Update on Highland Place?

Additional coverage of the denial: http://joestrupp.blogspot.com/2016/06/highland-place-owner-denied-liquor.html

tomdevon said:

Additional coverage of the denial: http://joestrupp.blogspot.com/2016/06/highland-place-owner-denied-liquor.html

Not much, though.

ridski said:

tomdevon said:

Additional coverage of the denial: http://joestrupp.blogspot.com/2016/06/highland-place-owner-denied-liquor.html

Not much, though.

Ha!  True, but just trying to be complete and not favor one local news source over the other

He did add that it was the guy's birthday.   A legit reason for missing a court date that affects an important asset, right?   smh

I see a couple of sad and 'weird' things about this:

The new owner of the liquor license, Masoud Kian, obviously came in underfunded and someone did not do due diligence to the tune of $90,000 in back taxes.  That is a tremendous amount that must be paid in cash prior to the license being awarded to Masoud Kian.  Not many people would be willing to walk into with the amount of capital required to get a place up and running knowing they had to put out $120,000 + legal fees, town fees and all the other necessary deposits to open the front door before they turned on the lights

The town requiring him to get another restaurant in to re-open seems to be an unusual stipulation, but he did agree to it.

To me, it seems as if Mr Kian simply did not have enough cash to really get this going, and/or the terms he was offering for a new place were just not feasible.  

Sounds like he thought he could unload the whole thing at some kind of profit while not investing a penny in making it something someone would actually take on.

tomdevon said:

ms_cooper said:

Lembrich and his team ran his entire single-issue campaign fighting the timely development of the post office space. 

It is my personal opinion that his desire to stall any forward movement at the Highland Place site is right in line with his politics.  

I think this is apples and oranges.  There's really no comparison between filling an empty space in an existing building and demolishing an existing building to replace it with something else.  You may disagree with Lembrich on both issues, but I wouldn't assume that it is for the same reasons on both.  I'm also not sure most would agree with you that the Lembrich campaign was a single-issue affair; I, for one, don't think a significant voting majority of town was that opposed to the Post House, and many likely didn't care that much either way for it to sway their vote.  

Also consider that a non-renewed liquor license may be a factor that makes the Highland Place space more difficult to rent since the new occupant is taking some additional risk that another application for renewal may not be approved, at least in a timely manner.  Probably not a big hurdle, but an obstacle nonetheless.  So I'm not sure which action on the renewal application is more likely to stall forward movement.  Hopefully you're right and the non-renewal spurs the owner into action.

Dude owns parking lots all over NYC. I'm guessing cashflow is not an issue.

MsSumida said:

I see a couple of sad and 'weird' things about this:

The new owner of the liquor license, Masoud Kian, obviously came in underfunded and someone did not do due diligence to the tune of $90,000 in back taxes.  That is a tremendous amount that must be paid in cash prior to the license being awarded to Masoud Kian.  Not many people would be willing to walk into with the amount of capital required to get a place up and running knowing they had to put out $120,000 + legal fees, town fees and all the other necessary deposits to open the front door before they turned on the lights

The town requiring him to get another restaurant in to re-open seems to be an unusual stipulation, but he did agree to it.

To me, it seems as if Mr Kian simply did not have enough cash to really get this going, and/or the terms he was offering for a new place were just not feasible.  

No you have this wrong. Kian was the longtime owner of the property and undertook the license purchasing from his tenant after he had money trouble(back taxes).  He purchased the license knowing all about the taxes owed .

These licenses go for big bucks, $120,000 with back taxes is a steal.

http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2016/04/nj_restaurant_shells_out_12m_for_liquor_license.html

MsSumida said:

I see a couple of sad and 'weird' things about this:

The new owner of the liquor license, Masoud Kian, obviously came in underfunded and someone did not do due diligence to the tune of $90,000 in back taxes.  That is a tremendous amount that must be paid in cash prior to the license being awarded to Masoud Kian.  Not many people would be willing to walk into with the amount of capital required to get a place up and running knowing they had to put out $120,000 + legal fees, town fees and all the other necessary deposits to open the front door before they turned on the lights

The town requiring him to get another restaurant in to re-open seems to be an unusual stipulation, but he did agree to it.

To me, it seems as if Mr Kian simply did not have enough cash to really get this going, and/or the terms he was offering for a new place were just not feasible.  

Quite the opposite regarding the funding aspect... the licensee has more money than he knows what to do with.  That in and of itself is part of the issue: he can financially afford to impose whatever conditions he wants and for as long as he wants.  What the TC seems to have done is try and take his financial upper hand out of the equation.  

The TC is advocating for its constituents who do not want empty storefronts in their town.  

It is my understanding that ample time was given to the owner of the license to turn a profit for his own professional interest.

It seems that the time is right for both parties to come to an arrangement whereby the outcome is beneficial to the town and the landlord.  

ctrzaska said:

MsSumida said:

I see a couple of sad and 'weird' things about this:

The new owner of the liquor license, Masoud Kian, obviously came in underfunded and someone did not do due diligence to the tune of $90,000 in back taxes.  That is a tremendous amount that must be paid in cash prior to the license being awarded to Masoud Kian.  Not many people would be willing to walk into with the amount of capital required to get a place up and running knowing they had to put out $120,000 + legal fees, town fees and all the other necessary deposits to open the front door before they turned on the lights

The town requiring him to get another restaurant in to re-open seems to be an unusual stipulation, but he did agree to it.

