Has anyone visited the VI since Perez bought it? I have, several times. I found that prices at a publicly owned and subsidized restaurant had skyrocketed. OK, Covid, minimum wage and inflation have raised the cost of things. But the VI was supposed to be a place locals could visit and have a meal at a reasonable price. not anymore. No dusty poets or writers hanging out at the bar anymore, not for awhile. And, the quality of the food has gone down, and the portions are tiny (I know, Woody Allen) the manager requires all customers to sit right up against the bar, when the rest of the place is empty. We are elbow to elbow in the little area at the bar and adjacent to it, and they wont let patrons sit elsewhere to get a little room and privacy. Truth is, Perez is a shitty owner and has run that place into the ground. All he seems to do to complain that everything in society is stacked against him. Good riddance!!!!

What is this business without the iconic sign and legacy? Lots of good memories, but, the world moves on.

The V.I. will still be there.
Likely not the current proprietor.
As the Market PDA said.

“ He adds that one-third of his costs are employee wages, which were significantly bumped up by Seattle’s minimum wage increase that took effect on January 1”

As progressives love to tell us if you can’t pay a living wage you don’t deserve your business. This is the way.

@2: It remains a great place to drink and eat, or it always was went I went there with friends. It has a great location, comfortable brick-enclosed space, great natural light, some good views, and (as pictured) even some direct sunlight. As noted, the Market will likely assign this beautiful legacy to another proprietor.

Perez sounds like an asshole. It’s also sad that he’s claiming some kind of discrimination or that he’s being treated differently.

This has nothing to do with wages. Wages offset profit. Let’s say VI made $1.3M in profits last year and payrolls went up 100k this year, they’d only have $1.2M in profit this year, all else equal, and that payroll increases would bump VI below the level of profit on which the fee is assessed.

That $1.2M threshold from 2007 with 3% increases to 2025 amounts to almost exactly $2M.
Applying the 6% rate to the difference in those two numbers is almost exactly $50,000.
This whole sob story is about Perez taking home an additional $50k (after taking home $1.2M already, annually) instead of paying it to the historical foundation that’s drumming up all his foot traffic business - like everybody else in the Market does. Got it. Here sure did make himself sounds like the little guy there for a sec…

My bad, the $1.2M threshold is in sales, not profits. Either way, Perez is merely trying to make himself $50k of profit between $1.2M and $2M of sales… by not paying market rates to the non-profit PDA for that sweet real estate or for doing all the work that’s ultimately responsible for why customers come to the market in the first place.

Based on the interview the owner doesnt seem like a very nice person or very easy to work with.

Ah, yes. Steal a historic sign off of a historic building. That'll deescalate the situation.

@8: I think he's got a case that the 1.2 million in sales threshold should move with inflation.

Very few nice, temperate, moderate people run successful restaurents. Perez runs very much to type and his personality is irrelevant here. There are though basic facts presented that are not disputed. Rent goes up per an agreed upon index. Wages and benefits go city/state law, but the one $1.2M revenue gap does not change. In a sane business envonment, how can that possibly make sense. Over 5 years, at a 5% (rent + expenses) compounded rate that amount should have gone up to $1.5M. Per ChatGPT, average net margin for Seattle restuarents is 1.5%, which gives Perez around $5K a year in additional net income. I really don't understand what Pike Place Market is doing here.

@10 What matters is whether Perez's lease (which the article says made him wholly responsible for signage) includes a specific carve-out relieving him of liability for that particular sign. If it doesn't, then he acted legally and prudently in taking it down. I would've done the same.

The Seattle Times had an article about this closing a while back and one of the commenters, who claims to run another business subject to this sort of PDA lease, says things are being misrepresented. They're saying the 6% isn't on top of the base rent, it is the rent, as long as the sales reach the minimum threshold ($1.2million/year, or $100k/month in this case). The base rent only exists as a floor in case the business has a terrible month, which apparently should never happen if you sell booze at a prime location as the VI does. So once the VI does $100k/month in sales, the rent is 6% of the total sales, but if they don't reach $100k for a month, the rent is the "base" value instead of the 6%.

In this scenario, the effort to raise the $100k/month threshold with an inflation clause is just an effort to get more months where the sales target isn't met and the rent falls to the base level, and an inflation clause going back to 2007 would substantially raise the threshold. The commenter says the 6% of sales rent is already much cheaper than it would be e.g. in one of the privately owned buildings in the area.

I don't know if any of this is true, but it sounds plausible. The commenter made it sound like everybody pays the 6% rent and Perez is just trying to get special treatment for himself, which sounds similar to what the PDA is saying. In any case, Perez certainly comes across as a drama queen with the tantrum in the public meeting, the stolen sign, the playing of the race card, the social media campaign, etc.

@14: thanks for sharing something actually interesting from the Seattle Time comments.

I was born and raised in Seattle and have been enjoying the market for as long as I can remember. I have family and friends that have worked in the market including a close friend whom currently has his own PPM Tour Guide Company. Everyone has to pay the PDA non-profit for the grand privilege operate a business in the historic and protected PPM. None of the other PPM business owners agree with the current ownership of VI which has indeed jacked prices and lowered quality. BS that he's a savvy restaurant owner because anyone with experience would know the resto business is much more difficult outside PPM...

The PDA insists its purpose is to maintain the character and history of the Market. But they're not acting like historical preservationists, they're acting like landlords.

"Said tenant will provide the sign, pay for the sign, maintain the sign........" If that's what the lease says, I have no doubt that the PDA's talking smack when they say, "This historic sign.....is a part of the Market and does not belong to any one tenant." I don't care how long the sign's been there. If the lease says that and he doesn't take it down, they'll screw him.

"Perez says he started keeping his passport on him. “Because my last name’s Perez, and I don’t want to be disappeared.”"
I don't blame him for that one bit. The last few years, every time I think about going out of the country I try to think of anything ANY border guard could do to make my life uncomfortable.....and I'm about as whitebread as they come.

@1, What?, you think a large, corner bar on 1st Ave would be cheap? There used to be a high end French bistro next door, for Christ's sake.

@8, I don't know: "The sticking point, he says, is the clause that requires the tenant to pay 6 percent of its profits to the PDA for every dollar they made over $1.2 million per year."
That means profits, NOT sales (Unless this is just more shitty Stranger bad reporting). If that's the case, I'm not sure the 6% is all that out of line. Needs more info/clarification.

@12, What you said. @13, ditto.