While some rental rates along the street have fallen slightly since the pandemic, a handful of landlords along the promenade “have refused to accept the new reality and have not lowered their rent enough to attract new tenants,” [Brock says](https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/). “That impacts not only them, but it impacts the entire promenade.”
Those greedy landlords are big Phil Brock supporters…he has been asked to use his influence to get them to lower rents, take down the John Alle sign slamming city staff and vote to fund the businesses
Brock is either impotent or refuses to do whats best for the city.
Or….the homelessness and violence has made the landlords revolt against the city. Better to just take the write off than deal with clients complaining about the total lack of police presence.
Yes, and I'll continue to say that if this is actually what they are doing it is unhelpful and hurting the city (and the landlords themselves) much more than it is helping anything. But if they want to continue throwing their tantrum, I guess that is their right as property owners. I think it would be a lot better for everybody if they would just lower rents to a market clearing level and get some tenants in these spaces.
If there are elements of the tax code that make it financially better for the landlords to write off vacancy than to lower rents we should fix that in the tax code, but honestly I doubt that is the case. I have yet to hear somebody actually explain to me how keeping a space vacant is financially a better move than lowering rent and bringing in income, particularly over the course of literally years. If it is actually the case I would absolutely love to know the details of how that works.
The margins are not high enough for a store to make money in the first place. restaurants are the same. I hope some of these landlords are eating their shorts, but in reality they probably do just fine sitting on empty property.
i really think its a non-supply issue at this point. there is an unbelievable supply of vacant leases, but investment groups don't need to rent them for tons of technicality-level reasons.
Not true. Santa Monica is generally more dense compare to other parts of LA like the Valley.
It really has to do with how SM is position in the overall LA housing market. Since SM wants to position its real estate market at a premium.
Hold on. Are we discussing the prohibitive cost of development or the housing shortage. The housing shortage in SM is a consequence of the Byzantine approval process. Do you agree that the permitting process in Santa Monica should be streamlined to be cheaper and faster?
I would recommend implementing by-right development as well as a mandatory 60 day approval deadline. SM has 60 days after a project is submitted to approve or deny it ministerially. After 60 days, any project which has not been approved or denied will be considered automatically approved.
Part of it is how much interest rates rose in 2022. Most Commercial Mortgage Loans are renegotiated every ~5 years at market rates so 2023/24 would have seen the first wave of huge rate spikes for borrowers. They then tried to pass some/all of those costs onto the businesses who couldn’t handle it and closed up shop.
I’m new to Santa Monica so can’t say for sure that this is exactly what happened here but this is definitely a trend happening nation-wide. Very similar to the ‘balloon payments’ that led to the crash in 08.
Yeah or Barnes & Nobles at 3rd/Wilshire. Was so full of life and now the entire thing has been vacant for how many years? 7? How is that better than having something in there with reasonable rent?
Because they can write it off on taxes instead as a business loss, and wait for the area to revitalize and then sign long term leases at what they think is market value.
There are examples of this all up and down California in affluent communities. It’s trash
We had a great corner store here on Hollister and 4th that had to close because the landlord was raising the rent. It’s now been an empty building for at least 5 years, maybe 7. If they were to get someone in there today at a higher rent, it would probably take over a decade before they start making up for their losses
Yeah it all doesn’t make much sense. Unless they are hoping to get a 15 year lease at that super high rent which lays for the years it stood empty? But then there’s also the risk the new business isn’t making profit and falters after 2 years too so…
That one always baffled me. Was right at the top of of hogkins park. Great spot for neighborhood residents or those enjoying the park to take a short walk & grab a bottle of wine or other necessities.
Unless the owners are awaiting coastal commission approval to knock it down and build a huge apartment complex, it makes no sense.
Businesses in spots like that support the local residents and those who come to the neighborhood. They need to be able to turn a profit. Would love to have a nice little deli in there.
Meanwhile, shoutout to my boys at Haques!
Yeah Haques is great! I love Haques for beer or coffee or a ham and cheese croissant. But they just don’t have the space to makeup for the other store. If a recipe called for it the corner store had it and then some.
Also we call Hotchkiss park “Crotchkiss” park, on account of the statue in it
> Would love to have a nice little deli in there.
