Third post of the day. I'm a bloggin' fool.

Have the day off, (well, I should be doing my monthly orders). I wanted to comment on the article in the Source about Sumi, of Kinshinbo Kitchen. She says that she's on a month to month lease, which quite understandably makes her insecure. (Or was it the Bulletin? I don't have it here in front of me: as usual when I speculate, take what I say with a grain of salt.)

I know that because of the construction of the new edifice behind her building, they cut off the exits to the three restaurants, which made it difficult for them to take care of shipments and garbage. I know that one of the restaurants lost seating space because of a reduction of exits. I've heard through the grapevine that at least two of the restaurants are looking to move.

Now I've wondered all along if the owners of building were really all that put out by the building going up next door. I've wondered if they didn't mind the pressure it put on their own tenants. Because, I believe these are the same people who own the St. Clair building, as well as the building that was torn down next the Deschutes Brewery on Bond, so it's pretty clear that they are in a renovating state of mind, and not just rent-collecting.

I was reassured for awhile by the fact that they haven't done anything on the Bond Street site, so maybe they wouldn't be in a hurry to start working on the building across the street. Cause I'm not looking forward to that day. I watched the Teddy Bear shop down the street have to deal with renovations to the left of them, to the right of them, kitty corner from them, and across from them, and into the valley of death. It really hurts, even if it isn't your OWN building that's being worked on.

On the other hand, I've been told that at least two other tenants of the building have longer leases.

So Sumi is on a month to month, (which is almost guaranteed to make her want to move.) So two of the resturants are planning to move. Why would a landlord do that? Why wouldn't the landlord offer a lease that matched the lease to the other tenants? It just doesn't jibe.

Unless -- and here is where my suspicious nature comes in -- the longer leases are somehow going to be broken.

I've known since the day I started that if a Landlord wants you out, they can probably get you out just by making life very, very difficult for you. By enforcing every little letter of the lease contract, by hassling you, by hectoring you, by throwing complications your way. Hell, we have NO CONTROL over how much they charge us for triple net. If they decide they want to --- say, sandblast the side of the building -- and charge you for it, I believe they can. Oops! Did we place that ladder in front of your store and intimidate your customers? Sorry.

So, I just kind of wonder why some tenants have a supposed longer lease, other tenants have been put into uncomfortable positions without any remedy from the owners (that I know of), and yet other tenants have been given month to month leases?

It doesn't make sense to me.