A message from Wuscher Family LLLP Regarding Robin Hood Lanes

1432
44

My Edmonds News received the following letter from the owners of the property where Robin Hood Lanes is located, regarding their decision to sell the land as a site for a new Walgreens store. Supporters of the bowling alley are holding a “Save the Alley” rally at 11 a.m. Saturday

My name is Carol Clute. I am the daughter of Frank J. and Elizabeth Wuscher, who were the prior owners of the Westgate property where Robin Hood Lanes is located. The current owner is Wuscher Family LLLP.

In 1960 my parents leased the land for 99 years to a gentleman who constructed the bowling alley building on the site. Under the lease, there were no adjustments in the rent for the first 50 years, that is, until 2010, at which time the rent was to be adjusted to market value. This provision of the lease was highly favorable to the tenant because it allowed the bowling alley to operate for decades at rents that were far below market value. During the last few years leading up to 2010, the monthly rent was about $2,000 – only a small fraction of market value.

In January 2010, when the time came to adjust the rent to market value, we could not agree with the tenant, Guenther’s Robin Hood Lanes, Inc., a corporation owned by John and Patricia Guenther, on what the new rent should be. However, Mr. Guenther and the Wuscher family did agree that we would have an opportunity to find someone who would (i) buy Mr. Guenther’s bowling alley business at Mr. Guenther’s price and (ii) either take over the existing lease or sign a new lease with the Wuscher family.

At that point we contacted Mike Gubsch, who operates the bowling alley business for Mr. Guenther, to see if he might be interested. (Contrary to some reports, Mr. Gubsch is not the owner of the bowling alley business.)

We tried hard to negotiate the terms of a new lease with Mr. Gubsch, but the negotiations were unsuccessful. One problem was that the parties could not agree on a fair rent. Mr. Gubsch proposed rents that were well below market, and he was not willing to adjust the rents to market levels until after 15 years.

After the negotiations with Mr. Gubsch ended, Mr. Guenther and the Wuscher family entered into a new agreement, under which (i) the Wuscher family agreed to buy the bowling alley business at Mr. Guenther’s price, and (ii) the existing lease was replaced by a new lease. For the duration of the new lease, Mr. Guenther would continue to operate the bowling alley on the premises.
The new lease allows the Wuscher family to terminate the new lease early if the Wuscher family pays the remainder of the amount owing to Mr. Guenther for the purchase of his business. If the sale to Seven Hills Properties goes through, the lease will be terminated.

In August 2011, Seven Hills Properties contacted us with a proposal to buy the bowling alley site. Up until that time, the family had not been interested in selling the property. Upon careful consideration, and taking into account these uncertain economic times, the family members decided that selling at the price offered was in the best interest of the family.

44 COMMENTS

  1. Dang, I was hoping for a wal-mart. Edmonds needs something exciting. If’n it cant be wal-mart, a wal-grin sounds pretty close.

  2. In uncertain economic times, that is what is charitably called a “recession” and has more in common with what’s called a “depression,” it would probably be more advisable to allow a long-time tenant to get a break – again- on the rent to (1) not have to go through the work of selling and (2) disrupting the community. Common sense, and an eye to what the country and the world is going through, would indicate that even if Wahlgreens took over the land, it might fail.

    There’s a big hole in the ground, in the Greenlake district of Seattle, where the Darigold company used to have a facility. It’s such a big hole because an entire city block’s buildings were torn down and attendant ground beneath where they stood, excavated. The plan was to find a chain grocery to anchor the plot and building housing above it. Thanks to the events in the fall of 2008 – read Hank Paulson’s “On The Brink” for details – that never happened. Well that, and the fact that Larry’s Market, who was to move in, went broke. Things happen. It’s always best, in times such as the present, to stick with a known commodity and a long time tenant.

  3. I think this is understandable, and it’s business, Gubtsch wasn’t reasonable so in the end Walgreens had a better deal and that’s that.

  4. I agree Mike, it IS about the money. The owners took a hit on the property for many years and I can’t blame them for wanting to get a fair market value.

  5. Walgreens only has more money to offer. Bottom line that’s it. Mike has and always will have the community young and old as his best interest. He has provided me a single mom a second source of income, and my children a safe place to bowl, eat, and build friendships. Walgreens will not be able to provide that for our families. Sad for all of those people who have young children and no where for them to grow up.

