News

To combat vacancies, Palo Alto may repeal 'retail protection' law

Council spars over proposal to eliminate ordinance that bans ground-level retail spaces from becoming offices

A Bokman Rock "For Lease" sign hangs on the space previously occupied by Babka by Ayelet, a Jewish bakery, which closed before the COVID-19 pandemic. Photo by Lloyd Lee.

With Palo Alto businesses buckling during the economic shutdown, a bitterly divided City Council took an initial step on Monday toward repealing a local law that bars the conversion of ground-floor retail spaces to offices throughout the city.

In a surprising move that followed a long and wide-ranging debate about strategies to support the business community, the council directed staff by a 4-3 vote to return with an ordinance that would eliminate the citywide "retail preservation" ordinance. If the council moves ahead with the repeal, properties outside Palo Alto's main commercial areas would be allowed to replace retail operations with offices or other commercial uses.

The controversial proposal was made by Mayor Adrian Fine, a longtime critic of the ordinance, who argued that the law is too geographically broad. His three colleagues from the council's more pro-growth camp, Alison Cormack, Liz Kniss and Greg Tanaka, all supported the consideration of the repeal. The three council members who are more aligned with the "residentialist" camp, Vice Mayor Tom DuBois, Eric Filseth and Lydia Kou, vehemently opposed the move and suggested that the change could cause long-term damage to the retail community.

The council adopted the law in 2017, following the closure and/or relocation of several longtime downtown retailers and restaurants — including Fraiche, Zibibbo and Jungle Copy — and their subsequent conversion to office use. After passing an emergency ordinance in 2015 to prohibit such conversions, the council moved in 2017 to make the restriction permanent. At that time, Fine, Kniss and Tanaka all opposed the new ordinance.

On Monday night, in a broad discussion that was listed on the council's agenda as a "verbal update" on the city's efforts to help businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic, the three opponents of the ordinance were joined by Cormack in a vote to reconsider the law.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Palo Alto Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

Proponents of the change argued that the city doesn't have any real expertise in retail, that some sites are not naturally suited for retail and that property owners should have more flexibility when it comes to uses at a time when the economic shutdown is ravaging the business community.

"I don't think it's helping us," Fine said of the 2017 ordinance.

Fine proposed reversing the 2017 action and limiting the restriction on retail conversions to commercial cores such as downtown and California Avenue. While the vote doesn't immediately kill the ordinance, it directs staff to return with an ordinance that would do so, which will be voted on at a later date.

Fine also argued that the city needs to take a "more open" attitude toward the different types of retail businesses and to not micromanage details such as window designs. He cited the example of Sephora, which was planning to set up a beauty supply shop in downtown Palo Alto but had to delay its opening because it couldn't cover its windows to prevent products from melting, Fine said.

"I think we need to take a more open attitude toward what retail types are there, whether it's Sephora or a gym," Fine said.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

While Fine's motion specified that the removal of the citywide retail-protection ordinance would be temporary, opponents of his proposal argued that the distinction is meaningless because property owners would be able to convert to office use and then retain their use in perpetuity. Filseth argued that even a "temporary" suspension would lead to long-lasting results.

"It's hard for me to see how getting rid of a retail ordinance will try to help retail," Filseth said.

Kou argued that by reducing the scope of the retail-protection ordinance, the city is effectively allowing property owners to switch from retail to a more lucrative use, which in most cases is offices.

"We're letting property owners dictate to us what they're looking for on their site versus what we want our city to become," Kou said. "I don't think it's the right thing to do."

Pedestrians walk past the empty storefronts on the ground floor of the Hotel California on Aug. 14, 2019. Photo by Veronica Weber.

The council similarly split 4-3 on a proposal by Fine to relax parking rules for businesses when they change use. He pointed to the example of the Palo Alto Baking Company, a California Avenue bakery that shut down at the end of 2018 and which has not been replaced. The challenge, he said, is that potential retailers are unable to provide the extra parking that is required of them.

"Especially in a year where I don't think parking is the highest concern, we may be looking at temporarily suspending that," Fine said.

Other proposals to support the business community proved far less divisive. DuBois suggested exploring ways to greatly enhance COVID-19 testing, providing support for child care and coming up with strategies for holiday shopping in primary commercial areas. The council adopted all three proposals with little debate.

