Maybe if you read the rest you would understand basic buisness.
He said the $3000 loss devastated him,he is claiming the $3000 as lost revenue.
You shut the doors for the day,product stays in the cooler you did not sell it or incorporate it into a meal.
Shut the doors for the day and the only costs that carry forward are your fixed costs.Does it cost him $3000 a day in fixed costs?
I own,service,consult and build restaurants and have for many years,nobody shuts down for the day for contractor estimates.
His lease stated that the tenant was responsible for building maintenance,the previous landlord did not check up and make sure that the space was being properly maintained and just offered cheap rents.
The deal was tenant maintained the space,that is in a legal document,the tenant choose to not maintain the space and not fix a leak to prevent further damage,so the previous landlords complacency trickled down to the tenant.
The difference in the end is the landlord did not care,he got paid for the sale and why should he care because it was on the tenant in the first place.
In reading the comments online and here there is a pretty common theme.
People seem to want the city to change,fix the roads,fix the street lights,stop the crime etc.
We know it all needs to be paid for but we just do not want to have all of these rich people buying our buildings and improve it them in order to increase the tax base.
The simple solution would have been for the restaurant owner to just buy the property himself.
It was like the other interview,the store owner reported that she was not looking to make a profit,just provide cheap space for others.
That is fine,go buy a building and have at it,why expect a property owner to give you something cheap so you can be the nice guy at somebody else’s expense?
Its an old building that has had millions in deferred maintenance for many years,fix it all like brand new so I can have a cheap space.
Name one city in the country that offers commercial space like that for $350 per month.
Bookmarks