  6. I’m finally glad the land owners have decided to speak their side of the story; it has been a long time coming.
    I’d like to know what the fair market value rent is on that property and what was refused and could not be agreed on. Mike has said before that they have been in mediation on this matter with no agreement.
    I do not know Carol Clute, but what I do know about Mike Gubsch is he is an honest, hard working, fair person.
    Stay tuned for more FACTS on this matter because I will get to the bottom of the two completely different stories. I believe the community has a right to know the TRUTH!
    The rally will be held tomorrow at 11:00am. Again for those who do not wish to see a large chain pharmacy take over our community bowling alley, please join us!

  7. After the offer to buy came about in Aug 2011 and the owners realized a sale would be good for them at this time, it seems they might have offered the property up for sale to a local group or individual who could have retained the bowling center. They would have made their sale, we would keep out a non-local chain drugstore and have kept a business in our community that benefits young and old alike. Perhaps this is a simplistic look at a far more complicated issue…

  8. I agree with K. Kalapaca. If the land owners have known that business operators have wanted to purchase the building/land why would they have not come to them and said, “Hey we have been offered this amount of $ for the property and we think that at this time it would be a good business move for our family, would you like to match the offer?”
    For the parents to lease the property to Mr. Guenther for a 99 year term seems that they were about the community and wanted to keep it that way. I understand that the rents could have been far below the “fair” market value, but that is what was agreed upon by them, at that time in 1960. I just don’t see any benefit to the community to take an already established business that caters to so many ages to bring in a Walgreens.
    People are pationate for bowling. It is a sport that anyone – any age can do. Folks gather from all over to bowl, celebrate, fundraise, and just have a good time at Robin Hood.
    Can you see the same for a Walgreens?

  9. To Teri – While I support grass roots efforts to affect changes people see necessary, the community absolutly does not have a right to the ‘truth’ of this transaction. While we all may want to see the bowling alley continue in business & Walgreens to stay out, this whole deal is none of our business. This thing is all about the money as is every real estate deal. The property owners have a right to sell to whomever they chose & no amount of bitching by us can change that.

    Perhaps a message for all the protesters to convey to Walgreens is if they build it, you won’t come. Maybe even a boycott not only of the new store but to all of their stores starting now & including a letter writing campaign to their HQ (wherever that may be). Walgreens is probably not a company run by stupid people, I am sure they have done their market & demographic research & must feel we will support them. The prospect of an empty store may dissuade them. Just a thought.

  10. @Chris-Our community has spoken and continues to speak. We don’t want a Walgreens to replace Robin Hood Lanes! This transaction is taking place and our bowling alley is going to be razed because as Ms. Clute has stated, the tenants have been unreasonable…prompting them to sell to Walgreens. I’m sorry to disagree with you but as the community and since these statements were released by the land owners that are far different from what we understand, I do believe we deserve the truth. What is there to hide? And trust me, Walgreens is far from out of this picture.

  11. Also please note, Mike Gubsch wishes for his community to know the truth. He has just supplied me with his entire legal file to review.

  12. Our “community” has not spoken. A small group of persons have been loud. This transaction is not the business of the “community”. It is a private transaction. The public is owed no explanation of the transaction. The land owners should feel free to excercise their property rights (selling, leasing) as they see fit. They are not beholden to the community at all. If those doing the protest want a bowling alley, then go make it happen. Spend your money and create one.
    I don’t have a problem with a Walgrens there. Change happens. I have issues when people protest a private property transaction, infer that the landowners should loose money so that the few people who use the Robinhood Lanes can continue to use it. If it were as popular as all that, it would be able to pay a fair market lease.
    To the landowners, some of us do understand your position, and respect your rights. You owe us nothing at all. And that is the only truth owed to anyone.

  13. Bottom line: for whatever reason, the parents felt the community would be benefit from the long term presence of a bowling alley at very favorable terms. Either they or their family no longer feel that way, or no longer can afford to or wish to subsidize the use. The same may be true for the business owner. Too bad for everyone, especially the community – a no win situation.

  14. I’ve lived in Edmonds most of my life. I love Edmonds, I love the small town feel, I love raising my children here, I love what our community has to offer. I own my own home, but call me naive to the business world. I feel I am an educated, honest, reasonable person. I don’t see this as not letting someone sell their property to gain a profit. That is not my arguement. The bowling alley is a good thing in our community, it benefits young and old. I don’t see replacing the bowling alley with a Walgreens as beneficial to our community. Is it unreasonable to ask the land owners to give Robin Hood Lanes (who has occupied that property for 50+ years) the option to buy the land for the same price offerred by Walgreens?

