Max's Best Icecream

[Anonymous]

I truly understand that people really like Max and have sympathy for his situation, but can't believe how many people are blinded by their emotions and refuse to acknowledge the realities of the business circumstances at hand.

Mom-and-pop shop or not, when Max entered into a lease that renews on a 5-year cycle, there were inherent risks that he should have accounted for. The biggest of these being that the lease could potentially not be renewed at the landlord's discretion. So when he made the decision to invest "tens of thousands of dollars" (not sure how accurate this number is, but it was mentioned earlier in this thread) into a custom freezer, that seems like a risky investment at best, and a short-sighted and ill-advised investment at worst, given the lease arrangement. When you don't own the property, this comes with the territory. Would you pay to upgrade the kitchen in a house or apartment that you are renting?

Max's biggest supporters have based their defense of his situation completely on emotion, without any thought of Max's responsiblity or accountability as a business owner. Why should everyone else make concessions (i.e. "Rocklands can up and move to one of the other storefronts" or "the landlords shouldn't rent to XYZ"), yet Max gets a pass on being held accountable for his own buiness judgements and decisions?

[Anonymous]

I've been following this story since it started. I can't believe how many people are looking to make a villain out of Rocklands. They are local and successful, but somehow that's a problem. Max seems petulant and entitled. So he was presented with a rent increase and didn't respond to that but then finally did and assumed that was all he needed to do? Sorry, if you're going to run a business you need to be the careful caretaker of that business. It's obnoxious how Max is playing the victim in all of this. It is absurd. I've bought ice cream there several times, but I can't say that I'll ever go back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I truly understand that people really like Max and have sympathy for his situation, but can't believe how many people are blinded by their emotions and refuse to acknowledge the realities of the business circumstances at hand.

Mom-and-pop shop or not, when Max entered into a lease that renews on a 5-year cycle, there were inherent risks that he should have accounted for. The biggest of these being that the lease could potentially not be renewed at the landlord's discretion. So when he made the decision to invest "tens of thousands of dollars" (not sure how accurate this number is, but it was mentioned earlier in this thread) into a custom freezer, that seems like a risky investment at best, and a short-sighted and ill-advised investment at worst, given the lease arrangement. When you don't own the property, this comes with the territory. Would you pay to upgrade the kitchen in a house or apartment that you are renting?

Max's biggest supporters have based their defense of his situation completely on emotion, without any thought of Max's responsiblity or accountability as a business owner. Why should everyone else make concessions (i.e. "Rocklands can up and move to one of the other storefronts" or "the landlords shouldn't rent to XYZ"), yet Max gets a pass on being held accountable for his own buiness judgements and decisions?

The fact that he upgraded his freezer shows he was thinking about his product and being a responsible businessman. May have been a miscalculation given the circumstances, but not exactly blowing all your dough on the lottery expecting to hit it big.

Not all of the Max supporters are supporting based solely on emotion. There is benefit to having his store exist too and Rocklands can expand in another space.

[Anonymous]

That's a pretty silly way of defining "responsible businessman." Just because the freezer is custom or state of the art doesn't mean it was a neccesary upgrade (certainly not when it became a permanent fixture in a rental property). Sure, the guy is passionate about his ice cream, but that doesn't absolve him from playing by the rules that all the other businesses play by--which are very similar to the rules that anyone who has either rented or owned a house has had to follow. It's about personal resposibility and accountability. Ignorance (of the lease terms, etc.) is not an excuse.

If your husband spent your emergency fund to build a backyard pool for your children, and your children had one amazing summer swiming, and then you both lost your jobs and were without any cashflow, you sound like the kind of person who would blame the pool company for agreeing to install the pool, or the company for laying your husband off, or any other available avenue other that could skirt the idea of personal accountability. But hey, your husband is such a nice guy and your kids had a great summer at the pool.

Give me a break.

[Anonymous]

a freezer is a necessity for ice cream...a backyard pool is not a necessity for anything

your analogy is completely stupid

Your anti-Max argument is also wandering far and wide...you're critical of an investment the freezer for rental--Rocklands rents too, he's culpable for not knowing his lease agreement (well, duh), people are trying to "absolve him from playing by the rules..."

Give me a break. You sound overly emotional/vested in your anti-Max stance. Weird unless your the landlord or from Rocklands.

[Anonymous]

You are missing my point completely.

I’m not critical of Max’s freezer investment at all. Whether or not it was a prudent business decision is irrelevant. Max can spend his money however he wants.

However, it irks me when people repeatedly use that very same freezer investment as a reason why Max should not have to move (or even consider another location). Countless times I’ve heard people say things like “Max installed a custom freezer in his shop; it is unfair for him to move since he paid all that money for the freezer.” This is not a valid defense. Max knowingly invested in this freezer while being under the terms of a lease cycle that may/may not be renewed in 5-year increments. When he installed the freezer, he assumed the risk that came along with it: that his lease may not be renewed at the discretion of the landlord.

I was born and raised in Glover Park and don’t have a dog in the fight on either side. I’ve eaten at both Rockland’s and Max’s periodically, and have had nice experiences at both places. I’m looking at the situation objectively, and in my opinion, it seems unfair how Rockland’s has been vilified while Max’s has largely been given a pass when it comes to personal accountability and management of one’s business.

People are acting like it would be the biggest injustice in the world for Max to move his shop down the block (there have been multiple reports of landlords offering other spaces on the strip including near the Tennis Zone, which apparently won’t consider), and then say Rocklands should just move like it is no big deal, or even their duty. Rocklands would have to incur major re-location and re-marketing costs to make a move as well. It’s not fair to hold these businesses to different standards, just because Max’s is a “mom-and-pop” shop. Rocklands was also founded in Glover Park (three years prior to the arrival of Max’s) and has been a stellar GP community member too. They have grown to four locations in the DC Metro area and have employed over 100 folks during the recession. They are also a small business.

I support Max as a person and I support his ice cream, but I also don’t think “he’s such a nice guy” is a reasonable excuse for not knowing (or ignoring) the realities of his lease terms, and in turn, blaming others for the situation or holding other businesses/parties to different standards (and expecting them to make concessions that Max himself won’t even consider i.e. moving). At the end of the day, Max is responsible for his own business and needs to have some accountability and personal responsibility for his role in the situation.

It is naïve to think that everyone else is at “fault” here, and Max is just a victim, just because you like Max and his ice cream. Leases and contracts are in place for a reason. I rented a lovely house in Glover and approached my landlord to extend for a fourth year. Instead of renewing our lease, I found out she was selling the house. I was disappointed that I had to find a new place to live, but that was the reality of the situation.

You even agreed with me in your post above when you said “well, duh” to the idea that Max should be held accountable for knowing his lease agreement. If that’s the case, why is everyone else to blame here?

[Anonymous]

Everyone else isn't to blame, just b/c he had a 5 year lease doesn't mean the landlord couldn't re-negotiate. That's the point.

"Nothing is final until you are dead, and even then I'm sure God negotiates."

[Anonymous]

Max requested lease renewal two years ago. The landlords said they did not negotiate leases so far ahead. They waited till two month before the termination date to tell Max that the place was leased to Rockland and he was out.

However, in the landlord's press release in response to the neighborhood petitions, they claimed that they never wanted to renew Max's lease. So why did they wait for two years to tell Max? What a despicable way to treat a long term renter (20 years?)!

The bottom line is that the landlords do not give a damn.

[Anonymous]

Or maybe Max could have followed up sometime between the 2-year period and the 2-month prior period?