Odd that a full sized supermarket building in LT sits empty for years.
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
My first official job.
Uncle Charlie
Beer is Good!!!!
The story is this
When Superfresh came to the twon to put a store in, the planning and zoning commission for the town DISCOURAGED them from doing so. I was a member of the commission at the time so I know. We discoruaged them from doing it as we had detailed surveys from Safeway and another grocery chain showing the twon could NOT support another store until 75% of the current projected buildout was done.
Superfresh disputed our numbers and built the store. They lasted about a year, figured out they were losing money and as part of their reorganization, they closed the store.
Mattingly's and Richfood, Mattingly's main grocery supplier, entered into negotiations with Superfresh to take over the store. Superfresh pays rent of $18,000 a month, Mattingly's / Richfood offered $15,000. Superfresh decided it is better to lose $18,000 a month instead of $3,000 and refused to sub-let.
In addition, I am aware that several of the smaller stores get reduced rents because the "leader store" I.E., Superfresh is not open. They have also stated they could not make it if they had to pay their full rent.
Mattingly's only option was to remodel and possibly expand where they were. This was going to cost in excess of $1,000,000. As a small grocery store usually operates on a profit margin of 2 to 5% depending on the item being sold, it would take about 20 years or more for Mattingly's to recover their money. The owners are in their mid to late 50's and decided that just wasn't an option for them. Thus, they decided to close. It is a sad day as I worked there for several years as a kid and I know just about every employee there and consider them all to be my friends.
True Value moved because they needed more space. Superfesh would still want their $18,000 a month rent. Instead, True Value purchased the property and they own the building.
It is rumored that the owners of the shopping center want to convert the superfresh store to smaller shops and rent them out. Supposedly , they are negotiating with Superfresh about buying out their lease.
McKays did not move for some of the very reasons Mattingl'y would not move. However, a developer is discussing putting a smaller version of Mattingly's into their old space, carrying an upscale line of items, similar to what Woodburns in Solomons Island does.
Now, you know the true story. If Superfresh had just listned, there wouldn't be a huge vacant box sitting out there and Mattingly's probably would still be in business. Unfortunately, small grocers like Mattingl'ys and McKays are being sqeezed out by chains such as Food Lion and Giant and others. Independent Grocers do not have the buying powers of the huge chains. This is just another case of a samll independent business being put out of business because of the larger chain stores.
One more thing, IMO, Nook and Monk's needed to go. They never seemed to be too friendly and certainly didn't want anyone just stopping in to have a beer or a glass of wine.
Linda's food is adequate, not great. But the service is TERRIBLE. I have been there several times and they did not get my order right and it should not take 1 1/2 hours to eat dinner in a small diner.
When Superfresh came to the twon to put a store in, the planning and zoning commission for the town DISCOURAGED them from doing so. I was a member of the commission at the time so I know. We discoruaged them from doing it as we had detailed surveys from Safeway and another grocery chain showing the twon could NOT support another store until 75% of the current projected buildout was done.
Superfresh disputed our numbers and built the store. They lasted about a year, figured out they were losing money and as part of their reorganization, they closed the store.
Mattingly's and Richfood, Mattingly's main grocery supplier, entered into negotiations with Superfresh to take over the store. Superfresh pays rent of $18,000 a month, Mattingly's / Richfood offered $15,000. Superfresh decided it is better to lose $18,000 a month instead of $3,000 and refused to sub-let.
In addition, I am aware that several of the smaller stores get reduced rents because the "leader store" I.E., Superfresh is not open. They have also stated they could not make it if they had to pay their full rent.
Mattingly's only option was to remodel and possibly expand where they were. This was going to cost in excess of $1,000,000. As a small grocery store usually operates on a profit margin of 2 to 5% depending on the item being sold, it would take about 20 years or more for Mattingly's to recover their money. The owners are in their mid to late 50's and decided that just wasn't an option for them. Thus, they decided to close. It is a sad day as I worked there for several years as a kid and I know just about every employee there and consider them all to be my friends.
True Value moved because they needed more space. Superfesh would still want their $18,000 a month rent. Instead, True Value purchased the property and they own the building.
