SRG - Seritage Growth Properties

[Shane]

without that loan, the stock would be getting crushed. sears liquidation would hurt with no financing back drop and sharks would be swimming for higher rates. Everyone tried to sell the story 7% was highway robbery. It wasn't.

 

This is true, but the company has been working on a refinancing option for a long time.  The management is quality, they're not going to sit on their hands waiting for a disaster to strike.

 

Keep in mind that at the same time SRG management is supposed to raise a lot more money it looks it is about to lose $134 million in revenue payments from SHLD. The Q2 loss would have been about $78 million rather than $44 million.

 

One more point ... it seems Eddie L and SHLD weren't expecting to file as they seem to still be looking for DIP financing. Not sure why you think SRG management was aware already of the coming BK filing.

 

I think they viewed it as an eventuality and therefore have been planning for it.  I don't think they knew a filing was necessarily imminent this month or anything like that.

 

Yes more stores will hit the market, but with retail it is all about location and SRG has some of the best locations in the Sears portfolio.  Doesn't matter if a ton of boxes hit the market in rural Alabama when you're trying to lease space in Miami...

[Candyman1]

without that loan, the stock would be getting crushed. sears liquidation would hurt with no financing back drop and sharks would be swimming for higher rates. Everyone tried to sell the story 7% was highway robbery. It wasn't.

 

This is true, but the company has been working on a refinancing option for a long time.  The management is quality, they're not going to sit on their hands waiting for a disaster to strike.

 

Keep in mind that at the same time SRG management is supposed to raise a lot more money it looks it is about to lose $134 million in revenue payments from SHLD. The Q2 loss would have been about $78 million rather than $44 million.

 

One more point ... it seems Eddie L and SHLD weren't expecting to file as they seem to still be looking for DIP financing. Not sure why you think SRG management was aware already of the coming BK filing.

 

I think they viewed it as an eventuality and therefore have been planning for it.  I don't think they knew a filing was necessarily imminent this month or anything like that.

 

Yes more stores will hit the market, but with retail it is all about location and SRG has some of the best locations in the Sears portfolio.  Doesn't matter if a ton of boxes hit the market in rural Alabama when you're trying to lease space in Miami...

 

Well about 125 of the SHLD stores were just in CA. Mervyn's had about the same amount of stores in CA and it took down rents to get the properties leased up. Or since you are a fan of Florida, based on the latest K, 75 SHLD stores are in Florida. SRG has 26 stores in Florida btw. Not sure how many of the Florida SRG stores have been retenanted/redeveloped yet, but the available supply in Florida is about to triple. This is not an issue of a store in Miami and another one in rural Alabama.

[RadMan24]

without that loan, the stock would be getting crushed. sears liquidation would hurt with no financing back drop and sharks would be swimming for higher rates. Everyone tried to sell the story 7% was highway robbery. It wasn't.

 

This is true, but the company has been working on a refinancing option for a long time.  The management is quality, they're not going to sit on their hands waiting for a disaster to strike.

 

Keep in mind that at the same time SRG management is supposed to raise a lot more money it looks it is about to lose $134 million in revenue payments from SHLD. The Q2 loss would have been about $78 million rather than $44 million.

 

One more point ... it seems Eddie L and SHLD weren't expecting to file as they seem to still be looking for DIP financing. Not sure why you think SRG management was aware already of the coming BK filing.

 

I think they viewed it as an eventuality and therefore have been planning for it.  I don't think they knew a filing was necessarily imminent this month or anything like that.

 

Yes more stores will hit the market, but with retail it is all about location and SRG has some of the best locations in the Sears portfolio.  Doesn't matter if a ton of boxes hit the market in rural Alabama when you're trying to lease space in Miami...

 

Well about 125 of the SHLD stores were just in CA. Mervyn's had about the same amount of stores in CA and it took down rents to get the properties leased up. Or since you are a fan of Florida, based on the latest K, 75 SHLD stores are in Florida. SRG has 26 stores in Florida btw. Not sure how many of the Florida SRG stores have been retenanted/redeveloped yet, but the available supply in Florida is about to triple. This is not an issue of a store in Miami and another one in rural Alabama.