  15. Yes, Teri. It is. It is a private transaction. Simple as that. You ( and the “community”) have no standing in the transaction. Interfering with that private transaction is not reasonable. The owners alone have the right to determine both the best price and terms they are willing to accept. You and I are not privy ( nor should we be) to those issues. It is none of our business.
    As I have no say in the terms and conditions under which you sell your house or to whom you sell, we ( the public) have no say on how these owners handle their property. The same price may be irrelevant, by the way. The terms may not be agreeable to the owners.

  16. I think they are letting go of the Bowling Alley too soon. I just have a feeling that in the not too distant future they will be a rare and prized commodity in communities. Retro is in, Robin Hood Lanes should be preserved and the sign should be fixed. If you put money into it and make it hipster-retro it would generate more income. Not to mention, there needs to be a better job of Social Media Marketing. It seems to me that we already have a drugstore on the opposite corner, two grocery stores on that corner and two Starbuck’s. Do we really need another Walgreens? I doubt that will be a draw to Edmonds. But, a Bowling Alley that all too soon there will be very few of…now that is a draw. (Have you seen The Garage on Capital Hill?)

  17. Could not agree with you more Diane. Organizing a protest rally is too ridulous for words. Carol Clute stated the truth in a letter, and yet you (Terri) imply that the truth has not come out and are demanding a better explanation. Neither party in the private transaction owes you or anybody else a thing. Many people have disagreed with you here, yet you talk about “the community” speaking out against Walgreens. I think the majority of comments have been in support of private business being conducted un impeded by hysterical citizens. I guess you’re only considered a part of the “community” if you agree with Teri Terrano.

  18. Diane, all I can say is that I disagree with you and so do others. And to you (Maggie), we have 19 comments here. There are over 2,000 hysterical citizens and it is growing bigger every day.

  19. As of today, 184 community members have signed an online petition and 428 community members have joined a Facebook page in support of saving Robin Hood Lanes from being torn down and turned into a Walgreens. Many have written to Walgreens expressing the view that a drugstore at this location is not necessary and that there is a business currently there that provides a service Walgreens never could. For those of you who think community members coming together to try save a beloved institution is “too ridiculous” for words, I can only be thankful for how many buildings in US cities and towns have been saved through protest and activism. I feel pretty confident that people posting comments here love Edmonds because of its unique, small-town feeling. And yet some feel comfortable to tear down others in the community who are trying to preserve that very thing. The buildings and businesses that we lose If we don’t speak up are always remembered and mourned, while what replaces them are usually buildings completely forgettable if not worse. Old Milltown, anyone? No one is behaving in any manner that could be considered “hysterical” and to say otherwise is an insult to the hundreds of people who care about this issue as well as the families and children who frequent Robin Hood Lanes and don’t want to see yet another bowling alley razed. If there are real or perceived mediation/negotiation issues between the parties involved these should be brought into the open so there can be no misunderstanding. In the meantime, community members have every right to be vocal about something they care about. If anyone cares to write to Walgreens notifying them that Edmonds is doing well in the drugstore/pharmacy department, what with Bartells and QFC across the street, here are some names and addresses…

    Walgreen Company Consumer Relations
    1411 Lake Cook Road, Mail Stop #L428
    Deerfield, IL 60015
    Attention: Complaint Department

    Gregory D. Wasson
    President and CEO
    Walgreen Co.
    200 Wilmont Road
    Deerfield, IL 60015

    Mark A. Wagner
    President – Community Management
    Walgreen Co.
    200 Wilmont Road
    Deerfield, IL 60015

    Sylvia VanLoveren
    Real Estate Vice President
    Walgreen Co.
    200 Wilmont Road
    Deerfield, IL 60015

    RE: Robin Hood Lanes, Edmonds, Washington
    Walgreens Edmonds Permit No. PLN20110076, PLN20110077 & PLN20110078

  20. Diane T is 100% correct. Maggie makes good points. 2,000 citizens signing up against a Walgreens is what, 2.5% of Edmonds population?

  21. Once again the Liberals are looking at the all mighty dollar! And once again they don’t give a crap abaout families having fun. All a Walgreens will do is increase vehicle traffic with no improvements to the road system which will cause more traffic accidents. One way to get people to refocus on what they are doing is file an injuction in Snohomish County Superior Court to force them to conduct an Enviormnetal Impact Review, Traffic Impact Review and Community Impact Review. That will take them quite a bit of time to complete, and cost them a lot of money. Just a suggestion. I grew up there and I am just sick at to what has happened to a very family friendly community.

  22. To Diane, there is no such thing as a “private transaction”. All Transactions of businesses affect the public and are there a part of public record. Any of the parts of this sale that have been finalized have to be filed with the city and are reviewable by a public records request.

    However that is not the issue here, the issue is the core problem of the city of Edmonds loosing another historic part of itself and people stepping up to try to save what they love. If you don’t care about the bowling alley that is your right, but it is also the right of myself and others to stand up and say something when we see two very different sides to the same story.

    Ultimately Edmonds is slowly loosing itself and some people have had enough and don’t want to just sit around and “blog” about it buy actually do something. what ever your view anyone should be able to respect free speech and peaceful activism. It is part of our laws an a core value of America!!

  23. It’s great to see all the comments and support for Robin Hood Lanes in Edmonds! Regarding the transaction…I’m guessing that if they signed a long-term lease they 1) had community values and 2) they were likely making MORE than market value in the beginning – hence a long-term lease. That aside…this “Edmonds” family chose to make a decision based on money (their words). Perhaps they are moving out of state anyway? I’m past caring what they do, or why.

    Mike, however, is a member of the community and he and staff have done SO MUCH for the kids, it’s too much to write here. No child is turned away if they want to bowl. They can practice for free and earn scholarships. What does another drug store do to support the community?

    Walgreens is the issue. I agree with the comment to start a boycotting campaign against the drug store. And I would consider not re-electing any of the individuals responsible for even allowing another corporation in the City! Doesnt’ the mayor or City Council have any say as to the businesses that make up the community?Walgreens will run out the “local” businesses offering the same merchandise. Washington business Bartels is RIGHT across the street! I understand they will also have a bank? maybe a fish & chips place, too? Then we can knock down Ivars? I will either boycott all Walgreens or drop my children off there every Saturday morning with their bowling balls… anyone in? 🙂

  24. Ryan,
    The recording of real estate transfers are indeed public. The public does not have a legal standing in the private transaction between the buyer and the seller. You and I are certainly entitled to our opinions. Part of the laws that make this a great country are that my beliefs don’t get to infringe on yours. You and I have no standing in the transaction between the buyer and the seller of the land. That is simply a fact.

  25. Sherry:

    It is unlikely that the city council will have any role in this matter. Should city staff deny Walgreen’s application, the denial could be appealed to the hearing examiner. If the application is denied by the H.E., Walgreen could appeal that decision to city council. City staff will likely approve the application, because the zoning for the property almost certainly allows a phamacy to be placed there.

    The mayor plays no role in this decision other than his oversight of city staff to insure that a proper legal decision is made.

  26. Sherry, I will get as many kids as I can and meet you at walgreens for our Saturday morning juniors bowling. Oh ya and I will serve cocktails at walgreens on Wednesday and Thursday nights to all of the locals. I’m sure we could get Wendy and Jen involved to make and sell food, since we all still need our jobs. 🙂

  27. The decision on whether to sell the land under Robin Hood Lanes, or what to do with the land, is the right of the land owners, within whatever zoning and other regulations apply. I have no problem with that, and they have every right to sell or build whatever they want, be it a drug store, a book store, a gas station, a gun store, marijuana dispensary or even an adult store (again, within zoning regulations). But every member of the Edmonds community also has a right to have an opinion on what happens to Robin Hood Lanes, and to express that opinion in any legal forum. That includes posting on this web site, standing on the curb with a sign, going to city council meetings, or writing letters to whomever they choose.

    The rights of the owners and the legality of the sale do not mean their choices are any better for the community of Edmonds – and because we are a community, we are right to voice any concerns. Again, while it may be legal to put in a gun store, marijuana dispensary or adult store somewhere in Edmonds, I am sure many people would have very strong opinions on the matter and would voice those. They would, I hope, use whatever legal means available to work for the community they want to live in. In the end, they may or may not prevail, but they have the right to be concerned, to speak and to advocate.

    I do not know, nor do I need to know, the details of the transaction or the discussions between the parties involved. Those are irrelevant to my belief that given the roles played by Robin Hood Lanes in my life and the lives of many others – as a gathering place, an indoor recreation and physical activity option, and a safe place for Edmonds youth to gather – it is a far more valuable community asset than any drug store, bank, or similar retail establishment could be. And I will act on that belief in any legal way I choose, as is my right.