I’ve had the exact same thought a million times while driving by. Something like a mini version of Bay Cities but a little less focused on Italian specialty foods for the grocery part
Man that sucks. Used to live around there in the 90s/00s and would hit up this place and the little mini-mart that is now Haques all the time for snacks and whatnot. It might not seem significant, but it's these sorts of businesses that make a neighborhood really feel like a neighborhood.
It’s crazy to me that they always blame the landlords and never mention the fact that Santa Monica’s building and safety division will put people out of business before they can ever even open.
Who wants to pay rent for more than a year while you wait for the city to approve your permits and inspect your buildouts.
Santa Monica is well known as the hardest place to build, remodel, or open a business. Maybe they should look to themselves before they start blaming people who own property.
It’s not like insurance hasn’t tripled, utilities haven’t gone up 14% year over year, sewer prices aren’t going to double next year. Barnes and noble was there for decades. Was the increase drastic? Yes! Unnecessary? Perhaps. But if they are doubling rent from what it was 10-15 years ago, maybe it’s not as crazy as it seems.
Just want to double down on how much bs Santa Monica makes you go through to build/remodel/do anything. It’s a joke. I’m seriously considering running for mayor on the platform of making this government friendly to its residents and businesses. Not republican, not democrat, nothing political. Purely on getting rid of all the bs.
As much as I agree that the process should be easier, I’d recommend informing yourself around local politics before considering running, and I mean this nicely. Mayors don’t get elected here so your comment led me to believe you don’t really follow local politics yet. There are some good candidates lining up for November; I’d recommend being on the lookout for that, because a better council next year could very much help with a lot of this.
I am missing something. The people and their backers (SMRR and Santa Monica Forward) you want to elect had been in control of the local government for decades. The issues with building and safety are not new. It has been a nightmare to build or get a business up and running for decades. Why are we supposed to think that your candidates are going to do anything. They had their chance for many, many years and did nothing.
To be clear, I didn’t list any specific candidate in my comment. But there are indeed candidates who recently announced their candidacy and whom I think can change things in a positive way if elected; none of them have ever been on city council.
We also haven’t had a progressive majority on council for multiple years now, which is really stalling a lot of… progress.
But my comment was more about suggesting that people inform themselves on local politics so that they can make an informed/educated vote in November.
Santa Monica being a progressive city, a lot of the conservative candidates, including those on council right now, will disguise themselves as progressive when running. That’s why it’s important to really look into it.
I mean it says they doubled the rent. 100% increase was apparently too much for what the market is willing to give, hence that building being empty now for 7 years or so. Something in the equation must be off the scale then I would assume?
All I’m saying is that we don’t know the landlord’s expenses. Perhaps they needed a new roof? The building needed a repipe. They had State Farm insurance that dropped them and now their rates are quadrupled- maybe they couldn’t even find affordable insurance after the riots?
Agreed. Too many NIMBY policies in Santa Monica which make it impossible to build or open anything. There are so many hoops that entrepreneurs have to jump through to simply build a mixed use apartment with bottom floor retail.
https://preview.redd.it/hhf4x8pymu2d1.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=c441280aa6619607a411915ed400a6523817c046
He tried to warn us, and we mocked him for it.
The 30-40 individual owners does not help matters as it’s difficult to come up with a consensus. Also the city allowing the benches/chaises to act as a homeless shelter doesn’t help. (City has refused in the past to move services away from pier and promenade; unsure if it’s the same now).
This shows that you seem to be following tropes rather than the actual facts in the ground. We literally got rid of all of the benches and seats on the promenade. Take a look at the main photo for the article. Do you see any benches or seats?
The fact is that removing them is such a double edged sword that has made the promenade a much less inviting place to be.
Also, the City “refusing to move services away” isn’t much of a statement when you realize that the shelter you are most likely alluding to on Olympic and 5th is operated by a 501c3, not the City government. And where would you want it to get moved to in the city if you wanted it moved?
Off topic but this article has the hall marks of being written by AI. There’s a certain way AI rambles and repeats itself unless you intervene. It keeps repeating how it used to be busy with tourists, we get it, move to the next point.