 

Candyman, they knew they ain't stupid and Sears gave a ton of warning. You ready between the lines. Seritage has also been building its JV alliances. As mentioned above, the hit on earnings and cash flow with liquidation will hurt - but with financing in place it won't be dire and it will be manageable. That's not to say people freak out or question weather its enough, there may be a chance to buy shares at cheaper levels than they are at now. But in terms of shorting - that's a risky proposition.

[Shane]

without that loan, the stock would be getting crushed. sears liquidation would hurt with no financing back drop and sharks would be swimming for higher rates. Everyone tried to sell the story 7% was highway robbery. It wasn't.

 

This is true, but the company has been working on a refinancing option for a long time.  The management is quality, they're not going to sit on their hands waiting for a disaster to strike.

 

Keep in mind that at the same time SRG management is supposed to raise a lot more money it looks it is about to lose $134 million in revenue payments from SHLD. The Q2 loss would have been about $78 million rather than $44 million.

 

One more point ... it seems Eddie L and SHLD weren't expecting to file as they seem to still be looking for DIP financing. Not sure why you think SRG management was aware already of the coming BK filing.

 

I think they viewed it as an eventuality and therefore have been planning for it.  I don't think they knew a filing was necessarily imminent this month or anything like that.

 

Yes more stores will hit the market, but with retail it is all about location and SRG has some of the best locations in the Sears portfolio.  Doesn't matter if a ton of boxes hit the market in rural Alabama when you're trying to lease space in Miami...

 

Well about 125 of the SHLD stores were just in CA. Mervyn's had about the same amount of stores in CA and it took down rents to get the properties leased up. Or since you are a fan of Florida, based on the latest K, 75 SHLD stores are in Florida. SRG has 26 stores in Florida btw. Not sure how many of the Florida SRG stores have been retenanted/redeveloped yet, but the available supply in Florida is about to triple. This is not an issue of a store in Miami and another one in rural Alabama.

 

Even comparing within a state makes no sense Candyman1.  It can be as specific as neighborhood or block.  Two retail locations can have substantially different rent profiles and be only blocks away from each other.  There isn't much logic in saying the supply in Florida will triple when a store services a few square miles.

[Candyman1]

Even comparing within a state makes no sense Candyman1.  It can be as specific as neighborhood or block.  Two retail locations can have substantially different rent profiles and be only blocks away from each other.  There isn't much logic in saying the supply in Florida will triple when a store services a few square miles.

 

Interesting ... so why did redevelopment deals and terms struggle in CA when Mervyn's took Chapter 7 with about 120 stores. I guess those stores don't cover a few square miles. =) I know someone that was involved in that situation. Yes, the store covers only a local area, but the tenants don't. And the tenants now will have three times the choices to pick where they will open their new stores. It is much easier to negotiate with landlords when you have 4 knocking on your door with a great location each than when you have one. And the landlords will all call on the same potential tenants at the same time.

[BTShine]

Candyman,

 

Interesting point.  Do you know if the rent rate $psf or length of vacancy had the bigger affect on properties during the Mervyn's process?   

[koshigoe]

Even comparing within a state makes no sense Candyman1.  It can be as specific as neighborhood or block.  Two retail locations can have substantially different rent profiles and be only blocks away from each other.  There isn't much logic in saying the supply in Florida will triple when a store services a few square miles.

Interesting ... so why did redevelopment deals and terms struggle in CA when Mervyn's took Chapter 7 with about 120 stores. I guess those stores don't cover a few square miles. =) I know someone that was involved in that situation. Yes, the store covers only a local area, but the tenants don't. And the tenants now will have three times the choices to pick where they will open their new stores. It is much easier to negotiate with landlords when you have 4 knocking on your door with a great location each than when you have one. And the landlords will all call on the same potential tenants at the same time.

 

Suppose you're correct Candyman, yes there will be more supply a la Mervyns, and rental rates should come down. SRG, as we have seen, should do just fine because 1) they can sit on properties acquired at garage sale prices (EV/sqft of $120/sq ft) and release far below what other REITs avg sq ft rental is for similar quality property for a nice profit and multiple of historical Sears rents => competitive advantage.

 

We have seen this over last several years with REIs, Olive Gardens, Steakhouses moving from literally blocks down the street to fill in the new supply at SRG.

 

I'd argue you're right, but I don't draw same conclusion as you. As Berkowitz said a couple of years back before he threw in the towel on all things SRG, "anyway you slice it, SRG is cheap" at around 40-something a share.

