View Full Version : Queen Ann cafeteria going out of business!



Pages : [1] 2

metro
12-12-2006, 06:14 PM
Was watching News 5 at 5pm and they said Queen Ann cafeteria in the old Founder's tower today announced they are going out of business due to a dispute with the new owners of the newly renamed 360. Sad to hear.

writerranger
12-12-2006, 06:40 PM
Was watching News 5 at 5pm and they said Queen Ann cafeteria in the old Founder's tower today announced they are going out of business due to a dispute with the new owners of the newly renamed 360. Sad to hear.


This REALLY angers me! Talk about an institution in Oklahoma City!

--------------------

writerranger
12-12-2006, 07:02 PM
HELP STOP THE RAILROADING OF QUEEN ANN!

I just talked with the owner of Queen Ann. He is devastated. "Stunned" is the word he used. I asked him if there was anything that could be done and he said he didn't feel this man would understand "public pressure." I think it's time for a grassroots campaign. He was open to the idea - just too exhausted to talk about it. He asked me to call him tomorrow....which I plan to do. Anybody here want to help? I specifically asked him if he wants to be there and be in business. He said, "Oh, absolutely. Yes!. I'm just stunned it looks like I won't be." He said they had promised to honor his lease which has eight (not six as had been reported) years remaining, and then......GREED. He was exhausted and it sounds like a case of a big, rich developer not caring about an OKC institution. Public pressure must be put on this guy. Who here can help? Email me at writerranger at gmail.com. This is a travesty. Poor guy sounded exhausted after trying to save a family business that's been there a LONG time. BTW, if something isn't done, he's looking at closing the doors forever on the 23rd of this month.

Time is of the essense.......

The owner of the tower is Jim Meyer, CEO of Bridgeport Development
Business Telephone: 232-0016
Business Fax: 232-5616
Email: mybuilder@bridgeportdevt.com
Contact Page with Form: Link to Bridgeport Development Group (http://www.bridgeportdevelopment.com/contact.html)

http://writerranger.zoto.com/img/45/78461841c10b4387fcc829de01fe65d9-.jpg



-----------------------

writerranger
12-12-2006, 07:27 PM
We all talk about independant business and family-owned restaurants, etc.
Here's a chance to save one we already have!

----------------------

BG918
12-12-2006, 08:26 PM
Maybe Queen Anne can be moved to a better location?

Kerry
12-12-2006, 08:46 PM
Crap, here we go again.

writerranger
12-12-2006, 08:53 PM
Maybe Queen Anne can be moved to a better location?


Too expensive. They have a very nicely decorated establishment. They have no equity in the restaurant as they have leased for decades there at the United Founders Tower.

------------------------

Kerry
12-12-2006, 10:00 PM
If they have proven financial record they should have no problem obtaining a loan. If they did infact have 8 years left on their lease agreement they are most likly going to received a buyout offer. This should amount to the amount of profit they would expect to generate over that 8 year period.

Pete
12-13-2006, 08:05 AM
Queen Ann to serve last meal
Disagreement with Founders Tower owners blamed for closing

By Steve Lackmeyer and Trisha Evans
Business Writers

A landmark Oklahoma City cafeteria is closing its doors Christmas Eve following a dispute with the new owners of Founders Tower.

Employees at Queen Ann Cafeteria were notified of the closing Monday afternoon, with signs posted Tuesday telling customers "your friendship will never be forgotten.”

Cafeteria owner John Schroer said Tuesday he has felt unwelcome since the building was sold last year to developers who are converting it from offices to condominiums.

"I'm trying not to be mad,” said Schroer, who has run the restaurant since 1972. "I'm upset, my customers are upset, and I have 54 employees who have 375 years of service, and all they could do is cry.”

Longtime customers like Georgia Wall were devestated by the news.

"I just saw the sign, and it just broke my heart,” Wall said. "You'll find a lot of the seniors come here just religiously.”

Don and Dorthy Duhme have been lining up to eat at Queen Ann's since the restaurant opened in 1965.

"For the past 15 years, we've come here at least twice a week,” Dorthy Duhme said. "It's always clean, and the food is always good — consistently good.”

Customer Joe Rector compared the closing to "a death in the family.” Bobbie Grimmett annually buys Thanksgiving dinner and pies at the cafeteria.

"This will be a shock to Oklahoma City,” Grimmett said. "The other cafeterias can't hold a candle to this.”

Schroer said the closing is not his choice, and blamed it on a dispute over a $690 plumbing bill. He cited a 12-year history with prior owners that allowed him to pay for repairs and then deduct the costs from his $6,000-a-month rent.

He said he already was at odds with the owners over whether some of his customers would be prohibited from using some of the tower's parking when he was told his $690 deduction was not acceptable.

Jim Meyer, chief executive officer of Bridgeport Development, said he sued Schroer over nonpayment of rent after Schroer sued the owners over plans to convert the tower to housing and future parking arrangements.

"I offered him 90 spaces, just trying to get this behind us, so that would we could continue with this very expensive project,” Meyer said. "I don't have any animosity toward the restaurant. I like it.”

Meyer said a court ruled in his favor last week, giving him possession of the property. Meyer said he gave Schroer no deadline to close, and remains willing to negotiate their differences.

