Property owners in Watertown may soon have to pay a fee to keep their storefronts vacant, Wicked Local Watertown reports.
The Town Council’s economic development committee will consider a proposal to create a vacant property registry during next week’s council meeting. Arlington recently created a vacant commercial property registry of its own, councilor Aaron Dushku stated in an email to the TAB. Property owners in that town are required to pay $400 to enter the registry once their storefront becomes vacant, but the fee get waved if the owner allows public art to be displayed while the landlord looks for a new tenant. Arlington created the registry in an attempt to deal with a rash of vacant storefronts in the town’s three main business districts.
A vacant property registration and associated fee should definitely help with winter snow removal in business districts. All it takes is one non-compliant property to make an entire sidewalk inaccessible.
A direct and periodically renewed contact would allow the police and DPW to track down the responsible party faster.
I also think that a vacant storefront fee would change the calculus of holding a property vacant while hoping for higher rents. In Boston, I saw a long-time, successful business driven from its location by a 50% rent increase because the landlord saw a Whole Foods come in next door. The property has sat completely or partially vacant for seven years while the landlord dreams of bigger dollars.
I don’t know how much it happens in Newton, but this kind of rent speculation prevents potentially vibrant new businesses from filling vacant spots in the streetscape.
I don’t know how much a one time $400 fee would help. I’d like to see a monthly fee that starts after a store front has been vacant for a certain length of time (maybe 3 months?). Let’s make it cost something to drive out long-time businesses and then sit waiting for someone to pony up big bucks. I know Brookline has the same problem – most recent is Lady Grace moving out of the location it has occupied for 1/2 a century because of rent increases.
I would fully support something like this, but I also agree the Arlington plan of a one-time fee does not make sense. It should be monthly with a one-time fee for entering the registry (additional staff time for paperwork etc.) and I also agree the one-time fee should be waved for public art of some sort. That all said it can be tricky filling store fronts so there should be some period of a couple months waiver before the registry fee kicks in. I think we will see more of this as retail as we know it continues to collapse but there is a risk of rent increases in business districts
Closer to home: Newbury Comics location on Needham Street has been vacant for years.
One downside, might not want to discourage speculative retail space construction. The building with b.good on Needham Street still has vacancies, as does the one with Chipotle at the other end. (Yes, you can fairly draw conclusions based on how reference choices.)
This is a very interesting idea coming on the heels of a recent news report about the ghost town Boylston Street between Arlington and Berkeley in Boston has become, thanks to a commercial landlord holding out for unspecified future development. I’d certainly like to see a policy like this implemented in Newton, though I agree that to be meaningful, the penalties should be higher. I also like the idea of using vacant space for art display, something I tried to organize myself several years ago during a rash of vacancies in Newton Centre before running up against objections involving insurance and security.
This fee will most likely be challenged in court labeled as an impermissible tax. Commercial tax rate protectionism in statute requires a non discriminating universal rate, not dependent on use criteria. For a municipality to hand pick certain zone specific ‘as of right’ allowed uses may seem to be in the best interests of the citizenry general, but violates state and federal fair trade business practice.
The comments so far have overlooked the most intriguing part of this idea (in bold)
If a tenant moves out of their own accord, the business losses out on rent, has to pay a realtor to find a new tenant , help with new construction costs, and rent reductions for the first “x” number of months while the new tenant is getting up and running and now we want to charge the land lord an additional $400 on top of all the money they are losing?
If the landlord loses tenant because they raised the rent X percent over neighborhood average, this might be doable.
Otherwise this is pure extortion, why make it an art gallery? How about a homeless shelter for it to be actually useful? Limousine liberals?
And just because it’s an art gallery doesn’t mean there are zero ongoing costs. Insurance, heat, renovating floors and walls, wear and tear and liability for damages
It’s as if the people who proposed this have zero business experience
I believe the idea is only to display art in the windows not open the building as a gallery.
We all agree that Landlords are evil, greedy, sub-human blood suckers who don’t care about their communities and really want to have a vacant store. I mean, who doesn’t want to lose income and pay taxes, maintenance and utilities?