 

And with the 5 yr loan from BRK, to me SRG remains quite a lopsided positive bet, and nice risk adjusted returns.

 

 

edit: also getting the whole boxes back means the JVs can finally be greenlit with Macerich, Simon, and rest of GGP.

[Candyman1]

Even comparing within a state makes no sense Candyman1.  It can be as specific as neighborhood or block.  Two retail locations can have substantially different rent profiles and be only blocks away from each other.  There isn't much logic in saying the supply in Florida will triple when a store services a few square miles.

Interesting ... so why did redevelopment deals and terms struggle in CA when Mervyn's took Chapter 7 with about 120 stores. I guess those stores don't cover a few square miles. =) I know someone that was involved in that situation. Yes, the store covers only a local area, but the tenants don't. And the tenants now will have three times the choices to pick where they will open their new stores. It is much easier to negotiate with landlords when you have 4 knocking on your door with a great location each than when you have one. And the landlords will all call on the same potential tenants at the same time.

 

Suppose you're correct Candyman, yes there will be more supply a la Mervyns, and rental rates should come down. SRG, as we have seen, should do just fine because 1) they can sit on properties acquired at garage sale prices (EV/sqft of $120/sq ft) and release far below what other REITs avg sq ft rental is for similar quality property for a nice profit and multiple of historical Sears rents => competitive advantage.

 

We have seen this over last several years with REIs, Olive Gardens, Steakhouses moving from literally blocks down the street to fill in the new supply at SRG.

 

I'd argue you're right, but I don't draw same conclusion as you. As Berkowitz said a couple of years back before he threw in the towel on all things SRG, "anyway you slice it, SRG is cheap" at around 40-something a share.

 

And with the 5 yr loan from BRK, to me SRG remains quite a lopsided positive bet, and nice risk adjusted returns.

 

edit: also getting the whole boxes back means the JVs can finally be greenlit with Macerich, Simon, and rest of GGP.

 

You are seriously going to throw Berkowitz as a reference at me? LOL. If you show that guy a dollar bill, he'd tell you its worth two dollars. Go through his letters and reasoning why SHLD was worth so much more. Made no sense at all. All of his reasonings were laughable but the best one was when he put a value on the SHLD pharmacies.

[Candyman1]

Candyman,

 

Interesting point.  Do you know if the rent rate $psf or length of vacancy had the bigger affect on properties during the Mervyn's process? 

 

Spoke to my friend again and he said the drag was about $4 a sq foot. But keep in mind that Mervyn's went chapter 7 in the recession. So that was an issue too.

[BTShine]

Candyman,

 

Interesting point.  Do you know if the rent rate $psf or length of vacancy had the bigger affect on properties during the Mervyn's process? 

 

Spoke to my friend again and he said the drag was about $4 a sq foot. But keep in mind that Mervyn's went chapter 7 in the recession. So that was an issue too.

 

Thanks!  By 'drag of $4 psf' do you mean something leasing at $18 went to $14?  Did your friend mention what rates they were getting?

[Candyman1]

Candyman,

 

Interesting point.  Do you know if the rent rate $psf or length of vacancy had the bigger affect on properties during the Mervyn's process? 

 

Spoke to my friend again and he said the drag was about $4 a sq foot. But keep in mind that Mervyn's went chapter 7 in the recession. So that was an issue too.

 

Thanks!  By 'drag of $4 psf' do you mean something leasing at $18 went to $14?  Did your friend mention what rates they were getting?

 

Yes, on the best locations they had expected $14 and got $10 on the lower quality ones they ended up with $6 rather than $10. Now every store was different, but this was his generalized memory. $4 makes a big difference in final valuation.

[koshigoe]

 

You are seriously going to throw Berkowitz as a reference at me? LOL. If you show that guy a dollar bill, he'd tell you its worth two dollars. Go through his letters and reasoning why SHLD was worth so much more. Made no sense at all. All of his reasonings were laughable but the best one was when he put a value on the SHLD pharmacies.

 

Again, we agree - I thought he was crazy and on tilt to sell SRG in the 30s and give a one sentence reasoning as to why in his letter. As well as to invest in SHLD.

 

Berkowitz wasn't a reference in my above post, simply that the words he spoke about SRG (and ended up not believing himself) still ring true.

