From: Tom Connick <tomconnick@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Lake Worth Casino Lease - Lake Worth Beach Tee Shirt Company
To: Kathleen Margoles <kmargoles@lakeworth.org>
Dear Kathleen:
Lake Worth Beach Tee Shirt Company has done and will continue to do everything within its power to cooperate with the City concerning the Lake Worth Casino lease situation.
For many, many months, the leasing agent and Staff prospectively assigned Unit #7 to Lake Worth Beach Tee Shirt Company. Lake Worth Beach Tee Shirt Company accepted that Unit designation and worked under that premise. As recently as this past week, when Staff had requested that the lease for Unit #7 be executed, Lake Worth Beach Tee Shirt Company did so and returned the executed lease to the City (the actual executed lease by Lake Worth Beach Tee Shirt Company is not attached to the attachments of your January 12th Memorandum to the Commission).
Towards the end of the week, things moved very fast and there was a potential seismic change in Unit placement. This potential change is reflected in your email of Thursday, January 11th, at 7:27 pm, which is quoted:
Mr. Connick,
We have had a late development in the Casino leases that we need to discuss ASAP. I tried to call you earlier but there was no answer. I am in the office working the new scenarios and need to speak with you. Please call me on my cell tonight anytime or in the office tomorrow.
We now have restaurant tenants who are interested in the separate north anchor first floor and second floor spaces. The first floor tenant wants the entire north space and is offering $30 sf. Fox is now only taking one bay, #5, at 667sf for $25sf for the same permitted use as his earlier lease. We have a Women’s Fashion Store that is offering $30sf for either Unit 5, 6 or 7 (which is not available if the restaurant takes the whole north space).
Please give me a call to discuss. The drop dead time for the agenda is tomorrow at noon.
Kathleen Margoles
7 comments:
Barry is getting the shaft.
Things are unwinding for Ms. Margoles. She was supposed to be managing this project, but it doesn't appear that a very good job has been done. It appears the City is changing the rules for the previous tenants as new interests appear. This is a City building and the city should be deciding what units are available to the lessees. It is not fair to tell someone they will be in a particular spot and have them execute a lease to that effect and then change the rules.
Last night was a total disaster that it makes me wonder if anyone on the dais is involved as far as a real estate fee or is pushing a particular possible tenant towards a "friend." That's how STINKY it all was.
Lynn, Thank you for your amazing – and tireless - work in reporting! Your articles on the latest commission meeting and resumes have accurately portrayed the events and brought to light the various levels of complexity and concern in a way that everyone can understand.
As a commercial broker that deals with a large number of small space tenants, I can say from experience that something smells fishy at the beach. This shouting out of increased rental offers during commission meetings, LOI's without credit checks and having the citizens of Lake Worth doing due diligence that is normally done by brokers and staff is a disgrace.
While I understand that credit worthiness is often a challenge for small space tenants, having a commissioner push for special treatment of campaign contributors is a fool's errand that can only lead to increased tenant turnover and lawsuits by jilted suitors.
Bill, you are spot on with respect to something being fishy.
I suppose at some future date it will be disclosed that the attorney for one of Commissioner Mulvehill's biggest campaign contributors is also Commissioner Mulvehill's personal attorney.
Maybe not.
The only thing "fishy" here is not honoring the Right of First Refusals. Next, all anyone on the dais has to disclose are campaign contributions. They all did that. Whether Mr. Connick is Mulvehill's personal attorney or not, has nothing whatsoever to do with LW Tee's Right of First Refusal. To imply otherwise, is just flat crappy negative politics by Mr. Anonymous above. Why not start wondering what is REALLY going on with some on the dais and why the mayor, vice mayor and Amoroso did what they did.
Post a Comment