"I'm saddened by this,” Meyer said. "We've had every desire for Queen Ann to be a part of the new Founders Plaza project.

"We've tried to work with him, but he's been a difficult tenant.”

jbrown84
12-13-2006, 10:04 AM
It doesn't sound like their being forced to close. It sounds like the guy's just mad at the developers. There's nothing in there about breaking their lease or kicking them out. He's giving up.

BailJumper
12-13-2006, 10:39 AM
We live in a capitalist country so I don't see why people are demanding action against the developer aka PROPERTY OWNER. It is his property to do as he likes.

The owners of the cafeteria knew the risk they ran by leasing as opposed to owning. And I agree, if they have a good business plan, credit and financial stability they would be able to secure a loan to relocate.

I'm sure their lease gave an out to either party should the building sell.

It's called business folks - not greed.

Pete
12-13-2006, 11:02 AM
It sounds like the new owners aren't very keen to keep QA and the place certainly doesn't seem to fit their new ideas and development plan.

It also sounds like the owners of the QA realize this and don't want to fight the battle any longer, otherwise why would they close up shop after 30+ years over a $690 plumbing bill?

Karried
12-13-2006, 11:13 AM
Meyer said he gave Schroer no deadline to close, and remains willing to negotiate their differences.

Maybe there is still hope.. sounds like the person we need to convince to work it out is the owner of the restaurant unless I'm reading it wrong.

Writerranger, did you (or can you) compose a letter or email that we can all copy, modify and send to the powers that be?

At this point, I'm a little muddled on what to ask for...

jbrown84
12-13-2006, 12:08 PM
Maybe there is still hope.. sounds like the person we need to convince to work it out is the owner of the restaurant unless I'm reading it wrong.

That's how I read it.

SoonerDave
12-13-2006, 01:02 PM
You wouldn't shut the thing down over a $690 dispute, and that leads me to believe there's something else going on. My personal interpretation is that there is personal static between the two and this is just a public manifestation of it.

I'm as big a capitalist as the next guy, but the Queen Anne is a city landmark, and if the new owners of the Founders Tower are being problematic about it behind the scenes, shame on them.

My mom goes to Queen Anne frequently, and she was stunned when she saw this in the paper.

And to think we're going to replace this cafeteria with some snobbish, insufferable yuppie condo complex. Yeah, that's real progress. The new owners will probably be kind enough to stuff something really unique its place, like a freaking Starbucks. What a load of crap.

:fighting2

-SoonerDave

writerranger
12-13-2006, 01:17 PM
We live in a capitalist country so I don't see why people are demanding action against the developer aka PROPERTY OWNER. It is his property to do as he likes.

The owners of the cafeteria knew the risk they ran by leasing as opposed to owning. And I agree, if they have a good business plan, credit and financial stability they would be able to secure a loan to relocate.

I'm sure their lease gave an out to either party should the building sell.

It's called business folks - not greed.

Some things aren't the same after relocation. You obviously don't understand the landmark status of the Queen Ann.

Make no mistake - John Schroer wants to stay where he is. In the channel 9 report he states flatly he was informed Friday that they must leave. This is NOT over a $690 plumbing bill!

I wouldn't trust this MEYER fella as far as I could throw him. It's all about $$$. (Of course.)
----------------------

craig461
12-13-2006, 02:53 PM
I agree, I would hate to see Queen Ann go out of business. However, I'm not sure they are. Everyone is reacting to the notion that some big corporate entity has taken over and is forcing them out of business. Such is not the case. Queen Ann had been deliquent on rent, and any attempt in negotiations had failed. John Schroer, owner of Queen Ann, did not want to come to the bargaining table. Long story short, the court ruled in favor of Founders Tower Condominimus, saying that Queen Ann had breeched their contract. The ruling effectively terminated their lease and turned the property over to Founders. Founders has tried repeatedly to ensure Queen Ann stays around for another 42 years, but Schroer refuses to talk to Founders about what can be done to keep his business alive. Now...no one with Founders has ever communicated in any way whatsoever that they have to shut their doors. In fact, every year Queen Ann closes on Dec. 23 to celebrate the holidays and re-opens in early January. Seems to me that Schroer is simply trying to pull at OKC's heart strings and make Founders look like the bad guy, when they are absolutely not (surely OKC won't fall for words without proof?!). Just the opposite is the case. When Founders Condominimums, LLC took over, they paid for a new 2.5 ton A/C unit, along with various other repairs and maintenence previous owners had neglected. So, seems to me that Founders isn't as bad as Schroer or anyone else would have you believe.

writerranger
12-13-2006, 03:08 PM
self-delete

writerranger
12-13-2006, 03:21 PM
Who the HELL are you? MR. MEYER himself? Talk about turning red into blue and turning the table!

