3 ms·
I used to live in NYC. Down the street from me was the cheapest supermarket in the area. Why was it cheap? They had some lease from the 1970s or 1980s and were
by jmyeet 2y ago
I used to live in NYC. Down the street from me was the cheapest supermarket in the area. Why was it cheap? They had some lease from the 1970s or 1980s and were paying a rumoured $5000/year. Now Manhattan supermarkets aren't that "super" but still it's ridiculously low.
While I lived there that lease ended and the new "market" rate was reportedly $250,000/year. The supermarket shut down. It's been 10 years. I thought it had been empty the whole time. I just looked through historical Street View and saw there was briefly a business there. IT's again vacant though.
The point is that high housing prices kill everything. Commercial real estate is distinct but the two are related. There are two problems:
1. Landlords can be unwilling to accept a lower rent because it lowers the book value of the property. Many commercial property owners own a huge portfolio. It doesn't really matter if some of it is vacant. In fact, it's expected; and
2. As prices go up the types of businesses that can survive there rapidly diminish. You could simulate a supermarket. There's only so high you can rise the prices before demand goes down. There's only so high the rent can go before it kills that business.
I realize the zombie stores here are the opposite problem: landowners are understandably just cashing the checks from above-market rents the owners are obligated to pay.
If someone comes along and says "I'll pay 50% of the current lease", the owner could go to the current leaseholder and say "I'll let you out of your obligation if you pay 60% of the remaining rent" (discounting for present value).
But what if the new business doesn't survive? It's a risk for the owner where CVS's rent checks are no risk at all. Plus even if you get past that, you've also just lowered your property's value on paper.
The solution here is probably for the city (or, more likely, the state) to make such long-term leases unenforceable. For example, if you abandon the property then after 1 year or 2 years or whatever, the lease just terminates.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago>If someone comes along and says "I'll pay 50% of the current lease", the owner could go to the current leaseholder and say "I'll let you out of your obligation if you pay 60% of the remaining rent" (discounting for present value). This is a fun idea. The amount above 100% current lease value is likely 1) the risk of the new tenant vs the old tenant and 2) the optionality of the old tenant wanting this space in the future. >you've also just lowered your property's value on paper. Not really. you've increased the value since you're getting 110%. Plus it's not like leases are public knowledge. >make such long-term leases unenforceable if this were in place, all leases would be priced higher to account for the lower enforceable term.