Anonymous wrote:It all sounds good, but here's the "money shot" quote:

While acknowledging that Johnson’s has been a
valued tenant and the neighboring community benefits from Johnson’s
services, our fiduciary responsibility to be good stewards of limited
University resources dictated that we could not agree to an arrangement
with terms substantially below market value for the location.

A plant nursery just isn't going to be able to pay as much in rent as another yet national bank branch or a chain restaurant, and certainly won't offer to same real estate 'market value' potetnial as dense redevelopment into more "Generica" mixed-use. But in the process, we lose essential neighborhood-serving businesses on which the community has depended for a long time. As a tax-exempt organization that benefits from paying virtually no local taxes, AU should also consider its stewardship responsibilities in the community, rather than imagining itself as a wannabe hedge fund portfolio manager.

I disagree. Having Johnson's was not the best use of the space and it certainly shouldn't be up to AU to subsidize Johnson's business model. I would be disappointed if they get a bank branch or some other crappy tenant, but it certainly doesn't sound like that is the intention.

If Johnson's were so vital to the neighborhood and so supported, there wouldn't be so many DC tags in the American Plant(s) on River Road. Clearly people who voting with their pocketbook. While I loved having Johnsons's there, it wasn't the same store over the past 10 years in quality of customer service.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can't you see this is a troll post? It's designed to trigger ward 3 anti-development folks.

I don't think it's a troll post. I think those with a hard-on for density are actually that dense.

They are.

How else do you explain them wanting to live in a human-scale anthill?

If you're not a student, are older than 30, earn a living, and are not single, you have no business living in a condo or apartment. It's just.... weird.

Ita. The community has been very supportive of all of AU expansion. It's a betrayal. I hope the tenley/Wesley crowd fight every new dorm proposal, go after them for maintaining /beautifying public space and their sidewalks, and fight their bus rumbling through and polluting Tenleytown every 15 min.

Anonymous wrote:It all sounds good, but here's the "money shot" quote:

While acknowledging that Johnson’s has been a
valued tenant and the neighboring community benefits from Johnson’s
services, our fiduciary responsibility to be good stewards of limited
University resources dictated that we could not agree to an arrangement
with terms substantially below market value for the location.

A plant nursery just isn't going to be able to pay as much in rent as another yet national bank branch or a chain restaurant, and certainly won't offer to same real estate 'market value' potetnial as dense redevelopment into more "Generica" mixed-use. But in the process, we lose essential neighborhood-serving businesses on which the community has depended for a long time. As a tax-exempt organization that benefits from paying virtually no local taxes, AU should also consider its stewardship responsibilities in the community, rather than imagining itself as a wannabe hedge fund portfolio manager.

I agree. Losing the kinds of services and resources in the neighborhood that can't manage high rent, like nursery, diminishes the community. We don't need more chains.

Anonymous wrote:
Can't you see this is a troll post? It's designed to trigger ward 3 anti-development folks.

I don't think it's a troll post. I think those with a hard-on for density are actually that dense.

It all sounds good, but here's the "money shot" quote:

While acknowledging that Johnson’s has been a
valued tenant and the neighboring community benefits from Johnson’s
services, our fiduciary responsibility to be good stewards of limited
University resources dictated that we could not agree to an arrangement
with terms substantially below market value for the location.

A plant nursery just isn't going to be able to pay as much in rent as another yet national bank branch or a chain restaurant, and certainly won't offer to same real estate 'market value' potetnial as dense redevelopment into more "Generica" mixed-use. But in the process, we lose essential neighborhood-serving businesses on which the community has depended for a long time. As a tax-exempt organization that benefits from paying virtually no local taxes, AU should also consider its stewardship responsibilities in the community, rather than imagining itself as a wannabe hedge fund portfolio manager.