Look, the owner of Queen Ann did what he's done for DECADES and deducted the amount for small plumbing work off the rent. Mr. MEYER, after taking over, says "No, that's not how we do it." He immediately saw it for what it technically was: a breach of contract. "He was late on his rent!" "Breach of Contract" "Take him to court and get a judgment which effectively terminates the lease!" "YESSS!!!!" "Perfect!!!" It was exactly what MEYER wanted and he apparently will get it. Now he can put something more in line with his "vision" (which I supported, but no more. He can go straight to you know where as far as I'm concerned. Greedy bas&%rd.) Do you not think we can see right through that BS, "Craig"?????? That post was written (his first on the forum) as a response from Mr. MEYER - make no mistake about it. This greedy developer has the guts and the GALL to try to make this look like Mr. Schroer's fault. Unbelievable. Craig, if you are Mr. MEYER, I hope you realize how many people you have ticked off playing this little legal game to get what you wanted. So typical. I don't know if Craig is MEYER or not, as far as I know his name is Craig Goldstein or Craig Smith. But, he just laid out the lie and legal game that MEYER pulled on a good man and his cafeteria. Now, he can put in something "hip." What a jerk.

And yes, I'm sorry for being so harsh. But, this is just a travesty.

----------------

BailJumper
12-13-2006, 03:44 PM
Yummmmm, if they do put in a Starbucks then I'll probably stop by.

'Landmark'? Give me a break. You can slap that title on anything that happens to have been around for awhile. Things change, get over it.

So, if the Red Dog losses its lease (actually I think Ray owns the building, but work with me here) are you gonna fight hard for that precious landmark to stay put?

It's a cafeteria folks! It's not a piece of history as much as a piece of habit. If the food became lousy tomorrow everyone would just find somewhere else to feed their face.

The new owner could bulldoze it for more parking for all I care - it's his property.

Trust me, there is something else at work here. If the business was doing well then they wouldn't just let it die unless they wanted it to.

craig461
12-13-2006, 03:57 PM
I am not Mr. Meyer. I'm just an informed person who doesn't necessarily believe everything I see on TV or read in the newspaper. It would seem, however, that you do. It appears, Writerranger, to be a smart guy. You're certainly not a bad writer (thus your screen name, I'm sure), so I encourage you to get all the information in front of you before you jump off a cliff and ask everyone else to follow suit. Question: You posted Mr. Meyer's contact info in a previous posting. Have you called him?

craig461
12-13-2006, 04:36 PM
Forgive my typo.

John
12-13-2006, 06:02 PM
I think we should relocate the Queen Anne Cafeteria to the old John A. Brown estate. :tiphat:

Kerry
12-13-2006, 07:32 PM
How stupid can a person be to pay $6,000 per month rent for 12 years. You think he would have bought his space a long time ago.

soonerguru
12-13-2006, 11:25 PM
This story pissed me off so much I nearly barfed up my otherwise delicious steak dinner!

WTF is wrong with some people? You could see this coming a mile away when the jerkwater was quoted as saying something like "we'll honor their lease" when asked about Queen Ann's. It's a freaking institution, for crying out loud.

soonerguru
12-13-2006, 11:36 PM
If the business was doing well then they wouldn't just let it die unless they wanted it to.

Besides revealing yourself as probably the most arrogant member of this board (gee, thanks for the capitalist lectures; I'll be sure and hit you up for a stock tip), you also appear to be the most ill-informed.

Clearly you have no knowledge of the success of their business. If you did, you would notice the nightly lines to eat there, and the loyalty of satisfied diners who have enjoyed their food for decades.

Gee, Mr. big shot GOP laissez faire smarty pants, I'm not at all surprised you care so little for the 250 people who are now likely unemployed, and a local business success story relegated to history. It's all "just business" to you.

BailJumper
12-14-2006, 05:54 AM
Arrogant? Give me a break. So, if I don't hold your precious cafeteria in as high of regard as you then I'm arrogant. I'm a realist and here's a reality check you don't seem to be able to grasp. The owner of the QA was LEASING, as a tenant you know there are 100 ways to Sunday to boot you out. The owner also knew the property was being sold and what the plans of the new owners were. Doesn't seem to me that the new owner hid any of this from the tenant. If the QA is doing so great and has lines going around the building and yet they still do not want to relocate then don't blame the buildings owner, blame the owner of the QA.

As for the 250 people. Yeah, sucks for them, but HELLO they are in the food business, it's not like they were overpaid GM workers with nowhere to go to make the same money. Are you telling me that a food worker with an average of 7 years steady work history cannot get a job somewhere else? Also, I'll be real interested to hear what the QA's owner is doing as far as severance for the workers he held in such high regard. I'm guessing - very little to NOTHING.

It's a restaurant folks - get over it!

ksearls
12-14-2006, 07:32 AM
This all makes me very sad. We have been going to QA for years at least 3 or 4 times a month. It's the place my 12-year-old son has chosen for his birthday faithfully (chicken leg, double mashed potatoes, soft roll and red jello) when he could go anywhere he wanted.

We meet my parents there for quick meals, everyone gets what they want and everyone is happy. Standing in line is a who's who of most of the City's old guard. My husband calls it God's Waiting Room and my son always says we have to get there fast before the old people eat all the chicken.

I worry about the mentally challenged guy who always takes our trays and fills our water. We always leave him a nice tip. He has worked there for as long as I can remember, I hope he will be ok.