As Peter has pointed out, this fee adds to a difficult retail environment and makes it tougher and less desirable to invest in Newton. (Yea Gweggy, put art in the windows. Lovely happy talk. You are kidding?)
Retail is struggling, perhaps dying, and the commercial real estate market is undergoing significant existential challenges.
Let’s pile on!!!!
Awww Terry: I wasn’t endorsing this. I was explaining what the proposal did and didn’t call for with the hopes of keeping the conversation on track.
There are good and bad landlords. There are ones who drive out their tenants with exorbitant rent increases and, yes, who seem to have no desire to rent out their spaces unless they can get unaffordable rents. I recognize that this is by no means true of all landlords.
But in some locations, store rents don’t seem to respond to supply and demand. There are landlords who would rather leave a space empty than lower their rent demands. I often wonder about the economics of this, but it’s clear that it happens. There’s no easy solution to the question of how to be fair to all sides, including meeting the needs of the neighborhoods.
Watertown is on a building craze – Hundreds of Apartments are being Built some with Retail on the bottom and those already built are half empty both the retail part and the apartments. Are they going to start fining landlords for the empty apartments too??
As for empty storefronts some have been empty for years primarily because there in NO PARKING. Why would a business rent a storefront when clients wouldn’t be able to conveniently get to your business??
We have a great example on Elm Street in West Newton – Those store fronts have been vacant for years and the reason is the Parking – NOT the rental costs.
No landlord/property owner would want their storefront or apartment empty. You still have to pay the taxes and the utilities. Now they want to fine you. Watertown should have thought twice before they gave out all these building permits. And realize that the supply is outweighing the demand. It is Economics 101! Newton will be following them soon with all the buildings they will be putting in Newtonville.
It’s oversimplifying to say that the problem with our retail vacancies has to do with parking. Amazon and other e-commerce sites are a much bigger factor. If you really wanted to help mom and pop retailers, try banning UPS, FedEx, etc., rather than building more parking. (For the record, I’m not really advocating banning those things and I’m oversimplifying too, just making a point.)
I’ve been involved with commercial real estate for more than 25 years. I’ve never once known a landlord to evict a retail tenant on the CHANCE they could fill the space with a higher paying tenant. The last thing any commercial landlord wants is vacant space with no tenant on the hook.
That being said, this is one of the reasons I’ve been harping on the need to treat retail cannabis sales the same way we treat retail liquor sales in Newton. Take a moment to think of how many liquor stores there are in Newton. How much retail space they occupy. How many people they employ. How much tax revenue they generate. If the City Council does the smart thing, and treats cannabis like alcohol in our zoning regulations, it will have major economic benefits for Newton.
@Greg — I know the point you are making, but great opportunity to point out that (in my opinion) Tom at UPS is one of Newtonville’s best mom and pop retailers. The guy never takes a day off. As fast as he turns around anything and everything you ask him to print or ship, you do need to park briefly to get in there….
@Mike Striar – are you really saying that no landlords who raise rents by amounts they know their tenants won’t be able to afford always have other tenants lined up? What about the popular restaurants that have closed in the past few years (think of Lam’s or Jamjuli) due to rent increases?
Recognizing and identifying the situation is the first step towards a better municipality based private/public economy. The annual 5% vacancy rate increase thru natural selection will lead to a survival of the fittest and highest demand service and stables businesses. For instance, the Starbucks flywheel platform will track & identify specific concentration for human comforts, propagating financial efficiency. Profit margins are not only identified by sales revenue but also by reduction in overhead costs.
Newton’s municipal business plan is lacking compared to current private sector business models. Change is difficult for many to accept, the opportunity for municipality updating is before us with not only charter revision, but most pointedly with a new chief executive in the corner office.
@Greg- It is not oversimplifying. It is what I have been told by 2 people that wanted to rent the Storefront at Main and Waverly Ave in Watertown. The 2 other tenants are a nail salon and a Barber shop. People that go to those 2 businesses will stay at least one hour – one person wanted to put in a Specialty Grocery Store and his backers refused on that property as they told him that someone wanting to come into his store to buy something would not find parking because the spots would be taken and they would just drive by and wouldn’t go in. The other person told me it also had to do with Parking. That is the reason from at least 2 people regarding this storefront. I am sure since it has been vacant at least 2 years that the Landlord would have dropped the price if cost was an issue.