The council also agreed not to move ahead with some of the proposals that have come out from the business community, including reducing minimum wage, decreasing utility rates and opposing Proposition 15, which would create a "split roll" system in which property tax for commercial and industrial sites is based on market value rather than purchase price.

Despite the assertion by some business owners that the proposition would hurt them financially, the City Council endorsed staff recommendation that the city officially support Proposition 15, which allocates some of the property tax revenues to local governments and school districts.

DuBois also vehemently opposed any consideration of lowering the minimum wage, an idea that was brought up by Jim Ellis, managing principal of Ellis Partners, which owns Town & Country Village. DuBois said reducing the wage would be "somewhat immoral right now."

"We're talking about workers who are on the front lines — people at grocery stores and these other stores. They should probably be getting combat pay and getting paid more. I just can't see us lowering their wage," DuBois said.

The council largely supported most of the other efforts by staff to support local retail, which includes $10,000 grants to small businesses and the closure of University and California avenues to traffic as part of the city's Uplift Local campaign (previously known as Summer Streets). So far, the efforts appear to be having positive, if uneven results, with some restaurants along the main commercial stretches reporting a healthy uptick in businesses while others, particularly those on side streets, saying that the closures are hurting their business by putting them at a competitive disadvantage.

For Town & Country, the challenge of the pandemic is compounded by the fact that many of its shoppers come from Palo Alto High School and Stanford University, institutions that have been more or less shut down for the past six months. Ellis said sales at the shopping center are down this month by 60% to 80% when compared to last year. And while the shopping center went into the pandemic with a vacancy rate of between 6% and 7%, the rate currently stands at 15% and appears to be heading toward 20% to 25%.

"It's important to acknowledge that many of these businesses won't open," Ellis said. "And it isn't because the landlord won't talk to them and isn't willing to defer, abate or rework their rent. It's because they've been closed for such an extended period of time and they are really — even though general retail businesses are open — unable to receive customers."

Find comprehensive coverage on the Midpeninsula's response to the new coronavirus by Palo Alto Online, the Mountain View Voice and the Almanac here.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

To combat vacancies, Palo Alto may repeal 'retail protection' law

Council spars over proposal to eliminate ordinance that bans ground-level retail spaces from becoming offices

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 3:36 pm

With Palo Alto businesses buckling during the economic shutdown, a bitterly divided City Council took an initial step on Monday toward repealing a local law that bars the conversion of ground-floor retail spaces to offices throughout the city.

In a surprising move that followed a long and wide-ranging debate about strategies to support the business community, the council directed staff by a 4-3 vote to return with an ordinance that would eliminate the citywide "retail preservation" ordinance. If the council moves ahead with the repeal, properties outside Palo Alto's main commercial areas would be allowed to replace retail operations with offices or other commercial uses.

The controversial proposal was made by Mayor Adrian Fine, a longtime critic of the ordinance, who argued that the law is too geographically broad. His three colleagues from the council's more pro-growth camp, Alison Cormack, Liz Kniss and Greg Tanaka, all supported the consideration of the repeal. The three council members who are more aligned with the "residentialist" camp, Vice Mayor Tom DuBois, Eric Filseth and Lydia Kou, vehemently opposed the move and suggested that the change could cause long-term damage to the retail community.

The council adopted the law in 2017, following the closure and/or relocation of several longtime downtown retailers and restaurants — including Fraiche, Zibibbo and Jungle Copy — and their subsequent conversion to office use. After passing an emergency ordinance in 2015 to prohibit such conversions, the council moved in 2017 to make the restriction permanent. At that time, Fine, Kniss and Tanaka all opposed the new ordinance.

On Monday night, in a broad discussion that was listed on the council's agenda as a "verbal update" on the city's efforts to help businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic, the three opponents of the ordinance were joined by Cormack in a vote to reconsider the law.

Proponents of the change argued that the city doesn't have any real expertise in retail, that some sites are not naturally suited for retail and that property owners should have more flexibility when it comes to uses at a time when the economic shutdown is ravaging the business community.

"I don't think it's helping us," Fine said of the 2017 ordinance.

Fine proposed reversing the 2017 action and limiting the restriction on retail conversions to commercial cores such as downtown and California Avenue. While the vote doesn't immediately kill the ordinance, it directs staff to return with an ordinance that would do so, which will be voted on at a later date.

Fine also argued that the city needs to take a "more open" attitude toward the different types of retail businesses and to not micromanage details such as window designs. He cited the example of Sephora, which was planning to set up a beauty supply shop in downtown Palo Alto but had to delay its opening because it couldn't cover its windows to prevent products from melting, Fine said.

"I think we need to take a more open attitude toward what retail types are there, whether it's Sephora or a gym," Fine said.

While Fine's motion specified that the removal of the citywide retail-protection ordinance would be temporary, opponents of his proposal argued that the distinction is meaningless because property owners would be able to convert to office use and then retain their use in perpetuity. Filseth argued that even a "temporary" suspension would lead to long-lasting results.

"It's hard for me to see how getting rid of a retail ordinance will try to help retail," Filseth said.

Kou argued that by reducing the scope of the retail-protection ordinance, the city is effectively allowing property owners to switch from retail to a more lucrative use, which in most cases is offices.

"We're letting property owners dictate to us what they're looking for on their site versus what we want our city to become," Kou said. "I don't think it's the right thing to do."

The council similarly split 4-3 on a proposal by Fine to relax parking rules for businesses when they change use. He pointed to the example of the Palo Alto Baking Company, a California Avenue bakery that shut down at the end of 2018 and which has not been replaced. The challenge, he said, is that potential retailers are unable to provide the extra parking that is required of them.

"Especially in a year where I don't think parking is the highest concern, we may be looking at temporarily suspending that," Fine said.

Other proposals to support the business community proved far less divisive. DuBois suggested exploring ways to greatly enhance COVID-19 testing, providing support for child care and coming up with strategies for holiday shopping in primary commercial areas. The council adopted all three proposals with little debate.

The council also agreed not to move ahead with some of the proposals that have come out from the business community, including reducing minimum wage, decreasing utility rates and opposing Proposition 15, which would create a "split roll" system in which property tax for commercial and industrial sites is based on market value rather than purchase price.

Despite the assertion by some business owners that the proposition would hurt them financially, the City Council endorsed staff recommendation that the city officially support Proposition 15, which allocates some of the property tax revenues to local governments and school districts.

DuBois also vehemently opposed any consideration of lowering the minimum wage, an idea that was brought up by Jim Ellis, managing principal of Ellis Partners, which owns Town & Country Village. DuBois said reducing the wage would be "somewhat immoral right now."

"We're talking about workers who are on the front lines — people at grocery stores and these other stores. They should probably be getting combat pay and getting paid more. I just can't see us lowering their wage," DuBois said.

The council largely supported most of the other efforts by staff to support local retail, which includes $10,000 grants to small businesses and the closure of University and California avenues to traffic as part of the city's Uplift Local campaign (previously known as Summer Streets). So far, the efforts appear to be having positive, if uneven results, with some restaurants along the main commercial stretches reporting a healthy uptick in businesses while others, particularly those on side streets, saying that the closures are hurting their business by putting them at a competitive disadvantage.

For Town & Country, the challenge of the pandemic is compounded by the fact that many of its shoppers come from Palo Alto High School and Stanford University, institutions that have been more or less shut down for the past six months. Ellis said sales at the shopping center are down this month by 60% to 80% when compared to last year. And while the shopping center went into the pandemic with a vacancy rate of between 6% and 7%, the rate currently stands at 15% and appears to be heading toward 20% to 25%.

"It's important to acknowledge that many of these businesses won't open," Ellis said. "And it isn't because the landlord won't talk to them and isn't willing to defer, abate or rework their rent. It's because they've been closed for such an extended period of time and they are really — even though general retail businesses are open — unable to receive customers."

Find comprehensive coverage on the Midpeninsula's response to the new coronavirus by Palo Alto Online, the Mountain View Voice and the Almanac here.

Comments

DtnNorth
Registered user
Downtown North
on Sep 16, 2020 at 11:07 am
DtnNorth, Downtown North
Registered user
on Sep 16, 2020 at 11:07 am
76 people like this

I am outraged by the suggestions that Palo Alto should consider repealing -- in the midst of an economic and health catastrophe -- its already feeble retail protection and minimum wage laws. Calling it "somewhat immoral" is just a start. Given its recent history, I didn't think our city council could be less representative of its ordinary citizens than it already was but this group and its development influencers have set a new low bar. The election can't come soon enough.


Who funds these candidates matters.
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 16, 2020 at 11:20 am
Who funds these candidates matters., Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Sep 16, 2020 at 11:20 am
66 people like this

Greg Tanaka has taken a lot of developer money in this campaign. Look for candidates who are not bought and paid for. Kniss, Cormack (who both support Templeton) and Fine all fall into that category. They are 4 members of our 7 member City Council. If it's true that they all support this, they have the majority. It will pass.

We have an opportunity this year to fix that. There are FOUR Council seats up for grabs--a majority. If you don't like this, vote thoughtfully. Follow the money. Pay attention to who is funding the candidates. Web Link

Palo Alto Weekly. Please stay on the funding story.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 16, 2020 at 11:23 am
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Sep 16, 2020 at 11:23 am
69 people like this

I too am outraged at the Gang of 4 who as usual throw residents and our needs under a bus.

If you want to help retail, how about cutting utility rates and eliminating the $20,000,000 "surcharge" aka over-charges that PA Utilities has been charging each and every year for the past few years. By the way, how's the lawsuit against this procedure going?

As for Town & Country, the landlords and the city have a long history of failing to help long-term tenants when they're struggling. A case in point is the Prestige boutique, a family-owned business that operated at T&C for decades and which was moved into a bigger space right before the recession hit and NOT allowed to move back into a vacant smaller space. The city did nothing to help. At their going-away party, they sent some uninformed intern who was shocked at surprised at the turnout by loyal customers upset at the city's shameful inaction.

Look at some of the rents that are being charged and do something to protect residents who need resident-serving businesses and services. You can no longer find, say, a framer in Palo Alto. My cleaner/tailor is working out of the back of the cobbler on Cal Ave because she can no longer afford the outrageous rents with business down.

And Mr. Fine and his enablers want RESIDENTS to pay a surcharge to restaurants because there aren't enough COMMUTERS to support the restaurants. If they care so much, why didn't they ban company cafeterias downtown?? If he wants to alleviate parking problems, let him/them stop encouraging more offices whose workers are working. not shopping!


Stop the "Growthers" in coming city council election
Registered user
Downtown North
on Sep 16, 2020 at 11:32 am
Stop the "Growthers" in coming city council election, Downtown North
Registered user
on Sep 16, 2020 at 11:32 am
76 people like this

This is just another example of the "growther" majority on the council letting the developers run the city. They are trying to drive out what little retail we have left and replace it with office space.

We need to elect city council members who look at the viability of this city long term and do not sell out to developers. Luckily Fine and Kniss will be gone soon. DO NOT vote for Tanaka - he is wholly funded by developers and in their employ. And Templeton is in the "growther" camp and supported by Fine, Cormack and Kniss.

Watch for city council candidate who are supported by Palo Alto for Sensible Growth and those who will fight against developer give-aways. Kou is wonderful for residents! Burt and Lauing may be reasonable. Ask them about limiting growth at their Facebook appearances this election.


Noooooo!!!
Registered user
Fairmeadow
on Sep 16, 2020 at 11:38 am
Noooooo!!!, Fairmeadow
Registered user
on Sep 16, 2020 at 11:38 am
71 people like this

I can't believe this. Please please please do not continue to destroy our downtown areas. Companies now need less office space, not more. And we are adding residents. So why are we removing retail protection? This seems so poorly motivated, I almost can't believe it. I am deeply disappointed. I would like to know an explanation from the councilmembers who voted for this. I wish this article had a bit more depth because I just see one side and would like to have a clue what is behind the four votes.


Downtown
Registered user
Downtown North
on Sep 16, 2020 at 11:50 am
Downtown, Downtown North
Registered user
on Sep 16, 2020 at 11:50 am
72 people like this

This proposal is incredibly disappointing to hear about.

Rescinding "Retail Protection" ordinances for ground floor retail space is wrong.

There may be a seductive argument on the surface, but the proposal will create an unacceptably perverse incentive that may not be immediately obvious. Namely:

--Landlords are allowed to hike rents beyond the level that is commercially viable for a retailer to profitably operate

--Landlords are then able to claim that "retail can't make it" around here. (They were saying this before the crisis. Now they are using the crisis to press it further).

--Landlords are then allowed to convert ground-floor retail space into non-retail space, thanks to the proposed accommodations

--The impacted ground-floor retail/restaurant space is then lost forever...it does not come back!

--As this occurs in multiple cases, the aggregate effect is to drain services, vitality, and vibrancy out of the commercial cores.

Many, many spaces have been lost in the past, as local landlords exploited temporary downturns in 2000 and 2008 to ask for -- and receive -- latitude from our elected officials to convert ground floor retail and services. Jungle Copy, Zibibbo, Diddams, Fraiche's original location, Blue Chalk, Miele Vacuums, Water Works, Darshana Yoga, California Yoga Center, and many many other ground-floor retail and restaurant spaces have been allowed to be converted to non-retail -- and they never came back! Those spaces are now unwelcoming, frosted-glass, locked-door, private office spaces -- the kind of spaces that should be above ground-floor.

We want, and must demand and protect, a vibrant retail community. Landlords need to accept lower ground-floor retail rents in exchange for owning prime locations. In fact, many other cities wisely penalize landlords if their space is vacant for more than 3 to 6 months -- because it means that the landlord is asking too much rent and thus the landlord is actually the one who is creating the vacancy. (Note: this provision for "vacancy penalties" could of course be waived during the pandemic -- but it should be in place during normal times).

Without a doubt, everything hurts and is distorted during this current Covid-19 crisis. There will be many vacancies during this period, and we simply have to accept that. Do NOT exploit this tragedy to further undermine retail vibrancy and viability in a lasting way. Do NOT hand more power and money to wealthy landlords while reducing the overall future quality of life in our commercial retail districts.

And don't even get me started on that heartless proposal from the wealthy landlord to reduce the minimum wage during this time of suffering. Is that constituency really the side that the city council wants to align with?!?

Let's do the right thing. Our future selves will thank our current selves for protecting quality of life in and around our commercial districts. The solution to temporary retail challenges is not to convert to office spaces.


chris
Registered user
University South
on Sep 16, 2020 at 12:36 pm
chris, University South
Registered user
on Sep 16, 2020 at 12:36 pm
9 people like this

These so-called retail supporters don’t understand that you can’t repeal economics. In the long-run, it does not make sense to provide wholesale subsidies to retailers.

Having fewer retailers will allow the remaining retailers to become stronger.

Worrying about increasing rents is a ridiculous concept in this environment going forward. The problem is that Palo Alto like the rest of the US is vastly overstored and the retail square footage needs to be right sized for the future.


Metasequoia
Registered user
Ventura
on Sep 16, 2020 at 1:48 pm
Metasequoia, Ventura
Registered user
on Sep 16, 2020 at 1:48 pm
11 people like this

Council shouldn't make decisions that permanently impact our business districts until we see how many commuters return to Palo Alto. Our daytime population has dropped at least 66% AND most everyone is staying home and not going out to shop and eat. We're going to see fewer businesses that catered to commuters.

I agree with Council member Cormack who said we should focus on policies that serve our RESIDENTS!


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 16, 2020 at 3:20 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Sep 16, 2020 at 3:20 pm
38 people like this

What evidence do you have that Ms. Cormack wants to serve residents?

If she wanted to serve residents, she wouldn't have pushed for her big costly construction projects at the expense of resident-serving services like the libraries and she wouldn't still be pushing for more offices/commuters.


Staying Young Through Kids
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Sep 16, 2020 at 4:49 pm
Staying Young Through Kids, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Sep 16, 2020 at 4:49 pm
30 people like this

Reducing rents until retail becomes viable? That's not an option for the owners and developers?

We should instead change the rules so they can turn profits?

How about the retailers and restaurants that have gone out of business thus creating these vacancies? Can we change the rules for them? Sorry...too late!

Oh no, I forgot, it's the living wage requirements that are putting these places under? Give me a break! How about the outrageous per sf leases and even more outrageous revenue share demands?

We should run in the opposite direction. Instead of eliminating the requirement for ground floor retail, we should instead levy a sizeable tax on vacant retail space in the city. There's even a precedent. If John McNellis can find a suitable retailer for Alma Plaza (Grocery Outlet is a fine addition to Midtown / Ventura) then so can these other owners.

Even though the developers are going to grumble, providing the right incentive will get us the kind of "growth" we need to keep our city vibrant. And...no matter what we do, the developers are going to grumble!


alarmed resident
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 17, 2020 at 12:40 pm
alarmed resident, Duveneck/St. Francis
Registered user
on Sep 17, 2020 at 12:40 pm
33 people like this

What a terrible idea it is to repeal the retail protection in our commercial areas. What in a downtown area would be appealing for residents and eventually when they return, for commuters, if the only presence is offices and more offices. That is not how to create a vibrant and healthy city. Now that malls have fallen out of favor among the shopping public, it is an opportunity to revitalize our town's retail. Do not repeal the retail protection ordinance. And furthermore, do not make any such far-reaching changes in the midst of the pandemic. The idea that a temporary repeal could work is ludicrous.


Dick D.
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Sep 17, 2020 at 2:26 pm
Dick D., Crescent Park
Registered user
on Sep 17, 2020 at 2:26 pm
21 people like this

I find it unconscionable to give any thought to reducing the minimum wage to those already hardly making it . . . hand to mouth. I say this as one of our many neighbors in their multi-million dollar homes.

With extraordinary, ultra-low rates why are the "hard pressed" landlords not refinancing and passing those savings along to renters. The renters claim rent is a major expense – wouldn't lower rents make their ability to continue in business much better.


jc
Registered user
College Terrace
on Sep 17, 2020 at 4:20 pm
jc, College Terrace
Registered user
on Sep 17, 2020 at 4:20 pm
26 people like this

Just another excuse to get rid of retail.

Past City council majorities, with campaign donations heavily supported by commercial property owners, have long pushed to weaken retail. They have rewarded their donors by broadening the definition of what is considered retail to include businesses that can afford to pay higher rents than traditional retail. Great for commercial property owners in the retail corridors but not for traditional retail and residents.


jc
Registered user
College Terrace
on Sep 17, 2020 at 4:27 pm
jc, College Terrace
Registered user
on Sep 17, 2020 at 4:27 pm
16 people like this

Also, much of downtown has been owned by the same individuals and families for decades, and in quite a few cases for generations, with property taxes tied to 1975 rates because of sweetheart deals included in Prop 13 which allowed commercial properties to change hands without prompting a new property tax assessment. Bet quite a few owners of residential properties wish they could have had such a sweetheart property tax deal when they purchased their homes!


CGPA
Registered user
Downtown North
on Sep 17, 2020 at 5:58 pm
CGPA, Downtown North
Registered user
on Sep 17, 2020 at 5:58 pm
18 people like this

What makes this truly ridiculous is the fact that offices are all closed and will be for the duration of the pandemic. No one is going to rent an office space at all until this is over, so the idea that this is somehow some sort of temporary accommodation just for the duration of the pandemic and not a case of "never let a good crisis go to waste" is laughable.


SRB
Registered user
Mountain View
on Sep 18, 2020 at 8:25 am
SRB, Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 18, 2020 at 8:25 am
22 people like this

A bit bizarre, there was no mention of proximity retail being a key component of making cities more walkable and reducing car dependency. Very hard to be car less in a retail/food desert.


More transparency
Registered user
Palo Verde
on Sep 18, 2020 at 10:38 am
More transparency, Palo Verde
Registered user
on Sep 18, 2020 at 10:38 am
24 people like this

Who are the commercial property owners in Palo Alto? I've heard most is owned by a few wealthy individuals. If so, why can't rents be reduced to weather this pandemic downturn?

It's absurd to de-vitalize downtown by adding more offices in place of storefronts for a business model. How about rent cuts by the billionaire landlords?


ALB
Registered user
College Terrace
on Sep 21, 2020 at 1:31 pm
ALB, College Terrace
Registered user
on Sep 21, 2020 at 1:31 pm
11 people like this

I know of a landlord in a another town who has cut the rent for her retail tenants by half since April 1st. Why can't the guys downtown and the landlord for T&C show support for tenants? The council must support retaining retail in our city. Once four individuals on the council drive changing the code to permit offices on the ground floor to appease their donors and supporters we the constituents will lose. Once retail is gutted it is gone forever. So Cormack, Tanaka, Kniss and Fine listen to the constituents and keep our current retail zoning intact.


chris
Registered user
University South
on Sep 21, 2020 at 11:52 pm
chris, University South
Registered user
on Sep 21, 2020 at 11:52 pm
Like this comment

Most of the retail establishments closing could not make a profit if their rent was cut in half or in some cases zero. Rent is only one of the costs of doing business.

Some businesses have reasons to try and hang on but many others are better off clo.sing


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.