To me, it seems as if Mr Kian simply did not have enough cash to really get this going, and/or the terms he was offering for a new place were just not feasible.  

Quite the opposite regarding the funding aspect... the licensee has more money than he knows what to do with.  That in and of itself is part of the issue: he can financially afford to impose whatever conditions he wants and for as long as he wants.  What the TC seems to have done is try and take his financial upper hand out of the equation.  

OK, did not know about his financing and buckets of dough...

let me refrain... he blew it

So does this mean the license reverts to the township to issue as they see fit?

Given the going market rate for a liquor license in this area it seems odd that you can lose your investment if the TC decides not to renew.

At this point, isn't this just strategy?  I mean has anything been lost yet?  So the license can't be used... Well there's nowhere to use it now anyway so it's a moot point.  Does anyone believe that the renewal/ reinstatement would be denied if a qualified operator arose?

Exactly.  But it may have woken up the filthy rich owner.  

Woot said:

Exactly.  But it may have woken up the filthy rich owner.  

Others have mentioned his wealth, but I believe this is the first mention of his personal hygene.

OhNoFilth.

In fairness, the village green article is linked, and I cannot read it without paying a subscription fee. I thought this was against MOL policy? 

ridski said:

tomdevon said:

Additional coverage of the denial: http://joestrupp.blogspot.com/2016/06/highland-place-owner-denied-liquor.html

Not much, though.

bets said:

In fairness, the village green article is linked, and I cannot read it without paying a subscription fee. I thought this was against MOL policy? 

ridski said:

tomdevon said:

Additional coverage of the denial: http://joestrupp.blogspot.com/2016/06/highland-place-owner-denied-liquor.html

Not much, though.

Good point. I'm think there are 5 articles you can read now on VG before it becomes PPV.

To be fair, though. If you look at the difference between the links, without clicking on them, Maplewoodian's story sounds like Mister Kian couldn't get served at highland place.

But I can read it for free!   

ridski said:

bets said:

In fairness, the village green article is linked, and I cannot read it without paying a subscription fee. I thought this was against MOL policy? 

ridski said:

tomdevon said:

Additional coverage of the denial: http://joestrupp.blogspot.com/2016/06/highland-place-owner-denied-liquor.html

Not much, though.

Good point. I'm think there are 5 articles you can read now on VG before it becomes PPV.

To be fair, though. If you look at the difference between the links, without clicking on them, Maplewoodian's story sounds like Mister Kian couldn't get served at highland place.

So is the VG getting a decent conversion rate on the subscriptions?  I just stopped reading now due to the cost and often can get similar info on Patch or NJ.com.  It's definitely a dicey move for them in the age of (generally) free content...

*edited to change my period to a "?"

ridski said:Good point. I'm think there are 5 articles you can read now on VG before it becomes PPV.

For $3.25 a month, I didn't have to think twice.

DaveSchmidt said:

For $3.25 a month, I didn't have to think twice.

Indeed.  Barely 10 cents a day to support quality local journalism seems like a steal to me.  If this VG policy means that links to their coverage can no longer be posted on MOL, I think that would be unfortunate, but I obviously don't make the rules. 

lanky said:

So is the VG getting a decent conversion rate on the subscriptions?  I just stopped reading now due to the cost and often can get similar info on Patch or NJ.com.  It's definitely a dicey move for them in the age of (generally) free content...

*edited to change my period to a "?"

Patch or NJ.com?  This can't be a serious post.

kmk said:

I am certain there is a back story or two - much we do not know.  Just as a strict moderator keeps a chat group moving ahead and on topic, our town's leadership needs to play hardball with commercial property owners to keep Maplewood village alive and thriving.

Can't let this go uncommented.  No idea what it means.  I see no parallel between moderating a message board and moving a legal action forward.  Sorry.

I'm with you

tomdevon said:

DaveSchmidt said:

For $3.25 a month, I didn't have to think twice.

Indeed.  Barely 10 cents a day to support quality local journalism seems like a steal to me.  If this VG policy means that links to their coverage can no longer be posted on MOL, I think that would be unfortunate, but I obviously don't make the rules. 

@dave, They are both communities, one virtual and one physical.

I mean that the the Township is sending a warning to non-conforming property (or license) holders.  It may not be illegal to keep Highland Place empty, but the township knows that it needs to be rented for the "for the greater good" of the township.  Obnoxious posters who are profane or constantly detracting from a topic at hand are also gently banned for the greater good of the message board. 

ml1 said:

I'm with you

tomdevon said:

DaveSchmidt said:

For $3.25 a month, I didn't have to think twice.

Indeed.  Barely 10 cents a day to support quality local journalism seems like a steal to me.  If this VG policy means that links to their coverage can no longer be posted on MOL, I think that would be unfortunate, but I obviously don't make the rules. 

Me, too.  I pay.  The quality of the reporting is worth it.

All my life I have paid for newspapers and magazines, they never came free on paper and they don't come free on the internet.  I don't see the problem.

You don't see it because there isn't one.  And, presumably, you're also not a cheapskate.

I wish it covered my town more but I like what it does so I pay.  And did so even before the pay wall. 

ml1 said:

I'm with you

tomdevon said:

DaveSchmidt said:

For $3.25 a month, I didn't have to think twice.

Indeed.  Barely 10 cents a day to support quality local journalism seems like a steal to me.  If this VG policy means that links to their coverage can no longer be posted on MOL, I think that would be unfortunate, but I obviously don't make the rules. 

Grape mimes think alike. I was an early subscriber ...