San Jacinto Mall Anchors Causing Redo Plans To Drag

SAN JACINTO MALL ANCHORS CAUSING REDO PLANS TO DRAG “It’s been slow and tedious — We didn’t count on the myriad problems all the traditional mall department stores are having,” Alan Hassenflu of Fidelis Realty Partners tells Katherine Blunt this week in the Chronicle, while discussing the company’s stagnating attempt to redo Baytown’s San Jacinto Mall. The company’s plans to knock down and rebuild the mall after buying it last summer are running up against drawn-out negotiations with tenants who signed restrictive covenants back in the early 80’s — agreements which can mean developers have to get those tenants to okay changes to the mall, and which can last for decades longer than original operating agreements. “In the case of San Jacinto,” writes Blunt, “the 3 remaining department stores have occupied their buildings for far longer than required under the operating agreements. But the restrictive covenants remain in place, giving them the some control over the mall’s future.” [Houston Chronicle; previously on Swamplot] Photo: Ray D.

6 Comment

  • And those 3 stores are dragging the mall further in non-relevance and if I was Fidelis I’d sue them to lift the restrictive covenants. Because, San Jacinto Mall – sadly & unfortunately – like many other malls across America is dying, if not dead. The stores need a harsh,cold dose of reality and need to let go.Because they are holding onto a dying location and they need to : either move ,go online or go out of business. America ,per capita,is
    “over-malled” . Aka way too much square footage for malls than what can be economically supported.

  • Nobody knew mall redevelopment could be so complicated.

  • Perhaps if the property owner actually PAYS the anchors to leave …. after all they would have to pay to relocate elsewhere. Naw, not going to happen, and the mall blight will continue

  • HappyGoLucky: And under what basis would you expect to win that lawsuit? “Malls are dying” isn’t something I’d argue with, but it’s not a legal argument to remove an existing contractual covenant.
    Sounds like the buyers didn’t do their DD when they bought they place. Or expected to be able to do something they’re realizing now they can’t.

  • Sue them for what, HGL? The tenants are sticking to the agreement signed by all parties. If Fidelis wants to change the agreement, they need to sweeten the deal enough to make the other party agree. In other states, the developers elected official friends would step in and use eminent domain to take the property from the tenant’s, but the folks in Austin have made that impossible here.

  • I have to agree with WR’s method to unclog the clog: throw some money at those retail anchors and they will go along with any plan you want. Capitalism for the win!