12 ms·

I doubt the lease is up. That location will sit vacant for months or years, with nobody able to open a coffee shop there: Starbucks, former Starbucks employees,

I doubt the lease is up. That location will sit vacant for months or years, with nobody able to open a coffee shop there: Starbucks, former Starbucks employees, or otherwise. It is prime real estate for a coffee shop. Blue Bottle and George Howell already have locations just up the street. But in theory it could be a great opportunity for one of the other established chains in the area, or a new company able to capitalize on the foot traffic generated by the fact that it used to be a very very busy Starbucks.

WalterBright 4y ago
> it used to be a very very busy Starbucks Then it's an ideal spot for the union to open their union shop. I don't really understand why you think it would sit vacant.
- oofta-boofta 4y ago
  Because Starbucks corp owns the Starbucks brand, they're not going to let just anyone operate under that brand. Stop being obtuse.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    They'd have to rename the store, sure. > Stop being obtuse. LOL
- kemayo 4y ago
  They said why: because Starbucks holds the lease on the space. Just because the space is now empty, so long as Starbucks is paying their rent nobody else can take it. That does cost them money, but if we assume they're fucking with the union then it's very much in their interest to not break the lease and instead leave the location empty -- because they probably do just want to reopen the same location once the union has dissipated. (Also, breaking a commercial lease often doesn't save you very much money, so...)
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Starbucks can always sublease it. Leases are expensive to let sit vacant. > it's very much in their interest to not break the lease and instead leave the location empty There's an easy way to test that theory. Have the union make them an offer. Besides, there's no particular reason the union has to set up shop in that store. They can pick anyplace else. As I mentioned before, people open coffee shops all the time. It isn't rocket science.

WalterBright 4y ago

> it used to be a very very busy Starbucks Then it's an ideal spot for the union to open their union shop. I don't really understand why you think it would sit vacant.

oofta-boofta 4y ago
Because Starbucks corp owns the Starbucks brand, they're not going to let just anyone operate under that brand. Stop being obtuse.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  They'd have to rename the store, sure. > Stop being obtuse. LOL
kemayo 4y ago
They said why: because Starbucks holds the lease on the space. Just because the space is now empty, so long as Starbucks is paying their rent nobody else can take it. That does cost them money, but if we assume they're fucking with the union then it's very much in their interest to not break the lease and instead leave the location empty -- because they probably do just want to reopen the same location once the union has dissipated. (Also, breaking a commercial lease often doesn't save you very much money, so...)
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Starbucks can always sublease it. Leases are expensive to let sit vacant. > it's very much in their interest to not break the lease and instead leave the location empty There's an easy way to test that theory. Have the union make them an offer. Besides, there's no particular reason the union has to set up shop in that store. They can pick anyplace else. As I mentioned before, people open coffee shops all the time. It isn't rocket science.