Perhaps different property owners. If it was the same landlord, they’d most likely have a problem with it. If I own a property and a guy wants to open a gas station on it, I don’t care what’s across the street, next door nor anywhere else. Not my property, not my gas station, not my problem. My only concern is getting my rent money.
Yeah, I dunno if it’s the norm, but it sure as hell seems onerous to me. I would not rent space to them in the first place, if they would not remove that clause. If I’m the landlord, I write the lease.
I agree. But then again, if they want that clause, charge them enough for rent for it to be a non-issue. By the number of Circuit City stores there were, it was worth it. People built or altered buildings to their specs for them. I’m quite sure they made it worthwhile.
I can see a "mild" argument that a MA school is considered a service industry instead of a retail store. I don't know it that really holds water but there is much more commonality in the retail model so duplication is, well common.
Larger businesses like that are desirable enough to negotiate that kind of contract. I doubt many smaller shops can manage it.
In a lot of cases, those businesses are the draw - the anchors. If you have that big business drawing traffic, you can more easily fill the smaller spaces, and even the other big spaces. It's a risk-reward decision.
That's a reasonable argument, and one that could probably be made with a reasonable landlord. Without that argument being made, I can't see why most landlords would balk at renting to the other MA place - those landlords are used to dealing in the retail space, so are likely to think of it like a retail business.
Good points, but I guess I am simply at a loss to understand what possible advantage this kind of clause would do the business. It almost comes across as vindictive, a punishment to the landlord if the big box moves or goes out of business. I suppose it acts to suppress the expansion of a direct competitor, but once they have gone out of business or decided to move elsewhere, I just don’t see the justification for it. Ten years? Holy crap. I would insert a clause to charge them 12 years rent after they vacate, even if I was able to rent to a non-competitor in the meantime.
It is specifically to avoid giving a helping hand to the competition if they decide to leave a location. So, Best Buy might decide to move a mile away, and don't want to turn over their well-known location to a competitor who would benefit from all the folk who'd drive there (forgetting Best Buy had moved) and just decide to shop at whatever store is there.
Just from this one update, the bjj guy has class and the tkd/kenpo guy doesnt. If i saw this on fb, id be much more likely to join the bjj school, and might even leave the tkd/kenpo one.
I do not have a non-compete in my lease agreements. I seldom have space available. But I do not lease to startup businesses either.
Or the MA teacher thought it was wise to include that in his demands, where as the hair salon people didn’t think of it.
Great input