Here's the letter from AU about Johnson's, copy-and-pasted from the Chevy Chase listserv. AU says it went well beyond what they needed to do to keep Johnson's there, and that the owners had been thinking of leaving Tenleytown (or at least changing locations) for a long time:

"AU Statement on the closure of Johnson’s Florist and Garden Centers’
Washington, DC location

"American University wants to correct and clarify statements that have
been made in connection with the tenancy of Johnson’s Florist and Garden
Centers at the University-owned property at 4200 Wisconsin Avenue, NW.
We also are sharing a timeline and some basic facts that led to
Johnson’s recent decision to close its Tenleytown location at the end of
its lease in January 2018. We have decided to share this information now
to accurately detail the University’s actions in this matter.

• Johnson’s has been a tenant of AU since the University purchased the
property located at 4200 Wisconsin Avenue, NW in 2000. It occupied
16,256 rentable square feet of Indoor Retail Space on the ground level
in the building and 27,108 square feet of Outdoor Space.

• In 2014, when Johnson’s and AU attempted to negotiate a ten-year lease
for a term to start in January 2015, Johnson’s first expressed concerns
about the viability of its Tenley location.

• As a result of Johnson’s desire to limit its financial exposure and to
postpone its decision whether to stay in Tenleytown for the long term,
Johnson’s requested, and the University granted, a short term (three-
year) extension, which is unusual in commercial leasing, so that
Johnson’s would have the opportunity to better evaluate the viability of
the location. Johnson’s asked for the extension specifically to (a) seek
DC Government approval to use property adjacent to the Outdoor Space for
commercial purposes; (b) consider the restructure of its business
operations at 4200; and (c) explore the relocation of its business at
4200 Wisconsin to another site in the Tenley neighborhood.

• During this three-year period, the University not only worked with
Johnson’s owners to create a sustainable business model for the unique
space it occupied at 4200 Wisconsin, but the University paid from its
own funds half the cost of consultants retained by Johnson’s to evaluate
the long-term viability of their Tenleytown operations.

• In the fall of 2016, anticipating the expiration of the short-term
extension, the University and Johnson’s agreed to begin negotiations on
a long-term (ten-year) lease. In February of 2017, both parties signed a
Letter of Intent (LOI). The University then sent a lease reflecting
those LOI terms to Johnson’s for its signature.

• As mutually agreed, the LOI reflected below-market rent and the full
amount of real property taxes for the Outdoor Space which the parties
had agreed was appropriate since Johnson’s would continue to have
exclusive use of the space for the greenhouse and customer parking.

• In the summer of 2017, Johnson’s requested significant material
changes to the LOI terms including additional financial concessions and
changes to operating agreements that would affect other building tenants
(exclusive use of a loading dock) or that were not within the
University’s power to grant (allowing parking in the fire access lane).
In sum, Johnson’s wanted about $2,000,000 more in financial concessions
over the term of the lease beyond what they had agreed to in the signed
LOI, as well as operational changes the University could not provide.

• The additional demands could not be met by the University. The
University renewed its offer to abide by the terms that the parties had
set forth in their signed LOI, but Johnson’s declined.

• In August of 2017, Johnsons notified the University that they would be
moving out at the end of the current lease (January 31, 2018). Johnson’s
waited until January 3, 2018 to publicly announce that they would
close their Washington, DC location on or before January 14, 2018.

"The University took significant and reasonable steps to try to
accommodate Johnson’s Florist and Garden Centers. It spent its own time
and money to try to work with Johnson’s on a financial arrangement that
would work mutually. While acknowledging that Johnson’s has been a
valued tenant and the neighboring community benefits from Johnson’s
services, our fiduciary responsibility to be good stewards of limited
University resources dictated that we could not agree to an arrangement
with terms substantially below market value for the location.

"We hope that this information is helpful in providing additional
perspective for the surrounding community on the good faith discussions
that took place regarding Johnson’s tenancy."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AU doesn't own any of the buildings that have the fast express food in the neighborhood. Not one of them.

And if you read the letter posted on the neighborhood listserve, it becomes pretty clear that AU wasn't the bad guy in the Johnson's issue.

They own the building that Firelake Grill closed down in with impossible high rents and a bunch of hamburger joints were rumored to be circling. Just sayin

Last time I checked, the fast express places were all in the core Tenley area. Hence not in a property that AU owns. Just sayin.

I have no idea who owns those, only that they seem to be the only 'type' of eating establishment that can hack these rents. And that looks to be the same in the property Au owns.