It is rumored that the owners of the shopping center want to convert the superfresh store to smaller shops and rent them out. Supposedly , they are negotiating with Superfresh about buying out their lease.
McKays did not move for some of the very reasons Mattingl'y would not move. However, a developer is discussing putting a smaller version of Mattingly's into their old space, carrying an upscale line of items, similar to what Woodburns in Solomons Island does.
Now, you know the true story. If Superfresh had just listned, there wouldn't be a huge vacant box sitting out there and Mattingly's probably would still be in business. Unfortunately, small grocers like Mattingl'ys and McKays are being sqeezed out by chains such as Food Lion and Giant and others. Independent Grocers do not have the buying powers of the huge chains. This is just another case of a samll independent business being put out of business because of the larger chain stores.
One more thing, IMO, Nook and Monk's needed to go. They never seemed to be too friendly and certainly didn't want anyone just stopping in to have a beer or a glass of wine.
Linda's food is adequate, not great. But the service is TERRIBLE. I have been there several times and they did not get my order right and it should not take 1 1/2 hours to eat dinner in a small diner.
truby20
Fighting like a girl
Uncle Charlie said:
Why was the store approved then? Same issue with the one that was allowed in San Souci that forced Harvest Markets out of business, I remember both of the Super Fresh's opening within a year of eachother. Right after that they hit hard times and closed all three of their stores... Does the planning commission just greenlight everything even if it known that there isn't a sufficent economic base for it?
truby20
Fighting like a girl
Pete said:
Well I just hoped it would be someone's responsibility. I know nothing of how the planning and zoning comissions operates but their has to be someone who is responsible for that disgusting track of retail stores along 235 from St. Mary's airport until the first base gate. Hasn't anyone recognized the nightmare a similar stretch of road, 301 in Waldorf, has become?
Oz
You're all F'in Mad...
truby20 said:
First of all, Uncle Charlie is referring to the Leonardtown Planning Commission.
Secondly, the strip along 235 you referred to is part of the Development District. That's where services exist (water and sewer) so that's where development is ~supposed~ to occur. Naturally retail will locate close to the traffic corridor.
I think the only point Uncle Charlie missed is that Superfresh wanted to be released from their 10+ year lease obligation with the shopping center owner. The prospective tennants wouldn't or couldn't assume that obligation with the property owner, and has so far has prevented someone else from occupying that space.
Uncle Charlie
Beer is Good!!!!
You can't just say no
When an issue comes before any Planning and Zoning commission, you can't just say no.
If a property is zoned for the use that is applied for, you can only guide the development and seek to find ways to make the development better for a community, no matter what the development is. Yes, you can try and put restrictions on some items, but you can't just say no. I wish you could, but you can't.
Unfortunately, if an application meets the requirements for a piece of property, you have to let them do what they want, and can only guide them and seek to have them do some things to help with the project. But, if they want to build something, even though you think it will fail, you don't have the right to stop them based on that assumption.
If you did have that sort of power, the process would be EXTREMELY politicized and would certainly be open to a lot of CORRUPTION. Many metropolitan areas have run into this problem but so far, I think St. mary's County, and the Town of Leonardtown, have avoided it. I know there are those who would say otherwise, but in reality, if it fits, they can build it. The rules are pretty much "set in stone" although, the commission memebrs job is to interpret the rules when it is a "gray area." Unfortunately, most of the time, it is not gray, it is in black and white.
When an issue comes before any Planning and Zoning commission, you can't just say no.
If a property is zoned for the use that is applied for, you can only guide the development and seek to find ways to make the development better for a community, no matter what the development is. Yes, you can try and put restrictions on some items, but you can't just say no. I wish you could, but you can't.
Unfortunately, if an application meets the requirements for a piece of property, you have to let them do what they want, and can only guide them and seek to have them do some things to help with the project. But, if they want to build something, even though you think it will fail, you don't have the right to stop them based on that assumption.
