Switch is making clear and excellent points....

Growing up as a kid in Michigan (80's/(90's) , we had our own wonderful island amusement, Bob-lo Island, that was located in the Detroit River just between Detroit and Canada. It was so popular and packed, and served thousands from the midwest and Canada. Everyone had to take a ferry to get there. The ferry's were old classic steamers with paddlwheels that were built in the 1920's just to serve Bob-lo island. It was our own special Coney Island.
-see here: [url][/url]
http://www.boblosteamers.com/amusement.html

switchback wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2007, 3:01am:



In the mid 90's, a real estate developer pitched the city on an "idea" to add a scaled-down condo development on Bob-lo to "add-value" to the island and enhance its resort community. The Detroit city govt. is no-where near as active in its stewardship of preserving the public good as NYC govt. Much of the public saw that a mix of residential and amusement would eventually lead to huge residential development, real estate speculation, and little or no amusement. Here is what Bob-lo Island is today, just a few years later: [url][/url]
http://www.bobloisland.ca/

switchback wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2007, 3:01am:


This is correct. This would enhance Coney's uniqueness for the next generations rather than adding a cookie-cutter "Theme Amusement Park" that can be found in Anywhere, USA. This proposed idea is much more difficult to pull-off but if there was a will by the city and community to do it, it could happen. The city and a task force would have to manage the whole process and would put out Request for Proposals to smaller entreprenurial enterprises than Six Flags, Cedar Fair, Disney, Nickelodian, etc. What a wonderful idea, if there is a will....

I thought about how can someone place in a contract about not talking about certain things and it being legal to do so.

Ever hear about a damage lawsuit being settled, and one of the conditions being no one talks about the settlement??  Same thing.

Bruce

just bringing up the point how someone can stop you from using your freedom of speech in a legal document, that is all.

I dont agree with what Thor is doing.

But I do understand why someone would be willing to sign such a document,  the ability to put food on someones table for another year.

While the lease is only for another year,  there is always the possibility of another years lease after that.

Remember, even Fred Trump allowed Kaufman (right?) to have some amusement rides on the land he owned that he wanted to build condos on?

Before the demolition equimpent does its work, there is always hope.

Bruce

Jack, you are putting words in my mouth.

I am not apologizing for Thors actions, but understand people like Ruby or Cha Cha signing those leases.

Ive seen the demolition of those rides.  Why demolish one thing and not the other?   I dont know why.  Only Thor knows, for I doubt they can build on the land without all the land being available.

Bruce

you said
but the article makes clear that the tenant HAD signed the lease (and was then evicted).

What I read was.. Lola Star did not sign the agreement because of the clause telling her she could not talk about it for years.

Capt_Nemo wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2007, 9:36pm:


Capt_Nemo, perhaps you should get the facts straight before posting.

http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/Not_quiet_on_Coney_Island/7206.html

'Though she signed the lease last month — “I so badly wanted another summer in Coney Island” — the agreement was never executed. She was evicted days later.'

Capt_Nemo wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2007, 9:36pm:


Not at all.  But what's disturbing is the lack of support that is shown towards people who think there is somethig fishy with this whole scenario.  And the derisive tone tossed towards anyone who dares to speak out in any way towards these odd plans.

Thor does not need anyone's support when they treat tenants and the community as enemies and provide little-to-no imformation to the community that has kept the area alive for years.

Capt_Nemo wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2007, 9:36pm:


But you are transparently apologizing for their strong-arm tactics without hestitation.

The more you buy into Thor's non-existant plans the more you support some delusional reality of Coney's future that doesn't seem to exist in reality in any way and the more you ignore what they are really doing to the community now.

If they are resorting to strong-arm tactics this soon in the game, it's not a good plan.  Plain and simple.

Yes, ultimately I did sign Thor's 2007 Agreement but it was never executed (hence I am not bound under the Confidentiality Clause) and they evicted me two days later.  This is what happened.....