 

Straw man aside, SRG has strong properties (fact) and is low cost provider compared to competition (fact). They've been operating in tough environment for over 3 years and operationally have done quite well.  And best is yet to come with large projects. Look at some of the IRRs on the residential deal at Redmond, on the resale of Tanforan, on JV of West Hartford and Santa Monica. Clear, conservative path to 3 bagger in 7-10 years => ~15% compounded.

[Shane]

Even comparing within a state makes no sense Candyman1.  It can be as specific as neighborhood or block.  Two retail locations can have substantially different rent profiles and be only blocks away from each other.  There isn't much logic in saying the supply in Florida will triple when a store services a few square miles.

 

Interesting ... so why did redevelopment deals and terms struggle in CA when Mervyn's took Chapter 7 with about 120 stores. I guess those stores don't cover a few square miles. =) I know someone that was involved in that situation. Yes, the store covers only a local area, but the tenants don't. And the tenants now will have three times the choices to pick where they will open their new stores. It is much easier to negotiate with landlords when you have 4 knocking on your door with a great location each than when you have one. And the landlords will all call on the same potential tenants at the same time.

 

The point I am trying to make is that the stores coming online following a SHLD bankruptcy are likely not great locations and may not even compete with the SRG properties at all.  It is my belief that physical retail will still exist in the future, but many sites are no longer viable because of driving distance/inconvenience to customer.  Therefore, location will matter more in the future than in the past.  I don't know anything about Mervyn's, but I would imagine if it went bankrupt during the recession there was an abundance of properties on the market and a derth of tenants.  Do you think it closely parallels the situation with SRG, all things considered?

[Candyman1]

Even comparing within a state makes no sense Candyman1.  It can be as specific as neighborhood or block.  Two retail locations can have substantially different rent profiles and be only blocks away from each other.  There isn't much logic in saying the supply in Florida will triple when a store services a few square miles.

 

Interesting ... so why did redevelopment deals and terms struggle in CA when Mervyn's took Chapter 7 with about 120 stores. I guess those stores don't cover a few square miles. =) I know someone that was involved in that situation. Yes, the store covers only a local area, but the tenants don't. And the tenants now will have three times the choices to pick where they will open their new stores. It is much easier to negotiate with landlords when you have 4 knocking on your door with a great location each than when you have one. And the landlords will all call on the same potential tenants at the same time.

 

The point I am trying to make is that the stores coming online following a SHLD bankruptcy are likely not great locations and may not even compete with the SRG properties at all.  It is my belief that physical retail will still exist in the future, but many sites are no longer viable because of driving distance/inconvenience to customer.  Therefore, location will matter more in the future than in the past.  I don't know anything about Mervyn's, but I would imagine if it went bankrupt during the recession there was an abundance of properties on the market and a derth of tenants.  Do you think it closely parallels the situation with SRG, all things considered?

 

I disagree on the current SHLD. They just sold and leased back one property for $32 million. The properties sold under the mezz loan piece are selling for an average of around $10 million.

Yeah Mervyn's had the additional problem of the recession. 

[koshigoe]

"In malls where leases were signed decades ago, Sears rents could be as low as $4 a square foot. New tenants in the same space could bring as much as six times that amount."

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sears-exit-would-leave-big-holes-in-malls-some-landlords-welcome-that-1539342000

 

I don't think we see this situation again. There's not another Sears going under with these kind of goofy low rents. And SRG owns the best and the most.

[Candyman1]

"In malls where leases were signed decades ago, Sears rents could be as low as $4 a square foot. New tenants in the same space could bring as much as six times that amount."

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sears-exit-would-leave-big-holes-in-malls-some-landlords-welcome-that-1539342000

 

I don't think we see this situation again. There's not another Sears going under with these kind of goofy low rents. And SRG owns the best and the most.

 

Average new lease for SRG $17.5 per sq foot. Average SPG base minimum rent (before CAM) $53 per sq foot. Btw. if you assume that the $17.5 is before CAM, well SPG's  is close to $70 a sq foot after cam. Are you still sure that SRG "owns the best and the most". The SPG numbers are US numbers.

[Candyman1]

Straw man aside, SRG has strong properties (fact) and is low cost provider compared to competition (fact). They've been operating in tough environment for over 3 years and operationally have done quite well.  And best is yet to come with large projects. Look at some of the IRRs on the residential deal at Redmond, on the resale of Tanforan, on JV of West Hartford and Santa Monica. Clear, conservative path to 3 bagger in 7-10 years => ~15% compounded.