If you did have that sort of power, the process would be EXTREMELY politicized and would certainly be open to a lot of CORRUPTION. Many metropolitan areas have run into this problem but so far, I think St. mary's County, and the Town of Leonardtown, have avoided it. I know there are those who would say otherwise, but in reality, if it fits, they can build it. The rules are pretty much "set in stone" although, the commission memebrs job is to interpret the rules when it is a "gray area." Unfortunately, most of the time, it is not gray, it is in black and white.
Oz
You're all F'in Mad...
Uncle Charlie said:
You are exactly correct. In spite of misinformation printed in our newspapers, developers have rules to follow. The St Mary's County Planning Commission reviews their work, and ensures that it follows the Zoning Ordinance and meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Generally, Leonardtown is pretty easy to work with. But it all comes back to everyone simply following the rules.
Chain729
CageKicker Extraordinaire
Oz said:
True, but that doesn't mean the "powers that be" exercised wisdom in building the county's infrastructure. Basically, yes I believe that she understand that things are where they are "supposed" to be; but that whomever decided to have the side of a highway as "that place where stores are supposed to be" wasn't neccessarily making the wisest descision.
Personally, I don't know who(m) makes that descision, but I don't believe you can fault them unless you know that they knew- at the time the descision was made- that there would be as much crap as there is now. It's a bit late in the game to say what the county should've done. My question is, do they have a solution to the problem that they're zoning by lack of foresight/wisdom (depending on what they knew before hand) created? I only see things getting bigger and denser and I'm not buying off on "expanding the road" as the wisest solution.
At any rate, maybe I just don't get it... How can SuperFresh afford an 18K monthly loss, but not a 3K loss? Were they losing more than 18K a month when the store was operating? Or is that math exactly why they're out of business?
Oz
You're all F'in Mad...
Chain729 said:
I would suggest that the market and consumers "dictate" where things go, and local government merely adapts to our system of free enterprise.
You will continue to see the Lexington Park Development District become more dense. That is where density is designed to go. The area of the LPDD will not grow unless the next BOCC decides to add to it.
I think you'll see more activity on extending Peggs Road to Route 5 in Callaway. I also think you'll see more FDR Blvd Development. Both will take some traffic away from Route 235.
I'm sure Superfresh/A&P wishes that their lease in Leonardtown was a matter of simple math. Unfortunately, contract law comes into play and they were not given an option by the property owner of getting out of their contract liability completely. Therefore it makes more sense for them to maintain their lease and ride it out until an acceptable deal surfaces or the lease expires. They bought that guy a pretty nice shopping center.
Chain729
CageKicker Extraordinaire
Oz said:
I wasn't talking about moving the development to another part of the county. What I would've like to have seen has been mentioned around here before: The development pushed back away from the highway. An access road running parrallel to 235 put in (instead of expanding 235- which is maxed out now), and lights every 1-2 miles (instead every couple hundred feet) to go from the access road to the highway; thereby somewhat preserving the purpose of a highway and allowing express traffic to get by quicker.
Seeing as how its a bit late for that plan, I wonder what happened to the idea thrown around awhile back about running another road parrallel to 235, between 235 and 5?
I'm sure Great Mills/commercial Lexington Park will get more dense; but I think it'll make traffic worse, not better. More roads? Great. More congested and light infested roads? Bad planning, at least IMHO.
Oz said:I'm sure Superfresh/A&P wishes that their lease in Leonardtown was a matter of simple math. Unfortunately, contract law comes into play and they were not given an option by the property owner of getting out of their contract liability completely. Therefore it makes more sense for them to maintain their lease and ride it out until an acceptable deal surfaces or the lease expires. They bought that guy a pretty nice shopping center.
The contract would explain them not sub-leasing it. I guess I just can't see them losing more money with income than more money without (though I understand that its possible). Either way, I can't argue that they didn't make someone else very profitable at their own expense.
Oz
You're all F'in Mad...
Chain729 said:
That road is FDR Blvd which has been discussed for 30 years and is now partly built.
Chain729 said:The contract would explain them not sub-leasing it. I guess I just can't see them losing more money with income than more money without (though I understand that its possible). Either way, I can't argue that they didn't make someone else very profitable at their own expense.
They dont want to sub-let the property. They want to find another tennant and get completely out of the lease.