, but a contract is a contract.  The jury found TriLegacy not to be in violation of any laws or the contract. 

Obviously Trilegacy intended to pay for private construction costs from the public money, and then pay for the the public improvements after closing on some of the units in the project.  Site work was done on-site during the time TriLegacy owned it, as well as sales support and marketing and payoff of the mortgage.   

For you to say that money was spent on projects totally unrelated to the the Shipyards is NOT supported by anything I have read, INCLUDING the article you linked.   

Vic,

I'm not sure where the debate is here. Have you seen that friggin' site??? Trilegacy didn't spend a DIME on it.

And the bulkheads, etc., that you're referencing are all things that the CURRENT developer had to come install, because Trilegacy left the site pretty much exactly as they found it.

So then let me ask you this: Where did $22 million of the $36.5 million they received actually go?

If it went to other public improvement, why don't you post something that shows that? I've certainly posted an article backing up my own points, so why don't you do the same? Let's see all these new sidewalks and crap that Trilegacy spent that money on...LOL

It DID NOT HAPPEN. They paid off their own "loans" they'd made to the project with that money, as a way to legally "obtain" the cash free and clear, and then spent it in other places. It's all in the article I posted, and in about 100 other articles online. There really isn't any room for debate here bud.

[thelakelander]

If I remember, I believe they did do some work on that site.  Later today, I'll search the library archives and see what I can pull up from around that time.