And Mike Striar is Correct – recently I had an apartment come up on the lease and I was going to go up on the rent and the Realtor told me that there is such an overabundance of rentals in Newton to just leave it alone as I ran the risk of losing the tenant and then having a vacancy for a while. And if you drive around Newton you will see many houses with For Rent Signs on them. I opted to keep the rent as is rather than risk it.
And Mike Striar – Can you tell me which Liquor Stores in Newton – Don’t have On site/Adjacent Parking?? I can’t think of any – but please correct me if I am wrong.
And when I go to the Village Bank – I either go to Auburndale or Nonantum- why PARKING. Rarely do I easily find Parking in Newtonville or West Newton. And when I do – those 2 branches are much less busy than the ones with parking.
Maybe Parking is an Oversimplification for Greg but it is reality for me.
Parking is not an oversimplification – it is the reason that Elm Street has remained vacant.
And this, folks, is why I despise this relatively new ‘thumbs-up’ and ‘thumbs-down’ system. At 9:56, someone gave Joanne’s comment a ‘thumbs-down’. Why? What did she say that was incorrect? The only reason I can think of is that she brought up some discomforting facts and it made the individual feel sad.
Joanne said exactly what I’ve experienced as well. Parking is everything to me. I go to the Village Bank branch based on where I get parking. I go to an Asian Restaurant in Waltham instead of one in West Newton even though I like the latter one better, because the former has parking, the other does not.
There are also plenty of storefront and apartments for rent in the city that are going empty for a myriad of reasons and as Joanne pointed out, they’re empty largely because of lack of parking and the underwriters to these projects can see this. (See Elm Street, West Newton; Two years and counting).
These are unpleasant truths the advocates don’t want to recognize.
People like to drive, they like to park. Some side notes: Just as much as some people love their bikes and going biking, I love to drive, even twenty feet. Ever since I was five years old and my Dad took me to Paragon Park and I drove the bumper cars, I live to drive. I delivered newspapers on a bike for three full years through snowstorms. To get on a bike after I turned 18 was a punishment. Seriously. Attack me all you wish, build all the bike lanes you want, encourage all the alternative energies you desire, I’m not giving up my keys to ANYONE except my children when the time comes, (hopefully in a distant future).
Also, it’s a cliche, but my best friend in the whole world does happen to be a developer. They are not having a good time right now with a project in another city. The backers are having a heck of time finding people to rent both their apartments and retail fronts. Guess why? Joanne could not be more correct in this situation.
@Meredith– Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Commercial landlords don’t evict paying tenants in the hope they might replace them with a higher paying tenant for the same space. I’ve been a commercial landlord for 25 years, and I’ve never once seen this happen.
You asked me about two specific restaurants that went out of business, and suggest they folded as a result of landlords speculating that they may find higher paying tenants. As I’m sure you are aware, restaurants fail at a much higher rate than most consumer oriented businesses. Your instinct is to attribute those two failures to speculative rent increases. More likely they were already struggling to pay their established rent, and had fallen behind in payments. Only the restaurant owner[s] and their respective landlords would know the facts.
@Joanne– You asked me “which liquor stores in Newton don’t have onsite/adjacent parking?” I don’t understand why [or even if] you feel that question is relevant to my contention that retail cannabis stores should be treated the exact same way as retail liquor stores. But Murray’s in Newton Centre immediately came to mind. I can think of several others as well. If you’re suggesting retail cannabis stores should be required to supply onsite parking, I might agree, as long as retail liquor stores face that exact same zoning requirement.
As we both know, Joanne, people in Newton have complained for many years that “banks and nail salons” dominate retail space in our village centers. Now, we have a dynamic new industry that needs lots of retail locations to grow. And that industry is emerging at a time when storefront retail is getting crushed by online sales. The City Council has the opportunity to be a “welcoming city” that embraces the cannabis industry and all its’ economic benefits, or they can create burdensome zoning requirements which hand those benefits to more open-minded communities.
