Greedy Landlords Causing Storefronts to Sit Empty?
The Daily News has a story about how the one-two punch of unrealistically high asking rents and the recession has resulted in a number of empty storefronts in brownstone Brooklyn. Cases in point, where retail spaces are still empty after rent increases: the dry cleaner on Court and Baltic that had to vacate after the…
The Daily News has a story about how the one-two punch of unrealistically high asking rents and the recession has resulted in a number of empty storefronts in brownstone Brooklyn. Cases in point, where retail spaces are still empty after rent increases: the dry cleaner on Court and Baltic that had to vacate after the landlord hiked the rent from $2,500 to $6,500 a month; Royal Video, above, which left its old Flatbush Avenue spot for a smaller one after the landlord was said to be asking $10,000 a month for the space; and a Myrtle Avenue shoe repair that shut down this fall. It seems, however, that while there are certainly examples of greedy/delusional landlords to be found, there aren’t an overwhelming number of fresh vacancies on the main retail drags in Cobble Hill, Prospect Heights, and Park Slope—that these guys tend to be the exception, rather than the rule. Thoughts?
Brooklyn Storefronts Empty [NY Daily News]
Photo by plangently.
read my 1:28 post. How many time do I have to tell you that the original link that you posted is what I read.
Yes, it does read as binding in the detailed bill but that’s not what you posted. Additionally, I have posted more than enough examples of how a landlord will get around these issues.
If you don’t think leases are going to be written differently in the future to reflect the possibility of all of this (with higher rents) then you are living in a fantasy world.
DIBS –
“fsrg, the “Small Business Survival Act” is a far cry from commercial rent control.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 23, 2009 11:40 AM”
Really DIBS – it is EXACTLY commercial rent control – have you read the proposed legislation
Posted by: fsrg at November 23, 2009 11:52 AM
fsrg…it’s an arbitration methodology. It’s not even “binding arbitration.” You’re wrong.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 23, 2009 11:59 AM
Is it so hard for you to admit you were wrong????
I’ve also seen lots of tenants offer to sell their failing business at huge amounts of money just because what they are actually selling is the remainder of a below market lease.
Typically that never pans out!!!
fsrg, you’re original link said nothing about binding. that’s what I read. YOU provided it.
I still say the loophole is an escape. It was benson who said it was not. It is an escape.
Additionally I pointed out that there are always minor violations to every lease. These will work to get the landlord out.
I am opposed to commercial rent control. This is not a socialist state.
I find it completely ludicrous, disengenuous and patently absurd that tenants who are in business to make money feel so self entitled that they shouldn’t pay market rents.
Maybe you should also have the government pay into your revenue stream when the crap you are selling or the service you are offering falls short of what the market desires.
That would get us to what the others have been talking about…a block full of crappy retailers that nobody wants.
Expert, I was in a hurry this morning, and left out Rogers and Bedford. Both are a mixture of residential and commercial, but both have some strong possibilities for growth in pockets, especially between Sterling and Dean. The Grant Square area could be a goldmine if done right, so I’d also look there, if I were you. I’d be interested in talking about it further, if you are. Please email me:montrosemorrisATyahooDOTcom.
DIBS –
your discussion techniques are interesting
1st you say – it is non-binding
then you are shown to be wrong and you say – well there is a loophole anyway
then you are shown that the loophole is no escape and you say – well the whole thing is worded badly so the LLs will be able to game it to their advantage
and finally you say, none of it matters cause – it will be tied up in litigation no matter.
You know it would be alot less painful if you just said – FSRG you are right, this bill does amount to commercial rent control and I am opposed to it.
Additionally, most tenants at some point have usage issues that are in violation of the existing lease. They will be small points but still in violation.
Lease language will get tougher and rent escalations higher if this were ever to happen, again, hurting the tenant the most. Do the proponents of this bill not see this???
The bona fide offer won’t be hard to come by is what I’m saying. It doesn’t have to result in an actual lease, just an offer.
Arguing about this is foolish. It won’t happen. Basing the passage of this legislation on somebody like Thompson winning is a fool’s game.
Even if it did get passed it’ll be held up in court appeals for decades.
I think that a landlord will be able to secure a bona fide “offer” at a higher price one way or another. He doesn’t care who he’s renting it to as long as he gets the price.
It doesn’t have to be a rental contract, just an “offer.” that won’t be difficult.
I’ve never seen something written so bizarrely that it won’t be gamed. This’ll be ripe for gaming and it’ll be to the landlords eventual advantage.