In other words, Sacramento will soon be getting a new parking lot where Cortis currently sits! I just hope they match the new property fence to the current fence just to Corti’s west.

A lease is an obligation between two parties, a Landlord and a Tenant. In exchange for the property for a set rent and term, the Landlord leases the Property to the Tenant. Aside from rent and term, there are several other items in a lease that make up the contract that bind the two parties.

Most often a Tenant will stay in a month-to-month lease or prefer to be in one if they simply are unsure where they want to take their business: relocate in a smaller space, a larger space, or simply close up shop. He/she needs flexibility and the peace of mind that he/she is not liable for rent owed.

It is the Landlord prerogative to get the best cash flow for his/her investment, period.

He/she might want a mo-to-mo to delay a major renovation, redevelopment, or new direction they want to take with the property.

Retail, in particular food service and food related stores, is in the toilet. If you can double your rent in a location and lock up the cash flow for long term, you do it. Davis owns property all over town and I’m sure some of her other properties aren’t meeting proforma. I have also heard though she is a certifiable nut job.

The Corti’s I feel weren’t and still aren’t sure what they want to do with their family business. It is difficult to have a succession plan in place with such a dynamic family.

With this amount of uncertainty in the market and in your Tenant’s long term goals, you cannot fret on a good business decision. The shit thing now is I believe Darrell now knows he wants to continue his legacy and regrets not coming to Jesus earlier.

That is the bottom-line.

The answer is “lemon grass beef with egg roll” (which is what the number “52″ usually means to me in my own special OCD/Rainman way.)

But, still, hate to lose something that is an integral part of the old-school feel of the ‘hood, ya know?

I appreciated the discussion even though we were on opposite sides of the issue. I also appreciate the fact that you are blogging about sac issues and events.

Anyway I’m sure we both understand public comment on business licenses and stuff, its merits and so forth. I get that I’m not going to make an impact in this matter on people who feel passionately about Cortis. Good talk!

At the time of the approval the project, the final locations for the Good Eats project included only the Andiamo site and 2 locations to be determined later. I doubt anyone would have not approved of the concept. Heck I was behind the project and was eagerly awaiting the Andiamo location opening until the deal that forced Corti out of its current location was disclosed.

I think that we should be able to nix deals, and we do it all the time. People\communities nix deals for liquor stores, gas stations, bars etc. because they have a negative impact on the community. I’m not saying that good eats is a bad idea or a negative impact on the community by its nature, but the way they went about implimenting the project does have a negative impact and had it been known ahead of time that the choice for east sac would be Corti or Good Eats, I’m guessing most would have chosen Corti. The project as it was originally laid would have been Corti and Good Eats… a very different scenario.

LOL I don’t even think I want a day pass to your community

I don’t understand why Teel would have to seek a location for his store while guaranteeing that the current occupant of the location was “still in the picture.” And until I know otherwise, I do assume that everything that happened before Corti offered to sell his business was OK. What I am saying is that it speaks to his desire to stay in business as Corti Bros.

I hope you have applied for your gate pass.

Your case is flimsy… =P

I never said that the planning board would have nixed the project. I was responding to your philosophy that communities should not be involved, and that only market forces should dictate what businesses should take place in a community.

I have responded to your comment about Corti making a counter to Teel, and you seem to think that since Corti made a counter offer to Teel that somehow makes every that happened before that ok. In my mind it doesn’t. At the time Corti made his counter offer, he had lost his lease. His options were and are limited. If he wanted to continue doing business in east sac at the current location he would have to strike a deal with Teel. Otherwise he would have to look elsewhere. Having to strike a deal with the devil doesn’t absolve the initial sin which set all these issues in motion to begin with, which you seem to want to do.

Alton Brown would agree with me =)

More importantly, how does Alton Brown feel about this whole deal?

The deal that Teel made with the landlord was to double the current rent, and given the nature of the project “gormet specialty grocery” it probably includes capital improvements which Teel is most likely on the hook for since the landlord hadn’t made any improvements on the property in 20 years. I was suggesting that it was far cheaper for Teel to out bid Corti on the lease with what appears to be a back-room deal with the current landlord, make a some capital improvements, and be still well ahead financially and successfully removed Corti as local compitition to his project. It’s a great move from a purely financial perspective. A great financial/business move by Teel. But that’s not all there is to business, there is the issue of what impact that may have on the community. And that’s the part that Teel, the landowner, and apparently you don’t get.

I think many people would have been ok with a month to month lease at those rates. Sure Corti could have left at any time, but the point is they didn’t. They stayed there for 20 plus years. And that in part says something about their commitment to east sac. The only reason they are leaving now is because Teel forced the issue by signing a deal with the landlord. To me that is forced out.

I can understand wanting more money for your property, Im just not down with how the whole process came about. If there had been an open bid period where Corti had been allowed to make a counter to Teel’s offer, If there had been some community involvement in the decision, then I would been ok with how it turned out, But Corti wasn’t given that opportunity, and neither was the community and now Corti is forced to leave and probably leave east sac. And possibly close up shop all together, and that bothers me alot.

