Quantcast

Ruby's To Reopen Saturday for Rally and Protest

Over the weekend, Ruby's Bar and Grill closed for the season. But on Monday, the owners learned that after more than 70 years on the Coney Island boardwalk, their lease would not be renewed, along with eight other businesses that don't conform to Zamperla/CAI's vague vision of a generic, year-round restaurant sports bar megacomplex. Because who can resist Coney Island in February?! There's been a bitter outcry over the evictions, and on Saturday starting at 12:30 p.m. Ruby's will reopen for one day for a protest to "tell Zamperla, Markowitz, Recchia, Bloomberg and CIDC we won't go quietly." Meanwhile, the blog Amusing the Zillion thinks it's found hope.

The land is owned by the city—the Bloomberg administration paid $95.7 million to buy it from the previous bad guy Joe Sitt. It's leased to Zamerpla/CAI, which this summer turned the former Astroland site into Luna Park. That company is the one deciding which merchants get to stay alive, but Amusing the Zillion notices that the NYCEDC’s Coney Island Amusement Operator RFP states that "The Selected Respondent [Zamperla] may propose to include subtenants for portions of their proposed operations, but such subtenants, and such subtenant agreements, shall be subject to NYCEDC approval."

In other words, the Bloomberg administration has the authority to step in and stop the genericafication of Coney Island. We're not holding our breath on that, but we are waiting for someone at NYCEDC to get back to us. A petition addressed to Mayor Bloomberg and Zamperla president Valerio Ferrari begins, "It has been brought to my attention that a historic piece of Coney Island is being kicked out. How does a business that has been there since 1934 get kicked out?"

John “Cha Cha” Ciarcia, who owns Cha Cha's and the Beer Island, calls the eviction a "criminal act" and "a conspiracy." He's joined forces with the operators of Ruby's, shoot the Freak, the Grill House, and Gregory & Paul to fight Zamperla. "They told me they were going to give me [a renewal for] three [years], three, and three — nine years,' he tells Grub Street. "It sounded like a sure thing. They probably told us that because if they told us they were going to throw us out, we wouldn’t pay the rent. Which I’m sorry I paid the rent." He currently pays $100,000 a month, up from the $15,000 he paid when he opened nine years ago.

"My heart is broken,"
one Cha Cha's waitress says. "I want to break down and cry. They’re going to try to turn it into A.C., but what they don’t understand is it’s an urban community and the urban is not going to move out of that community. Bloomberg does not go to bat for the people that live here and it’s all about the tourists and what they can bring in."

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

Comments [rss]

  • dsfger

    Sandal $32

    nike shox $32

    handbag $33

    Sunglass $15

    ╭⌒╭⌒ ★ ╮╭⌒╮~╭⌒

    ☆ ╭⌒╮ ╭⌒

    our websit: ★∴ ☆

    ☆ ==== http://simurl.com/voblec ====

    ╭⌒╮⌒╮★∵╭⌒ ★∴ ☆

    ╱◥██◣ ☆

    |田|田田│ ☆ ★

    ╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬

  • heycarrieann

    Bloomberg sucks.

  • Xwendekar

    I just signed the petition (there's a link in the story). It only had 230-some-odd signatures. If it's going to go anywhere they need a lot more, so by all means, sign on!

  • RevWaldo
  • Wza

    I signed it too.

  • korper

    "Bloomberg does not go to bat for the people that live here and it’s all about the tourists and what they can bring in."

    You said a mouthful, lady.

  • jaycjay

    "In other words, the Bloomberg administration has the authority to step in and stop the genericafication of Coney Island."

    Besides the obvious fact that the administration has no reason or desire to stop "genericafication", I don't see much hope in the way that RFP quote is worded. It seems to say that the city has the right to veto a subtenant once a any specific one is proposed by the tenant. It doesn't seem to imply any power to simply say that the businesses there get to stay.

    And that's just from the RFP, which isn't now binding on anyone in any way. What is more important is whether that clause or a variant of it actually was in the final lease agreement.

  • RevWaldo

    It's the whole patroon aspect of this that bothers me. How does a business occupy the same location for 70+ years and still wind up paying a rent? (My guess is that they once owned the property but did a sell-it-and-lease-it-back deal during a money crunch.) They should own the property lock, stock and barrel. Bloomie oughta just offer to sell it to them - insider's price, 30 year lease, 5% fixed interest. (And yes, he gets a plaque above the bar for doing it.)

blog comments powered by Disqus

send a tip

tips@gothamist.com