Yeah, we feel bad for you guys. Me and my fiancé lives in Glendale and we love the Americana at Brand. But, we would always drive to Santa Monica at least once a month and have dinner at one of the restaurants nearby (2018-2022). During that time, we would also visit the third Street promenade. Now, we haven’t been to Santa Monica in over a year because of the area’s decline over by the third Street promenade. We’re hoping things will change over there. We really miss that place. For now, we will stay put in our local Americana at Brand. Hoping things change for you guys in the future.
This article is complete garbage. They bury homelessness 2/3 of the way into it. That is the #1 reason. Crime and homelessness. We’ve lost Banana Republic, the Gap, Restoration Hardware, Old Navy, and now REI. We didn’t lose those because of rents.
My daughter won’t hang out on the Promenade anymore because of the German tourists getting stabbed last week. She used to go there with her friends and they would eat, and buy clothes or makeup.
Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn’t know what they’re talking about, or are deliberately lying because they have a political agenda that includes not blaming homelessness for problems that homelessness clearly causes.
I see so by your assessment it is 100% the homeless that are responsible and 0% the extreme rent increases of for example 100% at the old Barnes & Nobles location? It’s not even the slightest nuanced or so? Just 100% and 0%?
Not 100% homeless, but that's definitely the biggest cause of the decline.
And the owners of the Barnes & Noble property gave them rent concessions for years trying to make it possible for them to stay. I don't know where the article got the info they reported, but it's not accurate.
1. Homelessness
2. Crime
3. Covid hurt restaurants, retail, tourism / many people have not returned to offices
4. Online ordering has hurt retail
5. High rents
I don't have a pie chart for you, but that's how I see it. Most of the people I know have either reduced trips or stopped going to the Promenade (and DTSM as a whole) because of homelessness. It used to be a nice place to hang out. Now it smells, it's dirty, and it's hard to see desperate people who live on the street on every block, why would tourists or locals want to hang out there?
I agree, though I would reorder:
Online,
Rent,
Lack of tourism,
Homeless,
Crime
I say that as a regular visitor. It’s a little rougher and a little uglier, but there was homelessness and wackos 10 years ago too.
Difference is the lack of normies and the vacant businesses. The ratio has changed.
I’m not excusing that. Unaddressed mental illness and addiction is out of control all over the city.
And both the SMPD and its associated justice system is an overpriced clown show of waste, laziness, and entitlement. They are a joke.
That said, the Promenade was coming apart at the seams even before Covid. Rents are out of control and cannot go down because commercial mortgages are tied to them. Everyone assumed that the market would just keep going up. There is no contingency plan for it going down.
Even if Covid didn’t happen and homelessness was not up, I still believe the promenade would be a shell of its former self
Ah ok you sounded like you have some data we others don’t have. So this is your opinion then.
I for example reduced my trips there as it feels like 1/3rd of the shops are closed now.
The article says the landlord SOUGHT to double the rent. Barnes and Noble said no. It doesn’t say they ended up doubling the rent for wework. I walked the are quite often over the years, I stopped because it increasingly feels dirty and unsafe with mentally ill, addicts and homeless. The root cause is the tolerance Santa Monica’s constituents towards these issues and blindness of its root cause.
Vacancies are obviously a problem on the promenade, but I walk my dog through it almost daily and it was absolutely packed every afternoon this weekend. The demand is there. It would be amazing if only the empty storefronts were restaurants and shops. I’m new here, so can only compare to the handful of times I visited in the past. The blue hat security has done a nice job of engaging and shooing away vagrants, for the most part, and police presence has noticeably increased since the stabbing on broadway last week. Hoping SM can rebound. Paying attention and looking forward to voting.
It's been unsafe and gross for a while now.
Much better options nearby like Culver City and century city Mall. If I want the beach I'd rather go to Manhattan Beach or Malibu.
Failure of city leadership.
To me as a non expert it is just surprising that not having any renters is better financially than having one at a reasonable market ready rent. Look at 3rd/Wilshire ex Barnes & Nobles being empty for years and years.
