Another Greedy Landlord Destroys an Institution

There are plenty of winners...right in <<<Hoboken>>> Useful? They are only the collective best at what they do...and will not be stopped by any Landlord. Given the chance...they would be deemed a casualty of business. Thankfully...enough talented business folk cherish them enough to support that battle and retain that culture. That's life.

No landlord in his right mind would try to stop a successful tenant, they are just to hard to find. You will also find successful tenants have long term leases with long term options or have purchased their own building. In my mind only a fool would build a business and not try to buy a building. Mine has increase in value by 5 times since I bought it in 1998.

Ice Cream Man...this is NYC. There's a long list of successful long-standing Roadfood businesses that have gone dark....simply because of Landlord disputes.

http://online.wsj.com/art...77408642246290900.html

http://www.nytimes.com/20...egion/05deli.html?_r=0

I read the whole article.
Seems his business was down 25% and he wanted a better deal on the rent than the landlord would give him.
It doesn't say why the landlord needed more.
It does say why he couldn't pay more.
Just because his business is down doesn't mean the landlord should carry him, what if his business continues to drop, just because he has been there for 29 years and isn't a chain he gets a free pass?

Well even I can't make sense out of the second one.
He's got 5 years left on his lease and he closes because the landlord wants to raise the rent in 5 years ?
He passed his inspection but needs to renovate because he's done nothing for 30 years.

In a down economy a landlord that asks for a steep increase in rent from a long-time successful tenant and decides to not renew a lease would not be considered greedy? Paramount Group ain't hurtin' for money.

So anything a landlord considers what they want from a tenant without negotiation or even a damn comment if they had a side after all those years of a loyal tenant ...is good business? Take whatever. Ok. We will not agree.

If the second guy wants to come north I'll lease him the same SQ FT for 3000.

No 2nd Ave was only guaranteed a lease for those years left and could not justify the risk of making an investment without any further guarantee that they will have their lease renewed. Sometimes landlords simply opt-out without option of renewal...because there are sweethearts waiting in the wings. Like a Chase Bank.

Just because the tenant goes public with his wows doesn't mean the landlord has to publicly defend himself.
The old landlord had a lot less costs than the new one, and I'm sure the new tenant will cover them.

He hasn't renovated for 30 years he can wait another 5.
Why close now with 5 years to go ?

Because he was not going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to be up to the future year code...without a lease extention. Tenants ain't always the landlords bi*ch.

It's sort of a news story when iconic places in NYC close. I'm sure every news outlet went to them to ask. It's nice to explain to loyal customers that this was not a decision that was reached because they wanted to be out of business.

A landlord does not have to explain...but the story is pretty clear when they decline comment.

CCinNJ


Because he was not going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to be up to the future year code...without a lease extention. Tenants ain't always the landlords bi*ch.

 Still didn't answer my question.
He hasn't renovated in 30 years, he passed his health inspection, he has 5 years left on the lease, WHY did he close.
A sane person with a good business would use the 5 years to negotiate a new lease or find a new location.

A landlord does not have to explain...but the story is pretty clear when they decline comment.
 
Not to me, maybe they just don't want to get into a public pissing match with a tenant.

"But he said that the restaurant needed several hundred thousand dollars' worth of renovations to meet Board of Health regulations, and that without a long-term lease at a rent he felt he could pay he could not justify doing the work."

Yeah...because Ben Benson was really pissin' in that article.

He just passed his health inspection so he has time to do renovations, negotiate a lease or move, instead he closed and went public with his wows. Still doesn't make sense to me unless he can't pay his bills.

Where does it say how much time he had to satisfy the health department?

He's paying his bills just fine at another location now.

We passed our last inspection, but I know we have to do a lot of work."
 
If you pass an inspection it means there is nothing pressing you have to do. This place probably only gets inspected every 6 months.
The question remains why close now ?
Another question appears, if he closes now he still owes the rest of the lease almost 5 years x 24000 but I guess the landlord will eat that.

Nothing pressing?

Construction in NYC?

Really?

The NYC Health Department rolls around once every blue moon and they just said hey get it done...whenever?

Because NYC construction is so quick & easy around a working restaurant?

Maybe it was a business decision much like your parking lot.

They didn't eat it. Chase moved in. A Roadfood happy ending! Now if all those pesky Roadfood restaurants would just close so we could have more Chase!

NYC restaurants are randomly inspected at least once a year. Not when you are told something has to be fixed. There is a timeline to that.


They closed because they would fail the next inspection by the Health Department and not be able to operate until they moved forward with the renovation and it was complete.

