At the risk of sounding like a geezer... Fire codes are super fucking important in crowded places like bars, clubs, restaurants, concert venues.

We don't need another fuckin' Rhode Island club fire on our hands.

"Thacker said the responsibility of installing the sprinklers or getting the building up to code lies with the [building] owner."

Now is that actually in the lease he signed or is that just what he feels should be the case? I don't know, the author of this article never bothered verify what language exists in Thacker's lease that supports his claim.

Now I'm sure most people sitting there reading those last two sentences are going "Why would you even ask that? Obviously it's the landlords responsibility to install the sprinkler's. Are you insane?"

Well here's the thing, most people do not understand the difference between a commercial lease a residential lease. Most people hearing this story will view it through the lens of a residential lease. They will assume all the protections that are there for individuals renting a space as their home apply ... THEY DON'T! A commercial lease is a completely different monster.

The responsibility for building maintenance, upkeep, code requirements etc. in a commercial lease is entirely dependent on the terms of that lease. And it is extremely common for the business renting the space to have to shoulder significant portions of those responsibilities.

I find this articling omitting key facts at best and a misleading at worst.

​

Edit: If there is language in his lease that says the sprinkler code requirements are the landlords responsibility, then he should be taking some sort of legal action. That's why leases and contracts exist right? To hold other parties accountable. The fact that he isn't taking any legal action, seems to suggest that it is indeed his responsibility in the lease.

The owner of the building is slime, however it's not his responsibility. I worked there when it was Beatniks back in the day under both owners. The lease basically puts sole operation and maintenance of the building up to the holder of the lease. Unless something was changed in the verbiage of lease- it's Dave's responsibility, which is sad. The owner of building has no mortgage to it, they want to put no money into it, and will make sure that anyone who does shoulders the burden of maintenance.

This is a bad lease. It's something that needs to be addressed by the city BEFORE any lease gets signed. When Beatniks closed, the city should have stepped in and said no leases or businesses will be signed until the building is brought up to proper code. Instead it puts the responsibility of it on the small business owner, not the building owner- who knowingly leases it with the knowledge that it isn't up to code.

From what I understand in this issue as well is that the sprinklers are required with occupancy of the building being over 100 persons. The current occupancy is listed at 97 which doesn't jibe with the city.

One Eyed Jacks is a family business. The food is phenomenal. I go regularly. It's a shame to see this happen to someone trying to keep a business afloat. Businesses should have some level of protection when they are signing a lease because the money they put into the building (which is owned by someone else) only financially burdens them and benefits the owner of the building.

This article is way too sympathetic to a guy who's been running a RESTAURANT without SPRINKLERS. That's wildly dangerous.

It does suck that the business owner has to foot the bill, and I'm sure the landlord is probably an asshole, but if the business owner signed the lease that way, them's the breaks.