My First Truther?

RedIbis said:
He bid for the 99 year lease. It gave him the rights to lease the real estate, as well as collect the insurance.

If he were simply a leasee, as opposed to the leaseholder, he wouldn't be collecting on anything.
Click to expand...

The word you were looking for there is "lessee", not "leasee". The lessee is otherwise known as the leaseholder, and your semantic games are not going to get you past the fact that you were wrong.

If you are honest in applying your own standards, you still owe PhantomWolf an apology.
 
Last edited:
Alferd_Packer said:
Was she cute?
Click to expand...

Al ... May I call you Al? Love your culinary talents... if you meant to ask me about my chance to buy RedIbis at the Scandinavian institute... In the shop on Park ave (I don't have the address, it was around 38th St, can look it up) they had some glass birds, and what to my wondering eyes should appear, but our friend RedIbis.

Like I say, I resisted buying him/ her.

ETA: Whoops-la! www.amscan.org Park ave between 37 and 38. American-Scandinavian Foundation. Nice lunches, except for too much herring.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
He bid for the 99 year lease. It gave him the rights to lease the real estate, as well as collect the insurance.

If he were simply a leasee, as opposed to the leaseholder, he wouldn't be collecting on anything.
Click to expand...
Can I ask what the difference is between a leasee and a leaseholder?
 
PhantomWolf said:
That doesn't make him the owner, the PA was still the owner. Just admit you got it wrong Red, you'll be the bigger for it. Right now you look pretty silly and are getting sillier by the minute as you try and squirm out of it.
Click to expand...

I will admit that obtaining a 99 year lease is just a damn euphemism for what LS was. He enjoyed the benefits of holding all of the commercial leases.

Now recall for me his initial investment. Compare that with his first insurance recovery. Now add this new claim.

Explain how that is a loss, please.
 
Mr. Skinny said:
Can I ask what the difference is between a leasee and a leaseholder?
Click to expand...

What's the difference between a renter and the landlord?

If the bldg collapses, the renter doesn't get to collect on the insurance claims.
 
Wow Red. I never expected someone as civil and polite as you to be such as ass and not admit you were wrong.

But true to form, like every other CTist on the planet, guys like you never fail to live below even my lowest expectations.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
What's the difference between a renter and the landlord?

If the bldg collapses, the renter doesn't get to collect on the insurance claims.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute... So when I was a renter... I had no insurance??

We need a real estate insurance expert, not a civilian.
 
Mr. Skinny said:
Can I ask what the difference is between a leasee and a leaseholder?
Click to expand...


A lessee (not "leasee") = a leaseholder. There is no difference. The terms of various leases, of course, vary immensely, but the terms "lessee" and "leaseholder" are interchangeable.
 
LashL said:
A lessee (not "leasee") = a leaseholder. There is no difference. The terms of various leases, of course, vary immensely, but the terms "lessee" and "leaseholder" are interchangeable.
Click to expand...
Well, that's what I thought.

I guess RedIbis just misspoke.

Thanks.
 
RedIbis said:
What's the difference between a renter and the landlord?
Click to expand...


You are, clearly, in over your head here, RedIbis. You should just admit your error and cut your losses.

RedIbis said:
If the bldg collapses, the renter doesn't get to collect on the insurance claims.
Click to expand...


This is not true. It all depends upon the terms of the lease. Your knowledge of commercial leasing is, obviously, lacking.
 
Mr. Skinny said:
Well, that's what I thought.

I guess RedIbis just misspoke.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly. Heinekens and a long week of work make for impulsive posting. But are we not quibbling over LS's role with the WTC?

He bid and received a 99 year lease, essentially allowing him to collect rent and insurance claims on the complex. He's not a renter, he's the leaseholder. Did the PA collect insurance claims on the loss of the towers?
 
LashL said:
This is not true. It all depends upon the terms of the lease. Your knowledge of commercial leasing is, obviously, lacking.
Click to expand...

Not at all surprisingly you seized upon the tedious qualifier I should have made. The only claim a renter could receive would be on personal property, perhaps the money required to find another property.

My point is that the leaseholder enjoys all of the benefits of an owner. Now explan for me how Larry doesn't make out like a bandit, as not even the PA can do.
 
RedIbis said:
My point is that the leaseholder enjoys all of the benefits of an owner. Now explan for me how Larry doesn't make out like a bandit, as not even the PA can do.
Click to expand...

Because Red, HE HAS TO PAY TO HAVE THE BUILDINGS REBUILT!

Oh, and BTW, he's said that the settlement will pay back the Insurers so he won't get both of them like you seem to be implying above.
 
RedIbis said:
Quite possibly. Heinekens and a long week of work make for impulsive posting. But are we not quibbling over LS's role with the WTC?

He bid and received a 99 year lease, essentially allowing him to collect rent and insurance claims on the complex. He's not a renter, he's the leaseholder. Did the PA collect insurance claims on the loss of the towers?
Click to expand...
Red, I was just trying to understand your argument, and, as you know, words have meaning.

As I said, I assume you misspoke and nothing more.

However, as far as I'm concerned, LS was a renter (lessee) who was allowed to sub-lease, regardless of the 99 year term. Is this not correct?
 
wow red, you are clearly clueless about renting and commercial buildings).

renters/leaseholders can apply for their own insurance on the space/buildings they rent/lease to recover costs, should something out of their control happens (of course if the renter/lessee deliberately damages the building/space then that is not covered)

and per agreement, renters/lessees must return the property they are renting/leasing in the condition they received it in, or else pay $$$ to make repairs to damages.
 
Mr. Skinny said:
Red, I was just trying to understand your argument, and, as you know, words have meaning.

As I said, I assume you misspoke and nothing more.

However, as far as I'm concerned, LS was a renter (lessee) who was allowed to sub-lease, regardless of the 99 year term. Is this not correct?
Click to expand...

He seems to be hanging his argument on the fact that Silverstein had the buildings insured, but this is ignoring the 80-tonne Gorilla riding the 400 tonne pink elephant, that under the lease that Buildings had to be returned in a similar condition to when leased. That means the renter (Silverstein) is finically responsible for any and all damage to the buildings. What moron wouldn't insure them under that contract?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom