For every Mac sold in the Grand Central store, Apple should donate one to the New York City School system. Both Apple and the City would benefit from the arrangement.
If they did that then every other city with an Apple store would demand it, against all sales at all stores in the city if there is more than one. Or the equal in cash if they don't want to use Macs. and so on.
Then government offices would start demanding Apple has to supply them, plus free wifi everywhere etc.
That's such liberal, deluded thinking on the state's part. They apparently didn't see the part where the MTA said it was making 4x as much as it was. It's never enough for these people. We need more revenue! Let's raise taxes to get it! The short-sightedness is unreal.
Ok, if you're going to believe that number you also have to believe that
apple is paying less than 1/3 of what other tenants are. Tell me why Apple shouldn't be paying the same rate as everyone else? Liberal, deluded thinking? This Apple-protectionist crap is amazing.
Ok, if you're going to believe that number you also have to believe that apple is paying less than 1/3 of what other tenants are.
So the size of the location and the distinction of being and anchor tenant has no barring in your mind? Do you really think Macy's pays as much per square foot as Chick-fil-A in malls? The fact is people come to malls for department stores and decide to buy food because they are there. Those kiosks pay more per square foot than anyone but I don't see anyone yet I don't see anyone upset about that.
Ok, if you're going to believe that number you also have to believe that
apple is paying less than 1/3 of what other tenants are. Tell me why Apple shouldn't be paying the same rate as everyone else? Liberal, deluded thinking? This Apple-protectionist crap is amazing.
{If the rumors are true}, Because Apple negotiated a deal based on the additional traffic they'll bring in and the terrible economic conditions which meant that the MTA didn't have any other options. There's no need to assume bribes or any other nefarious crap. MTA took the best deal they could get. Apple negotiated the best deal they could get. Wherever the two interests crossed is where the deal ended up.
What part of that is too complicated for you to understand?
The MTA does not own grand central .They are only leasing it. What if apple made the deal with the actual owners of grand central and not the mta.
Not likely. I haven't seen the contracts of course, but it's unlikely that MTA would have the rights to lease Grand Central but allow the owners to lease directly to tenants.
Ok, if you're going to believe that number you also have to believe that
apple is paying less than 1/3 of what other tenants are. Tell me why Apple shouldn't be paying the same rate as everyone else? Liberal, deluded thinking? This Apple-protectionist crap is amazing.
You are clueless about retail leases. Any retailer who has something substantial to offer the mall can leverage that in lease negotiations to get better terms. I negotiated retails leases for a F500 retail company for 20 years and that is how it works.
I disagree. If Apple is paying $60 a square foot (which is unheard of for prime Manhattan retail space) and the previous restaurant was only paying $15 a square foot, then that was a crime as well and should have been investigated. $15 (if real) is so incredibly low, it has to make me wonder if there wasn't some payoff involved. But $60 a square foot is incredibly low and is definitely worth an investigation. I find it easy to believe that other retailers wouldn't have wanted to pay $5 million to the restaurant to buy them out of their lease, but there would be plenty who would be willing to pay far more than $60/sq ft.
Income from rental property is not the same as raising taxes. That is prime real-estate and Apple should be paying market rate (or close to it). Every penny the MTA takes in rental income offsets future costs and fare increases. That income should be maximized, otherwise taxpayers and commuters are in essence, subsidizing the Apple store. I like Apple, but the only way I want to subsidize them is by buying their products.
Furthermore, I wonder what kind of signage there's going to be up there because after the Terminal was renovated, the policy was there was to be no advertising in the main hall. Kodak used to have a giant mural on that side of the terminal and it was taken down during the restoration for that reason. I wonder if Apple gets to violate that.
Do you have a fucking clue what "market rate" is. I'll help you "market rate" is the rate you get on the free market for whatever you are offering. Unless bribery was involved Apple did pay the "market rate". As to "policy", no Apple doesn't get to "violate" it, the MTA gets to change it as they see fit, as they did forcing Kodak to take down the "giant mural" which had been fine before.
For every Mac sold in the Grand Central store, Apple should donate one to the New York City School system. Both Apple and the City would benefit from the arrangement.