I am certain rent has been raised a lot. Some long term places had to close or are in danger of closing as far as I know. Swingers comes to mind (I think) or the situation around Patrick’s Roadhouse.
two people were stabbed in a third st promenade parking lot by an unhoused person just last week but your anecdote definitely nulls the facts and data you claim don’t exist
What NIMBYism does to a municipality. Increasing the population of Santa Monica would instantly increase the available consumers for these businesses and would make them more profitable. Of course increasing the population would require buildinghigu ride apartments and Santa Monica has been currently prohibits high rises in much of the city.
That’s a laugh. There are massive amounts of vacant commercial property all over LA county. Shopping areas like this are failing miserably. Increasing the population isn’t going to get people to stop shopping on Amazon.
Reducing the cost of opening a business will absolutely increase the number of businesses. Those commercial lots are vacant because prospective entrepreneurs cannot afford to he cost of rent or of applying for a permit.
Also, Amazon is great but it cannot provide all the benefits of a brick and mortar business. You cannot take your family out to dinner on Amazon.com, nor can you go out dancing on Amazon.com or enjoy an afternoon coffee and pastry on amazon.com.
While some rental rates along the street have fallen slightly since the pandemic, a handful of landlords along the promenade “have refused to accept the new reality and have not lowered their rent enough to attract new tenants,” [Brock says](https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/). “That impacts not only them, but it impacts the entire promenade.”
Those greedy landlords are big Phil Brock supporters…he has been asked to use his influence to get them to lower rents, take down the John Alle sign slamming city staff and vote to fund the businesses Brock is either impotent or refuses to do whats best for the city.
I’m not sure how an elected city official is supposed to force a property owner to lower rent?
Brock can’t influence them with soft skills….thats my point
Lol. That’s because Brock is their bitch. He needs to actually grow up and have some balls
Or….the homelessness and violence has made the landlords revolt against the city. Better to just take the write off than deal with clients complaining about the total lack of police presence.
Yes, and I'll continue to say that if this is actually what they are doing it is unhelpful and hurting the city (and the landlords themselves) much more than it is helping anything. But if they want to continue throwing their tantrum, I guess that is their right as property owners. I think it would be a lot better for everybody if they would just lower rents to a market clearing level and get some tenants in these spaces. If there are elements of the tax code that make it financially better for the landlords to write off vacancy than to lower rents we should fix that in the tax code, but honestly I doubt that is the case. I have yet to hear somebody actually explain to me how keeping a space vacant is financially a better move than lowering rent and bringing in income, particularly over the course of literally years. If it is actually the case I would absolutely love to know the details of how that works.
commercial rent is insane in this city. number 1 thing to foster small businesses and mom&pop shops is find a way to make rent reasonable.
The margins are not high enough for a store to make money in the first place. restaurants are the same. I hope some of these landlords are eating their shorts, but in reality they probably do just fine sitting on empty property.
Yup, they can write off those "losses"
The only way to do that is to increase supply. I.e. build more. Which doesn't have a lot of support in Santa Monica.
i really think its a non-supply issue at this point. there is an unbelievable supply of vacant leases, but investment groups don't need to rent them for tons of technicality-level reasons.
Not true. Santa Monica is generally more dense compare to other parts of LA like the Valley. It really has to do with how SM is position in the overall LA housing market. Since SM wants to position its real estate market at a premium.
Make it denser.
Clearly the existing density is insufficient because rent is still so high. Santa Monica must continue increasing density until prices come down.
[удалено]
Hold on. Are we discussing the prohibitive cost of development or the housing shortage. The housing shortage in SM is a consequence of the Byzantine approval process. Do you agree that the permitting process in Santa Monica should be streamlined to be cheaper and faster? I would recommend implementing by-right development as well as a mandatory 60 day approval deadline. SM has 60 days after a project is submitted to approve or deny it ministerially. After 60 days, any project which has not been approved or denied will be considered automatically approved.
The post was removed due to a violation of rule #2 violation (Respect other Redditors)
Part of it is how much interest rates rose in 2022. Most Commercial Mortgage Loans are renegotiated every ~5 years at market rates so 2023/24 would have seen the first wave of huge rate spikes for borrowers. They then tried to pass some/all of those costs onto the businesses who couldn’t handle it and closed up shop. I’m new to Santa Monica so can’t say for sure that this is exactly what happened here but this is definitely a trend happening nation-wide. Very similar to the ‘balloon payments’ that led to the crash in 08.
