Post #432460 by tikiyaki on Wed, Feb 4, 2009 10:25 AM

On 2009-02-04 00:20, Tom Slick wrote:

On 2009-02-03 23:31, tikiyaki wrote:
TomSlick, Of course starting at the top is better, but it's a bridge to nowhere, as the land owner bought the land to knock it down and put up condos. No point in speaking to him.

Well if this is truly the case, there is no fight to pick in support for Kona, as its demise is inevitable. The land owner supercedes any leasees. But I'll go ahead and send an email in support to save Kona-Sam's to the email address you posted. I'll admit, I really don't understand how this is going to help or change the dire situation Kona a.k.a. Sam's Seafood seems to be in again.

Jim, You also state in an earlier comment that,

"They've been ordered to vacate, so who knows."

Who has ordered Kona to vacate?
If they have been ordered to vacate, either they are not making rent, or the lease is up, and the property owners do not wish to renegotiate another lease. Either way, it sounds like another going away party should be had, and soon.

One last question...Would this and could this be a location to get marked as a historic landmark? What about getting MODCOM involved, or at least alert them to this situation and see what(if any) options are available to preserve the building and site. Their next meeting is TUESDAY, January 20th at 7:00 p.m. @ the newly restored Hollywood Palladium 6215 W. Sunset Blvd. Hollywood, CA 90028

I know Chris Nichols is a walking library of information regarding these types of situations, and he happens to be a T.C. member. Any advice, Chris?

Ordered to Vacate as in not making rent, is my understanding. As far as changing the dire situation Kona is in....Yes, KONA under it's current ownership is in a dire situation. But a new owner with the capital and desire to sustain this amazing time capsule of Tiki could make things work. In this economy ? Yes, a long shot, but all businesses lose money in the first year, and the current owner of Kona had an investor lined up to get him through the second year and he bailed out. That is the reason for closing. After year 2, the business may have built up and stated to sustain itself, but I guess we'll never know.

So, the reason for the email is to persuade a new interested party with sufficient funding to take on the task, by appealing to his emotional side. Obviously the guy has some emotional attachment to the place because it's part of his family history. At the end of the day, it will most likely be dollars and cents that make his decision for him, and that depends on how much of that he has vs how much he has to spend, and then what he feels about it emotionally will play in to a lesser degree.

As far as making it a landmark, man that would be great, and I'd vote for that in a heartbeat, but for some reason, Mid Century Architecture is way less valuable to city preservationists than some overly ornate 100 yr old Victorian mansion, and are usually a tough sell for becoming Historical Landmarks....which I TOTALLY disagree with.

We should ask Mr Nichols about this tho'.

Do you have your TIKIYAKI ORCHESTRA CD YET ?
http://www.myspace.com/tikiyaki
http://www.tikiyakiorchestra.com

[ Edited by: tikiyaki 2009-02-04 10:26 ]