Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ThreeLittlePuigs t1_ixmq6qk wrote

Reply to comment by azdak in Times Square Margaritaville left synagogue ‘homeless,’ suit says - Jewish Telegraphic Agency by ShinyGodzilla

It’s actually pretty popular in New York and when the developer isn’t a scumbag a good look for all.

38

azdak t1_ixms51j wrote

Seems like it’s a good look for the lessor but I can’t quite understand what benefit there is to the tenant. A 99 year term looks acts and smells like ownership except in this system you can still somehow force the “owner” to do weird shit like build a church for your friends. It just seems super weird to me and I’ve never seen it outside the city.

13

Ouity t1_ixmt6wy wrote

I mean, the developer had the option to buy a building without such a condition attached to it.

20

azdak t1_ixn7hj1 wrote

Not excusing anything the developer did. The presence of alternatives doesn’t make this situation less stupid.

5

GoodLifeWorkHard t1_ixqwonw wrote

Right ???? They should’ve compromised and took the offer for the developer to buy them out of the lease agreement lol . But they probably gonna milk it for as much money and as long as they can

−5