Whatever the reason for the demise of QA, we will miss it!

auntiec
12-14-2006, 12:21 PM
I agree, I would hate to see Queen Ann go out of business. However, I'm not sure they are. Everyone is reacting to the notion that some big corporate entity has taken over and is forcing them out of business. Such is not the case. Queen Ann had been deliquent on rent, and any attempt in negotiations had failed. John Schroer, owner of Queen Ann, did not want to come to the bargaining table. Long story short, the court ruled in favor of Founders Tower Condominimus, saying that Queen Ann had breeched their contract. The ruling effectively terminated their lease and turned the property over to Founders. Founders has tried repeatedly to ensure Queen Ann stays around for another 42 years, but Schroer refuses to talk to Founders about what can be done to keep his business alive. Now...no one with Founders has ever communicated in any way whatsoever that they have to shut their doors. In fact, every year Queen Ann closes on Dec. 23 to celebrate the holidays and re-opens in early January. Seems to me that Schroer is simply trying to pull at OKC's heart strings and make Founders look like the bad guy, when they are absolutely not (surely OKC won't fall for words without proof?!). Just the opposite is the case. When Founders Condominimums, LLC took over, they paid for a new 2.5 ton A/C unit, along with various other repairs and maintenence previous owners had neglected. So, seems to me that Founders isn't as bad as Schroer or anyone else would have you believe.

You are totally right, Craig. I know for a fact that Founders do not want Queen Ann to leave. They want to keep it there and keep every one of the employees. Shroer has pulled this stunt before with previous owners, taking them to court, trying to get his way. Because he lost this case, he is trying to win sympathy and make Founders out to be evil.

jbrown84
12-14-2006, 12:36 PM
It sounds to me like Shroer was pretty stupid to assume that he could deduct from his rent with the new owners just because the old owners let him. He should not have been surprised that they reacted the way they did.

metro
12-14-2006, 01:51 PM
writeranger, it makes me a little suspicious of this new guy on this forum, craig, he only has 3 posts and just joined a few days ago. ironically the guy affiliated with the condo's is craig. coincidence maybe, but the odds aren't in his favor for people to believe his side of the story, especially when he seems so informed about the situation. as ksearls said, whatever the reason this institution will be missed. that's sad when I know it is and I'm fairly young and have never been there to my knowledge but I can realize it needs to stay.

BailJumper
12-14-2006, 02:21 PM
Who cares who Craig is, if he isn't being completely up front about his identity he wouldn't be the first. Why does everybody here PM everyone else about who people really are but never get it out in the forum?

I'm new and at least two people have been outed to me by other members privately. People come to these types of forums with an agenda of some sort.

Look at the hit and run posters that were around during the election time to spew their venum, just to disappear right after.

Personally, I don't know you people and I'd never divulge enough to be identified.

Easy180
12-14-2006, 02:24 PM
Who cares who Craig is, if he isn't being completely up front about his identity he wouldn't be the first. Why does everybody here PM everyone else about who people really are but never get it out in the forum?

I'm new and at least two people have been outed to me by other members privately. People come to these types of forums with an agenda of some sort.

Look at the hit and run posters that were around during the election time to spew their venum, just to disappear right after.

Personally, I don't know you people and I'd never divulge enough to be identified.

Aha...Just caught you bailjumper....Or should I say.....Bob Stoops :gossip:

BailJumper
12-14-2006, 02:26 PM
ooops, the gig is up!

soonerguru
12-14-2006, 09:13 PM
Look at the hit and run posters that were around during the election time to spew their venum, just to disappear right after.




Hmmm.....I see that you joined in October of 2006. I see that you are here spewing more venom than anyone I recall in the last year and a half.

Classic projection on your behalf?

Not that you care, but you don't seem to be particularly nice, thoughtful or even happy. Just my opinion.

There were people here discussing the election and most of the discussions I read were polite and civil. Don't recall much in the way of venom.

BailJumper
12-15-2006, 05:08 AM
Spewing venum? Let me guess, code world for "that mean man doesn't agree with me. waaaaaaaa!"

I'm still here am I not and discussing several topics.

You don't have a clue regarding anything about me being nice, thoughtful or otherwise and certainly don't have anything but your ignorance to base those comments on.

This is a forum is it not? The purpose is to discuss, debate or otherwise engage in conversation. Maybe I missed the "all minds must think alike club" sign hanging on the door.

I think your already missing your precious QA jello so much its effecting your mood.

trison
12-15-2006, 05:56 PM
I hear that Queen Ann's has been a thorn in the side of every owner of Founders Tower. Sounds like they finally found someone who wouldn't put up with their nonsense any longer.

Kerry
12-15-2006, 08:19 PM
Back to the topic. The owners of the property have been accused of being greedy. It seems to me that the QA owner is the greedy one. Person A is owed $690 by person B. Person B doesn't pay. Person A takes B to court and wins. Person B say "Fine, I'll just close then."

Seems to me person B is the one being greedy. In fact, he is so greedy that he will disrupt the lives of "loyal" employees and destroy the reputation of Person A. Gee, I would love to be person B's neighbor. They must get along swell.

I know some of you think there is more going on than a dispute over $690, but all of the evidence points to only that. Both sides cite the same thing.

writerranger
12-15-2006, 08:59 PM
Back to the topic. The owners of the property have been accused of being greedy. It seems to me that the QA owner is the greedy one. Person A is owed $690 by person B. Person B doesn't pay. Person A takes B to court and wins. Person B say "Fine, I'll just close then."

Seems to me person B is the one being greedy. In fact, he is so greedy that he will disrupt the lives of "loyal" employees and destroy the reputation of Person A. Gee, I would love to be person B's neighbor. They must get along swell.