You have no idea but for a restaurant to thrive it needs to successfully serve the market in which it is located. And Tenleytown is a low density neighborhood (which means relatively few adults) with lots of students. And students (of all ages) like fast casual food. So unsurprisingly there are many fast casual restaurants in Tenleytown.

Add more adults to the neighborhood and you might find more demand for sit-down restaurants.

Interestingly it is the growing neighborhoods east of the park that have the most interesting and innovative restaurants, almost all of which are locally owned.

So you dislike what you see in your own neighborhood food wise but think the solution is to keep doing the same thing?

How exactly will that change things?

Drop the paranoia and take an Uber over to 14th Street and check out all the cool new restaurants over there - you might learn something.

The restaurants in Cathedral Commons seem to be doing just fine. So there goes your theory.

Actually a couple of them are struggling now. Once the Town Center at Wegmans' Fannie opens, customers will desert CathCom as being a bit shabby in comparison.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. Move to Columbia Heights or Chinatown or NOMA. You can walk to everywhere you want from the confines of your highrise human filing cabinet.

Me, I like my front, back and side yards, my detached garage, my deck, my driveway with off street parking and being surrounded by nature.

But if being able to walk to overpriced food is a priority for you, by all means, move.

I'm going to be up all night responding to the litany of illogical posts in this thread!

Is someone proposing to replace your front, back and side yards and your detached garage, deck and driveway with a highrise human filing cabinet?

That is big news to me!

You should try walking - you might be less paranoid and delusional!

We could have a mile-and-a-half of solid human filing cabinets stretching from Mass Ave. west to Nebraska up through Tenley Circle and then all the way to Friendship Heights. Downtown Bethesda in the 'hood.

Yes, both areas are frequented and supported by the same community. And there are two restaurants doing well in 'low density" New Mexico Ave. practically on Au's doorstep (and the mall is owned by them). Not sure why Tenleytown is getting no love/appreciation from AU. Their AU bus rolls through constantly all day. Perhaps that should be looked at. Would be good for the students to walk more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AU doesn't own any of the buildings that have the fast express food in the neighborhood. Not one of them.

And if you read the letter posted on the neighborhood listserve, it becomes pretty clear that AU wasn't the bad guy in the Johnson's issue.

They own the building that Firelake Grill closed down in with impossible high rents and a bunch of hamburger joints were rumored to be circling. Just sayin

Last time I checked, the fast express places were all in the core Tenley area. Hence not in a property that AU owns. Just sayin.

I have no idea who owns those, only that they seem to be the only 'type' of eating establishment that can hack these rents. And that looks to be the same in the property Au owns.

You have no idea but for a restaurant to thrive it needs to successfully serve the market in which it is located. And Tenleytown is a low density neighborhood (which means relatively few adults) with lots of students. And students (of all ages) like fast casual food. So unsurprisingly there are many fast casual restaurants in Tenleytown.

Add more adults to the neighborhood and you might find more demand for sit-down restaurants.

Interestingly it is the growing neighborhoods east of the park that have the most interesting and innovative restaurants, almost all of which are locally owned.

So you dislike what you see in your own neighborhood food wise but think the solution is to keep doing the same thing?

How exactly will that change things?

Drop the paranoia and take an Uber over to 14th Street and check out all the cool new restaurants over there - you might learn something.

The restaurants in Cathedral Commons seem to be doing just fine. So there goes your theory.

Uh huh - and is that in Tenleytown? BTW that is actually a pretty dense little area - quite a few apartment buildings in that immediate area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AU doesn't own any of the buildings that have the fast express food in the neighborhood. Not one of them.

And if you read the letter posted on the neighborhood listserve, it becomes pretty clear that AU wasn't the bad guy in the Johnson's issue.

They own the building that Firelake Grill closed down in with impossible high rents and a bunch of hamburger joints were rumored to be circling. Just sayin

Last time I checked, the fast express places were all in the core Tenley area. Hence not in a property that AU owns. Just sayin.

I have no idea who owns those, only that they seem to be the only 'type' of eating establishment that can hack these rents. And that looks to be the same in the property Au owns.