  28. Those who insist this is purely a private transaction and the public has no right to intervene are only partly correct. This is in fact a commercial transaction which is quite different than someone selling their house. Our community is defined by much more than the people who live here. Our schools, our neighborhoods, our government and yes, our businesses say a lot about the type of city we live in and we have a right to voice our opinions about the type of businesses who seek to build here or replace existing businesses. Personally, my choice to live in Edmonds is definitely influenced by the fact that it isn’t overrun with strip malls and the same national chain retailers and restaurants you find in most cities.

    I, like most people, don’t know the facts about how much good faith was involved on either side in prior negotiations over Robin Hood Lanes. Perhaps hard feelings are still lingering. However, I hold out hope that with enough public interest there could be a resolution to this issue that is fair to everyone including the current owners, the current business and just maybe Walgreens too.

    In the meantime, I encourage everyone with an interest in this issue to SPEAK UP!

  29. I find the passion related to this issue very interesting. I see people making solid points, including Diane T. and Teresa G., both whom I believe care very deeply for Edmonds and its citizens. I fully support the rights of the property owner and I understand the feelings of those who would hate to see the bowling alley disappear.

    Citizens should be aware that the City has established a precedent of intervening in private property matters before. While I do not agree with what the City did in 2005, the fact is the City resolved the public outcry against a development effort near Shell Creek by purchasing the property outright. In this case, the group opposing development was a relatively small group, made up mainly of neighbors to the property.

    It had been discussed in the September 8, 2005 Edmonds Beacon that the City had no available funds for this type of purchase, as all the parks acquisition funds were allocated and designated to purchase 11 acres of school district property.

    Despite this and the debatable public purpose for buying the related land, the city paid approximately $200,000 in late 2005 for a quarter-acre parcel at 951 Main St., across from the Driftwood Players’ Wade James Theater. A residential building lot type appraisal was used to determine the purchase price.

    To the best of my knowledge, the related land has remained untouched since the City’s $200,000 purchase in 2005 and I am unaware of any City plans to convert the land into a park.

  30. I was raised in Edmonds and now I’m raising my family in Edmonds. I worked at Robin Hood Lanes growing up and my mom bowled at Robin Hood Lanes when I was growing up. My kids now bowl at the Hood. We will miss the Hood but business is business and owners of properties do not have to answer to anyone but the buyer and seller. It is no ones business and I think everyone should invest all of this energy into areas in Edmonds that need our support such as Edmonds Senior Center, Clothes For Kids, Driftwood Theater, and other non-profit businesses that help our community. Support your local Edmonds Businesses, whatever they might be.

  31. I have many fond memories of Robin Hood Lanes. I bowled there when I was in high school. My children bowled there, I think the birthday parties we had there were the best.

    Having said that. My husband and have owned our own business for 20+ years. We have a small 2 person office with warehouse in Mountlake Terrace and we pay that much for rent. I think a 50 year rent freeze is a pretty sweet deal. A standard business space lease is 3-5 years and usually includes an annual increase. Requiring 15 more years to bring the rent to market rates is more than unreasonable. Can you imagine trying to sell your house and having the buyer expect to pay what your house was worth in 1960?

    I’m no fan of Walgreen’s and I’m more unhappy that they are building one across the street from Bartell’s, a great local company. I will continue to shop at Bartell’s and avoid Walgreen’s just for that reason.

    And if you want Edmonds to keep it’s small town local feel, then spend your money there. There are tons of great small businesses that need your support. In addition, as Julianne pointed out there are many non-profits that are stretched terribly thin and need support too.

  32. If you really want to keep small businesses alive and well in Edmonds – patronize them while they are open so that they can afford to pay rent and all the other bills. Protests and lamentations don’t keep the doors open.
    Buy books on Main St., not on the internet. Buy your gifts from local merchants, not the mall. Buy your wine from people who know your name and get your cheese from a cheesemonger, not shrink wrapped at Kroegers. Have your taxes done by someone who cares, not someone in a Statue of Liberty costume. Shop local or eventually you won’t have the chance.

  33. To clarify post 32 above, the appraisal date of value related to the property near 9th and Main street was October 7, 2005 and the appraisal amount was $250,000. The City paid $199,675 for the lot, which equaled .23 acre of land (10,019 square feet).

    Page 2 of the related appraisal indicates the 2005 Snohomish County property tax assessed value for the related property was $7,500, although I think the appraisal referenced the incorrect tax parcel and it appears it should have been $9,000.

    The October 18, 2005 Edmonds City Council Meeting Minutes indicate an executive session was called regarding a real estate matter. Page 2 of the related Executive Session Meeting Minutes indicate that it was the consensus of the City Council to purchase the property.

