OhhMyTodd t1_je2yndk wrote
I don't feel like this gives enough recent data about the commercial real estate market for restaurants for me to have a strong opinion about whether that lease was a bad idea or not. The space had been vacant for a while now, too, so I'm not sure how much demand there even was. Plus, if there were concerns over her financial decisions, why could that not be brought up by the board publicly? I'm not saying I wholeheartedly support her, but this seems to be trying really hard to make a mountain over what could potentially just be a molehill.
jakeburdett OP t1_je2zkqy wrote
Great point, and I do address that point at the end of the piece, quoted below. Nonetheless, I understand being skeptical, and am confident you will be convinced after reading the next parts of the blog, which will be published in the next few weeks. Then, you’ll see that this is not just about this one contract (a bad contract which may have cost the CA $1 million+ in potential revenue), and it is not “making a mountain out of a mole hill”. Also, the Board was not able to discuss those things publicly, because it is a personnel matter subject to employee-employer confidentiality. This was knowingly and cynically taken advantage of by Lakey and her Allies to push a false narrative and smear campaign that they knew the CA Board was unable to counter publicly, which is why the CA Board was having so many closed meetings this past year
“Defenders of former CA President Boyd may argue that the terms of the December 2021 lease contract awarded to the new Howard Hughes Corporation tenant (The Collective 13) was signed during the COVID-19 pandemic and that the lower monthly rent rate and no annual inflation adjustments were justified due to “pandemic hardship”.
It is true that many businesses were struggling financially during the pandemic and that the previous tenant did not renew their lease potentially because they were unable to afford the monthly rent rates they were being charged under their contract established in 2013.
In a case such as this one, would a rent reduction for a future tenant be justified?
Let’s address that question with a few other questions:
How many Howard Hughes Corporation residential tenants were either evicted or did not renew their leases during COVID due to financial hardship?
Did the future tenants who moved in after the prior tenants were forced out due to hardship also receive a 50%+ decrease in monthly rent?
It is highly doubtful that this occurred. Even if the extremely low rental rates in this 2021 CA contract were set using COVID hardship as justification, the contract spans 2021 to 2027 and could even be extended through 2032, well after the effects of COVID are no longer a significant justification for hardship.
Beyond that, even if a rent reduction was justified, how was this drastic of a reduction calculated? Why was inflation adjustment not included? Answers to these questions are exactly the kind that the CA Board of Directors and the public deserve. These types of contracts and leases should be getting appraised for fair market value, rather than picking some arbitrarily low number.
It was incumbent upon Lakey Boyd as CA President to fulfill her fiduciary duty to CA residents and prove that a valid methodology was used to establish these seemingly low monthly rent rates as the true market value for the CA-owned open space that she leased out to a tenant of the private developer Howard Hughes Corporation. Otherwise, the CA would be at risk of violating IRS Rev. Rul. 72-102, potentially putting the CA’s tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) non-profit service corporation in serious jeopardy.”
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments