Thanks for screwing my town, Home Depot.

[Thump553]

techs: Any lawyer who has ever done even one lease for commercial space will tell you the kind of clause you complain is common, nearly universal in this type of lease.

And such lawyer could also tell you that landlords seek a clause requiring the tenant to actively operate the business at the premises for the whole term of the lease. Not as common a clause-the tenants push back a lot on this-but hardly unheard of.

The enforceabilty of such a clause is predicated on Home Depot not breaching the lease, of course, ie continuing to pay the rent.

I think the overall complaint is more about change. and why can things always stay the way they used to be in the good old days, than on any sort of alleged corporate wrongdoing-of which there is not even a hint of, so far.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Thump553
techs: Any lawyer who has ever done even one lease for commercial space will tell you the kind of clause you complain is common, nearly universal in this type of lease.

And such lawyer could also tell you that landlords seek a clause requiring the tenant to actively operate the business at the premises for the whole term of the lease. Not as common a clause-the tenants push back a lot on this-but hardly unheard of.

The enforceabilty of such a clause is predicated on Home Depot not breaching the lease, of course, ie continuing to pay the rent.

I think the overall complaint is more about change. and why can things always stay the way they used to be in the good old days, than on any sort of alleged corporate wrongdoing-of which there is not even a hint of, so far.

Actually the point is that Home Depot came to our town and repeatedly lied. The thread says that's my point.
Where is the corporate responsibility? Seems that when someone who is getting killed by the mortgage crunch complains the bank told them they could afford the loan, many people CONTINUALLY rant about personal responsibility.
Heck, compared to a homeowner who got duped by a bank, mortage lender or even President Bush into believing the good times would never end, Home Depot is so far lower down on the morality scale that I would expect HUNDREDS of "Where's the corporate responsibility posts.
But, alas, seems we only hold individuals responsible for their actions. Not corporations.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: techs
About 8 years ago Home Depot wanted to open a store in my small town in Vermont.
They needed a zoning variance. So there were big hearings with the Home Depot representitive repeatedly promising:

1) Despite this store being the smallest one in the whole US they were sure it would make money and were committed to it.
2) Their studies indicated no improvements were needed to the roads to avoid congestion.
3) If they did ever leave they wouldn't try and put any restrictions on the owners of their site not to rent to another hardware/home improvement store

So a few days ago Home Depot announces it is closing my towns stores (and some others). They specifically said they were closing our store because it was too small and grossed too little money.
The town had to spend a lot of money building a roundabout because Home Depot was wrong and traffic was murder around the store.
After signing the original lease which did not specify the landlord couldn't rent to a similiar type store after they leave, they re-negotiated almost immediately after getting the zoning variance and indeed have a 3 year restriction on another of that type of store.

About 10 different businesses closed due to Home Depot. And now people will have to drive 17 miles to another state for the next nearest Home Depot.

Home Depot you are an irresponsible corporation.

That happens a lot with mega stores. They come in and demand all sorts of special treatment to setup. They entice locals with promises that they know they will never keep. Most people bend over and give them what they want hoping that these mega stores will provide plenty of jobs, increased tax revenue, and that they will stick around for the long haul.

The sad reality is that they come in and kill all mom and pop stores, hire people for minimum wage if not lower to work for them and then when times get tough they leave without even saying thank you. Welcome to the corporate lead economic landscape of America as we know it today.

 

[Fern]

In a way I sympathize with your point. Sadly, in my experience whether individual or corporation, mere verbal promises don't mean crap. They are no different; if it ain't in the contract (written promise) you're likely gonna get screwed.

Fern

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Fern
In a way I sympathize with your point. Sadly, in my experience whether individual or corporation, mere verbal promises don't mean crap. They are no different; if it ain't in the contract (written promise) you're likely gonna get screwed.

Fern

Even if it's in a contract the wording has to be extremely precise so as to not allow any wiggle room whatsoever. Corporate lawyers can ( if given enough leeway ) argue out of a contract or totally ignore it knowing that it will cost people to much money and time to litigate then it is worth getting them to honor their contract.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: techs


About 10 different businesses closed due to Home Depot. And now people will have to drive 17 miles to another state for the next nearest Home Depot.

Why do people have to drive 17 miles to go to a HD when they can visit one of the many other hardware or specialty home centers in the Brattleboro area? The way you make it sound is that HD ran all its competitors out of business when there is apparently several other options in your area to chose from instead of HD. Maybe you should patronize your local businesses instead of driving 17 miles to HD and whining about it here.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

That happens a lot with mega stores. They come in and demand all sorts of special treatment to setup. They entice locals with promises that they know they will never keep. Most people bend over and give them what they want hoping that these mega stores will provide plenty of jobs, increased tax revenue, and that they will stick around for the long haul.

The sad reality is that they come in and kill all mom and pop stores, hire people for minimum wage if not lower to work for them and then when times get tough they leave without even saying thank you. Welcome to the corporate lead economic landscape of America as we know it today.

One of the ways they do this is by playing the towns against each other. If there are 5 towns, they'll tell them all, if they don't make concessions another town will get the big tax revenut and pull shoppers away, and it's very effective at getting cities to give away the store.

Similarly, look at the terrible deals sports teams can pressure the local governments into doing for them, giving them outrageous profits at the public expense.

It's not like it makes sense for taxpayers, they're just able to to do it, so they do it. It's pretty common - the story behind the Bush consortium buy of the Texas Rangers is ugly.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's not like it makes sense for taxpayers, they're just able to to do it, so they do it. It's pretty common - the story behind the Bush consortium buy of the Texas Rangers is ugly.

The story behind all major league sports teams in Texas is ugly. Public money goes into the already wealthy owner's fat wallets. Need a stadium? We the public will buy that for you! Taxes are too high? You don't have to pay them! The roads are too small? Let us build bigger ones for you! We don't have enough money to pay for all of this? No problem, we'll pass a bond! The interest? Oh wel'll pay for that too!

We get free tickets, right?

 

[Deudalus]

We are going through the same thing with Home Depot right now.

We are commercial real estate developers here in New Orleans and I'll give you a brief run down of what we are going through.

We had a huge plot of land that was spectacular that was going to go to Lowe's. It was right off of a main street in Kenner, had its own interstate exit, was on the major pathway to a major mall, etc etc. It was literally a perfect location for a major retailer.

Well, Lowe's decided to be knuckleheads and screw with us so we offered it up to Home Depot who immediately snatched it up despite having two other stores within 4 or 5 miles or so of this one. Tied into the lease was the requirement that the store had to be built and completed within 3 years for insurance purposes and also as collateral for the loan we had to take out to purchase the land.

Currently, the store hasn't been built and Home Depot is doing everything they can to buy us out of the lease but thats going to cost them an arm and a leg.

Its been about 18 months and it takes 12-18 months to build the actual store and get it up and running so they are at their deadline.

They keep submitting offers and each and every one of them has a deed restrction stating that "no home improvement retailer may operate on this land for a period of XXX days" but in our case its more like 20 to 25 years rather than just 3.

Home Depot is downsizing big time right now and canceling a lot of their projects. I'd really call it more of a consolidation than anything, they aren't hurting that's for sure. They just aren't being near as ambitious as they were a few years ago.

 

[Toasthead]

how did they make the residents of your town shop there, im guessing leading to eh closing of those 10 other stores?

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: Fern

Tell me again why I'm supposed to be mad at HD for this?

The landlord agreed to re-do the lease and insert a restiction that hurts his ability to release the space. That's his fvcking problem.

Do you really believe if HD couldn't make a go of it at that location that Lowes etc is going to now try it? I don't think so.

Fern

You would think wrong........

Lowe's already has a signed lease on our desk offering 100,000 dollars more per year than Home Depot was paying plus 500,000 in a non-refundable deposit that we get to keep if they can get the land that we are currently leasing to Home Depot.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's not like it makes sense for taxpayers, they're just able to to do it, so they do it. It's pretty common - the story behind the Bush consortium buy of the Texas Rangers is ugly.

The story behind all major league sports teams in Texas is ugly. Public money goes into the already wealthy owner's fat wallets. Need a stadium? We the public will buy that for you! Taxes are too high? You don't have to pay them! The roads are too small? Let us build bigger ones for you! We don't have enough money to pay for all of this? No problem, we'll pass a bond! The interest? Oh wel'll pay for that too!

We get free tickets, right?

Sports franchises are a classic example of govt and business in bed together. I think the only place that forced an owner of a sports team to fund the building of their own stadium is Denver with the Bronco's. Otherwise every city\state pumps in a large chunk or all of the funding and the only people who benefit are the owners of the team. How do I benefit from paying more for ticket prices and taxes becuase of the new stadium?

btw I dont think there has been a study yet that shows a net positive for the cities and states who fund these projects once you take in the cost of the initial startup costs. You take 500 million out of the economy to build a stadium. How long does it take before it creates more than 500 million in wealth through increased sales surrounding the area?

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
It's not just Depot, though they're the most visible right now as they suffer publicly for their stupidity.

Lowes did much the same thing here as Depot did there to you. They wanted this one particular piece of land, that was residential and had houses already on it. Some sold quickly, others held out. We started a political pressure campaign to stop it and managed to get it shot down...or so we thought. They came back and dumped BIG money into it. They bought people out at 10x the market value on their homes. They funded a political campaign and marketing campaign. Managed to sway the council on a revote (I will refrain from commenting on how I believe they did it) about rezoning. So we sunk tens of thousands into a legal team to get the project derailed. They pressured through it. We picketed the build, slowing it by almost eight months. They pressured on. In the end, they got what they wanted. Sort of.

We already had a couple big home improvement places here, and any new ones that had tried to start up always failed in a year. It's a small town, and there's NO money here. We had a VERY strong boycott campaign already in place the day they opened, complete with picketers and a CONSTANT barrage of complaints and legal actions against them. Within the first six months they'd completely replaced three management teams, and gone completely silent on publicity about the store. I will give them this: they've managed to stay open for about three years so far...but having talked with people who work there it's a black hole for the company. It's one of the worst performing stores in the entire country. Corporate won't even visit the store. They're only keeping it out of spite, or as some kind of tax advantage that I don't understand.

Corporations are basically stupid beasts. If people really try, they can inflict great harms against them. For some reason this doesn't tend to teach them anything however. The real kicker is we know that even when they fail, and they will, that they'll screw us out of spite. They could let the building be demolished, and turn it back into residential, or a park, or something useful. But we all know they won't.

Could you explain something to me?

1: Why is it bad if you pay people more than their house is worth? We do the same things to entice people to move to put together tracts of land for stores.

Considering we mainly go into lower income areas (because lets face it demolishing mansions to build stores isn't productive and retardedly expensive) we are actually helping the lower income people by giving them a leg up that they couldn't have forseen.

How is this bad again?

2: Often it isn't the retailer that won't let a building be demolished for a park or something like that. Stop getting emotional and feeling and start thinking for just a couple minutes.

For a demolition that size a city has to go along with it and which would make a city more money, that building (which someone still owns and is paying property tax on whether it will be used or not) which could also once again provide tax revenues for the city at some point; or a free playground.

 

[compman25]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's not like it makes sense for taxpayers, they're just able to to do it, so they do it. It's pretty common - the story behind the Bush consortium buy of the Texas Rangers is ugly.

The story behind all major league sports teams in Texas is ugly. Public money goes into the already wealthy owner's fat wallets. Need a stadium? We the public will buy that for you! Taxes are too high? You don't have to pay them! The roads are too small? Let us build bigger ones for you! We don't have enough money to pay for all of this? No problem, we'll pass a bond! The interest? Oh wel'll pay for that too!

We get free tickets, right?

Sports franchises are a classic example of govt and business in bed together. I think the only place that forced an owner of a sports team to fund the building of their own stadium is Denver with the Bronco's. Otherwise every city\state pumps in a large chunk or all of the funding and the only people who benefit are the owners of the team. How do I benefit from paying more for ticket prices and taxes becuase of the new stadium?

SF Giants

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: techs
About 8 years ago Home Depot wanted to open a store in my small town in Vermont.
They needed a zoning variance. So there were big hearings with the Home Depot representitive repeatedly promising:

1) Despite this store being the smallest one in the whole US they were sure it would make money and were committed to it.
2) Their studies indicated no improvements were needed to the roads to avoid congestion.
3) If they did ever leave they wouldn't try and put any restrictions on the owners of their site not to rent to another hardware/home improvement store

So a few days ago Home Depot announces it is closing my towns stores (and some others). They specifically said they were closing our store because it was too small and grossed too little money.
The town had to spend a lot of money building a roundabout because Home Depot was wrong and traffic was murder around the store.
After signing the original lease which did not specify the landlord couldn't rent to a similiar type store after they leave, they re-negotiated almost immediately after getting the zoning variance and indeed have a 3 year restriction on another of that type of store.

About 10 different businesses closed due to Home Depot. And now people will have to drive 17 miles to another state for the next nearest Home Depot.

Home Depot you are an irresponsible corporation.

Why are you blaming home depot? You are the one to blame. Maybe your town with think it through the next time a walmart or home depot wants to move in. As far as I'm concerned you set yourselves up for this.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: techs
About 8 years ago Home Depot wanted to open a store in my small town in Vermont.
They needed a zoning variance. So there were big hearings with the Home Depot representitive repeatedly promising:

1) Despite this store being the smallest one in the whole US they were sure it would make money and were committed to it.
2) Their studies indicated no improvements were needed to the roads to avoid congestion.
3) If they did ever leave they wouldn't try and put any restrictions on the owners of their site not to rent to another hardware/home improvement store

So a few days ago Home Depot announces it is closing my towns stores (and some others). They specifically said they were closing our store because it was too small and grossed too little money.
The town had to spend a lot of money building a roundabout because Home Depot was wrong and traffic was murder around the store.
After signing the original lease which did not specify the landlord couldn't rent to a similiar type store after they leave, they re-negotiated almost immediately after getting the zoning variance and indeed have a 3 year restriction on another of that type of store.

About 10 different businesses closed due to Home Depot. And now people will have to drive 17 miles to another state for the next nearest Home Depot.

Home Depot you are an irresponsible corporation.

Why are you blaming home depot? You are the one to blame. Maybe your town with think it through the next time a walmart or home depot wants to move in. As far as I'm concerned you set yourselves up for this.

The whole concept of "consequences" is foreign to some people. These are the same people who give their kids 10th place trophies, or blame their children's' collective stupidity on everyone/everything else but themselves -- and, lucky for us, they're passing the rules of their Blame Game on to future generations... Yay.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: techs
About 8 years ago Home Depot wanted to open a store in my small town in Vermont.
They needed a zoning variance. So there were big hearings with the Home Depot representitive repeatedly promising:

1) Despite this store being the smallest one in the whole US they were sure it would make money and were committed to it.
2) Their studies indicated no improvements were needed to the roads to avoid congestion.
3) If they did ever leave they wouldn't try and put any restrictions on the owners of their site not to rent to another hardware/home improvement store

So a few days ago Home Depot announces it is closing my towns stores (and some others). They specifically said they were closing our store because it was too small and grossed too little money.
The town had to spend a lot of money building a roundabout because Home Depot was wrong and traffic was murder around the store.
After signing the original lease which did not specify the landlord couldn't rent to a similiar type store after they leave, they re-negotiated almost immediately after getting the zoning variance and indeed have a 3 year restriction on another of that type of store.

About 10 different businesses closed due to Home Depot. And now people will have to drive 17 miles to another state for the next nearest Home Depot.

Home Depot you are an irresponsible corporation.

Why are you blaming home depot? You are the one to blame. Maybe your town with think it through the next time a walmart or home depot wants to move in. As far as I'm concerned you set yourselves up for this.

The whole concept of "consequences" is foreign to some people. These are the same people who give their kids 10th place trophies, or blame their children's' collective stupidity on everyone/everything else but themselves -- and, lucky for us, they're passing the rules of their Blame Game on to future generations... Yay.

HA! 10th place trophy. I love that.:laugh:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: Fern

Tell me again why I'm supposed to be mad at HD for this?

The landlord agreed to re-do the lease and insert a restiction that hurts his ability to release the space. That's his fvcking problem.

Do you really believe if HD couldn't make a go of it at that location that Lowes etc is going to now try it? I don't think so.

Fern

You would think wrong........

Lowe's already has a signed lease on our desk offering 100,000 dollars more per year than Home Depot was paying plus 500,000 in a non-refundable deposit that we get to keep if they can get the land that we are currently leasing to Home Depot.

Tell me again how these are similar?

Tell me where one or the other operated there and didn't make a go of it.

Your post indicates a building hasn't even been built. In the OP's situation the building is obviously out-of-standard (it was smaller) and the business was closed for lack of revenue/profit.

I see no comparison between the his situtaion and the one you describe.

Fern

 

[LegendKiller]

So HD built a place, needed infrastructure improvements, got those, but then the store turned out to be a stinker?

Close it down. Hindsight is 20/20.

 

[rudder]

Wow you guys are a tough crowd. But if I were a taxpayer in that town... I would have a right to be pissed. The town has spent money for infrastructure improvements and probably budgeted the return of that money from tax revenue from home depot. Walmart was planning on opening a supercenter one town north of where I live. (wow I would have 3 supercenters within 20 minutes). After spending $75,000 of taxpayer money by the town, Walmart backed out of the deal. In this case Walmart reimbursed the town It was a small town and that money meant a lot to them. It was a nice gesture by walmart.

In many cases the corporate superstores will require towns to output the $$$ to get the store to build. This comes along with a big sell of getting back a lot more tax revenue that is costs to get them to build.

It is a crazy world though... I have 3 home depots and 3 Lowes within 20 minutes... With this downturn I expect one or more to go under.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: Fern
Tell me again how these are similar?