I know some of you think there is more going on than a dispute over $690, but all of the evidence points to only that. Both sides cite the same thing.

Kerry,

You've been misinformed. The $690 is what STARTED the problem, and they both agree to that. But that's not THE problem. What is that? The developer, Mr. MEYER took QA to court for breech of contract and won. That allowed him the option to terminate the lease, he told the judge he wanted to terminate the lease and the judge ordered the property turned over to MEYER. Mr. MEYER knows this yet has said - in public - that he thinks this could be a ploy by Mr. Schroer to play on the sympathy of the public and things could maybe be worked out, if only Schroer....did something. Uh, hello? Do you see the problem, Kerry? MEYER has already had the court turn the property over to him. Considering that, how could Mr. Schroer re-open the cafeteria in January as usual? It's double-talk. The legal game is over. Mr. Schroer has been portrayed as some awful tenant through a whispering campaign at this site and that's just despicable. Mr. Schroer is a kind man who simply runs a cafeteria. He doesn't know the ins and outs of the legal system like Jim MEYER (who knows it well).

Is this just not as obvious as it can be?

- MEYER buys Founders.
- MEYER knows a cafeteria is not going to fit his "hip vision" of 360.
- Schroer makes a mistake that allowed the doors to open to a breech of contract suit.
- MEYER jumps at his good fortune and the chance to get rid of QA with a BOC complaint and a court-approved termination of the lease.
- MEYER has 360 humming along and Queen Ann will soon be gone.
- Blame it all on Mr. Schroer.

Look at it as if you were investigating a homicide. Who has the motive, means and opportunity?

Motive: MEYER wants something hipper than QA to "anchor" the base of his over-priced condos.
Means: Schroer did what he's always done and deducted $690 for plumbing, technically causing a breech in contract. ($690 late)
Opportunity: The breech of contract opened the door - through legal means - to terminate the lease.

Motive, Means and Opportunity. Who had all three over that $690 plumbing bill?

Spinning this with a whispering campaign that Schroer has always been a "bad tenant," and that MEYER "really would like to keep the Queen Ann," (sure)....and turning this thing upside down to make the millionaire developer look as if he is the victim is just too much. I am surprised that it has worked with several of you.

Motive. Means. Opportunity. MEYER: Guilty of being another greedy developer and running a good man and his landmark cafeteria out of business.

---------------------------

jbrown84
12-15-2006, 09:12 PM
[B]Schroer did what he's always done and deducted $690 for plumbing, technically causing a breech in contract.


Why would any reasonable person assume that if their landlord had changed that they could continue the rather unorthodox practice of deducting from their own rent?

I don't know either party in this dipute, but you seem rather one sided. You certainly don't know Mr. Meyer's motives and can only assume that this conspiracy exists. Maybe he sued him because he refused to pay his full rent. Maybe that's all it was, and he's just trying to get past it, but Mr. Shroer refuses to. I don't know the truth, but you don't either.

writerranger
12-15-2006, 09:30 PM
Why would any reasonable person assume that if their landlord had changed that they could continue the rather unorthodox practice of deducting from their own rent?

I don't know either party in this dipute, but you seem rather one sided. You certainly don't know Mr. Meyer's motives and can only assume that this conspiracy exists. Maybe he sued him because he refused to pay his full rent. Maybe that's all it was, and he's just trying to get past it, but Mr. Shroer refuses to. I don't know the truth, but you don't either.


Well, yeah I do know a little about it. I've done some looking into this and there's no doubt - at least in my mind - that Meyer has railroaded Queen Ann out of business. I think I DO know the truth or I wouldn't feel as strongly as I do. Give me a little credit. At least before giving it to the millionaire developer who wanted to expand his empire by cleanly removing obstacles to his latest project! Please.

Agreements for reasonable repairs under $1000 being deducted from rent, by the way, is NOT an "unorthodox" practice.

As far as being one-sided, I will proudly hang my hat there. Aren't you one-sided about things you feel passionately about and believe that you are right? When you feel you know the truth and want the truth to be known? Of course you are!

As for motives, YES, I think it's pretty well agreed that Mr. Meyer didn't want Queen Ann as the anchor at the base of his hip 360 condos. Sometimes, you can easily deduce motives without having a "smoking gun" that is proof of motive.

One other thing.....I don't claim a "conspiracy"......I claim a developer wanted to get rid of an unwanted tenant and took advantage of the first opportunity to do it. That isn't a conspiracy, it's just taking advantage of a situation that allowed for what MEYER wanted. That doesn't define a "conspiracy." One thing I know it is: a sleazy thing to do to a landmark in this city, but very typical of these types.

----

EagleTalk
12-15-2006, 10:14 PM
The Queen Ann Cafeteria is an extraordinary family-owned business with an amazing clientele, whether you simply count the tremendous number of people who eat there on any given day or you take note that some of Oklahoma City’s most distinguished citizens are among its customers. The atmosphere is pleasant, the food is consistently exceptional, the staff is courteous and professional, and the owner, John Schroer, is generally walking among the customers, greeting them, and ensuring that their dining experience is absolutely top-notch in all respects. The Queen employees readily tell you that they love their job, that they have worked there a long time and never want to leave, that Mr. Schroer is very generous with them in terms of salary and bonus packages and encouragement, but also in terms of helping them, financially or otherwise, when they have personal situations that arise. For the employees, the Queen is not just a place to work, it is the home of their surrogate family. Many of the employees refer to John Schroer as “Papa”, and think of him as a Father figure. For the customers, the Queen is an 42-year old business establishment that has become an integral part of their lives that they do not want to lose. It cannot be duplicated, it has no equal, there is no other like it. It is not just a place to dine, but rather a place where business deals are negotiated and brought to fruition, and where new friends and business contacts are made and old friends stay in touch.

