Bucharest Grill forced out of downtown Detroit location

**rjlj** · December-31-15, 12:44 PM

Parking crisis?

Originally Posted by Gannon

This is such bullshit.

I've been around Jerry, the owner of the Park Bar [[and the building that Cliff Bell's is in next door) for a long while. He is one of the most ethical, honest, and solid people that I know. There are few I'd go as far to help if they needed it, since I've seen him help others in extraordinary times.

Every business owner has to make choices. Perhaps he wants to have his own kitchen. Perhaps the crowds that don't drink when they eat finally got to him. Maybe the parking crisis broke it all.

Bucharest ain't suffering...they will survive, with all of their other locations.

**corktownyuppie** · December-31-15, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Evict has several definition according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evict

I'm not sure how you define things in your circle, and maybe it's different, but one of the definitions for "Evict" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "to be forced out," which is exactly what happened per the Detroit Free Press article. Merriam-Webster doesn't mention anything about a tenant failing to pay rent.

From the Merriam Webster site:

to force [[someone) to leave a place

I'm not sure where the confusion lies. To say that one was "forced to leave" implies that the person had some right to be there to begin with. And therein lies the root of all of the conflict. Of course people would be angry if Bucharest was told they had a guaranteed lease until 2020 only to find out that the landlord was turning his back on the deal. That would definitely meet the definition of "being forced out".

But is that what is happening here? What rights do you have as a tenant once your lease is up? For that matter, what rights do you have as a landlord? I'd say the answer is: None.

Eber Brock Ward references this very point [emphasis mine] :

I've worked a lot with small businesses in Detroit and one of the biggest mistakes they make is working of off short term or month to month leases and expecting to stay beyond the term of the lease. And worse, they often say they were "evicted" or "kicked out" or something similar, rather than "aww crap, guess I should have had a longer lease."

In providing guidance to many businesses that have been around since before the recent growth and that are struggling to adapt to "New Detroit," I'm often frustrated at the guidance/training they need on remedial things like staying open during posted open/close hours, having an internet/Facebook page [[the latter is free!), and accepting credit/debit cards.

No one was forced out of anything.

If you sign a 1 year lease, pour thousands of dollars of improvements into the space, build a great clientele, start a successful business, and then in month 13 the landlord won't renew??

You weren't forced out. Your lease was up.

When Max Scherzer and the Tigers couldn't negotiate a deal, I was pretty disappointed. But would you say that Scherzer was "forced out" of the Detroit Tiger baseball organization?

=======

There's gonna be a learning curve as the "Old Detroit" and "New Detroit" questions continue to arise. If we want to be a modern city to be taken seriously again, people need to keep up with modern business practices or be left behind.

But regardless on your take on those dynamics, I don't think either of those parties would be considered "New Detroit". Jerry Belanger, the Park Bar owner was vehemently opposed to the tax benefits to the new hockey stadium. He's hardly the poster child for "New Detroit".

I think this was just a case of a business partnership whose contract expired, and whose interests diverged too much to put together another deal. I'm 100% sure that there are hurt feelings involved, and in every negotiation, both sides blame the other whenever there was a divorce.

But if you don't want to be "forced out", the answer is simple. Negotiate a contract that guarantees either a longer term or the first rights to renew at similar terms.

**Gannon** · December-31-15, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by rjlj

Parking crisis?

It could be avoided if they immediately brought back the $20 meter violation fee, with the half-price discount if paid within ten days.

The current $45 surprise assault is creating serious blowback to all of the existing businesses which have relied upon drop-in customers.

Even my old friend, whose daughter works at Great Lakes Coffee, visibly flinched when telling his story of being hit by a ticket by parking at a spot that has been free for decades...and the signage was insufficient to warn him.

Lesson learned...but it leaves such a stink. Businesses are noticing that their usual drive-by traffic is way down...some have lost streetside parking completely. It sucks...all fueled by greed.

There is a parking crisis, with both temporary and monthly-contract spots. I'll do more research on the monthly stuff and make a thread on it.

**belleislerunner** · December-31-15, 02:40 PM

No one will dispute Park Bar is where Bucharest got it's start because of the availability of a small kitchen and/or short term lease. And if the owner thinks he can get more rent - more power to him. The owner of the Staples on Jefferson thinks he can get more rent and that location now has "Store closing signs on it".

I as a consumer, however, think Bucharest has outgrown it's need for that space - there is no eating in option, parking etc. Look at it's new outposts in Corktown, New Center, Jefferson and Livernois.

