|
Dull Fork posted:Why don't the people who own these Twitter HQs.... just change the locks once its been X days since they last got a rent payment? Slumlords do it all the time. Replacing the tenants for a building that size is tremendously expensive
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:43 |
|
|
All these tech layoffs... there must be a tidal wave of office furniture hitting the market.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 17:43
|
|
|
Papercut posted:Replacing the tenants for a building that size is tremendously expensive Also, commercial tenants tend to be in charge of their own physical security. The landlord may not actually possess the keys/keycard to get into the Twitter office or the ability to lock the door in a way they can't undo
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 18:06
|
|
|
Papercut posted:Replacing the tenants for a building that size is tremendously expensive Uh huh, and letting the tenant use the property they aren't paying for is exactly like an empty building, neither get you money. Except there is now wear and tear going on from its use, and the tenant who isn't paying you probably isn't going to give a drat about how well the property is kept up. IANAL but also, what about liability issues where the property owner is aware of illegal things going on in the property (Musk making his employees sleep there), and they still allow twitter to rent he building? I guess that just doesn't sound like enough of a good reason to keep them there to me? But I am not fully educated on all the corporate loopholes that exist. Are they hoping to let them continue to stay there, so that they can take Twitter to court and force them to pay? Seems like kind of a big gamble, seeing as how Musk has a massive interest payments on his purchase, and is actively doing everything to cut costs. Seems like bankruptcy is in Twitter's future, and Twitter simply won't have the money to pay rent by the time the court cases will end. At least that's my guess. I just hate seeing how once there's enough money involved, you see there's a whole new way the world treats you and gives you exceptions. Throw their bill-dodging asses out in the street and be done with em.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 18:06
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Also, commercial tenants tend to be in charge of their own physical security. The landlord may not actually possess the keys/keycard to get into the Twitter office or the ability to lock the door in a way they can't undo Why couldn't they call the police to have them clear the building of trespassers?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 18:07
|
|
|
Dull Fork posted:Why don't the people who own these Twitter HQs.... just change the locks once its been X days since they last got a rent payment? Slumlords do it all the time. Because that's illegal. Slumlords do that poo poo to people that're too poor to sue, but Twitter isn't small enough or poor enough for landlords to risk blatantly violating the law against them. Legally evicting a tenant requires filing a lawsuit against them and convincing a judge to issue an eviction order. Though I'd just about guarantee that the landlords would much prefer that this lawsuit just scares Twitter into paying what it owes, since actually evicting and replacing a corporate tenant the size of Twitter is a huge pain in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 18:19
|
|
|
Dull Fork posted:Uh huh, and letting the tenant use the property they aren't paying for is exactly like an empty building, neither get you money. Except there is now wear and tear going on from its use, and the tenant who isn't paying you probably isn't going to give a drat about how well the property is kept up. IANAL but also, what about liability issues where the property owner is aware of illegal things going on in the property (Musk making his employees sleep there), and they still allow twitter to rent he building? I'm not an expert either, but replacing commercial tenants at this scope can literally take years and also involves significant construction projects (that require all sorts of coordination with other tenants in the building because of interruptions to utility services, although I'm not sure that's the case with Twitter). So I assume their thinking is to exhaust all legal means to recoup the money they're owed while keeping the existing tenant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 18:25
|
|
|
Plus you're going to have to declare that it was the Twitter House and that's probably going to sting you for a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 18:33
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because that's illegal. Slumlords do that poo poo to people that're too poor to sue, but Twitter isn't small enough or poor enough for landlords to risk blatantly violating the law against them. So yeah, I skipped a few steps there, but these are steps that a property owner of such a massive office building should easily be able to do, if they wanted to. I went and looked up some more info on the issue. Found several articles all saying basically same thing. ( https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/evicting-a-commercial-tenant-in-california-54040 https://bornstein.law/california-commercial-eviction-process/ https://www.rocketlawyer.com/real-estate/landlords/non-residential-or-commercial-property/legal-guide/the-commercial-eviction-process ) It looks like its a relatively straight forward process to evict a commercial tenant, and there are in fact less protections for commercial tenants than residential ones. You're right, you do need to go before a judge, but the steps required don't seem to take long, (one link suggests 40-90 days). Breach of contract includes not paying your rent, simple as. I can't see a judge willing deny that, no matter how many well paid lawyers Twitter might have. So if the owners of the property did want Twitter out, they could do so. It wouldn't be illegal unless they didn't go to a judge. But as others have said, the property owners would vastly prefer Twitter just pays their rent, instead of dealing with a guaranteed lack of income from the empty property and going through the process of tempting some other business moving into the space, That feels like the far more likely answer than 'Property owner can't evict business who doesn't pay rent, that's illegal!'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 19:05