The Bridgeport CEO categorized Mr. Schroer as a “difficult tenant”. The reality of the matter is that Mr. Schroer is held in high esteem by his employees, his customers, and much of the Oklahoma City populace, and typically is considered to be a kind and generous man with the highest integrity and principles, a real professional, and a real people person. Even so, one might expect Mr. Schroer to become a bit "difficult" if faced with a large organization who appears intent on trying to destroy his lease and his business and his employees' livelihood. It is incomprehensible how an organization like Bridgeport failed to recognize the value of the Queen to the community or to Bridgeport's own business development efforts. Instead, Bridgeport chose to “throw the baby out with the bathwater” in seeking to revoke a long-standing lease with Mr. Schroer over a $690 issue. Bridgeport won its case on a technicality, since the four corners of the lease allegedly required Mr. Schroer to contact Bridgeport before proceeding with repairs. However, it remains clear that Bridgeport’s real agenda must extend far greater than $690 for it to seek to totally destroy a well-respected Oklahoma City business for such a miniscule amount of money. Bridgeport obviously watched and waited for an opportunity to take legal action against Mr. Schroer, recognizing that such an action would dissolve any chances of a positive relationship with him. Bridgeport won its court case, but in fact it has lost much more. The Queen is closing its doors and auctioning off all its equipment and furniture, and all of its employees have been notified that their jobs are gone. It should be pointed out that Mr. Schroer has advised his employees that they will still get their annual bonuses this year, notwithstanding the terrible thing that has happened, and that he will assist them in any way possible to find new employment. However, hundreds of well-respected citizens and customers are angry, and want to individually and collectively take whatever action necessary to reverse this travesty. These people will long remember the name of Bridgeport, as well as the name of Bridgeport’s CEO, and if they or their friends or family decide to consider upscale condominium living as a viable option, it definitely will not be in the Founders Tower that Bridgeport is now terming “the 360”, or in any other development that contains the Bridgeport name.

jbrown84
12-16-2006, 03:58 PM
Well, yeah I do know a little about it. I've done some looking into this and there's no doubt - at least in my mind - that Meyer has railroaded Queen Ann out of business. I think I DO know the truth or I wouldn't feel as strongly as I do. Give me a little credit. At least before giving it to the millionaire developer who wanted to expand his empire by cleanly removing obstacles to his latest project! Please.


I'm not necessarily taking Meyer's side here, I'm just willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. You say you know all the facts, yet all I see is Shroer's side of the story and your assumptions about Meyer.

And the only reason I pointed out your one-sidedness was because you were so adamant that Kerry was "misinformed" and you basically were accusing him of being one sided in the other direction.

And perhaps the rent deduction was not unorthodox (I've never heard of such a thing), but you call it an agreement. Yes an agreement with the previous owners that Shroer had no reason to assume he had with the new owners.

writerranger
12-16-2006, 04:59 PM
I'm not necessarily taking Meyer's side here, I'm just willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. You say you know all the facts, yet all I see is Shroer's side of the story and your assumptions about Meyer.

And the only reason I pointed out your one-sidedness was because you were so adamant that Kerry was "misinformed" and you basically were accusing him of being one sided in the other direction.

And perhaps the rent deduction was not unorthodox (I've never heard of such a thing), but you call it an agreement. Yes an agreement with the previous owners that Shroer had no reason to assume he had with the new owners.

You obviously aren't getting the point. The $690 gave Meyer the MEANS to an end. Is that not crystal clear? Really? Other than that, the $690 means nothing to this story. Explain how Meyer can get the court to turn over QA to him and then hours later be telling the media that he is still hoping they can work things out and putting all the blame on Shroer. I've known this man and been eating at his cafeteria since before you were born if the 84 means anything in your username. I was just asking that you give me a little credit for knowing enough to form an opinion that allows for my emotional response. I laid it all out in post number 30 of this thread (http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-area-talk/8454-queen-ann-cafeteria-going-out-business-2.html#post78830). To me, and many others, it's clear as a bell what has happened here. Yes, it's one-sided. Truth usually is.

-------------------

Pete
12-16-2006, 05:20 PM
I've never eaten in Queen Anne and don't really have a strong opinion on this one way or another, but it seems pretty clear Bridgeport wants them out.

Why else would the new landlord take legal action over such a small dollar amount and/or relatively trivial matters? Sounds like they pounced on the first opportunity to get a judgment against them and that's not the type of thing you do when you are trying to build an amicable relationship with tenants.


Oklahoma City is still a pretty tightly-knit community -- especially in the business world -- and while Bridgeport might like to have a different type of business in that space for their new development, they are going to p!ss off lots of people by going down this road.