The NYC Health Department most certainly checks back soon to make sure the ball is rolling towards resolution. If no progre$$ is determined...closed.

I don't know what you're reading, he said he passed the health inspection, as I assume he has for 29 years. He said he wants to renovate to bring the place up to modern standards, something he has failed to do for 29 years. Still got 5 years left but wants to blame the landlord for closing. He said if the Landlord gave him the deal he wanted he would reopen. If Chase is in there I guess he walked away. His choice.

If it wasn't a pressing matter I'm sure he would not opt to close with plans to sink hundreds of thousands of dollars into the basement and prep area @ 5 years to go...just because. He was interested in staying if he could justify the cost with a extension.

I am reading the article written in the month of Jan and it mentions that he intended to move forward with the renovations in the month of Jan or Feb. and the restaurant would remain closed until the negotiations were complete. If it was not pressing it would have been like any other year when he was not told that he has to get it done.

The renovations were about the basement and prep area. So when you say he has not done hundreds of thousands of dollars in renovations...I guess it makes sense volunteer hundreds of thousands of dollars into the basement on your own volition..

His choice to close? That makes no sense because while he has a thriving business today at another location...it took 2 years to get back into business with a new location.

The article mentions the rules of today or today's standards (2006) and those rules and standards often change quickly....in regard to NYC Health Dept.

Ohhh my it was the dysfunctional Wilpon family that sold the 2nd Ave. Deli property in 2006.

Obviously karma dictates that the New York Mets (owned by the Wilpons) have the curse of the 2nd Ave. Deli in effect. They went on to lose a heartbreaking NLCS in 2006 and the only thing good about them ever since is Shake Shack in Citi Field and Mr. Met.

I wonder if Bernie Madoff was holding the keys at the transfer.

Ice Cream Man


"A landlord does not have to explain...but the story is pretty clear when they decline comment".

Not to me, maybe they just don't want to get into a public pissing match with a tenant.

Indeed!  What possibly could be gained?
 
Markets are constantly changing in response to changes in tastes, populations, technology, incomes, etc.  Even in a strict economic sense such "change" is not so much about greed but responding to that which is the best use for a scarce resource.
 
And just what malevolent force is this driving this change?  The consumer!
 
Yes, it is the lowly consumer who, through "voting" with his meager supply of hard-earned $$$, acts indepently (yet, effectively in concert) with his like-mined fellows to effect change.
 
I am certain that there was much wailing, gnashing of teeth, and economic disruption as community after community "died" when the whaling industry failed in the face of cheap kerosene. 
 
Such change is the "creative destruction" of free markets; it is driven by the soverignty of free individuals - acting in their own self-interest - in their vital role as consumer.

That's nonsense considering this is the 2nd Ave. Deli and I don't know any consumer that would agree in the case of the 2nd Ave. Deli that the time has come and they fit in the useless category.


It is a free market and with that there are sad stories as a consumer. Gladly...it was not a casualty forever lost...in the current landscape.

Yes...free individuals working with no consideration other than their best interest will be considered greedy by some...when it's at the risk of demise to a treasured establishment whose only "fault" is being a vital part of the neighborhood that drove the property values so high...in the first place.

I'm sure that bank will flip several time along the way...with many perks never afforded to Deli. Such is life...but not anything to be happy about.

mar52


It's true that the sons are not the father.  This could very well play in to what is happening.

In Los Angeles 6,000 square feet could cost the same or more than 11,000 square feet.  Location!

That's probably the same everywhere.

 
You can't put blame on a landlord who has invested money, time, blood, sweat and tears into an investment and would like a return on that investment. I own two rental properties in the Atlanta, GA area and know first hand that there are a LOT of hidden expenses that people don't realize. These properties stay rented, good tenants but I'm really not making any money if you include my time. My hope is to sell them when the market is high. But, I'll bet that the tenants probably think I'm "greedy" because I simply don't want to lose money on them.

Money yes. The blood sweat and tears when it comes to high-ticket real estate?

That's all done by the tenants and investors....when the landlord is a REIT.

The issue is not "useless", but "best use".

Yes best use...a bank that flips more than pancakes at a busy Diner.

That's Roadfood!

In many cases when you fast-forward a few years the businesses at the controls (as well as many of the new tenants) are also the ones begging for mercy or in plenty of hot water in financial and/ or legal matters....with little to show but for the wonderful business decisions they left behind. Or investors that lost plenty in that game...banking on the good decisions of the REITs.



That's why ownership of so many properties flip so often...these days in Los Angeles & NYC.

That's why many people have such an opinion as "greedy landlord" in many cases of THESE particular types of property owners in Los Angeles & NYC.