    The reason I bring this up is that the City’s role in the 2005 matter was to approve or disapprove the related building permit. After a petition was signed by what appears to be 42 citizens, the City intervened in the situation and bought the land, before the appeal process related to the building permit application had run its course.

    The City’s current role related to the Robin Hoods Lane property appears to be to approve or disapprove the Walgreen’s development applications, which I see indicated above as Edmonds Permit No. PLN20110076, PLN20110077 & PLN20110078.

    My point is simply that the City has established a precedent of intervening in a situation and buying the related property before the permit application(s) and related appeal process has completely run its course. Therefore, I am not surprised that some Edmonds citizen’s might desire the City to play a bigger role in the Robin Hood Lane’s situation than just that of the permit processor.

    I do not think this should be the City’s role, but some citizens might hope for such as the City has done something similar before.

  34. @ Mark
    “Once again the Liberals are looking at the all mighty dollar! And once again they don’t give a crap abaout families having fun.”
    Wish you had left this part out. I’m a Liberal and I was out there on Saturday waving a sign. I’m not sure who you are talking about.
    @Bill
    I think Teri has done a fantastic job of putting this together in such a short time. Not everyone has heard of this yet. As the word has gone out more people are signing on. Only just under 15,000 voted in the last election. We should be there soon. Keep up the good work, Teri.
    Do I think it can be saved? Not really. Do the land owners have a right to sell? Of course they do. Will I patronize Walgreens? NO
    I too say buy local.

  35. The rent paid at the bowling ally was $2’000 per month. I know of no property in Edmonds today that rents for a buck a foot but lets use that as a measurement. The bowling ally is at least 20’000 sq. feet. True market is upwards of $20’000 per month.
    What would you do if you were the owner?
    If we want to maintain a community bowling ally how about all of those interested sign for a loan and buy the sellers out at fair market value. Then we can all make up the difference every month out of our own pockets. This is called putting your money where your mouth is. I will package the loan at no cost.
    I’m not going to support Walgrens but I now see the sellers point loud and clear.

  36. @Dave-The family wrote a 99 year lease back in 1960. Being that the building is owned, the lease payment of fmv at that time was $2,000. They did not request a rent adjustment until 2010. I’m sorry, whose fault is that? In 2010 the new rent amount was agreed on but stipulations required by the land owners after 5 years could not be agreed on. Maybe because the land owners were gonna make sure they wouldnt take a hit again but I believe any business owner would or could not agree to the proposed lease. All negotiations were ended at that point. Robin Hood Lanes has offered to buy the land in the past and were told it was not for sale. Now that it is for sale to Walgreens, Robin Hood Lanes has asked to see if they can match the price and save the alley. Either way, the land owners end up with their money and the bowling alley stays. Robin Hood Lanes has been told that they will not be given this option.

  37. Guenther owns the building and has wanted out of this obligation for some time. In 2002, Mike was going to buy the building and replace Guenther on the existing lease. Clute would not alter the lease. So Mike took over the business and paid Guenther to lease the building and Guenther paid Clute to lease the land. In 2010, Guenther and Clute reached some agreement over the building. The new lease to Clute included fair market value to lease the land, plus a % of earned income to lease the building. Again, this part of the lease was agreed to, however the wording in the latter part of the lease was not. I’m sure Walgreens offer includes the building and the land. Once the deal goes through, I’m sure Guenther gets the building portion, Clute gets the land portion.

  38. Teri:
    Is their a binding contract between the owners of the land and the company representing Walgreens? If their is it seems like the game would be over, if not then we should exert as much pressure on Walgreens and the land owner as the community can muster. I do believe that if we convince Walgreens that they will have an empty store they may back off.
    Dave

  39. Okay let me be the first to say I am not a lawyer, real estate expert or business whiz, but I get the feeling many are putting the building owner and operator up on a pedastal – they can do no wrong and tell no lies. I would really be curious why the possible sale a few years ago didn’t go through. If one wants to buy a house you need to be able to secure a loan. You need good standing credit. You need to be free from liens. Maybe these knights in shining armor are a bit less than reputable.

  40. Thank you Marie, for finally seeing the whole picture clearly. The owners of Robin Hood Lanes were definitely not in a position to buy the property any more than they were in a position to pay even half of the fair market rent (which they were offered). It just makes me sick the things being said about the Wuscher family. In this mass hysteria, there have even been accusations that they are taking kick backs from Walgreens, which is totally untrue.

LEAVE A REPLY