The simple matter is that no one will ever know the full story but the overwhelming perception will be: Greedy new owners evict beloved 42 year-old business and leaves employees and lots of senior citizens out in the cold.

This, on the heals of demolishing the Continental.


They are digging themselves quite a hole in terms of community goodwill.

Kerry
12-16-2006, 05:53 PM
I have never seen a copy of the lease so I can't say what clauses are in it. I do know this - if you have owned a business for 25 years you better know the legal system. In fact - food services is one of the heaviest regulated business there is. Couple that with his clientel of old people and I bet Shroer know more about the legal system than anyone on this site.

Another thing I don't understand is why the QA just can't move to another location.

writerranger
12-16-2006, 06:08 PM
I have never seen a copy of the lease so I can't say what clauses are in it. I do know this - if you have owned a business for 25 years you better know the legal system. In fact - food services is one of the heaviest regulated business there is. Couple that with his clientel of old people and I bet Shroer know more about the legal system than anyone on this site.

Another thing I don't understand is why the QA just can't move to another location.

And your point being? I was simply saying he's not in the same ball park as Jim Meyer and his buddies when it comes to real estate law. That seems a given to me. Reading your past posts Kerry, I would think you would be supporting the little guy being run over by a corporate developer who couldn't care less about the locally owned and operated Queen Ann or its people. By the way, it is a MYTH that the Queen's only business was from, "old people" (Your words).

Move to another location? When you have been using long-term leases? (Which he had eight years left!) With what equity do you use to gain the liquidity to build a new cafeteria with the charm of the Queen Ann? At his age, he would have no interest in taking on debt of that size. You realize, outside of the equipment, it would be like starting over? And don't start on that, "He shouldn't have been leasing," business. That was a business decision to locate at the base of the Founders DECADES AGO. There was no choice with that being part of the grand plan. I am at a loss to see how some of you can see how this has played out and still act like somehow Mr. Meyer is the victim in this deal; or at least, was an innocent landlord just taking care of business. Oh, he was all right. He was taking care of the business of destroying landmarks and a locally-owned small business in order to sell overpriced condos to the rich and deep-in-debt -- with a "hip" restaurant at the base.

----------------

Kerry
12-17-2006, 01:05 PM
I'm not big guy/little guy anything. I am for private property rights. If Meyers wanted to burn his property down I don't care. I don't feel sorry for anyone that doesn't have enough business sense to plan long-term. Signing a long-term lease is not planning. Every company I have worked for had contingency plans - including having to move out of their current location.

As far having the money to move elsewhere - he can go to the bank just like every other business. It is called a loan!

writerranger
12-17-2006, 02:46 PM
I'm not big guy/little guy anything. I am for private property rights. If Meyers wanted to burn his property down I don't care. I don't feel sorry for anyone that doesn't have enough business sense to plan long-term. Signing a long-term lease is not planning. Every company I have worked for had contingency plans - including having to move out of their current location.

As far having the money to move elsewhere - he can go to the bank just like every other business. It is called a loan!

Kerry, Did you not read my post?

At his age, he would have no interest in taking on debt of that size.
Your comments about "old people"..."If Meyer wanted to burn his property down I don't care"...."I don't feel sorry for anyone that doesn't have enough business sense to plan long-term."....With comments like those, it's hard to take you seriously. He's run a business since around the time you were born (if your profile is accurate), yet he doesn't plan "long-term"????

I don't know if you really feel the way you do or you're just playing devil's advocate. At this point, blaming a man like you are who has successfully built a business.........you know........this really isn't worth it. Happy Holidays.

-------------------------

SoonerDave
12-18-2006, 07:23 AM
For what it's worth, I think writerranger has made some very valid points.

If anyone here thinks that predatory landlords don't seize upon any opportunity to manufacture a BOC against a tenant they want out of their property (in the absence of a legitimate claim), then you're fooling yourselves. If it is a given that the new owner is a multimillionaire, you and I all know that $690 to him is pocket change. But it is the also the first domino that falls to start a chain that ends with the creation of an entirely legal mechanism to toss out a tenant.

The "property rights" discussion is relevant, but it misses the point. Of course the landlord can do what he wants. Of course he doesn't have to accept the $690 deduction from the rent. Of course it was probably naive for the QA manager to assume whatever arrangement - and in all likelihood it was a gentleman's agreement - about repairs and rent deduction would perpetuate to the new owner. All that is a given. The point is that the new owner merely saw this as like a payoff from a slot machine to rid himself of a tenant he had no desire to keep in the first place. And the landlord new that the legal dominoes would inevitably fall his way.

On the flip side, there is nothing I've seen that suggests the QA manager would deliberately or capriciously run a long-standing business into the ground out of spite. I suspect, but obviously cannot prove, that there has been considerable other activity prior to this incident that telegraphed the new landlord's desire to pick the QA to death over every detail of their lease, with overt threats of lawsuits perpetually hanging over their head.

Do I know, or can I prove, either side of this argument. No. But when I see a high-stakes developer take over an aging property, and opt to remake it into a contemporary yuppie haven, it doesn't take a marketing genius to realize that a bunch of greyhairs standing in line for their vegetable plates doesn't mesh with that hipster image of BMW's and "beautiful people" he wants to sell. It's pathetic, yes, but its true. And it also doesn't take a genius to extrapolate that any such high-powered developer has more than enough legal weapons at his disposal to win a war of litigious attrition over any poor soul who just runs a cafeteria. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find the QA manager to have realized precisely this, and found that war merely an effort of postponing the inevitable.

