• Real estate company demolishes small family owned piñata store to make quick buck. Plan backfires
    16 replies, posted
Local News here from Austin [QUOTE=http://www.huffingtonpost.com]Sergio Lejarazu had received several eviction notices to leave his pinata store, but he says he knew his lease on the east Austin, Texas, location wasn’t set to expire until 2017. So he hired a lawyer and kept sending in money orders to pay the rent. A migrant from the northern Mexican city of Monterrey, Lejarazu ran the store selling handmade piñatas and other party supplies with his wife Monica and his son Victor. l He arrived on the morning of Feb. 12 to find his Jumpolín store demolished, along with all the inventory inside. He says he received no warning of the demolition.[/QUOTE] The real estate company in question then proceeds to fuck itself over [QUOTE=http://www.huffingtonpost.com]French and Fisher, who did not respond to an interview request from HuffPost, further angered critics with their remarks to Culturemap Austin, published three days after the demolition. “Probably their livelihood was selling helium and stolen bicycles,” French told the digital magazine. “They weren’t making a living selling piñatas; they were selling something else. I don’t want to speculate what that is.” He also added, “Say you have a house that was infested by roaches, you have to clean that up.”[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]F&F Real Estate reportedly hoped to use the site where Jumpolín once stood as a parking lot for a party hosted by the event planning company Splash during SXSW. But after the controversy broke, Splash found itself a new location. "Once we became aware of the demolishing of this local business, we immediately withdrew and cancelled our contract," Splash CEO Ben Hindman told HuffPost. "We hosted the event at another location and the city was very helpful in making the move. Our heart goes out to the family and we are looking into ways we can help them get back on their feet." F&F also offered to let a 350-member food truck association use the lot rent-free for several months, including during SXSW, according to The Austin Chronicle. But Tony Yamanaka, who heads Food Trailers Austin, passed on F&F’s deal as well. “After mulling over the offer -- for about five minutes -- I called and told them it’s not a good idea for us to get involved,” Yamanaka told the Chronicle. “It was a conflict, morally, for me to get involved.” In response to the uproar, Texas state Rep. Eddie Rodriguez (D-Austin) filed a bill to increase the penalties that landlords would face for wrongful evictions. The bill would allow those who were evicted to seek damages up to 25 percent of the market value of the property when the purpose of the eviction was to put the property to a more profitable use.[/QUOTE] source: [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/20/pinata-shop-austin_n_6905968.html[/url] The family has since relocated to a nearby building and has started back up. If you've been watching Jimmy Kimmel during SXSW, this is one of the places that was shown in the "Pinatas and Tequila" skit.
What the fuck? Is this even legal? Also, nice name OP.
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;47374677]What the fuck? Is this even legal? Also, nice name OP.[/QUOTE] Lol oh shit i didn't even realize my name. There's a lot of HE SAID SHE SAID shit going on. The Real Estate firm is saying they didn't pay rent, and have broken multiple Fire Safety rules, but both of those have been proven false. The lawyer of the family is saying they demolished the building WITHOUT the proper due process of law. [QUOTE=Peters, a partner at Hajjar Peters LLP]“You can’t demo somebody’s building unless you get a court order for eviction. It’s the most basic, fundamental principle of law there is. The Lejarazus had a right to that premises; after a notice to vacate, then you have to go to court and get a court order and provide proper legal notice to my client. They didn’t want to do that because they knew they were going to lose, because my client did not default on the lease.”[/QUOTE]
Fitting name, OP. And this is fucking disgusting. If the contract for the lease was until 2017 at the earliest, along with the remarks to Culturemap Austin this is gonna cost F&F more than a pretty penny.
is there gentrification in austin?
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;47374677]What the fuck? Is this even legal? Also, nice name OP.[/QUOTE] in short, no, in long....eh its texas and the landlord comes off as typically racist. the guy did do a very smart thing though and both continued to pay rent as well as have a lawyer document the stuff, so he's most likely going to win any case, but i can't help but wonder if this would have happened at all if that store was run by a white christian heterosexual male [editline]22nd March 2015[/editline] [quote]“Probably their livelihood was selling helium and stolen bicycles,” French told the digital magazine. “They weren’t making a living selling piñatas; they were selling something else. I don’t want to speculate what that is.” He also added,[/quote] its comments like this that piss me off though, you're already speculating, you're just not naming what you're thinking. if you act on the stereotype you have in your head, you're fucking speculating. its the same logic that lets the right say "i'm not an expert on global warming....but i feel it lacks all credability."
[QUOTE=Kommodore;47374791]is there gentrification in austin?[/QUOTE] Yes. It's really bad actually. Austin is one of the fastest growing cities in the US. That combined with SXSW mean space is at a premium downtown.
[quote]“Probably their livelihood was selling helium and stolen bicycles,” French told the digital magazine. “They weren’t making a living selling piñatas; they were selling something else. I don’t want to speculate what that is.” He also added, “Say you have a house that was infested by roaches, you have to clean that up.”[/quote] Presumably followed by: [quote]"Oh. Uh...I didn't say that out loud just now, did I? This whole 'inner monologue' business is confusing.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Demolitions2;47374854]Yes. It's really bad actually. Austin is one of the fastest growing cities in the US. That combined with SXSW mean space is at a premium downtown.[/QUOTE] thought so, it's fucking madness everywhere
[quote]The bill would allow those who were [wrongfully] evicted to seek damages up to 25 percent of the market value of the property when the purpose of the eviction was to put the property to a more profitable use.[/quote] Only 25 percent? "Hey, we bulldozed your business without permission, here's money to cover a quarter of what we destroyed, hope that's enough!" Should be 125 percent. Unless if it's on top of another thing which gives you at least 100% reimbursement, in which case getting an extra 25% should be fine.
[QUOTE=Last or First;47374964]Only 25 percent? "Hey, we bulldozed your business without permission, here's money to cover a quarter of what we destroyed, hope that's enough!" Should be 125 percent. Unless if it's on top of another thing which gives you at least 100% reimbursement, in which case getting an extra 25% should be fine.[/QUOTE] most of the time market value of a property is way more than what the actual buisness there is worth if you have a mom and pop store, its maybe worth a couple hundred grand at most, but the building its in is worth millions, also if they in turn make the property more profitable, its market value increases, so like if he buldozed to put a walmart there, suddenly he has to pay them what 25% of a walmart's lot is worth (which is usually big$)
I wonder when they destroyed it, did candy come out?
[QUOTE=Last or First;47374964]Only 25 percent? "Hey, we bulldozed your business without permission, here's money to cover a quarter of what we destroyed, hope that's enough!" Should be 125 percent. Unless if it's on top of another thing which gives you at least 100% reimbursement, in which case getting an extra 25% should be fine.[/QUOTE] When you are renting a place, you are paying a lot less than 25% of the value of the property.
[QUOTE=Sableye;47374984]most of the time market value of a property is way more than what the actual buisness there is worth if you have a mom and pop store, its maybe worth a couple hundred grand at most, but the building its in is worth millions, also if they in turn make the property more profitable, its market value increases, so like if he buldozed to put a walmart there, suddenly he has to pay them what 25% of a walmart's lot is worth (which is usually big$)[/QUOTE][QUOTE=GeneralSpecific;47375006]When you are renting a place, you are paying a lot less than 25% of the value of the property.[/QUOTE] Ah, that makes sense then.
Hope the US law makes it able for this family to win a case against those fuckers and score some big money from their pockets. Sons of bitches.
[QUOTE=Last or First;47374964]Only 25 percent? "Hey, we bulldozed your business without permission, here's money to cover a quarter of what we destroyed, hope that's enough!" Should be 125 percent. Unless if it's on top of another thing which gives you at least 100% reimbursement, in which case getting an extra 25% should be fine.[/QUOTE] I think the idea is to discourage the landlords from doing this in the first place, not punish them after the fact. So maybe 25% would be enough to make landlords think this kind of move is not worth it. Let's say you pay me $50k a year in rent. I kick you off property I then sell for 1 million dollars. Under this law I'd be on the hook to pay you up to $250,000. Remember, you were just renting it. Without the law I'd do it, since it'd take me 20 years to collect 1mill of your rent, assuming you stayed in business that long. With this law, I'm basically going to have to give you a cut as if you're a partner. So maybe I'll just obey the law and wait until you move or stop paying your rent.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;47377358]I think the idea is to discourage the landlords from doing this in the first place, not punish them after the fact. So maybe 25% would be enough to make landlords think this kind of move is not worth it. Let's say you pay me $50k a year in rent. I kick you off property I then sell for 1 million dollars. Under this law I'd be on the hook to pay you up to $250,000. Remember, you were just renting it. Without the law I'd do it, since it'd take me 20 years to collect 1mill of your rent, assuming you stayed in business that long. With this law, I'm basically going to have to give you a cut as if you're a partner. So maybe I'll just obey the law and wait until you move or stop paying your rent.[/QUOTE] But the amount they'd make in rent from the latter operation turns that 250,000 into chump change pretty quickly either way. 125% of property value is fair in my books simply because we should be punishing a business for [I]breaking the law[/I].
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.