I think you’re mostly concerned with the Teel angle, and honestly I haven’t given much thought to that side of the equation. I’m merely feeling contrarian on seeing Corti as a victim here. Teel’s project did not “remove them from the community” any more than Corti’s being OK with having a month to month lease for 20 years did. Remember, that means he could have left the landowner in the lurch with 30 days notice too. They were getting bottom barrel rent from a client who could have bolted with no notice. Maybe they turned down offers in the past 20 years, but you can’t really blame them for taking a hard deal for more money.

Also this doesn’t make a lick of sense:

“24k/mo over a couple of years plus capital improvements is a lot less than the 2 million it would have taken to appease Corti”

The $2 million offer was for Teel to BUY Corti out. Shouldn’t you be thanking Teel for turning that down, freeing up Corti to open up shop in a new location? Sure, Corti might have rebounded and opened a new venture. But it would not necessarily have been the same thing–after all, he would have then been on the payroll at Good Eats.

And hey, if Good Eats is good enough for Darrel Corti, shouldn’t it be good enough for you?

I think with the unanswered questions you have to ask why.

Why wasn’t Corti brought into the negotiations before they were completed? Wouldn’t that have been in the best interest in the landowner to get the best possible deal? A reasonable conclusion is that Teel didn’t want Corti involved, and the only leverage he has with regards to that issue is to revoke is offer. So that would explain why Corti didn’t hear about the negotiations until after the deal was completed.

Doesn’t it strike you as strange that the details of Teel’s offer to Corti were not revealed, but the details of Corti’s offer was? It strikes me that it was revealed to paint Corti as someone willing to sell out the community for the right price, And while Teel saw that as being to much to spend to “mend fences” it allowed him to paint Corti is a less positive light. A reasonable conclusion was that neither offer by Teel or Corti were made as serious offers…

Don’t you find it curious that details of Teel’s offer to the landlord were not revealed beyond the new monthly price. A reasonable conclusion is that Teel offered to make capital improvements on the property. Something that the owner was unwilling to do for Corti as wittnessed by the lack of any capital improvements by the owner over the last 20 years.

Isn’t it convenient that by spending 24k plus potential capital improvements that Teel manages to remove a competitor that was slated to take in 8 million dollars in revenue this year… 24k/mo over a couple of years plus capital improvements is a lot less than the 2 million it would have taken to appease Corti and it removes the compitition from the area he wanted to set up shop in…

Teel’s track record with business projects in the community have been suspect in the past. Corti’s has not.

So yeah I have a bias towards Corti as a fantastic local grocery that catered to my needs and provided great customer service and food to this community, and I am not inclined to support a project that removes them from my community.

Teel may have a good idea, but he didn’t have to build it at Corti’s expense. He could have chosen to just use the Andiamo location. He chose to persue aggressive capitalistic tactics to achieve his goals. Perfectly in his right to do so. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And I don’t think anything he will be selling will be able to wash away that bad taste.

We do know one other thing, which is that when Corti did have the opportunity to offer something, he offered to SELL the business. You simply can’t make the argument that Corti’s has been “forced out” of that location knowing that. I’m not saying selling your business is not being a good community citizen, I just don’t get the blind devotion on the basis of Corti’s status as a local icon if much of what is causing this situation is easily perceived as Corti’s lack of commitment to the area.

At this point if he reopens at a new location, won’t that appear to be Plan B because cashing in didn’t work? It’s making me think of…

Basil Exposition: Austin, the Cold War is over!
Austin Powers: Finally those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes, eh? Eh comrades? Eh?
Basil Exposition: Austin… we won.
Austin Powers: Oh, smashing, groovy, yay capitalism!

Could Corti have signed a longer lease? We don’t know, it takes two parties to sign a lease. Its my best guess that the landowner was given a sweet deal by Teel that the owner could not turn down, and that successfully eliminated potential competition to his new pet project. I think I it was done fast and on the sly with the landowner. I think the Corti was not brought into the process or brought in after the fact was because it might have ruined the sweet deal the landlord had on the table with Teel. I think Teel should realize that its bad for business to piss off a community when creating a new venture. I think its bad for Sacramento that a local business has been forced out of its community simply for the persuit of the mighty dollar with no evaluation of its impact on the community as a whole.

People have complained that Corti didn’t do much to improve the location, but we don’t know how much leeway they had to make improvements to the property, and I can’t blame them for not wanting to much capital into a location they could lose the rights to in 30 days. The fact that the landowner didn’t make any improvements to the property shows that they were not interested in the property beyond what it took to keep their existing tennant happy, and Corti couldn’t really complain given what they were paying for rent…

Teel has had other business ventures fail miserably and has treated those projects with what looks to be outward indifference (prosper magazine). He presented a picture of being completely supportive of that project up to the day he shut it down with no notice to the employees. Completely his right, but its a pretty crappy way to treat people. I mention this because it goes to the character issue when trying to get at motives and what may have happened between Corti, Teel and the landowner….

I will not support the good eats project, I will not recommend to anyone I know the good eats stores. I will support Corti because its a local business that I like and has been a good community citizen and business for the east sac area, and I feel was treated poorly by back-room dealings by Teel and the landlord.

My wife suggests Corti open a new wine-only business called Sour Grapes…