Empty storefronts are bad for the neighborhood
San Francisco has a new law where owners of empty storefronts have to register the empty storefront for an annual fee of $711.00. If they do not comply, the penalty is $2844.00, the idea of the registration is to give the city an idea of the rental situation.
I think a good way to keep storefronts from being empty is to fine the owners monthly. What good is a $711.00 fine on a store front renting for $10,000 per month? Pocket change.
We have way too many empty storefronts in the Grove. I'm not quite sure why. I know rents have gone up in many places and the current tenants cannot afford to stay, so they leave the storefronts remain empty. Why not let the tenants stay until the landlords find new tenants willing to pay the new rent increases? The landlords will still be receiving monthly rent and the storefronts won't sit empty. Fuller Street is an example of this. At one time it was lined with clothing boutiques, a pet shop and a hair salon, and also a bookstore for a bit. Now it is empty on one whole side of the street.
From an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, "Empty storefronts not only hurt neighborhood character, but also hurt other businesses by decreasing foot traffic in the area."
Ten years ago or so we had many galleries in the Grove because they took the space of empty storefronts. When a clothing store or chain store moved out, galleries moved in. They paid no or little rent and the Grove was so much better for it.
posted by Tom Falco at 4:00 AM
YOU MAY NOT LIFT THE PHOTOS & TEXT. IT'S COPYRIGHTED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. YOU CAN HOWEVER SHARE A STORY ON SOCIAL MEDIA BY USING THE LINKS HERE.
For linking to this one story, just click on the time it was posted & just this story will open for sharing - only through social media. Not copying and pasting.
8 Comments:
Hey Tom
We had just this same conversation yesterday. I’m not an expert but i assume there must be some tax benefit. I can’t see any other explanation why a landlord would prefer to get $0 each month rather than the current rent. Any tax experts out there?
Ten years ago there was parking. Now we lost the garage on Mary. Fighting the one in the playhouse. There was a much more "friendly" business environment. Then the 5 am vs 3 am. Pressures to make the Grove a more "village" feel. Throw in This Amazon killing malls by making a delivery in an hour. This isn't a critique. We have to be able to open up to a *lot* of people. The ones driving here. And if we want people walking here. Then you need more people living here (development). Or maybe we're okay with less businesses. But we can't have it both ways.
- G
The fact is real estate market is not doing well. On top of that add incompetence and not caring since now most investors are just parking their money satisfied with 10% 20% annual rise in value and not having to deal with management expenses of collecting and maintaining a breathing property. If we had kept the Playhouse open though even with subsidy that would have drawn at the minimum two hundred high income visitors daily from far away, but that is if we were competent enough. How many businesses, restaurants, paying parking spaces would have benefited from the playhouse visitors over ten years? I say that would have easily brought an extra $40 million to the neighborhood on top of playhouse entrance fee. But we are incompetent and bogged down by beliefs and ideology. The same people who are OK with subsidizing farmers cannot understand why subsidized public art has the same exact consequence. Reopen and preserve the historic Coconut Grove Playhouse. To end on that point fining empty store fronts is a tricky question and has a lot of problems economically and legally speaking.
Levels of Complexity are the tools required to perform a given tasks. In this instance you have CITY, property owners, BID, taxes, renters, parking space, location (the old vs. the new version perceived by locals & tourist, etc., etc., and whatever. I think the stores being empty are the result of the phenomena to many chefs in the kitchen and not stupidity, greed, developers or overdevelopment. The transformation of the Grove is complex, difficult and not easy. All of you are correct to one degree or another. Jobie Steppe
Perhaps some are vacant because the owners won’t sign new leases with medium or long terms... as they’re waiting to be able to rebuild 4-5-6 stories instead. What business or restaurant owner wants to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into building out something in which he/she can only be a short term tenant?
You want the Grove to be like San Francisco, Califailure? We don’t need their problems! Even if those places are empty, the owners are paying property taxes, electricity, etc. And people complain about parking but there really is a lot of parking around town, they just don’t want to walk a couple of blocks to where they’re going!
Greedy landlords. Too many greedy landlords. Biscayne Blvd has too many vacant storefronts too. A fine is a good idea.
The Grove has lost its charm, the retail spaces are not full of original or native arts, the parking is terrible and frankly you can't have it both ways, the Grove was once a place for creativity because it was quaint and inexpensive, then it wasn't. Now, this is what we have; I'd take the old hippie days over these any time. At least it was kinder and the people were nicer. Now it stinks from the head down.
Post a Comment
<< Home