Cajun spot replacing Le Gallo Rosso

[Robin Garr]

Roux, the incoming eatery, sounds promising, but the rest of the story (via WDRB-41) reveals one of those ugly stories about lease piracy and forcing established owners out in pursuit of the dollar ...

http://www.wdrb.com/story/25987415/new- ... allo-rosso

Is it the Cajun restaurant folks forcing Le Gallo Rosso out, or is it the landlord doing the forcing? I'd need it explained to me how one restaurant can force another out of its location. I am not familiar with the term "lease piracy," so maybe that's the piece I'm missing here.

[Robin Garr]

"Lease piracy" is a term that I just invented.

Bottom line, the former owners wanted to find a buyer, and were on month-to-month. In the dark, bitter world of Friedman/Randian economics, she was prey for the taking. But in a more gentle world, somewhere in the dynamic of buyer/landlord/seller it seems that there would be room for a more gracious approach than a quick "You're out at the end of the month" message.

If Gallo Rosso was going month to month, then I suppose every new month is a new lease and therefore there is no guarantee that you will still have a lease at the end of that month. Unless otherwise expressed, you can vacate at the end of any given month or the LL can sign a new lease with a new lessee at the end of any given month without consent of the other party.

The shame of it is that this "scandal" could give Roux a premature black eye if they get pinned as the bad guy who forced out Gallo Rosso. Rough way to start.

I agree, it's super-crappy of the landlord to give so little notice and leave her tenant in a barely-tenable situation. However, as Ronnie says, this could give Roux a black eye. I'm addressing the topic title here. How is the Cajun spot forcing out Le Gallo Rosso? The landlord is the one with that power, not the next tenant.

It's hard to see a villain here. When a lease reaches the end of it's term, it is common it to go what is called "month-to-month". This just means that the either party can terminate the arrangement without penalty given a one month notice. It seems the owner would have been happy to arrange a new lease with La Gallo Russo had that been their desire as well.

La Gallo Rosso was keeping their options open. Sometimes there is a price to be paid for a failure to commit. I don't think this says anything about Ayn Rand or anybody else except Annette Saco's exit strategy.

[Robin Garr]

I agree, it's super-crappy of the landlord to give so little notice and leave her tenant in a barely-tenable situation. However, as Ronnie says, this could give Roux a black eye. I'm addressing the topic title here. How is the Cajun spot forcing out Le Gallo Rosso? The landlord is the one with that power, not the next tenant.

Well, first, "Dammit, Jim, I'm a journalist, not a doctor."

Perhaps the landlord is the malefactor. It occurs to me that there've been similar tales in the past regarding Butterfly Garden and other things. "The love of money is (or can be) the root of all evil." In an ideal world, though, I wish someone in the chain of Dustin-to-landlord-to-Annette could have worked out a sit-down and reasonable compromise. And in the very unlikely event that I am ever in a similar situation, I hope I'll remember how I feel about this now and let my actions be guided accordingly.

[Robin Garr]

Meanwhile, similar-only-different discussion taking place on my Facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/robin.garr/pos ... 3808158348

(If settings won't let you see it, feel free to send me a friend request if you like.)

one of those ugly stories about lease piracy and forcing established owners out in pursuit of the dollar ...

I dunno...sounds to me like we don't have all the facts. How -long- was she going "month to month" ? If I'm a landlord/property owner I'm not going to wait until hell freezes over for someone to sell their business...especially a business as generally over priced as existing restaurants are. Yeah, If I'm a betting man, I'm betting the property owner ran out of patience and when this deal fell in his lap he jumped on it.

I don't think this says anything about Ayn Rand

It's early in the discussion, I'm betting Robin will work Ayn Rand in there -somehow- before this hit's page three.

[Robin Garr]

It's early in the discussion, I'm betting Robin will work Ayn Rand in there -somehow- before this hit's page three.

Too late. I got her in to the third post.

Your snark would have more gravitas, though, if you had gone to schools that taught how to use the apostrophe.

Unless there are more details known than revealed in the article, I think the title of this is a bit unfair. It is the landlord who is exercising their right under a m-t-m lease to not renew; I'm having a hard time with immediately blaming the new restaurant. As a former owner who had a long-term lease, there are risks and rewards for being bound to a long term lease. I feel awful for Annette that this has happened, and would have hoped the landlord would give much more than 30 days notice out of business courtesy and fairness, knowing she was trying to sell. So sad- sounds like Annette was caught between a rock and a hard place. But I'm not seeing how this is the new place's fault.

I know Le Gallo Rosso had been up for sale on the local sales website for some months now I believe. Look at how long it took the owners of De La Torre's to sell their place? And in the end the actual business didnt survive, because something else is going into the space.

My point being how long should the landlord have given them? Sure as long as they were continuing to pay rent, he was covered. But should he walk away from a potential long term lessee just to them continue to try and sell their business?

As long as everything was done properly and legally, I dont see any real bad guy here. It sucks they didnt sell their business and make some money out of it. But the building owner has to watch out for his interests as well.

While we are on the topic. Lets be honest. How many restaurant owners here locally actually sell their business and concept (minus any real estate if they own their own building)? How many restaurants locally have actually changed owner hands, remained relatively the same, and stayed in business? I dont know, but Im guessing very few.

...I think the title of this is a bit unfair.

+1
Yeah, in truth this may be the worst title for a thread I've seen in a decade on the forum. My wife and I have eaten at Monkey Wrench several times since he raised the bar pretty much out of sight. Every time someone reads the thread the title alone casts aspersions on Mr. Staggers. The title implies he personally is kicking the current occupants out on the street as opposed to making a business deal with someone who handles commercial rental property. In truth, I'm surprised that hasn't been remedied yet.

Your snark would have more gravitas, though, if you had gone to schools that taught how to use the apostrophe.

Super bonus points to Robin for joining the apostrophe crusade!