Quote:
Originally Posted by no-engine
As a more recent post quoted Citizen, BK never owned the site. The holder of the franchise leased the site. I seriously doubt that one side of building is different than the other side. I do realize that the city approval processes went though 25+ years ago, but I can not imagine two different owners.
Total rumor. Some have a large imagination!
|
Some don't believe what they read, but should! The franchisee does own the lot from the left side of the building over. If you look, you will notice the chain link fence he put up to define his portion. That is why it will be a difficult site to lease. After not reaching acceptable terms with the owner of the building who also own the right side of the property he probably won't be in any hurry to rent his side out.
I'll be he is laughing as the building sits empty!