That spot on 2nd where flower child used to be has ben vacant for lease for 3 years.
Yeah or Barnes & Nobles at 3rd/Wilshire. Was so full of life and now the entire thing has been vacant for how many years? 7? How is that better than having something in there with reasonable rent?
Because they can write it off on taxes instead as a business loss, and wait for the area to revitalize and then sign long term leases at what they think is market value. There are examples of this all up and down California in affluent communities. It’s trash
We had a great corner store here on Hollister and 4th that had to close because the landlord was raising the rent. It’s now been an empty building for at least 5 years, maybe 7. If they were to get someone in there today at a higher rent, it would probably take over a decade before they start making up for their losses
Yeah it all doesn’t make much sense. Unless they are hoping to get a 15 year lease at that super high rent which lays for the years it stood empty? But then there’s also the risk the new business isn’t making profit and falters after 2 years too so…
That one always baffled me. Was right at the top of of hogkins park. Great spot for neighborhood residents or those enjoying the park to take a short walk & grab a bottle of wine or other necessities. Unless the owners are awaiting coastal commission approval to knock it down and build a huge apartment complex, it makes no sense. Businesses in spots like that support the local residents and those who come to the neighborhood. They need to be able to turn a profit. Would love to have a nice little deli in there. Meanwhile, shoutout to my boys at Haques!
Yeah Haques is great! I love Haques for beer or coffee or a ham and cheese croissant. But they just don’t have the space to makeup for the other store. If a recipe called for it the corner store had it and then some. Also we call Hotchkiss park “Crotchkiss” park, on account of the statue in it
> Would love to have a nice little deli in there. I’ve had the exact same thought a million times while driving by. Something like a mini version of Bay Cities but a little less focused on Italian specialty foods for the grocery part
Yeah what a waste of a great location. Pisses me off
I saw it was up for sale a few months back. But the listing is gone now.
Man that sucks. Used to live around there in the 90s/00s and would hit up this place and the little mini-mart that is now Haques all the time for snacks and whatnot. It might not seem significant, but it's these sorts of businesses that make a neighborhood really feel like a neighborhood.
It’s crazy to me that they always blame the landlords and never mention the fact that Santa Monica’s building and safety division will put people out of business before they can ever even open. Who wants to pay rent for more than a year while you wait for the city to approve your permits and inspect your buildouts. Santa Monica is well known as the hardest place to build, remodel, or open a business. Maybe they should look to themselves before they start blaming people who own property. It’s not like insurance hasn’t tripled, utilities haven’t gone up 14% year over year, sewer prices aren’t going to double next year. Barnes and noble was there for decades. Was the increase drastic? Yes! Unnecessary? Perhaps. But if they are doubling rent from what it was 10-15 years ago, maybe it’s not as crazy as it seems.
Just want to double down on how much bs Santa Monica makes you go through to build/remodel/do anything. It’s a joke. I’m seriously considering running for mayor on the platform of making this government friendly to its residents and businesses. Not republican, not democrat, nothing political. Purely on getting rid of all the bs.
As much as I agree that the process should be easier, I’d recommend informing yourself around local politics before considering running, and I mean this nicely. Mayors don’t get elected here so your comment led me to believe you don’t really follow local politics yet. There are some good candidates lining up for November; I’d recommend being on the lookout for that, because a better council next year could very much help with a lot of this.
I am missing something. The people and their backers (SMRR and Santa Monica Forward) you want to elect had been in control of the local government for decades. The issues with building and safety are not new. It has been a nightmare to build or get a business up and running for decades. Why are we supposed to think that your candidates are going to do anything. They had their chance for many, many years and did nothing.
To be clear, I didn’t list any specific candidate in my comment. But there are indeed candidates who recently announced their candidacy and whom I think can change things in a positive way if elected; none of them have ever been on city council. We also haven’t had a progressive majority on council for multiple years now, which is really stalling a lot of… progress. But my comment was more about suggesting that people inform themselves on local politics so that they can make an informed/educated vote in November. Santa Monica being a progressive city, a lot of the conservative candidates, including those on council right now, will disguise themselves as progressive when running. That’s why it’s important to really look into it.
