A passerby stopping for an iced tea today at the McDonald’s across Kirby Dr. from the recently deforested Wendy’s restaurant at the corner of Kirby and North Blvd. reports that the once-bustling construction site has gone quiet: “Nothing going on at the site, looked closed, stopped, locked up.” But one bright marker affixed to a window of the mid-redo building at 5003 Kirby did catch our tipster’s eye: “I noticed the largest ‘red tag’ I have ever seen. 4 times the size of a normal one.” Unfortunately, the site is fully fenced, so there”s no way to read it without a good pair of binoculars.
- Previously on Swamplot: Landlord Says He’s ‘Looking at Terminating’ Lease of Wendy’s Franchisee Who Cut Down Upper Kirby Street Trees; City Reportedly Planning Legal Action Against Kirby Dr. Wendy’s Late-Night Tree Whackers; Kirby Dr. Wendy’s Renovation Crews Chop Down North Blvd. Street Oaks Overnight
Photo: Swamplot inbox
Big Red
I hope the owner of this bandit Wendy’s goes broke as he waits for his day in court…
It seems strange that the landlord would suddenly seek to terminate the lease after cutting down a few oak trees that were on the city’s right-of-way. I have to wonder the length of this lease and if the landlord is using the tree-cutting incident as a pretext for terminating the lease to shop the property to another developer.
@Houstontexasjack
From the previous article, it sounded like the owner of the land is also the owner of the franchise, but the operations had been leased to a different Wendy’s operator.
Looks like a stop work order from the City. The little red tags that are about the size of an office sticky are just for violations/inspection fails. You can keep working, but have to fix the violation to get your certificate of occupancy. The big red tag is when the City shuts you down. No work until the violation is corrected.
This is pretty bad. A landlord doesn’t like his name to be associated with scum like the tenant in the news. I would also seek reimbursement for the entire market value of the trees, including the labor costs necessary to replace trees that size. I’ve seen giant trees transplanted before. It can be done for the right amount of money.
It is a very known fact that mediums and side walks belong to the city. I had a tenant trim some trees (not saw them into stumps) and he had to pay a huge fine just because he changed the shape of the floral and leaves. Read your leases people!
I am guessing they could terminate the lease due to illegal activity on the site. Of course IANAL.
@houstontexasjack: My guess is the landlord is seeking culpability distance: afraid of repercussions from the tenant’s doing (which, ultimately, could fall squarely upon the landlord– in the “going up the food-chain” sort’a way). Now the landlord can say, “well, at least, I started a process so as to evict the tenant ’cause I had nothing to do with it [except, you know, lease the property to them with less than clear expectations that they shall not commit criminal activity].”
.
My thought is: landlords should have the right to start the eviction process against tenants that had appealingly engaged in criminal activity upon their premises– or enough close to it to think probable. Eviction is a process and hopefully the judge agrees the tree removal created an environment that warrants a breach of contract (and decision that departs the landlord from culpability).
@WR Haha, “Bandit Wendy’s”!
I wonder if it was the trees which caused this shutdown, or some other big problem like unpermitted work. It seems like even though there might be legal action in progress because of the trees that wouldn’t affect the structural, electrical, plumbing, etc. It’s not like stopping is going to save the trees. Or is this just a way to force the franchisee to deal with replacing the trees sooner rather than later?
@Marmer: I do believe that the City has the authority to shut you down if there is a big enough violation. The guy who plowed down a bunch of trees in Woodland Park got a stop work order from the City and had to settle before work could begin again. The idea is to prevent builders from making the violation a cost of doing business to be paid when the project is finished and sold.
removing the trees WAS unpermitted work.