|
|
|
Yes you have far less rights as a commercial tenant than residential, for obvious reasons You are not going to be legally allowed to remain in a corporate office if you just stop paying the rent
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 19:19
|
|
|
Dull Fork posted:So yeah, I skipped a few steps there, but these are steps that a property owner of such a massive office building should easily be able to do, if they wanted to. I think you've misunderstood something, because the landlords did go before a judge. That's the entire reason we know for a fact that Twitter hasn't been paying rent: the landlords filed lawsuits against Twitter after it failed to pay rent, and those lawsuits are matters of public record. However, they can't actually evict Twitter until the judge rules that they can. Like you said, it can take 40-90 days (though I doubt that accounts for the resources of massive companies like Twitter). The landlord of Twitter's San Francisco HQ filed their lawsuit just five days ago, so we can expect at least another month before any ruling in the case. Until then, there isn't going to be any lock-changing. The reason why it took so long for them to file a lawsuit in the first place appears to be that the landlord had three and a half million bucks worth of security deposit from Twitter, and the lease contract provided that the landlord could take that security deposit and count it toward any unpaid rent. The lease contract also had some mandatory waiting periods in regards to sending demands and such. So the landlords took the security deposit first and sent demands to Twitter to replenish it, and only filed suit when the time limit on those demands expired. We can expect similar circumstances around Twitter's other properties. The unpaid-rent lawsuits have started flowing in this month, so none of them have yet progressed to the point of a judge ruling on them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 19:33
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I think you've misunderstood something, because the landlords did go before a judge. Ahhh, yeah I definitely wasn't aware that part had already happened. Nor the part where they had something in their contract that let the property owners pull from a security deposit first. It looks like they're well on their way to evicting them then? I cannot see any judge siding with Twitter on its non-payment of rent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
I would guess they aren't trying to evict Twitter. Judge will probably force Twitter to pay what they owe (or more likely they'll settle on an amount and avoid the trial). Twitter will then probably go back to paying perhaps they will renegotiate monthly rent. It's not in the landlords interest to lose Twitter, Musk is just playing dumb games to reduce Twitter's expenditures in the short term and hoping he can bully partners to pay them less.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 19:48
|
|
|
Isn’t the nonpayment thing usually a negotiation tactic to get cheaper rent? Like they’re gambling that the landlord would rather keep them at a lower rate than have to find someone else to rent to and the hardball tactic is “we’ll start paying again if you lower the rent”?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 19:52
|
|
|
Dull Fork posted:Ahhh, yeah I definitely wasn't aware that part had already happened. Nor the part where they had something in their contract that let the property owners pull from a security deposit first. It looks like they're well on their way to evicting them then? I cannot see any judge siding with Twitter on its non-payment of rent. Oh yeah, there's no way Twitter could possibly have an actual defense here. We're just waiting for the gears of the legal system to turn. The only ways this makes any sense at all are if they're trying to bully the landlord into accepting a lower rent payment rather than deal with this trouble, or if they thought they were going to be making way more money in a couple months and wanted to defer their rent payments till then. I'm guessing it'll take a few months to reach a final result, and that eviction is extremely unlikely because the landlord will happily drop the case if Twitter agrees to pay up. The SF HQ landlord isn't asking for eviction yet - they're suing for three and a half million bucks in back rent, a ten million dollar security deposit (the lease had a clause that tripled the required security deposit if Twitter changed owners), and any other damages the judge sees fit to provide. If Twitter steadfastly refuses to pay up, this case would eventually progress to an eviction order, but Twitter's financial situation shouldn't be so bad that it can't come up with twenty million bucks to hand over to the landlord at the last minute. Same goes for the other landlords, though I suppose Musk might consider a couple of offices to be disposable enough to give up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 19:55