The only saving grace in all this is that, if this scenario is true, all the Beautiful People (including the developer himself) who will lease the place and make into something with appropriate levels of hipness and coolness, a place to congregate with other Beautiful People, and not be bothered by the site of people who built the city they enjoy, will, themselves, be old and gray one day, and may find some version of their own oxes gored. That, in the end, would be a sweet form of poetic justice.

As I said, perhaps none of this is true. Perhaps it really is as simple as the developer wants us to believe; if so, c'est la vie. But given the circumstances, I find that an increasingly difficult pill to swallow.

-SoonerDave

auntiec
12-18-2006, 12:33 PM
Have any of you even considered contacting Bridgeport to hear their side of what their plans are??? Everyone automatically assumes that Bridgeport is the evil big-time developer who is taking advantage of an little family-owned business, but it appears to me that no one has even attempted to get the entire story. You are so caught up in one-side of the story that you don't even care to know the full truth.
If Shroer would have worked with Bridgeport instead of just automatically thinking he could do the same things that he's done for years (i.e not giving the owners an opportunity to do any repairs for him or supplying receipts so he could be legitimately reimbursed), none of this would have happened.

jbrown84
12-18-2006, 12:35 PM
You are so caught up in one-side of the story that you don't even care to know the full truth.
If Shroer would have worked with Bridgeport instead of just automatically thinking he could do the same things that he's done for years (i.e not giving the owners an opportunity to do any repairs for him or supplying receipts so he could be legitimately reimbursed), none of this would have happened.

exactly.

Pete
12-18-2006, 02:09 PM
Oh, please.

How often do you speak directly to all parties involved in something in the news before forming an opinion? And how many of the thousands that have heard about this story are calling up everyone involved to interview them privately?

Bridgeport was quoted in the article I posted along with the owner of the QA. I don't need to speak to either of them personally (as if they would take my calls anyway) in order to draw some conclusions.

SoonerDave
12-18-2006, 03:45 PM
(i.e not giving the owners an opportunity to do any repairs for him or supplying receipts so he could be legitimately reimbursed), none of this would have happened.


The whole point of this thread, at least as I see it, is the point that this issue didn't really emerge over a $690 plumbing bill -- but if, in fact, it did, it was merely a convenient mechanism for the developer to kick out a tenant he didn't want in the first place.

My personal belief is that if a dispute hadn't arisen over a $690 plubming bill, it would have arisen over a $30 termite inspection, or a $50 phone bill, or a $25 yard mowing bill, any possible element of minutiae that could be seized upon by a lawyer as a breach of contract. Technically, it is almost certainly 100% legal according to the letter of the lease - but the reality is almost certainly that the developer made it clear to the QA folks that he was going to drive them insane over precisely these issues until they shut down or got the property back. You can believe the developer is a nice guy, and maybe he is. Reality suggests such is probably not the case.

The idea that "had he provided his receipts none of this would have happened" is an altruistic way to view the developer - and doubtless precisely how he wants to be perceived. That view, however, presupposes he was disposed to have the QA stay, and it just doesn't make sense from the new owner's point of view.

Think about it: Any developer who buys a building and wants to transform it, but sees an eight year lease pending over a significant part of that property, wouldn't touch that building unless he was confident he could get that tenant out someway, somehow. And once some real estate attorney started picking the terms of the lease to shreds - probably a document that hasn't seen the light of day in who knows how many years - all the "deficiencies" on the part of the tenant make it very easy to identify them as a "problem."

I cannot state that's the case here. But it wouldnt surprise me at all to find out that's precisely what has happened.

-SoonerDave

writerranger
12-18-2006, 04:09 PM
Mailbu: That is exactly right. We'd have quite a to-do list if we watched the news and then began researching all sides of all issues before we formed any opinions. Whew.

SoonerDave: Very well said. I think your scenario is just about as close to what happened as you could get without having been a fly on the walls of the parties involved. In a nutshell, you summed it up very well.

-----------------------

BailJumper
12-30-2006, 06:48 PM
News Flash for all the QA bleeding hearts - this is your last chance to take home a Oklahoma Landmark...

ABSOLUTE AUCTION | 1/9/07 | 10:00AM

If what I heard is true, the owner didn't do squat for his employees when he let them all go. This guy wanted out and used others as his excuse.

SoonerDave
12-30-2006, 08:58 PM
LOL

I've been called many things in my life, but I must admit "bleeding heart" is a first.

If you knew the first thing about me, BailJumper (or took to the time to read a few of my posts), you'd know how laughably inaccurate that is. But never let facts get in the way of a good insult, right?

-SoonerDave

BailJumper
12-31-2006, 07:21 AM
Actually, "self absorbed" may have been a better description. Did I direct that comment specifically to you?

And yes, I never pass up an opportunity to rattle a cage until the monkey inside starts throwing poop!

PUGalicious
12-31-2006, 08:36 AM
How do you explain, then, BailJumper, your "throwing poop"?

writerranger
12-31-2006, 12:58 PM
Bailjumper,

Why not go ahead and jump already!

-------------