The reality is all that will be left in that area of downtown will be a corner bar. In a rather depressing section of downtown devoid of energy. The energy has moved down to the Z Garage walking area or up to Midtown. May the last one who goes/owns at Park Bar please turn out the lights.

**313WX** · December-31-15, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

From the Merriam Webster site:

I'm not sure where the confusion lies. To say that one was "forced to leave" implies that the person had some right to be there to begin with. And therein lies the root of all of the conflict. Of course people would be angry if Bucharest was told they had a guaranteed lease until 2020 only to find out that the landlord was turning his back on the deal. That would definitely meet the definition of "being forced out".

But is that what is happening here? What rights do you have as a tenant once your lease is up? For that matter, what rights do you have as a landlord? I'd say the answer is: None.

Eber Brock Ward references this very point [emphasis mine] :

No one was forced out of anything.

If you sign a 1 year lease, pour thousands of dollars of improvements into the space, build a great clientele, start a successful business, and then in month 13 the landlord won't renew??

You weren't forced out. Your lease was up.

When Max Scherzer and the Tigers couldn't negotiate a deal, I was pretty disappointed. But would you say that Scherzer was "forced out" of the Detroit Tiger baseball organization?

=======

There's gonna be a learning curve as the "Old Detroit" and "New Detroit" questions continue to arise. If we want to be a modern city to be taken seriously again, people need to keep up with modern business practices or be left behind.

But regardless on your take on those dynamics, I don't think either of those parties would be considered "New Detroit". Jerry Belanger, the Park Bar owner was vehemently opposed to the tax benefits to the new hockey stadium. He's hardly the poster child for "New Detroit".

I think this was just a case of a business partnership whose contract expired, and whose interests diverged too much to put together another deal. I'm 100% sure that there are hurt feelings involved, and in every negotiation, both sides blame the other whenever there was a divorce.

But if you don't want to be "forced out", the answer is simple. Negotiate a contract that guarantees either a longer term or the first rights to renew at similar terms.

Now we're just getting caught up in semantics.

If a tenant that has done nothing wrong and has no say in the decision by the landlord that they must move out, it is essentially an eviction [[even if it isn't a pretty way to describe it).

**Danny** · December-31-15, 02:59 PM

When gentrification comes high rent.

**Towne Cluber** · December-31-15, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Gannon

It could be avoided if they immediately brought back the $20 meter violation fee, with the half-price discount if paid within ten days.

The current $45 surprise assault is creating serious blowback to all of the existing businesses which have relied upon drop-in customers.

Even my old friend, whose daughter works at Great Lakes Coffee, visibly flinched when telling his story of being hit by a ticket by parking at a spot that has been free for decades...and the signage was insufficient to warn him.

Lesson learned...but it leaves such a stink. Businesses are noticing that their usual drive-by traffic is way down...some have lost streetside parking completely. It sucks...all fueled by greed.

There is a parking crisis, with both temporary and monthly-contract spots. I'll do more research on the monthly stuff and make a thread on it.

$25 [[and no discount) seems to be the major city average. Why would Detroit want to ham-string itself with a $10 fine [[half-off of a $20 fine if paid within a few days)?

**corktownyuppie** · December-31-15, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Now we're just getting caught up in semantics.

If a tenant that has done nothing wrong and has no say in the decision by the landlord that they must move out, it is essentially an eviction [[even if it isn't a pretty way to describe it).

I disagree, and furthermore, I believe this way of thinking is the source of unnecessary frustration and tension.

The tenant had plenty of say in the decision. Did they not agree to the length of the lease? Weren't they aware of the day the lease ends? If the reverse were true and the landlord was begging them to renew their lease and they chose to leave, would you accuse the tenant of screwing over the landlord?

**corktownyuppie** · December-31-15, 04:09 PM

Seriously, the more I think about this, the more it frustrates me. Why the hell do tenants believe they're entitled to remain in a location longer than the contract states?? Was this the common way of doing business for a long time?

I'm not trying to be snarky...if that was an accepted practice for several generations or something, then it would be easier to comprehend.

Everywhere I've ever rented, when my lease expires, I can choose to leave with no questions asked. If I move to Florida for 3 years and I find a tenant to sign a 3 year lease to live in my house, that means that at the end, the lease is up and I can move back in.

Someone please explain to me why this seems to be a foreign concept?!?!

