^ Perfect response MM, and incredibly true.
Ennis, on the Landing, to me we're talking apples and oranges here. The Landing as it exists isn't perfect, but it has its use as a semi-iconic civic gathering space. Sleiman requested $12.8 million to basically neuter the space and turn it into a suburban apartment complex. Retail was limited, the courtyard that has become one of the primary gathering spots in the city was removed, and the thin strip of public space was separated from the "Landing" by a road. I don't get the impression that the public outcry was over the specific dollar contribution, but rather to the terrible design presented by Sleiman, coupled with his "taking my ball and going home" attitude when the city council suggested that public input was needed. If Sleiman's proposal would have been stronger and presented a new Landing that truly benefit the city, I think we would have seen a more favorable reaction.
Conversely, I think many, many, many (three manys!) people see Khan's proposed Shipyards development as a genuine way to increase quality of life in Jacksonville and kickstart a broader redevelopment of downtown at large. I think the average informed Jacksonville citizen realizes that no developer is going to clean up our mess for us, and that even if we have to open up the checkbook for remediation, riverwalk extension, and mooring of the USS Adams, these are all necessary improvements we'll eventually be on the hook for anyway.
Others might disagree, with I'm fine with the Shipyards being a short-term loss leader for a broader revitalization of downtown Jacksonville. We've already seen two major land purchases in the area partially credited to Khan's vision for the area (the Ford Plant, and the Drew Mansion in Springfield). Strategically, working with Khan ties the Jaguars to downtown Jacksonville, and puts the project in the hands of someone who has the drive, motivation, and capital to deliver as promised. And allocating the incremental tax revenue specifically for the Shipyards is fine in my book as well. Compare our sports complex -- which also receives specially allocated tax revenue for upkeep and remains one of the crown jewels of our city -- with the rest of our crumbling infrastructure.
I think the city can probably negotiate a better than 80-20 split, but other than that, I really don't see anything terribly unreasonable with the Jaguars' terms, particularly when you consider the opportunity cost of either a) doing nothing with the site, or b) bringing in another developer who may not have the same incentive or capital to see the project to conclusion.
People might hate him, but Paul Harden is a pretty smart guy. He's well aware of what the city can and cannot reasonably afford, and surely the Jaguars are familiar with how quickly capital improvement projects can die in Jacksonville if the developer asks for too much.
Terms can be negotiated, but in my opinion, the project is a no brainer.
The city will never develop the Shipyards on its own, and if they did, it would cost five times as much, take twice as long, and fall apart within a decade. It's the Jacksonville way.
No one has showed any genuine, credible interest in developing the site in a decade.
Now, you've got a multi-billionaire with international ties who is committed to Jacksonville, has an intimate understanding of the market, and who is shaking with excitement over developing the property. He's got a great vision that makes downtown a destination, solidifies one of our biggest assets (the Jaguars) in Jacksonville once their lease runs out, and serves to give Jacksonville something it has struggled for decades to gain -- a recognizable identity.
It's the right project in the right spot with the right developer at the right time.
Opportunities like this come around but once or twice in a lifetime in a city like Jacksonville.