 

... the next 3 years are going to be a lot more challenging than the past 3 years. And I am not referring to the rough retail environment, no this one is specific to SRG.

[koshigoe]

Straw man aside, SRG has strong properties (fact) and is low cost provider compared to competition (fact). They've been operating in tough environment for over 3 years and operationally have done quite well.  And best is yet to come with large projects. Look at some of the IRRs on the residential deal at Redmond, on the resale of Tanforan, on JV of West Hartford and Santa Monica. Clear, conservative path to 3 bagger in 7-10 years => ~15% compounded.

 

... the next 3 years are going to be a lot more challenging than the past 3 years. And I am not referring to the rough retail environment, no this one is specific to SRG.

 

how will it be more difficult? in the last 3 years they've scaled a business from scratch to one of the leading retail developers in the US as far as development backlog.

 

1) scaled up from skeleton crew to 70+ full timers over last three years

2) instituted JV policies and asset sales as well as capital raising - now they're proven veterans with well placed and high quality partners and contacts

3) steady state leasing of around 500k sq ft per quarter at 4x multiples - all while scaling up!

4) ended talk of liquidity concerns, as by the time the 2B is due in 4.5 years, they will have several hundred million in rev.

 

so now with all that out of the way, you're saying just executing - now with laser like focus - will be tougher? signs point to no.

 

 

 

 

 

[koshigoe]

Average new lease for SRG $17.5 per sq foot. Average SPG base minimum rent (before CAM) $53 per sq foot. Btw. if you assume that the $17.5 is before CAM, well SPG's  is close to $70 a sq foot after cam. Are you still sure that SRG "owns the best and the most". The SPG numbers are US numbers.

 

uh, *** gross conceptual error alert ***.

 

form an earlier post:

All mall REITs cheat (industry practice) and don't include dept stores in their per foot rent averages. A holdover from the olden days and probably misleading at best, in the new de-malling, mixed use paradigm. For example, Macerich only reports per square foot for stores under 10k sq ft.

 

To be specific, from SPG 10k edit: pg 58

 

We include all company owned space except for mall anchors, mall majors, mall freestanding and mall outlots in the calculation. Base minimum rent per square foot is the average base minimum rent charge in effect for the reporting period for all tenants that would qualify to be included in ending occupancy.

 

Total Sales per Square Foot. Total sales include total reported retail tenant sales on a trailing 12‐month basis at owned GLA (for mall stores with less than 10,000 square feet) in the malls and The Mills and stores with less than 20,000 square feet in the Premium Outlets. Retail sales at owned GLA affect revenue and profitability levels because sales determine the amount of minimum rent that can be charged, the percentage rent realized, and the recoverable expenses (common area maintenance, real estate taxes, etc.) that tenants can afford to pay.

 

if anything, that comically inflated rent avg is warning signs for SPG and $$ signs for SRG. As Bezos says, your margin is my opportunity.

 

Are you one of the shorts I've been loaning shares to for the last two years?

[Candyman1]

Straw man aside, SRG has strong properties (fact) and is low cost provider compared to competition (fact). They've been operating in tough environment for over 3 years and operationally have done quite well.  And best is yet to come with large projects. Look at some of the IRRs on the residential deal at Redmond, on the resale of Tanforan, on JV of West Hartford and Santa Monica. Clear, conservative path to 3 bagger in 7-10 years => ~15% compounded.

 

... the next 3 years are going to be a lot more challenging than the past 3 years. And I am not referring to the rough retail environment, no this one is specific to SRG.

 

how will it be more difficult? in the last 3 years they've scaled a business from scratch to one of the leading retail developers in the US as far as development backlog.

 

1) scaled up from skeleton crew to 70+ full timers over last three years

2) instituted JV policies and asset sales as well as capital raising - now they're proven veterans with well placed and high quality partners and contacts

3) steady state leasing of around 500k sq ft per quarter at 4x multiples - all while scaling up!

4) ended talk of liquidity concerns, as by the time the 2B is due in 4.5 years, they will have several hundred million in rev.

 

so now with all that out of the way, you're saying just executing - now with laser like focus - will be tougher? signs point to no.