Yes you are an idiot, why not say "for every item sold one should be given away", guess what happens? the cost doubles you moron!
It's suspicious because the state might not be making as much money as they can out of the deal.
Yup, because an empty space generating no revenue, or traffic, is far preferable to Apple not only renting the space but drawing intense foot traffic.
After all, that cube store on 5th avenue had nothing to do with the re-development of stores and increase of traffic (and thus revenue into NYC coffers).
Prediction - some spineless politician or bunch of politicians will screw the deal up, Apple will exit, and NYC will be out an assload more of money than any difference between rent or revenue sharing "that might have been".
As well as shafting other tenets in GCS from the loss of collateral traffic a high profile store like Apple will bring.
The commentary around this is even more ignorant than those criticizing Apple for their 30% take for publishers who generate subscriptions within iOS.
How is ensuring that a state owned property gets the maximum rent that it can equal raising taxes?
Apparently, since there were no other interested parties they did get the best deal they could.
I fail to see what is so hard for people to understand about this. Politicians are one thing - but "news" outlets? Seriously?
The anti-busness rhetoric in this country has simply gotten completely out of hand with people who are obviously clueless spouting complete nonsense. No wonder our economy has stagnated the last four years
Unless the comptroller does this for every big contract or because there is suspicion of bribery or the like then I don't see why how much the MTA was able to get for the space an issue.
It's simple - because it involves Apple! And it makes for a snappy soundbite and furthers the populist rhetoric of our shameful politicians.
Ok, if you're going to believe that number you also have to believe that
apple is paying less than 1/3 of what other tenants are. Tell me why Apple shouldn't be paying the same rate as everyone else? Liberal, deluded thinking? This Apple-protectionist crap is amazing.
You have not heard of supply and demand, have you. Commercial retail is in the tank, all the bets are that it (commercial retail) will be Sub-Prime 2. The total retail space has been falling for the last 3 years and no one with skin in the game belives it will turn around within the next 5 years. The simple fact is you get a better deal during the "bad times" than during the "good times". I suggest you also look up the term "anchor store".
They will be footing the bill for some significant remodeling efforts to the store.
The MTA was looking for others to rent the space and nobody replied other than Apple.
And the MTA has said that they will be making more than 4 times what they were before with Apple coming in.
Yeah, this sounds like a terrible deal that definitely needs to be investigated.
"Nobody replied" perhaps because the asking price was too high. Then you find that Apple is paying way below the market price for the prime spot. Given Apple's political connection with the Clinton's and other DNC members, it wouldn't be too surprising if it turns out there are some skeleton's in the MTA closet (if there was a favoritism going on).
Having worked with former CIOs and other high ranking members of the MTA, I have little or zero confidence or their mismanagement of the system.
For every Mac sold in the Grand Central store, Apple should donate one to the New York City School system. Both Apple and the City would benefit from the arrangement.
What's the going to accomplish? NYC has one of the highest spending per student in the nation, why do you think pouring good money after bad education system is going to improve the situation?
So you can try and change a lease agreement but you cant stop a bailed out company from paying bonuses ? Cause that would be wrong.
Also the MTA is charging me 12 bucks to take a tunnel so they can build the Freedom tower.I guess this means ill be paying 14 bucks next year so apple can have this store ?
is it really called the 'Freedom Tower'? Ellison was right: Cesspool of Imbeciles.
The Officials at the MTA land Apple as a Lessee and Controller Dinallo shows his gratitude by opening an investigation to win some political points. I hope that he has evidence of wrong doing because it should be either his job or the job of a MTA official. A good deal for Apple isn't evidence, A Lessor may take a deal below what they want for many reasons. A large restaurant may offer more, but is more slightly to fail. The Banana Republic / Old Navy retailers don't seem to be expanding. Now that Apple has configured a difficult space and its use is "Apple way" obvious now, maybe Best Buy would be interested. Short of the unlikely discovery of free iPads to Officials, this is an issue between the MTA and Controller. Small tenants try those tricks ($10k and a briefcase) all the time, but I would be surprised if Apple would pay for more then a coffee or bottle water.
Comments
For every Mac sold in the Grand Central store, Apple should donate one to the New York City School system. Both Apple and the City would benefit from the arrangement.
If they did that then every other city with an Apple store would demand it, against all sales at all stores in the city if there is more than one. Or the equal in cash if they don't want to use Macs. and so on.
Then government offices would start demanding Apple has to supply them, plus free wifi everywhere etc.
None of which is Apple's responsibility
That's such liberal, deluded thinking on the state's part. They apparently didn't see the part where the MTA said it was making 4x as much as it was. It's never enough for these people. We need more revenue! Let's raise taxes to get it! The short-sightedness is unreal.
Ok, if you're going to believe that number you also have to believe that
apple is paying less than 1/3 of what other tenants are. Tell me why Apple shouldn't be paying the same rate as everyone else? Liberal, deluded thinking? This Apple-protectionist crap is amazing.
Ok, if you're going to believe that number you also have to believe that apple is paying less than 1/3 of what other tenants are.
So the size of the location and the distinction of being and anchor tenant has no barring in your mind? Do you really think Macy's pays as much per square foot as Chick-fil-A in malls? The fact is people come to malls for department stores and decide to buy food because they are there. Those kiosks pay more per square foot than anyone but I don't see anyone yet I don't see anyone upset about that.
Ok, if you're going to believe that number you also have to believe that
apple is paying less than 1/3 of what other tenants are. Tell me why Apple shouldn't be paying the same rate as everyone else? Liberal, deluded thinking? This Apple-protectionist crap is amazing.
{If the rumors are true}, Because Apple negotiated a deal based on the additional traffic they'll bring in and the terrible economic conditions which meant that the MTA didn't have any other options. There's no need to assume bribes or any other nefarious crap. MTA took the best deal they could get. Apple negotiated the best deal they could get. Wherever the two interests crossed is where the deal ended up.
What part of that is too complicated for you to understand?
The MTA does not own grand central .They are only leasing it. What if apple made the deal with the actual owners of grand central and not the mta.
Not likely. I haven't seen the contracts of course, but it's unlikely that MTA would have the rights to lease Grand Central but allow the owners to lease directly to tenants.
Ok, if you're going to believe that number you also have to believe that
apple is paying less than 1/3 of what other tenants are. Tell me why Apple shouldn't be paying the same rate as everyone else? Liberal, deluded thinking? This Apple-protectionist crap is amazing.
You are clueless about retail leases. Any retailer who has something substantial to offer the mall can leverage that in lease negotiations to get better terms. I negotiated retails leases for a F500 retail company for 20 years and that is how it works.
I disagree. If Apple is paying $60 a square foot (which is unheard of for prime Manhattan retail space) and the previous restaurant was only paying $15 a square foot, then that was a crime as well and should have been investigated. $15 (if real) is so incredibly low, it has to make me wonder if there wasn't some payoff involved. But $60 a square foot is incredibly low and is definitely worth an investigation. I find it easy to believe that other retailers wouldn't have wanted to pay $5 million to the restaurant to buy them out of their lease, but there would be plenty who would be willing to pay far more than $60/sq ft.
Income from rental property is not the same as raising taxes. That is prime real-estate and Apple should be paying market rate (or close to it). Every penny the MTA takes in rental income offsets future costs and fare increases. That income should be maximized, otherwise taxpayers and commuters are in essence, subsidizing the Apple store. I like Apple, but the only way I want to subsidize them is by buying their products.
Furthermore, I wonder what kind of signage there's going to be up there because after the Terminal was renovated, the policy was there was to be no advertising in the main hall. Kodak used to have a giant mural on that side of the terminal and it was taken down during the restoration for that reason. I wonder if Apple gets to violate that.
Do you have a fucking clue what "market rate" is. I'll help you "market rate" is the rate you get on the free market for whatever you are offering. Unless bribery was involved Apple did pay the "market rate". As to "policy", no Apple doesn't get to "violate" it, the MTA gets to change it as they see fit, as they did forcing Kodak to take down the "giant mural" which had been fine before.
For every Mac sold in the Grand Central store, Apple should donate one to the New York City School system. Both Apple and the City would benefit from the arrangement.
