Savvy shoppers know they can save big on a loaf of bread at Dollarama. But at more than a dozen of the Quebec-based company’s stores in Nova Scotia, there’s no bread on the shelves. Those stores have one thing in common: there’s a Sobeys nearby. Mary Wilson went shopping at Dollarama’s Cole Harbour location last […]
Real estate agents? Zoning changes? Grandfather status? What?
Like the article states, Sobeys can demand this because they are the landlord. When mom and pop are the landlord, they can absolutely put the same terms in their lease agreement if they had some reason to. Dollarama will agree to it every time if the property is sufficiently desirable.
Indeed, Sobeys properties are quite desirable, as a rule, as Dollarama sees more sales when located alongside a grocery store rather than being out in the middle of nowhere. “One stop shopping” is a customer draw. And so they are willing to accept the terms in many cases.
So they’ve used the last option I suggested: buy up surrounding real estate.
Well, yeah. They are a real estate investment company. That’s what real estate investment companies do.
For better or worse, that’s the entire food system in a nutshell. Farmers operate on the same model, using the cashflow from the farm to pay creditors and counting on the land investment to be their actual payback. Even McDonalds is well documented to actually be a real estate company. The food is just a means to an end. Much like how the average Joe trying to get rich buying and selling houses will take a day job to pay the mortgage.
They have done a little better this year, to be fair, (although they need to with higher interest rates!) but Sobeys’ would be a pretty shitty business if it were only a grocery store. Its owners could do so much better doing something else with that investment. But, in reality, the grocery store doesn’t need to be a good business. It just needs to further their actual goals.
So you agree with me then that this is not a tactic that most businesses use, as the person I originally replied to had stated.
You agree with me that these are tactics only available to large rich powerful corporations?
Why wouldn’t I agree you? Of course I agree with you. It costs me nothing and it makes you feel good, so there is no reason not to. I agree with everyone.
So if you agreed with me, why were you arguing with me?