Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Escape_Plissken t1_ixma2sg wrote

A single developer did this to multiple black churches in Harlem

114

Saixcrazy t1_ixnlikc wrote

I feel like shit like this should be collected and put on a documentary.

18

ShinyGodzilla OP t1_ixlwyr5 wrote

>(New York Jewish Week) — A synagogue is suing the developer of the Margaritaville Resort in Times Square, saying he reneged on a promise to house the synagogue in the new entertainment complex and left it “homeless.” 

>According to a lawsuit filed last week, developer Sharif El Gamal had initially promised to find a new home for the Garment Center Congregation after demolishing its former home to make way for the new 32-story, 170,000-square-foot hotel that opened last year, Crain’s New York reported. 

>In its complaint, the congregation said that El Gamal “has intentionally withheld or delayed performing its obligations in the hopes that the congregation’s temporary dislocation would result in depletion or death of its membership, collapse of its community and cessation of its religious and social activities, thereby no longer requiring the new synagogue at 560 Seventh Avenue.” 

>The synagogue had a 99-year lease in the former building, with an annual rent of $1, which was a donation from Albert List, a congregant who built the earlier complex.

>The lease agreement said that if the landlord of the property were to demolish it, it would need to include space for the synagogue in any new project that is built in its place, according to the suit.  

>In 2013, Gamal purchased the building for $61.5 million and inherited the synagogue’s lease agreement.  

>In negotiations with the synagogue, they settled on a project that would include a 300-seat sanctuary, a 75-seat chapel for daily services, a kosher kitchen, a community room and small terrace for a sukkah.  

>In October 2021, El Gamal revealed a proposal for a space that was 50% smaller.

>“It was down to 179 seats from 300, and it did not include equipment or amenities,” the lawsuit says. 

>El Gamal also tried to buy the synagogue out of its lease agreement, but the complaint alleged that numerous delays and “stall tactics” have led the congregation to believe that the developer does not want to reach an agreement.  

>When the building was knocked down, El Gamal offered space to the synagogue at 1384 Broadway. In a previous lawsuit, filed in September 2020, the landlord there, Chetrit Group, alleged that El Gamal failed to vacate the synagogue at the end of that lease and cost them $500,000 in late rent.  

>The Chetrit Group demanded El Gamal pay more than $1 million in back rent and the synagogue began vacating the premises. A notice its website says, “All daily services are currently canceled until further notice.”

>El Gamal previously bragged in that he would be the first Muslim in New York to build a synagogue.  

>“It sets a real example of the cooperation and the brotherhood and the coexistence that has always existed between us,” Gamal said at the time.  

>Margaritaville is part of singer Jimmy Buffet’s chain of tropical-themed resorts, and includes 234 guestrooms, five restaurants and bars and a street-level Margaritaville retail store.

>El Gamal and the Garment Center Congregation did not respond to a request for a comment.  

85

shinytwistybouncy t1_ixm6ppt wrote

This should be an easy win in court.

58

Cascando-5273 t1_ixnueyf wrote

Fingers crossed. It'd be great to see an unscrupulous developer get taken down a peg for once.

15

GoodLifeWorkHard t1_ixod6h5 wrote

Idk why they would buy the place when they have to inherit the lease agreement of offering annual rent of $1. $1??? Can't even buy McDonalds with that shit. Worst business deal ever. Completely one-sided. Now they look like the bad guys...

−6

ctindel t1_ixqj74b wrote

Because you can tear it down and build a skyscraper in its place, it’s still profitable even if you have to give an existing tenant space for free.

3

GoodLifeWorkHard t1_ixqvuo7 wrote

This is crazy racket . Imagine being able to tell a developer what to build after they bought the place . After you been milking the former place at $1 a year in Times Square … then they refuse to get bought out the lease agreement from the developer . It’s really a disaster in the making.

−8

ctindel t1_ixr2aye wrote

Fuck that the developer should honor the contractual obligations they knew about when they building. Nobody is obligated to take a payout when they have a contract saying otherwise. It’s not a racket they have a valid lease from the previous owner.

8

manticorpse t1_ixrmckf wrote

They didn't just buy the place; they bought the place plus a contractual agreement to give a portion of the place to a non-profit. If they didn't want to buy that contractual agreement, they should have just moved on.

4

Louis_Farizee t1_ixmco2j wrote

I’ve prayed in the original Garment Center Congregation. It was incredible, a living piece of New York City history. I was saddened when they tore it down, although it was obviously necessary. I hope they can reopen soon.

50

azdak t1_ixmmsp1 wrote

>The lease agreement said that if the landlord of the property were to demolish it, it would need to include space for the synagogue in any new project that is built in its place, according to the suit.  

Does anywhere else do this whole “99 year lease in lieu of actual ownership” thing? It seems like a vehicle for absolute nonsense like this

50

ThreeLittlePuigs t1_ixmq6qk wrote

It’s actually pretty popular in New York and when the developer isn’t a scumbag a good look for all.

38

azdak t1_ixms51j wrote

Seems like it’s a good look for the lessor but I can’t quite understand what benefit there is to the tenant. A 99 year term looks acts and smells like ownership except in this system you can still somehow force the “owner” to do weird shit like build a church for your friends. It just seems super weird to me and I’ve never seen it outside the city.

13

Ouity t1_ixmt6wy wrote

I mean, the developer had the option to buy a building without such a condition attached to it.