**Honky Tonk** · December-31-15, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by Towne Cluber

$25 [[and no discount) seems to be the major city average. Why would Detroit want to ham-string itself with a $10 fine [[half-off of a $20 fine if paid within a few days)?

Why would Detroit bite the hand that feeds it? Taxes all caught up? 98% graduation rate? Houses all sold? Crime under control? It's a major city alright.

**Towne Cluber** · December-31-15, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

Why would Detroit bite the hand that feeds it? Taxes all caught up? 98% graduation rate? Houses all sold? Crime under control? It's a major city alright.

A big part of Detroit's problem...Doing things differently [[wrongly) than everybody else.

**Honky Tonk** · December-31-15, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by Towne Cluber

A big part of Detroit's problem...Doing things differently [[wrongly) than everybody else.

Detroit has done a lot of things wrong in the past, including gouging businesses, and tax paying residents. Alienating supporters seems like a stupid act of desperation.

**jcole** · December-31-15, 08:17 PM

Here's the story:

Jerry Belanger owns Park Bar and the building that houses Bucharest. He says he's not renewing the lease because the restaurant is getting too big for his small piece of Detroit.
"In an ironic way he's a victim of his own success," he said of Bucharest. "The place has grown. It's extremely busy down here, there's no parking. The street parking is $45 if you stay after two hours and get a ticket out here. The rest of the parking his closed off unless there's a game, and then it's $20."

Beloved Bucharest eatery squeezed out downtown due to parking

And it doesn't help that Bucharest employs 60 people. There are nearly 200 when you count the adjacent businesses.http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/loca...66830284-story

Follow the link for a video of an interview with Belanger.

**Khorasaurus** · December-31-15, 11:38 PM

The parking problem seems to be rooted in Ilitch's lots being closed on non game days. He owns a huge swath of vacant land for parking and won't even let people park there!

**Gistok** · December-31-15, 11:44 PM

Wow... just wow.... they are surrounded by a vast sea of empty lots to the west used for parking... and there is no place to park.

Hmmmm.... maybe the Statler block that the city is giving to that developer for next to nothing, maybe the city needs to rethink their strategy about downtown parking. Let him build his underground parking deck for residents of the apartments... 1st floor retail, with 6 stories of public municipal parking and 5 floors of apartments. Still may not be much to behold visually... but a 12 story building makes for a better visual footprint, and the added public parking is needed if downtown wants to retain businesses with enough parking. This may not help the Bucharest... but if GCP is going to continue to rebound... then more parking is needed.

Also someone suggested that a pedestrian bridge be built across the Fisher [[I-75) bridge to connect the Arena district with Park Ave. commercial. Is there any reason why a parking structure in the area near the Bucharest can't handle both, including the Fox/Fillmore and Comerica Park?

As loathe as people on this forum are to parking structures/lots, I can't see any other way out of this...

**Bham1982** · January-01-16, 01:16 AM

Originally Posted by Gannon

There is a parking crisis, with both temporary and monthly-contract spots. I'll do more research on the monthly stuff and make a thread on it.

If that's true, it's a good thing. There is no such thing as a vibrant big city downtown with easy and cheap parking.

I have never had a problem parking downtown, even for special events. When I go downtown alone I don't even pay [[I take my cheapskate ass to the casinos). When with others I suck it up and pay the $10 or whatever.

**Hypestyles** · January-01-16, 02:44 AM

There should be a fast casual soul food place downtown.

**Bham1982** · January-01-16, 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

There should be a fast casual soul food place downtown.

That's a pretty good idea. Something like Beans and Cornbread to Go [[is that place still open?) but with a Chipotle-style setup. Could be a potential franchise.

**archfan** · January-01-16, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

Seriously, the more I think about this, the more it frustrates me. Why the hell do tenants believe they're entitled to remain in a location longer than the contract states?? Was this the common way of doing business for a long time?
...

I think part of it comes from a time when people were extremely grateful for any business opening. The ones that survived may feel they deserve special consideration for being pioneers. We may see more of this as competition heats up for space. That just highlights what EBW was saying - if you have a business that's doing well, get a lease to ensure you can keep your location.

**SyGolden48236** · January-01-16, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by archfan

.....if you have a business that's doing well, get a lease to ensure you can keep your location.

That is a fallacy. If you want to be sure you can keep your location you must own the location. When you lease you are at the mercy of the landlord. Buy property and be your own landlord. Leasing/renting is throwing your money away.