Yes you are an idiot, why not say "for every item sold one should be given away", guess what happens? the cost doubles you moron!
It's suspicious because the state might not be making as much money as they can out of the deal.
Yup, because an empty space generating no revenue, or traffic, is far preferable to Apple not only renting the space but drawing intense foot traffic.
After all, that cube store on 5th avenue had nothing to do with the re-development of stores and increase of traffic (and thus revenue into NYC coffers).
Prediction - some spineless politician or bunch of politicians will screw the deal up, Apple will exit, and NYC will be out an assload more of money than any difference between rent or revenue sharing "that might have been".
As well as shafting other tenets in GCS from the loss of collateral traffic a high profile store like Apple will bring.
The commentary around this is even more ignorant than those criticizing Apple for their 30% take for publishers who generate subscriptions within iOS.
How is ensuring that a state owned property gets the maximum rent that it can equal raising taxes?
Apparently, since there were no other interested parties they did get the best deal they could.
I fail to see what is so hard for people to understand about this. Politicians are one thing - but "news" outlets? Seriously?
The anti-busness rhetoric in this country has simply gotten completely out of hand with people who are obviously clueless spouting complete nonsense. No wonder our economy has stagnated the last four years
Unless the comptroller does this for every big contract or because there is suspicion of bribery or the like then I don't see why how much the MTA was able to get for the space an issue.
It's simple - because it involves Apple! And it makes for a snappy soundbite and furthers the populist rhetoric of our shameful politicians.
Ok, if you're going to believe that number you also have to believe that
apple is paying less than 1/3 of what other tenants are. Tell me why Apple shouldn't be paying the same rate as everyone else? Liberal, deluded thinking? This Apple-protectionist crap is amazing.
You have not heard of supply and demand, have you. Commercial retail is in the tank, all the bets are that it (commercial retail) will be Sub-Prime 2. The total retail space has been falling for the last 3 years and no one with skin in the game belives it will turn around within the next 5 years. The simple fact is you get a better deal during the "bad times" than during the "good times". I suggest you also look up the term "anchor store".
Ok, if you're going to believe that number you also have to believe that apple is paying less than 1/3 of what other tenants are.
Ugh - how much per year will Apple pay vs. other tenants?
Ever hear the one about statistics and lying?
Tell me why Apple shouldn't be paying the same rate as everyone else?
No one else wanted the space?
Liberal, deluded thinking?
Bingo! No basis in reality - par for the course.
This Apple-protectionist crap is amazing.
This anti-business populist class warfare rhetoric is beyond pathetic
the cost doubles you moron!
Nuh huh! You get one for free!
Gosh!
/s
So, let me see if I understand this.
Apple replaced a restaurant.
They will be footing the bill for some significant remodeling efforts to the store.
The MTA was looking for others to rent the space and nobody replied other than Apple.
And the MTA has said that they will be making more than 4 times what they were before with Apple coming in.
Yeah, this sounds like a terrible deal that definitely needs to be investigated.
"Nobody replied" perhaps because the asking price was too high. Then you find that Apple is paying way below the market price for the prime spot. Given Apple's political connection with the Clinton's and other DNC members, it wouldn't be too surprising if it turns out there are some skeleton's in the MTA closet (if there was a favoritism going on).
Having worked with former CIOs and other high ranking members of the MTA, I have little or zero confidence or their mismanagement of the system.
For every Mac sold in the Grand Central store, Apple should donate one to the New York City School system. Both Apple and the City would benefit from the arrangement.
What's the going to accomplish? NYC has one of the highest spending per student in the nation, why do you think pouring good money after bad education system is going to improve the situation?
So you can try and change a lease agreement but you cant stop a bailed out company from paying bonuses ? Cause that would be wrong.
Also the MTA is charging me 12 bucks to take a tunnel so they can build the Freedom tower.I guess this means ill be paying 14 bucks next year so apple can have this store ?
is it really called the 'Freedom Tower'? Ellison was right: Cesspool of Imbeciles.
What does the comptroller think is suspicious about the deal?
He is pissed because he didn't get a back hander from Apple.