In October of 2006, Thor Equities offered me and all of their Coney Island tenants a new "License Agreement" for the 2007 season.   In addition to many extremely incriminating aspects of the Agreement there was an enormous increase in rent (mine was a 40% increase) and insurance requirement (5X the amount previously requested in my 2005 and 2006 Agreements with them).  The Agreement also included an Indemnification Clause which is so severe that it would put myself and my business such a tremendous amount of jeopardy that I did not think I could possibly agree to it.   And, their new terms included the Confidentiality Clause.  This Clause would have prevented me from publicly discussing the redevelopment of Coney Island not only for the term of the lease but for three years after the termination of the lease (total of 4 years).  Each incident that violates that provision would result in the termination of the license and would entitle them to $10,000 in damages for each instance the violation were to occur.  Even more disconcerting than that, the Agreement states that this violation would not be decided by a court of law but by Thor Equities.    

It was obvious from the terms Agreement that Thor Equities had no intention of working with me or any of these businesses again in the future.  By all accounts the Agreement was absurdly unreasonable in respect to both economic and legal terms.

I strongly objected to this Confidentiality Clause.  I care very deeply about Coney Island.  I want to participate in the public discussions surrounding it's redevelopment.   It greatly concerned me that by demanding that all of their tenants sign this Agreement, they have silenced almost the entire business community in Coney Island from speaking out about any aspect of the redevelopment.   I tried very hard to negotiate this clause.  Thor agreed to omit the rent and insurance increase in all of their tenant's Agreements but they refused to budge on my bigger concern, the Confidentiality Clause.  

After months of fighting with Thor over this Clause, the were not willing to negotiate, even in the slightest bit.  I couldn't bare to loose my business, my livelihood, so I acquiesced to all their terms and signed the lease.  I met with Sam Sabin from Thor Equities and signed the Agreement at their office.  They told me that Joe Sitt, their president,  was on vacation and that he would sign and execute the Agreement later in the week.  The following day, Sam Sabin requested a private meeting at my office, the point of which he refused to divulge.  He told told me that he "Had to talk to me about something really important- in private."  I asked him if it had anything to do with my Agreement.  He lied and assured me that there was no problem, he just wanted to talk.  I was utterly shocked when he showed up at my office and served me with an eviction notice.  The court date was set for just a few days after he served me with eviction papers.  I asked Sam if we could resolve this outside of court but he refused.

I tried desperately to get some sort of answer from Thor Equities as to why they would offer me a lease only to, without even asking me to vacate the premises, then take me to court to evict me.  After many unanswered emails and phone calls to Joe Sitt, Sam Sabin and numerous other representatives at Thor, I was finally able to get through to Thor's lawyer.  He told me that Thor was in the middle of their discussions with the city.  And that their decision about whether or not they would proceed with the eviction against me would be contingent upon the outcome of their negotiations with the city.  Whether or not they evict me should not have anything to do with Thor's negotiations with the city.  Thor explicitly told me that I was being evicted because they were using my business as a bargaining pawn in their negotiations.  Other parties involved in these negotiations have confirmed that this was indeed true.  I believe they were trying to set an example of what will happen to the rest of the businesses if they don't get their residential zoning.

Thor Equities is silencing the Coney Island business community and threatening the City with the blight of vacant land and evicted businesses. These hardball negotiating tactics are just the beginning of what is to be a vicious war over the rezoning of Coney Island.    

As you can imagine, I am devastated.   I really believed that Lola Staar would play a positive role in the redevelopment of Coney Island.  I was so committed to that idea.  I was so excited and honored to be a part of these changes.   I hope that I will find a place to relocate in Coney Island.  It is extremely difficult because Thor does own most of the land in the central amusement area.  

Owning my shop on the boardwalk in Coney Island has been, by far, the most rewarding and enriching experience of my entire life.  I will miss it terribly.

Thank you so much for your interest and concern!!

Lola*

(Dianna Carlin)

I find it impossible to believe that a lawyer would tell someone that his client was using them as a "bargaining pawn" in their negotiations with the city.  This seems like something that could get said lawyer disbarred.