Tasty Dog

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bri on August 6, 2009 at 1:28pm

I didn't live in OP back when all the Tasty Dog stuff took place, but it sure seems like governance of the village a few years ago was pretty bad. I've been mostly impressed with the current village board, so hopefully that kind of stuff is in the past.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Becca on August 6, 2009 at 1:36pm

I don't get it. Why does Tasty Dog get a break when it comes to village taxes? Their food isn't even that good if you ask me. Now if it was Hot Doug's ... that's another story.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Joel Schoenmeyer on August 6, 2009 at 1:54pm

Here's the thing -- the Village has a lease with Tasty Dog. Now, without seeing the lease, there are a few different scenarios:

1. The lease doesn't mention real estate taxes at all -- that's potential malpractice by the Village's attorney;
2. The lease requires the Village to pay taxes; or
3. The lease requires Tasty Dog to pay taxes.

I assume #3 is the scenario -- can anyone confirm that?

You can see the problem, which is the result of ineffective, misguided Village government:

a. The Village exercises eminent domain to kick Tasty Dog out of its former location, so that a developer can take over that location. This was the first mistake -- it's the same mistake many municipalities have made (using eminent domain not for the public interest, but to help another private party). I've written about this on my blog, Death and Taxes, if anyone is interested -- part 1 and part 2.

b. The Village then feels pressure to help out Tasty Dog, relocates them, and builds them a palace (charging below-market rent). That's the second mistake.

c. This whole real estate tax debacle.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by OakParkGirl on August 6, 2009 at 1:54pm

I agree about Hot Dougs, though I'm sure if this came up for them the line of people would stretch to Waukegan to save them :)

Hard to say, seems the Village frigged up the lease, so it seems unfair to punish Lucky Dog if that is indeed the case. Seems it would be fair to work out a payment plan to allow them to stay in business and pay what they owe. Besides, a 10% rent increase over 7 years, they SHOULD have some extra cash. They are getting a heck of a deal there.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bri on August 6, 2009 at 1:58pm

Well, WJ has a copy of the lease on its website. Someone more motivated than I can easily look into it.

Joel Schoenmeyer said:

Here's the thing -- the Village has a lease with Tasty Dog. Now, without seeing the lease, there are a few different scenarios:

1. The lease doesn't mention real estate taxes at all -- that's potential malpractice by the Village's attorney;
2. The lease requires the Village to pay taxes; or
3. The lease requires Tasty Dog to pay taxes.

I assume #3 is the scenario -- can anyone confirm that?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dave! on August 6, 2009 at 2:24pm

I don't think it's unreasonable for them to pay property taxes, and going forward I think they absolutely should.

However, for the past taxes, it seems that the Village may really be at fault. From the article, I gathered:

1. At the previous location, Tasty Dog did not pay any property taxes, per their lease or because the Village didn't file that lease with Cook County.

2. The lease does not specify who will pay property taxes. There is a clause about *personal property taxes* that may be assessed to the leasee (such as tax on fixtures, equipment) but not actual property taxes. However, if you read that clause, it also says that the leasee is responsible to repay the lessor for any *increase* in the property tax due to an increased assessed value over improvements (such as fixtures). That seems to me to imply that the Village will be paying the taxes at the current (as of the signing of the lease) assessed value, and Tasty Dog would only be responsible for paying the difference if the assessed value went up as a result of their use of the property.

3. It was the Village's responsibility to file the lease with Cook County, so the County could assess the taxes for Tasty Dog.

4. Tasty Dog didn't get any tax bills until a year ago.

If those facts are true, then I don't think it was unreasonable for Tasty Dog to have relied on the agreement they'd had with the Village and to think they didn't owe property taxes.

Now that they have notice, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask them to pay taxes moving forward, but I do think it's unreasonable to make them pay back taxes for what really appears to be a mistake of the Village.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul on August 6, 2009 at 2:41pm

Off topic somewhat, but Joel, when you say "using eminent domain not for the public interest, but to help another private party," arguably, what the Village did way back when WAS in the public interest, because it exchanged a parking lot and a hot dog stand that generated little in terms of tax revenue, for developed propertry that obvioyusly generates a lot higher revenue stream.