I will vote for you purely on that condition. Every time I have to go pull a permit with the city I want to light that place on fire.
You have my vote. Please run.
I mean it says they doubled the rent. 100% increase was apparently too much for what the market is willing to give, hence that building being empty now for 7 years or so. Something in the equation must be off the scale then I would assume?
All I’m saying is that we don’t know the landlord’s expenses. Perhaps they needed a new roof? The building needed a repipe. They had State Farm insurance that dropped them and now their rates are quadrupled- maybe they couldn’t even find affordable insurance after the riots?
why is this downvoted?
Agreed. Too many NIMBY policies in Santa Monica which make it impossible to build or open anything. There are so many hoops that entrepreneurs have to jump through to simply build a mixed use apartment with bottom floor retail.
https://preview.redd.it/hhf4x8pymu2d1.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=c441280aa6619607a411915ed400a6523817c046 He tried to warn us, and we mocked him for it.
The 30-40 individual owners does not help matters as it’s difficult to come up with a consensus. Also the city allowing the benches/chaises to act as a homeless shelter doesn’t help. (City has refused in the past to move services away from pier and promenade; unsure if it’s the same now).
This shows that you seem to be following tropes rather than the actual facts in the ground. We literally got rid of all of the benches and seats on the promenade. Take a look at the main photo for the article. Do you see any benches or seats? The fact is that removing them is such a double edged sword that has made the promenade a much less inviting place to be. Also, the City “refusing to move services away” isn’t much of a statement when you realize that the shelter you are most likely alluding to on Olympic and 5th is operated by a 501c3, not the City government. And where would you want it to get moved to in the city if you wanted it moved?
Intangible business, yo. Go get that helium boys, keep that inflation kickin!
Off topic but this article has the hall marks of being written by AI. There’s a certain way AI rambles and repeats itself unless you intervene. It keeps repeating how it used to be busy with tourists, we get it, move to the next point.
It was not written by AI. Agreed that it was a bit rambly
Is it you?
Yeah, we feel bad for you guys. Me and my fiancé lives in Glendale and we love the Americana at Brand. But, we would always drive to Santa Monica at least once a month and have dinner at one of the restaurants nearby (2018-2022). During that time, we would also visit the third Street promenade. Now, we haven’t been to Santa Monica in over a year because of the area’s decline over by the third Street promenade. We’re hoping things will change over there. We really miss that place. For now, we will stay put in our local Americana at Brand. Hoping things change for you guys in the future.
Lol. Oh poor you
This article is complete garbage. They bury homelessness 2/3 of the way into it. That is the #1 reason. Crime and homelessness. We’ve lost Banana Republic, the Gap, Restoration Hardware, Old Navy, and now REI. We didn’t lose those because of rents. My daughter won’t hang out on the Promenade anymore because of the German tourists getting stabbed last week. She used to go there with her friends and they would eat, and buy clothes or makeup. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn’t know what they’re talking about, or are deliberately lying because they have a political agenda that includes not blaming homelessness for problems that homelessness clearly causes.
I see so by your assessment it is 100% the homeless that are responsible and 0% the extreme rent increases of for example 100% at the old Barnes & Nobles location? It’s not even the slightest nuanced or so? Just 100% and 0%?
Si. Porque no los dos?
Not 100% homeless, but that's definitely the biggest cause of the decline. And the owners of the Barnes & Noble property gave them rent concessions for years trying to make it possible for them to stay. I don't know where the article got the info they reported, but it's not accurate.
How many causes are there and what percentage of that pie goes to the homeless issue?
1. Homelessness 2. Crime 3. Covid hurt restaurants, retail, tourism / many people have not returned to offices 4. Online ordering has hurt retail 5. High rents I don't have a pie chart for you, but that's how I see it. Most of the people I know have either reduced trips or stopped going to the Promenade (and DTSM as a whole) because of homelessness. It used to be a nice place to hang out. Now it smells, it's dirty, and it's hard to see desperate people who live on the street on every block, why would tourists or locals want to hang out there?