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Isn’t the nonpayment thing usually a negotiation tactic to get cheaper rent? Like they’re gambling that the landlord would rather keep them at a lower rate than have to find someone else to rent to and the hardball tactic is “we’ll start paying again if you lower the rent”? He reportedly also told his people to stop paying other bills to ‘negotiate’ a better rate. But this is involving larger companies like Amazon, Cisco, and I think Google, so good loving luck
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 20:46
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1618369351723388935?s=20&t=D7syPbgSUlJWbP3uFZSNVw
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 00:25
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:
Why? Why is this even a thing? Jesus loving christ these money grubbing pieces of poo poo. It's just about drama for clicks and views right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 00:41
|
|
|
LegionAreI posted:Why? Why is this even a thing? Jesus loving christ these money grubbing pieces of poo poo. It's just about drama for clicks and views right? Forget it. It's Elon, so there's pretty good odds that he honestly believes Trump shouldn't have been banned in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 00:55
|
|
|
Prism posted:Forget it. It's Elon, so there's pretty good odds that he honestly believes Trump shouldn't have been banned in the first place. Yes, Elon, famous owner of facebook.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 00:58
|
|
|
Billionaire face-blindness. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 01:17
|
|
|
LegionAreI posted:Why? Why is this even a thing? Jesus loving christ these money grubbing pieces of poo poo. It's just about drama for clicks and views right? Corporations exist to make money. Preferably tomorrow/next quarter. I get where youre coming from, but they don't think they're pieces of poo poo. Their purpose is to make money and otherwise they are constrained only by whatever the government is willing to do to regulate them. Our esteemed leaders and stalwart institutions that represent our will collective will. ...what is the saddest emoji? Personally I've given up on *all this* continuing into the future in a positive manner at the trajectory we're on, so Trump being on social media should equate to a laugh or two (second hand of course).
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 01:46
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:Yes, Elon, famous owner of facebook. I have no idea how I misread it as Twitter unbanning him but I did. Probably because I'd heard those noises last year. It's me, I'm the idiot on social media.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 04:46
|
|
|
Prism posted:I have no idea how I misread it as Twitter unbanning him but I did. Probably because I'd heard those noises last year. I think Twitter unbanned him in November already.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 04:48
|
|
|
Yes, but he hasn’t posted since then anyway. Rumor has it that he has an exclusive deal with one of the right-wing twitter clones
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 04:53
|
|
|
Prism posted:I have no idea how I misread it as Twitter unbanning him but I did. Probably because I'd heard those noises last year. Sad you missed that, if you wish to take any humor in the tragic comedy. You know musk wanted a Trump hit to boost Twitter, and Trump snubbed him trumpishly. I believe he said something like "that's his place".
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 05:04
|
|
|
Dull Fork posted:Why don't the people who own these Twitter HQs.... just change the locks once its been X days since they last got a rent payment? Slumlords do it all the time. Idk if the building in question is owner operated, but a lot of commercial real estate is owned by one party, managed by another party, and leased to one or more tenants who then might have their own facilities management teams depending on their lease terms. And it isn’t a $2000/mo walk-up with a front door, it’s a full building with a bajillion doors, multiple access systems, and a bunch of other poo poo that gets leased out for hundreds of thousands of dollars per month. Also commercial real estate is still mega-hosed right now from the pandemic and the shift to work from home, so you’re probably better off trying to make your tenant pay instead of kicking them out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 05:14
|
|
|
LegionAreI posted:Why? Why is this even a thing? Jesus loving christ these money grubbing pieces of poo poo. It's just about drama for clicks and views right? It was never a permanent ban in the first place. He was only banned for two years, and those two years have passed. Why was he only banned for two years? Because Facebook was too cowardly to permaban Trump in the first place. After Jan 6th, they just temporarily suspended his account for "at least two weeks" (in other words, until after the inauguration). Once Biden was inaugurated without significant incident, Facebook immediately kicked the case over to their independent oversight board, which told Facebook to pick an actual punishment and stick to it instead of dicking around with arbitrary suspensions. In the end, Facebook settled on a two-year ban from the date of initial suspension", but with the option to arbitrarily extend the suspension if they think it's warranted. Which looks to me a lot like "we'll keep him banned until after the midterms, and then make our decision based on where the political winds are blowing".
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 05:22
|
|
|
It appears that Trump is finally pulling the plug on Truth Social I’m sure he figured out that he just doesn’t have the same reach that he did on Twitter
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 14:10
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It appears that Trump is finally pulling the plug on Truth Social Supposedly, he’s got an exclusivity contract signed with it until June or July 2023.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 14:47
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It appears that Trump is finally pulling the plug on Truth Social Like do you think Trump actually thought that for a moment and not just understood the basic value of leverage
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 14:53
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Supposedly, he’s got an exclusivity contract signed with it until June or July 2023. Since when has Trump cared about obeying contracts
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 15:09
|
|
|
More free advertising for the great job Elon's doing. https://twitter.com/Chris_Meloni/status/1619834984398991360?s=20&t=mFYPgq52Z5NBOMHo24JG1g
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 01:57
|
|
|
Tangentially related to the thread, but definitely related to Musk having the last laugh- the primary source for the @ElonJet twitter account, a community-sourced database of aircraft activity, has just been sold to private equity and will probably be much more amenable to rich and powerful people demanding to be excluded from it now.quote:ADS-B Exchange has made headlines in recent months for, as AFP put it, irking “billionaires and baddies.” But in a Wednesday morning press release, aviation intelligence firm Jetnet announced it had acquired the scrappy open source operation for an undisclosed sum. ADS-B Exchange was supported almost entirely by hobbyists submitting their own aircraft tracking, so it's equally likely to be censored or just shut down when they all leave now. Maybe someone else can put together an ADS-C Exchange with all the orphaned data streams.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2023 20:43
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Tangentially related to the thread, but definitely related to Musk having the last laugh- the primary source for the @ElonJet twitter account, a community-sourced database of aircraft activity, has just been sold to private equity and will probably be much more amenable to rich and powerful people demanding to be excluded from it now. Am I missing something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 10:29
|
|
|
I am wondering that too. What it reminds me of is when a fan wiki gets taken over by one of the big wiki sites and all the contributors just move to somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 14:07
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Tangentially related to the thread, but definitely related to Musk having the last laugh- the primary source for the @ElonJet twitter account, a community-sourced database of aircraft activity, has just been sold to private equity and will probably be much more amenable to rich and powerful people demanding to be excluded from it now. The hobbyists not only made one replacement site already, but three. Supposedly, the 200TB historical file has also been reconstructed or copied from the original site. Someone spent $20 million dollars for nothing, which seems to becoming a theme in the techbro world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 17:04
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/status/1621206777202200579?s=20&t=GnrlfZOP6-d_yK7blS7CjQ
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:
it actually makes a lot of sense that meta stock would jump on this news, because the primary downside to owning meta stock is that every publicly traded share combined can't tell zuck no, and currently zuck is wasting all your money on the metaverse so him using money to give it to you instead of lighting it on fire is really good news for you, the investor
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:43 |
|
|
It's a shame he took the money from engineer salaries and not the metaverse department, then Meanwhile, another major domino falls at Twitter: https://twitter.com/TwitterDev/status/1621026986784337922 "The Twitter API" is how bots and other automated tools use Twitter. This will severely impact all accounts that are not literally a human typing into the field and clicking post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 22:50
|
|