I do agree that the village was crazy to fund a $1 million hot dog stand -- and I lived here back then. But that board did a lot of crazy real estate-related things -- just like so many other people in the early 2000s.

Joel Schoenmeyer said:

BR>You can see the problem, which is the result of ineffective, misguided Village government:

a. The Village exercises eminent domain to kick Tasty Dog out of its former location, so that a developer can take over that location. This was the first mistake -- it's the same mistake many municipalities have made (using eminent domain not for the public interest, but to help another private party).

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dave! on August 6, 2009 at 2:50pm

OT: Joel, do you, or can you recommend someone who does property tax appeals?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Joel Schoenmeyer on August 6, 2009 at 5:11pm

We most recently used Richard Shapiro, an attorney in Evanston (although we never went there or met him face to face). His # is 847-869-8686. In the past we've also used Christopher Walsh ((312) 372-1155). Both seemed to do a good job.

Dave! said:

OT: Joel, do you, or can you recommend someone who does property tax appeals?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Joel Schoenmeyer on August 6, 2009 at 5:19pm

But where does that end, Paul? Do you really want the Village to take your house because they've decided that a Gap is going to generate more tax revenue? That's just more "government playing developer" stuff. I think Oak Park should sell the properties it owns to the highest bidder (and should've done so a long time ago). I also believe Oak Park shouldn't be interfering in the sale or purchase of privately-owned property, either directly or indirectly.

Paul said:

Off topic somewhat, but Joel, when you say "using eminent domain not for the public interest, but to help another private party," arguably, what the Village did way back when WAS in the public interest, because it exchanged a parking lot and a hot dog stand that generated little in terms of tax revenue, for developed propertry that obvioyusly generates a lot higher revenue stream.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by J Chyna on August 7, 2009 at 9:34am

When the Village planned to kick Tasty Dog out of their earlier location, the Village owned the property and Tasty Dog leased it--it's not the same as if the Village wanted to take my house, because I own this land. The Tasty Dog did not, so technically the Village was as within their rights as any landlord who chooses not to renew a tenant's lease. That being said, I think the Village handled that situation ridiculously badly--from a property management standpoint and from a PR standpoint. They probably should have had to make some accommodations for the Tasty Dog, since it was a viable business, but the PR nightmare then made the Village go completely overboard in trying to help them.

The Tasty Dog owners have, at this point, received way more help than any private business owners should, and it's time for them to step up and fix their own problems. If no one ever considered the property tax issue, it sounds to me like the Tasty Dog's lawyer and/or the Village's lawyer dropped the ball in a big way, but the Village taxpayers should not be held responsible.

All of this hoopla about the Tasty Dog also makes me wonder: Where was all of this Village assistance when the Garcia family was forced to close Las Cazadores?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Russ M on August 7, 2009 at 9:38am

This is why the village should not be helping individual business owners. If you do it for one, you should do it for all to keep the market free and open. Your point is spot on about the Mexican restaurant that got shut down. Are hot dogs more valuable to the village?

Julie Chyna said:

When the Village planned to kick Tasty Dog out of their earlier location, the Village owned the property and Tasty Dog leased it--it's not the same as if the Village wanted to take my house, because I own this land. The Tasty Dog did not, so technically the Village was as within their rights as any landlord who chooses not to renew a tenant's lease. That being said, I think the Village handled that situation ridiculously badly--from a property management standpoint and from a PR standpoint. They probably should have had to make some accommodations for the Tasty Dog, since it was a viable business, but the PR nightmare then made the Village go completely overboard in trying to help them.

The Tasty Dog owners have, at this point, received way more help than any private business owners should, and it's time for them to step up and fix their own problems. If no one ever considered the property tax issue, it sounds to me like the Tasty Dog's lawyer and/or the Village's lawyer dropped the ball in a big way, but the Village taxpayers should not be held responsible.

All of this hoopla about the Tasty Dog also makes me wonder: Where was all of this Village assistance when the Garcia family was forced to close Las Cazadores?

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page