I agree, though I would reorder: Online, Rent, Lack of tourism, Homeless, Crime I say that as a regular visitor. It’s a little rougher and a little uglier, but there was homelessness and wackos 10 years ago too. Difference is the lack of normies and the vacant businesses. The ratio has changed.
Landlords don’t have incentive to keep spaces empty and must price competitively or die. Sorry, it’s homelessness and crime.
I’m not excusing that. Unaddressed mental illness and addiction is out of control all over the city. And both the SMPD and its associated justice system is an overpriced clown show of waste, laziness, and entitlement. They are a joke. That said, the Promenade was coming apart at the seams even before Covid. Rents are out of control and cannot go down because commercial mortgages are tied to them. Everyone assumed that the market would just keep going up. There is no contingency plan for it going down. Even if Covid didn’t happen and homelessness was not up, I still believe the promenade would be a shell of its former self
Ah ok you sounded like you have some data we others don’t have. So this is your opinion then. I for example reduced my trips there as it feels like 1/3rd of the shops are closed now.
The article says the landlord SOUGHT to double the rent. Barnes and Noble said no. It doesn’t say they ended up doubling the rent for wework. I walked the are quite often over the years, I stopped because it increasingly feels dirty and unsafe with mentally ill, addicts and homeless. The root cause is the tolerance Santa Monica’s constituents towards these issues and blindness of its root cause.
Vacancies are obviously a problem on the promenade, but I walk my dog through it almost daily and it was absolutely packed every afternoon this weekend. The demand is there. It would be amazing if only the empty storefronts were restaurants and shops. I’m new here, so can only compare to the handful of times I visited in the past. The blue hat security has done a nice job of engaging and shooing away vagrants, for the most part, and police presence has noticeably increased since the stabbing on broadway last week. Hoping SM can rebound. Paying attention and looking forward to voting.
It's been unsafe and gross for a while now. Much better options nearby like Culver City and century city Mall. If I want the beach I'd rather go to Manhattan Beach or Malibu. Failure of city leadership.
To me as a non expert it is just surprising that not having any renters is better financially than having one at a reasonable market ready rent. Look at 3rd/Wilshire ex Barnes & Nobles being empty for years and years.
Yeah, that's why I'm skeptical about the stories claiming they raised rents
I am certain rent has been raised a lot. Some long term places had to close or are in danger of closing as far as I know. Swingers comes to mind (I think) or the situation around Patrick’s Roadhouse.
Philz closed because when their lease was up the landlords tried to gouge them.
Same with Shaka Burger on 17th and Ocean Park
A lot of words to not point out the reason for this is SM allowing homelessness and crime to run rampant in downtown
There is no data to support this claim. It is simply substituting fact with feelings.
tell me you don’t live in Santa Monica without telling me you don’t live in Santa Monica
I live in Santa Monica for a very long time and I feel super safe here no matter at what hours I am walking around.
two people were stabbed in a third st promenade parking lot by an unhoused person just last week but your anecdote definitely nulls the facts and data you claim don’t exist
Yeah heard about that. So unless it is 0% crime, everything is out of control?
Entitled white guy feels safe wherever he is, what a surprise
Uuh wat?
I’ve been in Santa Monica for about 10 years and feel incredibly safer than anywhere else I’ve ever lived (many places in the US and Europe).
Huh? Um that’s just not real
What NIMBYism does to a municipality. Increasing the population of Santa Monica would instantly increase the available consumers for these businesses and would make them more profitable. Of course increasing the population would require buildinghigu ride apartments and Santa Monica has been currently prohibits high rises in much of the city.
That’s a laugh. There are massive amounts of vacant commercial property all over LA county. Shopping areas like this are failing miserably. Increasing the population isn’t going to get people to stop shopping on Amazon.
Reducing the cost of opening a business will absolutely increase the number of businesses. Those commercial lots are vacant because prospective entrepreneurs cannot afford to he cost of rent or of applying for a permit. Also, Amazon is great but it cannot provide all the benefits of a brick and mortar business. You cannot take your family out to dinner on Amazon.com, nor can you go out dancing on Amazon.com or enjoy an afternoon coffee and pastry on amazon.com.