@Mark
No one is asking you to bike. I wouldn’t expect you to at all. But if we make biking easier and safer, then more people will choose that option and you’ll find more parking.
The issue you’re describing around parking isn’t that people want access to their cars, they want access to transportation. Because we lack a convenient, consistent and efficient system in Newton, cars are the only option. The answer is not “build more roads, build more parking,” but instead to think about the whole problem and come up with a cohesive solution.
Bikes are part of that solution. Not the only solution, but part of it. Ride hailing apps offer another piece, as does better public transit. Looking at cars as THE ONLY solution is short-sighted and leaves a lot of people out of our city.
@ Chuck. Thanks for chance to add that unlike some, I like public transportation. I really do like riding the trolley, (and have for daily commute), crazy at that sounds. I,for one, never thought those tracks and wires in Watertown for the electric powered buses were ugly, though I can understand some who thought so. I thought it was cool but that’s me.
To add to discussion: Within this present administration are strong advocates for biking. I see all the bike lanes being added to places like Comm Ave in Auburndale for example. But I rarely see people using them. Ever. All this effort for two people in the whole city. Happy to be educated on this, but I’m getting impression that the advocates are trying to sell a “product” to very few people, most of whom aren’t buying it anymore than they’re buying buggy whips. Dare I say that the market for getting on a bike has dwindled? Is there really an untapped market out here of people just aching to jump on a bike if they only had the path? I don’t know. Are we doing all this just cause it’s the ‘in’ thing to do even though there’s no demand???
@ Mark – Thank you for your comments.
@ Mike Striar – My point is that most have parking lots – they are not required but help people get to the Businesses. And Even Murrays – you can park in the lot on Center Street . I am not saying they should require it but if you have a business you want your clients or customers to easily get to you and parking is important. That was my point about the liquor stores and banks or any business for that matter.
@Mike Striar – I did ask in those and other (non-restaurant) cases and was told that rent increases were the reason. And I did not say they were evicted – they were given new leases that were unaffordably higher than the previous ones when it was time for lease renewal.
@Mark,
You and I seem to look at the same streets and see different things. I see cyclists all over the city. They ride down Waltham Street onto Crafts during their commute to work, and move in larger numbers through Newton Centre. I see them on Walnut Street (where I’m often biking to my office on Needham Street) and see them on Needham Street itself.
Part of the issue in Auburndale is that you’re looking pieces of a larger, yet-incomplete puzzle. Transportation Director Nicole Freedman likes to point out that you build what you can when you can, then connect over time. Don’t wait until you have everything in place. So part of the Auburndale challenge is that they don’t yet lead anywhere, but they will.
Another is that paint only goes so far. A painted bike lane will draw out a few cyclists, but a protected bike lane starts pulling out greater numbers.
We also need to put in the destination infrastructure, that is also lacking. When I bike to work I’m forced to carry my 30lb 3-speed (and all my stuff) up 2 flights of stairs. On a recent foray into Needham Center I found no place to lock my bike and no poles either, as parkng meters are now connected to large light posts. Waltham has a similar problem. This is the same issue you complain about around W. Newton.
But if you stand at Russo’s on a busy Sunday morning you’ll see the bikes coming and going, all laden with groceries. I believe if they had better bike racks they’d have more riders. Still, I spoke with a woman who bikes from Weston and others from Cambridge and S. Boston. Each one of those is a customer for Russo’s who is leaving a spot open for you. Everyone wins.
@Meredith– I would agree that rent increases are frequently the reason small retailers and restaurants go out of business. Like any good business person, a commercial landlord will try to get the most money they can for their product [space]. I was simply disagreeing with the premise that landlords do this on a speculative basis, before they have a new tenant willing to pay higher rent.
@Joanne– Thanks for clarifying. I agree that adequate parking is important for nearly any retail business. The point I’m making repeatedly is that the same zoning standards for retail liquor stores should apply to retail cannabis stores here in Newton. I invite any City Councilor with a different opinion to debate the issue with me in a public forum… like right here on V-14. Alternatively, if there are any City Councilors who feel like they need more information to form an opinion on retail cannabis sales, I’d be happy to discuss the topic privately with them.
[email protected]