You have no idea but for a restaurant to thrive it needs to successfully serve the market in which it is located. And Tenleytown is a low density neighborhood (which means relatively few adults) with lots of students. And students (of all ages) like fast casual food. So unsurprisingly there are many fast casual restaurants in Tenleytown.

Add more adults to the neighborhood and you might find more demand for sit-down restaurants.

Interestingly it is the growing neighborhoods east of the park that have the most interesting and innovative restaurants, almost all of which are locally owned.

So you dislike what you see in your own neighborhood food wise but think the solution is to keep doing the same thing?

How exactly will that change things?

Drop the paranoia and take an Uber over to 14th Street and check out all the cool new restaurants over there - you might learn something.

The restaurants in Cathedral Commons seem to be doing just fine. So there goes your theory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AU doesn't own any of the buildings that have the fast express food in the neighborhood. Not one of them.

And if you read the letter posted on the neighborhood listserve, it becomes pretty clear that AU wasn't the bad guy in the Johnson's issue.

They own the building that Firelake Grill closed down in with impossible high rents and a bunch of hamburger joints were rumored to be circling. Just sayin

Last time I checked, the fast express places were all in the core Tenley area. Hence not in a property that AU owns. Just sayin.

I have no idea who owns those, only that they seem to be the only 'type' of eating establishment that can hack these rents. And that looks to be the same in the property Au owns.

You have no idea but for a restaurant to thrive it needs to successfully serve the market in which it is located. And Tenleytown is a low density neighborhood (which means relatively few adults) with lots of students. And students (of all ages) like fast casual food. So unsurprisingly there are many fast casual restaurants in Tenleytown.

Add more adults to the neighborhood and you might find more demand for sit-down restaurants.

Interestingly it is the growing neighborhoods east of the park that have the most interesting and innovative restaurants, almost all of which are locally owned.

So you dislike what you see in your own neighborhood food wise but think the solution is to keep doing the same thing?

How exactly will that change things?

Drop the paranoia and take an Uber over to 14th Street and check out all the cool new restaurants over there - you might learn something.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AU doesn't own any of the buildings that have the fast express food in the neighborhood. Not one of them.

And if you read the letter posted on the neighborhood listserve, it becomes pretty clear that AU wasn't the bad guy in the Johnson's issue.

Good riddance to Johnson's.

AU had me until the last line about market rate rents. They are simply too high for many business. Since AU can set the rest as landlord, then yes I guess I guess I do expect them to subsidize a few neighborhood institutions to a degree. As a fellow neighborhood institution I feel they should take this one for the team.

The concept of "market rate rents" is that the market sets them, not the landlord.

Uh, we don't have rent price floors in this country. AU is basically acknowledging that it seeks highest and best rent from the property, even if that means the departure of a business that has been serving the local community for decades. By this logic, AU will want to develop the property, and the result will be more pseudo-urban generic retail and fast casual dining. Oh, and certainly we could use another big CVS between Idaho Ave. and Brandywine.

I don't know what that is but it sounds scary - can you tell us more about it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. $40k a month for Firelake is absurd. Half that would be pushing the limits of what you could expect of a quasi-TGI Friday's/Applebees in a location with better options all around it to offer up in terms of rent.

Between Firelake and Johnsons, it's quite clear that AU doesn't have the slightest clue how to manage retail spaces. Classic ivory tower mismanagement.

Now instead of having two open businesses in operation and generating rent, taxes and jobs, they have two abandoned storefronts contributing nothing to the neighborhood except blight.

That's why we can assume that their plan is to re-develop the building and site. Nearby 4000 Wisconsin is already emptying out in anticipation of being completely rebuilt. Now that Johnson's parking area and nursery yard are emptied, it's clear what development possibilities AU has.

It would take years of planning for them to redevelop this site and they had a tenant on what was basically a month to month lease. Since you are full of answers tell us why they would chase a rent paying tenant they can harmlessly give notice to when they get their raze permit? Why haven't they similarly chased off the rest of their tenants?

You do realize AU just unloaded three of their properties in the neighborhood 2 years ago? Should AU also be blamed for the subsequent re-development of those properties?