**ddaydetroit** · January-01-16, 09:40 AM

I started going to the park bar and Bucharest grill as soon as it opened and you could park all over the place including Ilitch's lots when games were not going on then for no reason he locked them all up and would not open them except on game days and 20 dollars to park I asked the owner of the park bar about this years ago and he said they lot owners would not budge on letting his customers use the lots even when there were no events going on. The park bar is not the only bar with this problem in the area. When people give high praise to Michael Ilitch I love telling these stories

**SyGolden48236** · January-01-16, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by ddaydetroit

I started going to the park bar and Bucharest grill as soon as it opened and you could park all over the place including Ilitch's lots when games were not going on then for no reason he locked them all up and would not open them except on game days and 20 dollars to park I asked the owner of the park bar about this years ago and he said they lot owners would not budge on letting his customers use the lots even when there were no events going on. The park bar is not the only bar with this problem in the area. When people give high praise to Michael Ilitch I love telling these stories

The parking lots are private property. Ilitch purchased the lots and has the right to do with them as he pleases. You do not have a right to use them. You are not entitled to park your car in there if the owner of the lot does not want you to.

Having a bunch of bar patrons parking in his lot is a tremendous liability for Ilitch or any other lot owner. If somebody, drunk or otherwise, hits and injures another person in the lot the owner will be sued.

**ddaydetroit** · January-01-16, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by SyGolden48236

The parking lots are private property. Ilitch purchased the lots and has the right to do with them as he pleases. You do not have a right to use them. You are not entitled to park your car in there if the owner of the lot does not want you to.

Having a bunch of bar patrons parking in his lot is a tremendous liability for Ilitch or any other lot owner. If somebody, drunk or otherwise, hits and injures another person in the lot the owner will be sued.

Well then its a good thing when they go to a lions Tigers or Redwings game they do not serve alcohol at these events and good thing the fans aren't going to bars like the park bar before and after the games or celebrating before or after the games and doing things like tailgating. The city is full of bars surrounded by private parking lots look at Greektown and Bricktown

Years ago when Mike Ilitch came up with the grand plans for fox theater district with the theaters ball park and entertainment district his main threat/competition was the warehouse/river-town district that conveniently went away then Foxtown was the happening area and for Mike Ilitch it was ME ME ME and screw everyone else trying to do business.

**SyGolden48236** · January-01-16, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by ddaydetroit

Well then its a good thing when they go to a lions Tigers or Redwings game they do not serve alcohol at these events and good thing the fans aren't going to bars like the park bar before and after the games or celebrating before or after the games and doing things like tailgating. The city is full of bars surrounded by private parking lots look at Greektown and Bricktown

Years ago when Mike Ilitch came up with the grand plans for fox theater district with the theaters ball park and entertainment district his main threat/competition was the warehouse/river-town district that conveniently went away then Foxtown was the happening area and for Mike Ilitch it was ME ME ME and screw everyone else trying to do business.

Ilitch or any other owner of private property has the right to do with his property as he sees fit. Why should Ilitch expose himself to the liability connected to the use of his lots on non-game days, when the lots won't generate much revenue, just so some bar customers with an inflated sense of entitlement don't have to walk too far to drink?

And the reason that the Rivertown district went away is because the City of Detroit in its infinite stupidity decided to force out the businesses that were located there in order to build the three casinos in that area. I had property in the area at that time. I am intimately familiar with what went on then and it had absolutely nothing to do with Ilitch.

**Gistok** · January-01-16, 01:17 PM

You would think that a billionaire that seems to have an "inflated sense of entitlement" to tear down buildings [[with public money) such as the Madison-Lenox farther away [[for paid parking), as well as public money for tearing down buildings in this area near the Bucharest [[such as the Vermont Hotel)... would have some decency in allowing people who chipped in to pay for his "entitlement" to demolish for parking... and give them some slack and let them park there even if they have to pay!

It sounds to me like Ilitch is trying to kill the Park Ave. district... even though he claims to want to have a huge development district from the Arena down to Bagley Ave... a 45 block stretch. Ilitch seems to be better at killing the growth of an entertainment district... than trying to promote it. And since he already got his 2nd helping of feeding at the public trough [[his first helping was Comerica Park and the land around it that he cleared of any buildings)... and now history repeats itself. I'm already doubtful he will ever come thru on anything more than just the Arena.... his deeds speak louder than his promises.