Today's Statesman has another article on the Las Manitas flap.
LM's landlord (Marriott's agent) says it has made several offers to Las Manitas's owners, including help relocating to another property and an offer of free rent through next August. According to the landlord, the owners have spurned all offers; their position, apparently, is that Las Manitas is entitled to stay where it is, Marriott be damned.
Marriott will need a zoning variance or two to build its proposed hotels. Brewster McCracken has issued not-so-subtle threats that Marriott had better accommodate Las Manitas's owners somehow. (No word on whether he'll force LM's owners to agree to be accommodated.) As McCracken puts it, a developer who asks for "lucrative development bonuses" must provide a "public benefit," such as "protecting longstanding local businesses."
My thoughts:
1. It is unclear what "protection" McCracken has in mind for Las Manitas, but any accommodation by Marriott will be worth big bucks to LM's owners.
2. LM's owners are not the public. There is no "public benefit" in forcing a transfer of wealth from one property owner to another property owner (or a lessee). In fact, I think it's a pretty sordid thing to do.
3. If there is any public interest here, it is the interest of Las Manitas's customers. By all accounts, they're devoted customers. They presumably value lunch there far more than the price they're charged. Saving Las Manitas will preserve this consumer surplus. (That seems an odd use of the City's land-use powers, but I'll assume it's an appropriate use for argument's sake.)
4. If the City forces a deal to "protect" Las Manitas's customers, it should ensure that the deal does not amount to a windfall for LM's owners. I suggest imposing a tax equal to the value of Marriott's concessions. This will discourage another "iconic" business from trying to use our zoning laws to hitch a free ride. An iconic business instead will seek protection only if the expected benefit to it exceeds the expected cost to the other property owner. (And the real "public" -- the rest of us -- will get cut in on the action too.)
Update. The second-to-last sentence did read, "An icon instead will seek protection only if its value as a going concern is worth more than the value of the concessions." I changed it to a sentence that makes sense.
