Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

GoodLifeWorkHard t1_ixod6h5 wrote

Reply to comment by ShinyGodzilla in Times Square Margaritaville left synagogue ‘homeless,’ suit says - Jewish Telegraphic Agency by ShinyGodzilla

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