A Miami-based development firm plans to transform a large swath of pine forest, swamp and cow pasture into a mixed-used complex it says will breathe new life into Jacksonville's rural Northside, but some officials and residents aren't buying its unique proposal to use millions of dollars in public money through a program designed to revive struggling urban areas.

The company, Transworld Investment Corp., wants its 1,080 acres of vacant, undeveloped land near the airport to be officially declared blighted by the Jacksonville City Council so it can become part of a special redevelopment district that covers a large part of the city's Northside.

If the land is included in that district, the city could later decide to give property tax money generated from the land's future growth to the developers to cover the estimated $8 million cost to build roads and install utilities instead of using it to help pay for basic city services, like police and fire protection.

The developers and their lobbyists say the land meets the state's legal definition of blight and that those conditions - a lack of safe roads and unsafe conditions are among five they list in a report - have long kept the property undeveloped. They say inclusion in the district would attract businesses to their complex, which they say would create thousands of new jobs and spark economic activity.

But some council members look at the land and see country roads and a bucolic landscape, not the urban deterioration prevalent in many parts of Jacksonville that the redevelopment districts were created to fix.

"We found it difficult to find a bunch of trees a blighted area," said Council President Greg Anderson. "I don't think it was ready for action. There's still a number of questions."

In June, developers asked the City Council to include its property into the redevelopment district, which covers 14,245 acres and includes Jacksonville International Airport and the River City Marketplace.

The council deferred action on the legislation and does not plan to take it up until the long-term future of the entire redevelopment district is determined, which has no set deadline. Land must be a slum or blighted to be in a redevelopment district, and the state gives local governments wide discretion in deciding whether an area meets that definition.

PROPOSAL UNUSUAL

Inclusion of vacant, rural land into redevelopment districts isn't unprecedented - the Northside's district includes land that was timber forest when it was created - but it's not what the state created the redevelopment districts to do, said Carol Westmoreland, executive director of the Tallahassee-based Florida Redevelopment Association.

Instead, the districts are intended to redevelop areas struggling with crime, disease, impaired growth and housing shortages that create "a serious growing menace, injurious to the public health, safety, morale and welfare of residents," according to state law.

Westmoreland said local governments have flexibility to decide what land can be included in a redevelopment district - and consequently, developers have seen opportunities to fit themselves in.

That's why it's important for governments to make sure their decisions are made in the best interest of citizens, she said. "These are tax dollars," Westmoreland said. "You must be transparent and accountable. People need to feel like what's going on is appropriate."

The Northside's redevelopment district is the largest in the state and has been credited with the area's recent development boom. Other redevelopment districts in the city cover downtown, the KingSoutel Crossing area in urban northwest Jacksonville and Arlington.

As with all redevelopment districts, a portion of property tax money generated inside its borders can be spent on projects within the area. The airport's district has used that money to build infrastructure in the once undeveloped area and provide economic incentives to attract businesses. Last year, it spent $6.5 million.

While the company's request to join the district wouldn't guarantee it receives public money, it's a necessary first step to become eligible for it.

Under the proposal, all reimbursements for the utility construction would come solely from tax money generated from its own property value growth above current market value, which is $19.6 million. The money could only come from that specific site, not the other parts of the redevelopment district. The City Council would have to approve any deal that awarded money to the company.

In various meetings dating back to 2013, lobbyists for the developers and other supporters emphasized they are not seeking any money up front, but that they simply want to be paid back for doing the construction necessary to develop the land with tax money generated from future property value increases created by the project.

BACKERS SEE

ECONOMIC BOOST

Lad Daniels, vice chairman of the redevelopment district's board of directors, said the project would boost economic activity in the area and he doesn't see a problem with including the rural land in the district.

Daniels said he doesn't think redevelopment districts should be limited to heavily urban areas, but are instead a tool to promote growth and economic development. He noted the city included vacant agricultural land when it created the Northside's redevelopment district in 1992.

"You'd ask the same question in 1992. You'd ask, what in the hell are you doing out here?" Daniels said. "I think the thrust of what you're trying to do is create jobs and create employment opportunities to assist in those lower-income areas."

A few members on the board, made up of a representative from each of the city's seven school districts, raised questions during meetings about including the land in the district. But it also unanimously recommended the City Council approve the developers' request. The plan was introduced in June to the City Council by former Councilwoman E. Denise Lee - she's now Mayor Lenny Curry's blight czar - during her last month in office.

It has faced a tougher audience since then.

COUNCILWOMAN SEES BAD PRECEDENT

While some council members said they supported the idea during their review of the legislation, others questioned how the undeveloped land could be blighted.

Council Vice President Lori Boyer raised many of those questions. She said her biggest concern was declaring undeveloped, agricultural land as blighted - and the precedent that decision could set.

"I think that's a bad precedent to set," Boyer said. "I disagree that's what community redevelopment areas are for. The language is all about redevelopment … not so much new development."

Despite concerns, the developers have a report showing the property meets the state's definition of blighted land. To meet that definition, government statistics or a study must show that at least one of 14 factors of blight are present on the land.

The property contains five of those factors, according to the report created by local consulting firm Infinity Global Solutions. The mayor's chief of staff, Kerri Stewart, worked for the firm prior to her hiring but never lobbied on behalf of the developers, according to city records.

The factors are unsanitary and unsafe conditions created by a lack of sewer lines, sidewalks and lighted roads, a lack of adequate roadway networks, stagnant property values, deterioration of the site and a faulty layout for useful development.

The land, purchased by the developers in 2004 for around $9.8 million, has just a single one-story home built on it and consists of forest, swamps and pasture. The market value for the land is listed at $13.1 million, although the taxable value is just $256,000 because the property has a greenbelt exemption reserved for agricultural land.

"How can you have an area determined as blight if there's nothing there?" said Rex Neidlinger, chairman of the Northside Citizens Planning Advisory Committee, which recommended the council reject the plan. "It's just a farm where they have cows and trees. That's it."

The property is between Braddock Road and Lem Turner Road, directly west of the airport. While it's not directly contiguous with the redevelopment district, it's connected to its western boundary through the airport's land.

The developers plan to build a mixed-use complex that includes 26,000 square feet of retail space, 4.9 million square feet of industrial space, 93,000 square feet of office space and 670 residential units, according to a report submitted to the city. The report estimates construction will cost $390 million and the development will create 1,960 industrial jobs, 58 retail jobs and 320 office jobs.

UNCLEAR WHETHER ANY INTEREST

However, it's not clear whether any companies have expressed interest in becoming tenants. When the firm first pitched the idea of joining the redevelopment district, one of its lobbyists told the district's board that it had yet to finalize any leases. Daniels said he hasn't heard any updates. One developer, Noah Silver, said he didn't want to discuss details of the project that could be published.

"We're very patient. We want to develop it, but we want to do it the proper way," Silver said.

While former Mayor Alvin Brown's administration believed the developers adequately proved the land was blighted, Curry's staff remains undecided.

"Honestly, I'm not sure I know the answer to that yet," said Kirk Wendland, the city's director of Economic Development, when asked if his office supported the plan. "I think there's a lot of discussion that still needs to take place."

Boyer said the legislation is deferred until the status of the redevelopment district as a whole is reviewed. That panel is commissioning a study to determine the district's impact and what its future should be.

Wendland, whose office offers help to the advisory panel, said a request for proposals for the study has yet to be issued and that he doesn't know when the study will be completed.

"It certainly won't be less than several months," he said.

CHRISTOPHER HONG: (904) 359-4272