Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

azdak t1_ixmmsp1 wrote

>The lease agreement said that if the landlord of the property were to demolish it, it would need to include space for the synagogue in any new project that is built in its place, according to the suit.  

Does anywhere else do this whole “99 year lease in lieu of actual ownership” thing? It seems like a vehicle for absolute nonsense like this

50

ThreeLittlePuigs t1_ixmq6qk wrote

It’s actually pretty popular in New York and when the developer isn’t a scumbag a good look for all.

38

azdak t1_ixms51j wrote

Seems like it’s a good look for the lessor but I can’t quite understand what benefit there is to the tenant. A 99 year term looks acts and smells like ownership except in this system you can still somehow force the “owner” to do weird shit like build a church for your friends. It just seems super weird to me and I’ve never seen it outside the city.

13

Ouity t1_ixmt6wy wrote

I mean, the developer had the option to buy a building without such a condition attached to it.

20

azdak t1_ixn7hj1 wrote

Not excusing anything the developer did. The presence of alternatives doesn’t make this situation less stupid.

5

GoodLifeWorkHard t1_ixqwonw wrote

Right ???? They should’ve compromised and took the offer for the developer to buy them out of the lease agreement lol . But they probably gonna milk it for as much money and as long as they can

−5

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_ixmyxv5 wrote

Because the land is in a complicated trust. The building owner and the land owner are two different entities.

The land is likely owned by the same trust for 100y+… and likely a bunch of descendants collecting small checks. It would be complicated to get that sold/dissolved. You’d need to prove you have all people with rights to that, etc.

Cheaper/easier to just lease the land for 99y and do it that way.

14

maydaydemise t1_ixmoqfx wrote

Property owners in China technically lease their land from the state for 70 year terms, as a way of allowing private development under a framework where the state owns all land

8

PiffityPoffity t1_ixmwldm wrote

It’s a lot easier to have single building owner with tenants when you have such big buildings. Sure, they could do it condo-style, but developers don’t want that. Tenants want the stability of ownership but property developers aren’t willing to split up the building, so 99-year leases are the compromise.

6

vocabularylessons t1_ixoavdt wrote

That is a common feature of land trusts / alternative forms of property ownership wherein ownership of land and structure are separate and control of the land is vested in trust governed by a community board or government entity and/or portions of terminal value are returned to the trust. It's more complicated but that's the gist.

An example of this type of arrangement at scale is 'homeownership' in Singapore, the gov't leases homes to households for 99 yr terms but retains ownership of the land.

3

kiklion t1_ixo88xn wrote

> Does anywhere else do this whole “99 year lease in lieu of actual ownership” thing?

My office almost did something like this in Charlotte. A developer offered my company millions of dollars for the land and building my office is in. They included that they would cover the cost of relocating our office to a new place as they tore down the existing office and rebuilt. And then after the new building is open, my company would have a 99 year lease on the first 3 floors for $1, same number of floors we currently have.

2

thoughtsarefalse t1_ixmqe30 wrote

lots of sweetheart deals from - or in some cases to - the government like that.

−4

grandzu t1_ixnb43p wrote

How can a lease dictate what future owners can do?

−5

Phaedrusnyc t1_ixo2d3x wrote

Most, if not all, leases dictate what future owners can do. A lease is a legal contract between two parties, one party can't just unilaterally nullify it, even by selling. If I were to buy an apartment building tomorrow I would be inheriting the former owner's lease agreements and would either have to abide by them or buy the other parties out (or mutually agree to new terms). It's no different in a commercial sphere.

Do you seriously think a person can just get out of a contract by selling a property? That would basically just open the door to any landlord being able to nullify leases by selling to another shell company they had an interest in. It makes a mockery of the whole concept of a legally binding agreement.

10

grandzu t1_ixo9rsq wrote

Ownership outlasts leases. Leases expire, so how can they claim power over whoever might be the owner after the lease expires?

−6

Phaedrusnyc t1_ixoa3ab wrote

They can't. The lease hasn't expired. Did you read the article?

8

grandzu t1_ixoms5s wrote

Did you read the part that said
"The lease agreement said that if the landlord of the property were to demolish it, it would need to include space for the synagogue in any new project that is built in its place".
So eventually 99 years will pass, lease is over, owner should do what they want.

−2

Phaedrusnyc t1_ixpkkx9 wrote

And did you read the part that says "...Gamal purchased the building for $61.5 million and inherited the synagogue’s lease agreement."? 99 years has not passed. What part of this is failing to get through to you?

7