Tell me where one or the other operated there and didn't make a go of it.

Your post indicates a building hasn't even been built. In the OP's situation the building is obviously out-of-standard (it was smaller) and the business was closed for lack of revenue/profit.

I see no comparison between the his situtaion and the one you describe.

Fern

I was simply stating that just because one doesn't want to go somewhere that it doesn't mean the other doesn't as well.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: rudder
In many cases the corporate superstores will require towns to output the $$$ to get the store to build. This comes along with a big sell of getting back a lot more tax revenue that is costs to get them to build.

Another thing that a lot of towns do is give tax breaks to these big companies so they will build in their town.
It really is a win-win situation.

Universal Studios Florida was planning a huge expansion and wanted their own exit ramp off I-4. We are talking about a $20+ million project that the city had no plans or no funding to build.

So Universal made a deal with the city. Universal paid for and built the overpass and exit themselves and in return the city gave them tax credits off Universal's now higher tax bills.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: rudder
In many cases the corporate superstores will require towns to output the $$$ to get the store to build. This comes along with a big sell of getting back a lot more tax revenue that is costs to get them to build.

Another thing that a lot of towns do is give tax breaks to these big companies so they will build in their town.
It really is a win-win situation.

Universal Studios Florida was planning a huge expansion and wanted their own exit ramp off I-4. We are talking about a $20+ million project that the city had no plans or no funding to build.

So Universal made a deal with the city. Universal paid for and built the overpass and exit themselves and in return the city gave them tax credits off Universal's now higher tax bills.

Is that really win-win? It's not as if Universal Studios is actually making anything for society - it's an entertainment product, not a wealth-producing product.

So, the money isn't make out of thin air, rather, it's simply redirected resources, probably mostly local (people don't plan a vacation around an off-ramp).

So the same money that would have gone elsewhere - whether saved/invested that helps the economy, or to purchase taxable products - instead goes to pay for their off-ramp.

It's a win for Universal studios - it increases their income for free to them, as the money comes out of the public's tax money. A win for the public is arguable.

And that's an especially benevolent story compare to many of the typical rip-offs that the wealthy owners of these facilities get away with, which often leave the public with big debt.

 

[idiotekniQues]

unsure if this was at all the fault of HD, depends on what exactly they 'committed' to in opening their smallest store in america, that may put some responsibility on them.

but in any sense, corporations are not supposed to be good citizens, but they do want corporate personhood legally, rather than juristic personhood.

so they do want the best of both worlds, and usually they get it too

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: rudder
In many cases the corporate superstores will require towns to output the $$$ to get the store to build. This comes along with a big sell of getting back a lot more tax revenue that is costs to get them to build.

Another thing that a lot of towns do is give tax breaks to these big companies so they will build in their town.
It really is a win-win situation.

Universal Studios Florida was planning a huge expansion and wanted their own exit ramp off I-4. We are talking about a $20+ million project that the city had no plans or no funding to build.

So Universal made a deal with the city. Universal paid for and built the overpass and exit themselves and in return the city gave them tax credits off Universal's now higher tax bills.

Is that really win-win? It's not as if Universal Studios is actually making anything for society - it's an entertainment product, not a wealth-producing product.

So, the money isn't make out of thin air, rather, it's simply redirected resources, probably mostly local (people don't plan a vacation around an off-ramp).

So the same money that would have gone elsewhere - whether saved/invested that helps the economy, or to purchase taxable products - instead goes to pay for their off-ramp.

It's a win for Universal studios - it increases their income for free to them, as the money comes out of the public's tax money. A win for the public is arguable.

And that's an especially benevolent story compare to many of the typical rip-offs that the wealthy owners of these facilities get away with, which often leave the public with big debt.

Craig... why don't you tell the 5000 people who now have jobs at Universal who didn't have those jobs before the expansion that they are not making anything for society.

While you are at it might as well ban tv, movies, books, magazines, music etc etc since all those aren't making anything for society either.

Also, you missed one of my main points.

Orlando doesn't give Universal its tax break and Universal doesn't build the on ramp and its connecting roads and then Universals property value doesn't go up and Universal doesn't pay more taxes.

Tax breaks to attract businesses is one of the smartest things a government can do. Alabama gives Honda millions in tax breaks to help offset the cost of its new factory and in return Alabama gets hundreds of good paying jobs and those jobs lead to increased tax revenue for the state.

On the other hand, Alabama says no tax breaks and Honda doesn't build a factory and thus no new jobs and no extra tax revenue.