Reply to Barnes and Noble Bethesda Avenue Closing end of 2017

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Barnes and Noble Bethesda Avenue Closing end of 2017"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]A lot of information is not publicly known about the original lease and the alleged rent increases and decreasing sales.

Barnes and Noble across the country put out a mandate to negotiate lower rents due to sagging sales.  The one thing B & N is good at is PR, They are tossing the blame on Federal Reality and making them look bad in in an effort to have local leaders and residents put pressure on them like the did in NY when they were closing a store there that eventually became an Saks off 5th.

If all the people who are upset about this actually bought books instead of sitting in the store reading them and then putting them back on the shelf they probably would be ok but from he very beginning that spot was way too big, too expensive to maintain, too expensive to stay there long term.

They got extended after Cheescake Factory said no to the spot and decided to go to Montgomery Mall after White Flint closed.

[/quote]

No, it can't be anything but the evil, evil landlord is being mean to a longstanding tenant.  How can you let facts get in the way of the prevailing sentiment, ironic as it is since B&N is also a large business, not some mom & pop.

B&N has been scaling back around the country.  It may have asked for a reduction in rates.  It may have only been willing to sign a shorter-term lease.  If either of those were the case, it would be quite reasonable for Federal to say no.  It would also be reasonable for Federal to be wary of renting to a company that has a real chance to go bankrupt in the coming years.  In bankruptcy, B&N could terminate the lease and leave federal looking for a tenant with relatively little notice.  It is understandable they might have wanted to have an orderly transition.

And maybe Federal really did increase the rate considerably.  But, even that isn't necessarily wrong.  Commercial leases are usually for extended periods so it would make sense that rent would be a lot higher than it would have been 5,10 or 20 years ago.  If that is the prevailing rate, they are entitled to find a tenant who will pay it.  If it isn't the prevailing rate, it will sit empty and they will suffer the consequences.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics