If the landlords are content with empty storefronts for months on end, then that’s that. They could lower rents, but that hurts their bottom line. Their misguided solution is increase the crowd level with high density housing – so we’ll have more people ignoring the shops in the CBD, and more Amazon deliveries to the new apartment blocks. This is a market issue that can’t be legislated away.
Any business that provides an incremental service will continue to survive in the downtown setting. Restaurants provide cooking and service, in addition to a social atmosphere. Bars provide a meeting place, booze, and a bartender who will listen to your bellyaching when nobody else cares (the bartender doesn’t care either, by the way…and that dancer at Satin Dolls is not working her way through college, and doesn’t think you’re funny, but I digress). Certain goods, like high end clothes that need to be fitted, will still sell. Tailors, barbers, etc etc. See a pattern? Even a used guitar store that buys select instruments online, sets them up well, and offers them to be played before they’re bought might do well. But the traditional consumer goods re-seller is dead on arrival – they can’t pay their rent on razor thin markups necessitated by competition from Amazon.
Strange, nationwide sales of previously owned homes climbed in May to the highest level in more than nine years back to Februray 2007… Just not in Ridgewood, which lags Bergen County, NJ, NY, CT, PA and the country.
its called “no jobs ” and high taxes very bad combo
Correct me if I are wrong. My general understanding is there is not widespread ownership of downtown commercial properties but that many of the downtown buildings are long time holdings by several who enjoy relatively low acquistion costs. It appears that vacancies can be sat on instead of lowering rent because they can given the large cash flow coming in from other ongoing rentals. I do understand the basic economic principle that supply and demand sets prices and the market will bear what it can but I also understand that artificial price supports can be in place given any degree of monopoly and I believe that this is reflected in vacancies and heavy turnover at many spots. Landlords do have the right to decent ROI at current values but rents do appear excessive in comparision to other towns and some numbers Ive seen for spaces are simply astronomical . The current rent structure eliminates most low margin businesses and any real chance for mom and pop shops to succeed long term so you see the opening and closing of many fine hopefuls which has as much or more to do with high rents than parking. Ive watched numerous places with good nearby parking turnover a few times, ie the cozy coffee shop on the park corner, not because of parking but because of exorbitant rents. I do think parking should be addressed as it could be improved but landlord wishes to maintain high prices or further raise rents are secondary because their bottom lines dont need to be supported or subsidized.The value of their holdings can also operate and fluctuate in a fair market . It would be optimal to get the most convenient parking spot when visiting an establishment and not have to circle around but I eventually find one within walking distance in relatively short time . The new council appears to be prudent and open to exploring parking options that could address the whole spectrum and I would also hope that they have discussions with the few dominant landlords and prod them to do their part in seeing housed businesses succeed and seeing that vacancies dont persist. To landlords, I would say look at your bottom lines vs today’s values and decide if you have squeezed the lemon too hard and if it is hurting the community in which you’ve invested.
Old real estate adage: “Low rent is better than no rent”
Parking was always a smokescreen. Many lovely little shops that made our downtown special have been squeezed out by horrendous rents in a difficult economy.
Don’t blame the landlords. Do you know how many Ridgewood Betty’s I’ve seen open a shop in town only to close 8-12 months down the road? Daddy Wall Street finances the venture so “mom” has something to do whilst he’s hooking up with one of the junior partners. And it goes on and on and on. They keep feeding the beast and that’s just the way they like it.
“Ridgewood Betty” and “daddy wall street”?
Making up new sexist labels that are not even clever.
What a pathetic view of life. Probably from someone who works in the downtown but wishes that he/she had a high paying job.
I believe 1237 is entirely accurate. Well said.
Question? Is there an advantage for a landlord to keep a building empty rather than rent for a lower cost?
Ridgewood Betty…That’s pretty funny. Look up the definition 6:41. And your view is painfully obvious…It has Ridgewood written all over it. Good luck with that.
7:08 – They are holding out for higher rents. In their (mistaken) view, once the get the town to build parking and apartment buildings, people will come rushing in and they manage to rent their buildings at much higher rents.
7:08 – landlord gets to deduct the property tax from total income…that’s all I can think of.