Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Current Events' started by zimv20, May 29, 2003.
What an utter disgrace the WTC is doing this. I am sure they have received 'insurance' for the damage, so why try to squeeze more?
Did you read the article? The money is for the rent before 9/11. I understand the general sentiment about the unfortunate event that day, but there's nothing wrong with this.
Media is quite amazing at skewing the story. Just by invoking WTC, they are trying to invoke emotion. If they had just said "A lawsuit is filed against Cantor for non-payment of back rent." it wouldn't have caused much stir. A lot of people will read just the headline and see WTC, lawsuit and make it seem like a bad thing.
Just this morning, I heard this on TV: "...most people, and I mean 'most' in an informal way, like 25%, would do..."
Since when is 25% even remotely close to "most"?
Completely agree, there is nothing wrong with trying to seek back rent. If I was a corporate landlord, and someone owed me a million dollars of back rent, I sure would want that money. The stock investors would want me to get that money if I was publicly traded. Cantor is still around making alot of money and should pay what they owe. (IMHO)
I also agree that Cantor should pay its back rent. From what I've read and heard, the current landlord of the WTC will still be the landlord when it gets rebuilt. If Cantor wants an office in the WTC in the future, they should take care of their debts.
I also agree that Cantor is responsible for it's rent prior to 9/11. Hope they can come to some sort of agreement like the other tenants!
Tragedy is not an excuse for previously acquired debt. At the very least, why not try to negotiate a payment plan for the remains of the company? You can go a long way with people if you just demonstrate that you are willing to work with them.
it reminds me of the seinfeld where, while watching susan's family cabin burn to the ground, george asks for the change from the toll money.
for the company that lost 2/3 of its employees, the landlord should just write off the backrent.
Cantar should pay the rent, but it seems like they could settle this without going to court.
Kinda stupid, and for the question about insurence, no they couldn't settle about 1 event or 2 events because 1 means:
2 Billion $$
and 2 events mean:
4 Billion $$, personally I think it is 1 incident.
While Cantar was racking up the rent expense, the 1000 strong company was making money. If the company doesn't have to pay the rent, then should the company's customers have to pay their bills? The tragedy shouldn't be abused.
I am just going to ignore that....
anyway I think cantor should pay up. A debt is a debt; regardless of one's circumstances.
but you didn't.
Wow 1 million for 1 month rent! But I think he should pay. The landlord had costs in that month that will also have to be paid. I feel sorry for the company for losing 2/3 of it's employees.
But if the company is continuing business now, they should pay what they used, and that is the office space. They made money on that month.
Still, it looks like a stab in the back.
I was going to go off topic and call him a.... anyway.