20

azdak t1_ixn7hj1 wrote

Not excusing anything the developer did. The presence of alternatives doesn’t make this situation less stupid.

5

GoodLifeWorkHard t1_ixqwonw wrote

Right ???? They should’ve compromised and took the offer for the developer to buy them out of the lease agreement lol . But they probably gonna milk it for as much money and as long as they can

−5

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_ixmyxv5 wrote

Because the land is in a complicated trust. The building owner and the land owner are two different entities.

The land is likely owned by the same trust for 100y+… and likely a bunch of descendants collecting small checks. It would be complicated to get that sold/dissolved. You’d need to prove you have all people with rights to that, etc.

Cheaper/easier to just lease the land for 99y and do it that way.

14

maydaydemise t1_ixmoqfx wrote

Property owners in China technically lease their land from the state for 70 year terms, as a way of allowing private development under a framework where the state owns all land

8

PiffityPoffity t1_ixmwldm wrote

It’s a lot easier to have single building owner with tenants when you have such big buildings. Sure, they could do it condo-style, but developers don’t want that. Tenants want the stability of ownership but property developers aren’t willing to split up the building, so 99-year leases are the compromise.

6

vocabularylessons t1_ixoavdt wrote

That is a common feature of land trusts / alternative forms of property ownership wherein ownership of land and structure are separate and control of the land is vested in trust governed by a community board or government entity and/or portions of terminal value are returned to the trust. It's more complicated but that's the gist.

An example of this type of arrangement at scale is 'homeownership' in Singapore, the gov't leases homes to households for 99 yr terms but retains ownership of the land.

3

kiklion t1_ixo88xn wrote

> Does anywhere else do this whole “99 year lease in lieu of actual ownership” thing?

My office almost did something like this in Charlotte. A developer offered my company millions of dollars for the land and building my office is in. They included that they would cover the cost of relocating our office to a new place as they tore down the existing office and rebuilt. And then after the new building is open, my company would have a 99 year lease on the first 3 floors for $1, same number of floors we currently have.

2

thoughtsarefalse t1_ixmqe30 wrote

lots of sweetheart deals from - or in some cases to - the government like that.

−4

grandzu t1_ixnb43p wrote

How can a lease dictate what future owners can do?

−5

Phaedrusnyc t1_ixo2d3x wrote

Most, if not all, leases dictate what future owners can do. A lease is a legal contract between two parties, one party can't just unilaterally nullify it, even by selling. If I were to buy an apartment building tomorrow I would be inheriting the former owner's lease agreements and would either have to abide by them or buy the other parties out (or mutually agree to new terms). It's no different in a commercial sphere.

Do you seriously think a person can just get out of a contract by selling a property? That would basically just open the door to any landlord being able to nullify leases by selling to another shell company they had an interest in. It makes a mockery of the whole concept of a legally binding agreement.

10

grandzu t1_ixo9rsq wrote

Ownership outlasts leases. Leases expire, so how can they claim power over whoever might be the owner after the lease expires?

−6

Phaedrusnyc t1_ixoa3ab wrote

They can't. The lease hasn't expired. Did you read the article?

8

grandzu t1_ixoms5s wrote

Did you read the part that said
"The lease agreement said that if the landlord of the property were to demolish it, it would need to include space for the synagogue in any new project that is built in its place".
So eventually 99 years will pass, lease is over, owner should do what they want.

−2

Phaedrusnyc t1_ixpkkx9 wrote

And did you read the part that says "...Gamal purchased the building for $61.5 million and inherited the synagogue’s lease agreement."? 99 years has not passed. What part of this is failing to get through to you?

7

FoxyInTheSnow t1_ixmlium wrote

The developer was counting on the congregants wasting away.

31

Jaudition t1_ixms0hz wrote

I’ll do whatever I have to do to be in the religion that congregates at a time square margaritaville

15

drpvn t1_ixmmwlh wrote

Few things in journalism are worse than paraphrasing of allegations from a complaint.

6

PiffityPoffity t1_ixmwr2v wrote

The developer isn’t disputing the facts here.

4

drpvn t1_ixmwwhg wrote

Why do you think that?

Just a downvote? No response?

1

LouisSeize t1_ixquk4o wrote

Not necessarily. Some do a good job, e.g. the Law Journal, Times, WSJ.

1

WednesdayKnights t1_ixyh271 wrote

Annual rent of $1. Sorry, but I don’t feel bad for them.

0

Jbilen10 t1_ixp2hmq wrote

There is so much space in the city grow up lol

−6

Itsthenewvodka t1_ixo4554 wrote

Fuck any house of worship of any religion or denomination that is exempt from property taxes. Be like an extra billion dollars of useable income for education and social services. Poor you and your synagogue!

−10

zjuka t1_ixmvcrw wrote

Huh, for a second there I thought someone actually stepped up to fight developers to help the actual homeless…

−13

[deleted] t1_ixmctyr wrote

[deleted]

−15

_princepenguin_ t1_ixmfcct wrote

I'm not really sure what you mean by a new religion that mixes the two faiths. They're both Abrahamic religions, Islam being an offset of Judaism. It's sort of like saying you want to create a new type of pizza by mixing cheese and pepperoni pizza. Sure, you can like, put less pepperoni on it, but it's still a pepperoni pizza.

11

ninnycompoop t1_ixmiaae wrote

we're all just like, one religion man, like, the Human Religion man. Like, deeeeep

5