 

One of the four you got wrong. I'll let you figure out which one it is.

[Candyman1]

Average new lease for SRG $17.5 per sq foot. Average SPG base minimum rent (before CAM) $53 per sq foot. Btw. if you assume that the $17.5 is before CAM, well SPG's  is close to $70 a sq foot after cam. Are you still sure that SRG "owns the best and the most". The SPG numbers are US numbers.

 

uh, *** gross conceptual error alert ***.

 

form an earlier post:

All mall REITs cheat (industry practice) and don't include dept stores in their per foot rent averages. A holdover from the olden days and probably misleading at best, in the new de-malling, mixed use paradigm. For example, Macerich only reports per square foot for stores under 10k sq ft.

 

To be specific, from SPG 10k edit: pg 58

 

We include all company owned space except for mall anchors, mall majors, mall freestanding and mall outlots in the calculation. Base minimum rent per square foot is the average base minimum rent charge in effect for the reporting period for all tenants that would qualify to be included in ending occupancy.

 

Total Sales per Square Foot. Total sales include total reported retail tenant sales on a trailing 12‐month basis at owned GLA (for mall stores with less than 10,000 square feet) in the malls and The Mills and stores with less than 20,000 square feet in the Premium Outlets. Retail sales at owned GLA affect revenue and profitability levels because sales determine the amount of minimum rent that can be charged, the percentage rent realized, and the recoverable expenses (common area maintenance, real estate taxes, etc.) that tenants can afford to pay.

 

if anything, that comically inflated rent avg is warning signs for SPG and $$ signs for SRG. As Bezos says, your margin is my opportunity.

 

Are you one of the shorts I've been loaning shares to for the last two years?

 

Yes, and is SRG trying to rent out the space to mall anchors? Fine you can cut that number in two and that still gets you $26 per sq foot for SPG. Again does that mean that SRG "owns the best and most". It still cannot get to that number. You said SRG got the best stores/locations, well wouldn't one expect then rents to be higher than even the ones advertized by 50% of SPG numbers?

[Candyman1]

form an earlier post:

All mall REITs cheat (industry practice) and don't include dept stores in their per foot rent averages. A holdover from the olden days and probably misleading at best, in the new de-malling, mixed use paradigm. For example, Macerich only reports per square foot for stores under 10k sq ft.

 

So i guess if all of these reits "cheat", I have to assume that SRG isn't "cheating"?

[SlowAppreciation]

https://turnaround.org/jcr/2017/11/sears-srg-and-economics-fraudulent-conveyance

[koshigoe]

form an earlier post:

All mall REITs cheat (industry practice) and don't include dept stores in their per foot rent averages. A holdover from the olden days and probably misleading at best, in the new de-malling, mixed use paradigm. For example, Macerich only reports per square foot for stores under 10k sq ft.

 

So i guess if all of these reits "cheat", I have to assume that SRG isn't "cheating"?

 

that's correct. They lay out their performance data as the chips fall.

 

Do you really support the idea of not including some of your owned space if it looks bad for rental prices?  "Oh that rate is too low, don't worry we just won't count it! lolololol"

 

We are no longer in 1985, segregated residential, industrial, retail...the future is mixed use and excluding "anchors" in rental numbers is avoiding reality.

 

But that's why SRG is cheap, because people who just look at top line numbers that are bogus come to the wrong conclusion.

 

 

 

 

[koshigoe]

You said SRG got the best stores/locations, well wouldn't one expect then rents to be higher than even the ones advertized by 50% of SPG numbers?

 

no!

 

the thesis, through a margin of safety lens, is that SRG can undercut these inflated rent levels, release space at 17 (or 25$ a square foot if you look to projected stabilized numbers) and still make 4-5x off their rents at acquisition.

 

this is the worst case.

 

the best case is that their properties are in fact as good as Simon and Macerich on the whole, and will command quite high rents, like those already seen at San Diego, and soon to be seen at Aventura, Hicksville, Valley View and others.

 

but a lot of SRG value will be proven through JVs with residential sales, as seen already at Redmond and Hicksville.  SRG is a different beast than Simon or Macerich or GGP.  I mean, GGP was sold to BPY because they realized they were screwed and couldn't change to mixed use in a public environment.

 

the situation is more nuanced than just picking headline rent numbers and saying x >y.