free_to_muse t1_j61ye5b wrote
In one episode of an Anthony Bourdain show, he pointed out that if there’s a restaurant that sticks around despite not appearing to do enough business to pay rent - it likely means that the restaurant owner owns the commercial space and doesn’t pay rent.
StinkFloyyd t1_j621foo wrote
Sam lagrasaas has a large corporate catering business.
itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_j63578c wrote
They also own the building.
StinkFloyyd t1_j636fg6 wrote
Owning property doesn’t mean that you can afford to live / work there without having a viable income.
dpm25 t1_j63f358 wrote
Equity and more specifically equity growth is that viable income.
itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_j63gb5g wrote
>Owning property doesn’t mean that you can afford to live / work there without having a viable income.
Eliminating the single largest overhead expense has a huge impact on what “viable” means.
You can survive on a lot less when it’s a family business and the building could be paid for, or at least secured via mortgage.
StinkFloyyd t1_j63sms7 wrote
Sure. If someone has no mortgage / owns it outright. But assuming the owner of Sam lagrasaa’s isn’t a fool, they wouldn’t operate a money losing business just because they own a building.
Chippopotanuse t1_j64mu5x wrote
Owning multi-million dollar property that you bought decades ago for next-to-nothing allows you to do a lot of things.
And selling $30 sandwiches to a corporate crowd for 3 hours a day (because that’s the only goddamn time folks eat lunch) is one of them.
dyqik t1_j65elo7 wrote
And/or that they are engaged in money laundering ;)
CheruthCutestory t1_j645yi0 wrote
I’d be seriously impressed if the owner of Archie’s own that sky scraper and still works the grill.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments