Queen Ann cafeteria going out of business!

[soonerguru]

If the business was doing well then they wouldn't just let it die unless they wanted it to.

Besides revealing yourself as probably the most arrogant member of this board (gee, thanks for the capitalist lectures; I'll be sure and hit you up for a stock tip), you also appear to be the most ill-informed.

Clearly you have no knowledge of the success of their business. If you did, you would notice the nightly lines to eat there, and the loyalty of satisfied diners who have enjoyed their food for decades.

Gee, Mr. big shot GOP laissez faire smarty pants, I'm not at all surprised you care so little for the 250 people who are now likely unemployed, and a local business success story relegated to history. It's all "just business" to you.

[BailJumper]

Arrogant? Give me a break. So, if I don't hold your precious cafeteria in as high of regard as you then I'm arrogant. I'm a realist and here's a reality check you don't seem to be able to grasp. The owner of the QA was LEASING, as a tenant you know there are 100 ways to Sunday to boot you out. The owner also knew the property was being sold and what the plans of the new owners were. Doesn't seem to me that the new owner hid any of this from the tenant. If the QA is doing so great and has lines going around the building and yet they still do not want to relocate then don't blame the buildings owner, blame the owner of the QA.

As for the 250 people. Yeah, sucks for them, but HELLO they are in the food business, it's not like they were overpaid GM workers with nowhere to go to make the same money. Are you telling me that a food worker with an average of 7 years steady work history cannot get a job somewhere else? Also, I'll be real interested to hear what the QA's owner is doing as far as severance for the workers he held in such high regard. I'm guessing - very little to NOTHING.

It's a restaurant folks - get over it!

[ksearls]

This all makes me very sad. We have been going to QA for years at least 3 or 4 times a month. It's the place my 12-year-old son has chosen for his birthday faithfully (chicken leg, double mashed potatoes, soft roll and red jello) when he could go anywhere he wanted.

We meet my parents there for quick meals, everyone gets what they want and everyone is happy. Standing in line is a who's who of most of the City's old guard. My husband calls it God's Waiting Room and my son always says we have to get there fast before the old people eat all the chicken.

I worry about the mentally challenged guy who always takes our trays and fills our water. We always leave him a nice tip. He has worked there for as long as I can remember, I hope he will be ok.

Whatever the reason for the demise of QA, we will miss it!

[auntiec]

I agree, I would hate to see Queen Ann go out of business. However, I'm not sure they are. Everyone is reacting to the notion that some big corporate entity has taken over and is forcing them out of business. Such is not the case. Queen Ann had been deliquent on rent, and any attempt in negotiations had failed. John Schroer, owner of Queen Ann, did not want to come to the bargaining table. Long story short, the court ruled in favor of Founders Tower Condominimus, saying that Queen Ann had breeched their contract. The ruling effectively terminated their lease and turned the property over to Founders. Founders has tried repeatedly to ensure Queen Ann stays around for another 42 years, but Schroer refuses to talk to Founders about what can be done to keep his business alive. Now...no one with Founders has ever communicated in any way whatsoever that they have to shut their doors. In fact, every year Queen Ann closes on Dec. 23 to celebrate the holidays and re-opens in early January. Seems to me that Schroer is simply trying to pull at OKC's heart strings and make Founders look like the bad guy, when they are absolutely not (surely OKC won't fall for words without proof?!). Just the opposite is the case. When Founders Condominimums, LLC took over, they paid for a new 2.5 ton A/C unit, along with various other repairs and maintenence previous owners had neglected. So, seems to me that Founders isn't as bad as Schroer or anyone else would have you believe.

You are totally right, Craig. I know for a fact that Founders do not want Queen Ann to leave. They want to keep it there and keep every one of the employees. Shroer has pulled this stunt before with previous owners, taking them to court, trying to get his way. Because he lost this case, he is trying to win sympathy and make Founders out to be evil.

[jbrown84]

It sounds to me like Shroer was pretty stupid to assume that he could deduct from his rent with the new owners just because the old owners let him. He should not have been surprised that they reacted the way they did.

[metro]

writeranger, it makes me a little suspicious of this new guy on this forum, craig, he only has 3 posts and just joined a few days ago. ironically the guy affiliated with the condo's is craig. coincidence maybe, but the odds aren't in his favor for people to believe his side of the story, especially when he seems so informed about the situation. as ksearls said, whatever the reason this institution will be missed. that's sad when I know it is and I'm fairly young and have never been there to my knowledge but I can realize it needs to stay.

[BailJumper]

Who cares who Craig is, if he isn't being completely up front about his identity he wouldn't be the first. Why does everybody here PM everyone else about who people really are but never get it out in the forum?

I'm new and at least two people have been outed to me by other members privately. People come to these types of forums with an agenda of some sort.

Look at the hit and run posters that were around during the election time to spew their venum, just to disappear right after.

Personally, I don't know you people and I'd never divulge enough to be identified.

[Easy180]

Who cares who Craig is, if he isn't being completely up front about his identity he wouldn't be the first. Why does everybody here PM everyone else about who people really are but never get it out in the forum?

I'm new and at least two people have been outed to me by other members privately. People come to these types of forums with an agenda of some sort.

Look at the hit and run posters that were around during the election time to spew their venum, just to disappear right after.

Personally, I don't know you people and I'd never divulge enough to be identified.

Aha...Just caught you bailjumper....Or should I say.....Bob Stoops

[BailJumper]

ooops, the gig is up!

[soonerguru]

Look at the hit and run posters that were around during the election time to spew their venum, just to disappear right after.

Hmmm.....I see that you joined in October of 2006. I see that you are here spewing more venom than anyone I recall in the last year and a half.

Classic projection on your behalf?

Not that you care, but you don't seem to be particularly nice, thoughtful or even happy. Just my opinion.

There were people here discussing the election and most of the discussions I read were polite and civil. Don't recall much in the way of venom.

[BailJumper]

Spewing venum? Let me guess, code world for "that mean man doesn't agree with me. waaaaaaaa!"

I'm still here am I not and discussing several topics.

You don't have a clue regarding anything about me being nice, thoughtful or otherwise and certainly don't have anything but your ignorance to base those comments on.

This is a forum is it not? The purpose is to discuss, debate or otherwise engage in conversation. Maybe I missed the "all minds must think alike club" sign hanging on the door.

I think your already missing your precious QA jello so much its effecting your mood.

[trison]

I hear that Queen Ann's has been a thorn in the side of every owner of Founders Tower. Sounds like they finally found someone who wouldn't put up with their nonsense any longer.

[Kerry]

Back to the topic. The owners of the property have been accused of being greedy. It seems to me that the QA owner is the greedy one. Person A is owed $690 by person B. Person B doesn't pay. Person A takes B to court and wins. Person B say "Fine, I'll just close then."

Seems to me person B is the one being greedy. In fact, he is so greedy that he will disrupt the lives of "loyal" employees and destroy the reputation of Person A. Gee, I would love to be person B's neighbor. They must get along swell.

I know some of you think there is more going on than a dispute over $690, but all of the evidence points to only that. Both sides cite the same thing.

[writerranger]

Back to the topic. The owners of the property have been accused of being greedy. It seems to me that the QA owner is the greedy one. Person A is owed $690 by person B. Person B doesn't pay. Person A takes B to court and wins. Person B say "Fine, I'll just close then."

Seems to me person B is the one being greedy. In fact, he is so greedy that he will disrupt the lives of "loyal" employees and destroy the reputation of Person A. Gee, I would love to be person B's neighbor. They must get along swell.

I know some of you think there is more going on than a dispute over $690, but all of the evidence points to only that. Both sides cite the same thing.

Kerry,

You've been misinformed. The $690 is what STARTED the problem, and they both agree to that. But that's not THE problem. What is that? The developer, Mr. MEYER took QA to court for breech of contract and won. That allowed him the option to terminate the lease, he told the judge he wanted to terminate the lease and the judge ordered the property turned over to MEYER. Mr. MEYER knows this yet has said - in public - that he thinks this could be a ploy by Mr. Schroer to play on the sympathy of the public and things could maybe be worked out, if only Schroer....did something. Uh, hello? Do you see the problem, Kerry? MEYER has already had the court turn the property over to him. Considering that, how could Mr. Schroer re-open the cafeteria in January as usual? It's double-talk. The legal game is over. Mr. Schroer has been portrayed as some awful tenant through a whispering campaign at this site and that's just despicable. Mr. Schroer is a kind man who simply runs a cafeteria. He doesn't know the ins and outs of the legal system like Jim MEYER (who knows it well).

Is this just not as obvious as it can be?

- MEYER buys Founders.
- MEYER knows a cafeteria is not going to fit his "hip vision" of 360.
- Schroer makes a mistake that allowed the doors to open to a breech of contract suit.
- MEYER jumps at his good fortune and the chance to get rid of QA with a BOC complaint and a court-approved termination of the lease.
- MEYER has 360 humming along and Queen Ann will soon be gone.
- Blame it all on Mr. Schroer.

Look at it as if you were investigating a homicide. Who has the motive, means and opportunity?

Motive: MEYER wants something hipper than QA to "anchor" the base of his over-priced condos.
Means: Schroer did what he's always done and deducted $690 for plumbing, technically causing a breech in contract. ($690 late)
Opportunity: The breech of contract opened the door - through legal means - to terminate the lease.

Motive, Means and Opportunity. Who had all three over that $690 plumbing bill?

Spinning this with a whispering campaign that Schroer has always been a "bad tenant," and that MEYER "really would like to keep the Queen Ann," (sure)....and turning this thing upside down to make the millionaire developer look as if he is the victim is just too much. I am surprised that it has worked with several of you.

Motive. Means. Opportunity. MEYER: Guilty of being another greedy developer and running a good man and his landmark cafeteria out of business.

---------------------------

[jbrown84]

[B]Schroer did what he's always done and deducted $690 for plumbing, technically causing a breech in contract.

Why would any reasonable person assume that if their landlord had changed that they could continue the rather unorthodox practice of deducting from their own rent?

I don't know either party in this dipute, but you seem rather one sided. You certainly don't know Mr. Meyer's motives and can only assume that this conspiracy exists. Maybe he sued him because he refused to pay his full rent. Maybe that's all it was, and he's just trying to get past it, but Mr. Shroer refuses to. I don't know the truth, but you don't either.

[writerranger]

Why would any reasonable person assume that if their landlord had changed that they could continue the rather unorthodox practice of deducting from their own rent?

I don't know either party in this dipute, but you seem rather one sided. You certainly don't know Mr. Meyer's motives and can only assume that this conspiracy exists. Maybe he sued him because he refused to pay his full rent. Maybe that's all it was, and he's just trying to get past it, but Mr. Shroer refuses to. I don't know the truth, but you don't either.

Well, yeah I do know a little about it. I've done some looking into this and there's no doubt - at least in my mind - that Meyer has railroaded Queen Ann out of business. I think I DO know the truth or I wouldn't feel as strongly as I do. Give me a little credit. At least before giving it to the millionaire developer who wanted to expand his empire by cleanly removing obstacles to his latest project! Please.

Agreements for reasonable repairs under $1000 being deducted from rent, by the way, is NOT an "unorthodox" practice.

As far as being one-sided, I will proudly hang my hat there. Aren't you one-sided about things you feel passionately about and believe that you are right? When you feel you know the truth and want the truth to be known? Of course you are!

As for motives, YES, I think it's pretty well agreed that Mr. Meyer didn't want Queen Ann as the anchor at the base of his hip 360 condos. Sometimes, you can easily deduce motives without having a "smoking gun" that is proof of motive.

One other thing.....I don't claim a "conspiracy"......I claim a developer wanted to get rid of an unwanted tenant and took advantage of the first opportunity to do it. That isn't a conspiracy, it's just taking advantage of a situation that allowed for what MEYER wanted. That doesn't define a "conspiracy." One thing I know it is: a sleazy thing to do to a landmark in this city, but very typical of these types.

----

[EagleTalk]

The Queen Ann Cafeteria is an extraordinary family-owned business with an amazing clientele, whether you simply count the tremendous number of people who eat there on any given day or you take note that some of Oklahoma City’s most distinguished citizens are among its customers. The atmosphere is pleasant, the food is consistently exceptional, the staff is courteous and professional, and the owner, John Schroer, is generally walking among the customers, greeting them, and ensuring that their dining experience is absolutely top-notch in all respects. The Queen employees readily tell you that they love their job, that they have worked there a long time and never want to leave, that Mr. Schroer is very generous with them in terms of salary and bonus packages and encouragement, but also in terms of helping them, financially or otherwise, when they have personal situations that arise. For the employees, the Queen is not just a place to work, it is the home of their surrogate family. Many of the employees refer to John Schroer as “Papa”, and think of him as a Father figure. For the customers, the Queen is an 42-year old business establishment that has become an integral part of their lives that they do not want to lose. It cannot be duplicated, it has no equal, there is no other like it. It is not just a place to dine, but rather a place where business deals are negotiated and brought to fruition, and where new friends and business contacts are made and old friends stay in touch.

The Bridgeport CEO categorized Mr. Schroer as a “difficult tenant”. The reality of the matter is that Mr. Schroer is held in high esteem by his employees, his customers, and much of the Oklahoma City populace, and typically is considered to be a kind and generous man with the highest integrity and principles, a real professional, and a real people person. Even so, one might expect Mr. Schroer to become a bit "difficult" if faced with a large organization who appears intent on trying to destroy his lease and his business and his employees' livelihood. It is incomprehensible how an organization like Bridgeport failed to recognize the value of the Queen to the community or to Bridgeport's own business development efforts. Instead, Bridgeport chose to “throw the baby out with the bathwater” in seeking to revoke a long-standing lease with Mr. Schroer over a $690 issue. Bridgeport won its case on a technicality, since the four corners of the lease allegedly required Mr. Schroer to contact Bridgeport before proceeding with repairs. However, it remains clear that Bridgeport’s real agenda must extend far greater than $690 for it to seek to totally destroy a well-respected Oklahoma City business for such a miniscule amount of money. Bridgeport obviously watched and waited for an opportunity to take legal action against Mr. Schroer, recognizing that such an action would dissolve any chances of a positive relationship with him. Bridgeport won its court case, but in fact it has lost much more. The Queen is closing its doors and auctioning off all its equipment and furniture, and all of its employees have been notified that their jobs are gone. It should be pointed out that Mr. Schroer has advised his employees that they will still get their annual bonuses this year, notwithstanding the terrible thing that has happened, and that he will assist them in any way possible to find new employment. However, hundreds of well-respected citizens and customers are angry, and want to individually and collectively take whatever action necessary to reverse this travesty. These people will long remember the name of Bridgeport, as well as the name of Bridgeport’s CEO, and if they or their friends or family decide to consider upscale condominium living as a viable option, it definitely will not be in the Founders Tower that Bridgeport is now terming “the 360”, or in any other development that contains the Bridgeport name.

[jbrown84]

Well, yeah I do know a little about it. I've done some looking into this and there's no doubt - at least in my mind - that Meyer has railroaded Queen Ann out of business. I think I DO know the truth or I wouldn't feel as strongly as I do. Give me a little credit. At least before giving it to the millionaire developer who wanted to expand his empire by cleanly removing obstacles to his latest project! Please.

I'm not necessarily taking Meyer's side here, I'm just willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. You say you know all the facts, yet all I see is Shroer's side of the story and your assumptions about Meyer.

And the only reason I pointed out your one-sidedness was because you were so adamant that Kerry was "misinformed" and you basically were accusing him of being one sided in the other direction.

And perhaps the rent deduction was not unorthodox (I've never heard of such a thing), but you call it an agreement. Yes an agreement with the previous owners that Shroer had no reason to assume he had with the new owners.

[writerranger]

I'm not necessarily taking Meyer's side here, I'm just willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. You say you know all the facts, yet all I see is Shroer's side of the story and your assumptions about Meyer.

And the only reason I pointed out your one-sidedness was because you were so adamant that Kerry was "misinformed" and you basically were accusing him of being one sided in the other direction.

And perhaps the rent deduction was not unorthodox (I've never heard of such a thing), but you call it an agreement. Yes an agreement with the previous owners that Shroer had no reason to assume he had with the new owners.

You obviously aren't getting the point. The $690 gave Meyer the MEANS to an end. Is that not crystal clear? Really? Other than that, the $690 means nothing to this story. Explain how Meyer can get the court to turn over QA to him and then hours later be telling the media that he is still hoping they can work things out and putting all the blame on Shroer. I've known this man and been eating at his cafeteria since before you were born if the 84 means anything in your username. I was just asking that you give me a little credit for knowing enough to form an opinion that allows for my emotional response. I laid it all out in post number 30 of this thread. To me, and many others, it's clear as a bell what has happened here. Yes, it's one-sided. Truth usually is.

-------------------

[Pete]

I've never eaten in Queen Anne and don't really have a strong opinion on this one way or another, but it seems pretty clear Bridgeport wants them out.

Why else would the new landlord take legal action over such a small dollar amount and/or relatively trivial matters? Sounds like they pounced on the first opportunity to get a judgment against them and that's not the type of thing you do when you are trying to build an amicable relationship with tenants.


Oklahoma City is still a pretty tightly-knit community -- especially in the business world -- and while Bridgeport might like to have a different type of business in that space for their new development, they are going to p!ss off lots of people by going down this road.

The simple matter is that no one will ever know the full story but the overwhelming perception will be: Greedy new owners evict beloved 42 year-old business and leaves employees and lots of senior citizens out in the cold.

This, on the heals of demolishing the Continental.


They are digging themselves quite a hole in terms of community goodwill.

[Kerry]

I have never seen a copy of the lease so I can't say what clauses are in it. I do know this - if you have owned a business for 25 years you better know the legal system. In fact - food services is one of the heaviest regulated business there is. Couple that with his clientel of old people and I bet Shroer know more about the legal system than anyone on this site.

Another thing I don't understand is why the QA just can't move to another location.

[writerranger]

I have never seen a copy of the lease so I can't say what clauses are in it. I do know this - if you have owned a business for 25 years you better know the legal system. In fact - food services is one of the heaviest regulated business there is. Couple that with his clientel of old people and I bet Shroer know more about the legal system than anyone on this site.

Another thing I don't understand is why the QA just can't move to another location.

And your point being? I was simply saying he's not in the same ball park as Jim Meyer and his buddies when it comes to real estate law. That seems a given to me. Reading your past posts Kerry, I would think you would be supporting the little guy being run over by a corporate developer who couldn't care less about the locally owned and operated Queen Ann or its people. By the way, it is a MYTH that the Queen's only business was from, "old people" (Your words).

Move to another location? When you have been using long-term leases? (Which he had eight years left!) With what equity do you use to gain the liquidity to build a new cafeteria with the charm of the Queen Ann? At his age, he would have no interest in taking on debt of that size. You realize, outside of the equipment, it would be like starting over? And don't start on that, "He shouldn't have been leasing," business. That was a business decision to locate at the base of the Founders DECADES AGO. There was no choice with that being part of the grand plan. I am at a loss to see how some of you can see how this has played out and still act like somehow Mr. Meyer is the victim in this deal; or at least, was an innocent landlord just taking care of business. Oh, he was all right. He was taking care of the business of destroying landmarks and a locally-owned small business in order to sell overpriced condos to the rich and deep-in-debt -- with a "hip" restaurant at the base.

----------------

[Kerry]

I'm not big guy/little guy anything. I am for private property rights. If Meyers wanted to burn his property down I don't care. I don't feel sorry for anyone that doesn't have enough business sense to plan long-term. Signing a long-term lease is not planning. Every company I have worked for had contingency plans - including having to move out of their current location.

As far having the money to move elsewhere - he can go to the bank just like every other business. It is called a loan!

[writerranger]

I'm not big guy/little guy anything. I am for private property rights. If Meyers wanted to burn his property down I don't care. I don't feel sorry for anyone that doesn't have enough business sense to plan long-term. Signing a long-term lease is not planning. Every company I have worked for had contingency plans - including having to move out of their current location.

As far having the money to move elsewhere - he can go to the bank just like every other business. It is called a loan!

Kerry, Did you not read my post?

At his age, he would have no interest in taking on debt of that size.

Your comments about "old people"..."If Meyer wanted to burn his property down I don't care"...."I don't feel sorry for anyone that doesn't have enough business sense to plan long-term."....With comments like those, it's hard to take you seriously. He's run a business since around the time you were born (if your profile is accurate), yet he doesn't plan "long-term"????

I don't know if you really feel the way you do or you're just playing devil's advocate. At this point, blaming a man like you are who has successfully built a business.........you know........this really isn't worth it. Happy Holidays.

-------------------------

[SoonerDave]

For what it's worth, I think writerranger has made some very valid points.

If anyone here thinks that predatory landlords don't seize upon any opportunity to manufacture a BOC against a tenant they want out of their property (in the absence of a legitimate claim), then you're fooling yourselves. If it is a given that the new owner is a multimillionaire, you and I all know that $690 to him is pocket change. But it is the also the first domino that falls to start a chain that ends with the creation of an entirely legal mechanism to toss out a tenant.

The "property rights" discussion is relevant, but it misses the point. Of course the landlord can do what he wants. Of course he doesn't have to accept the $690 deduction from the rent. Of course it was probably naive for the QA manager to assume whatever arrangement - and in all likelihood it was a gentleman's agreement - about repairs and rent deduction would perpetuate to the new owner. All that is a given. The point is that the new owner merely saw this as like a payoff from a slot machine to rid himself of a tenant he had no desire to keep in the first place. And the landlord new that the legal dominoes would inevitably fall his way.

On the flip side, there is nothing I've seen that suggests the QA manager would deliberately or capriciously run a long-standing business into the ground out of spite. I suspect, but obviously cannot prove, that there has been considerable other activity prior to this incident that telegraphed the new landlord's desire to pick the QA to death over every detail of their lease, with overt threats of lawsuits perpetually hanging over their head.

Do I know, or can I prove, either side of this argument. No. But when I see a high-stakes developer take over an aging property, and opt to remake it into a contemporary yuppie haven, it doesn't take a marketing genius to realize that a bunch of greyhairs standing in line for their vegetable plates doesn't mesh with that hipster image of BMW's and "beautiful people" he wants to sell. It's pathetic, yes, but its true. And it also doesn't take a genius to extrapolate that any such high-powered developer has more than enough legal weapons at his disposal to win a war of litigious attrition over any poor soul who just runs a cafeteria. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find the QA manager to have realized precisely this, and found that war merely an effort of postponing the inevitable.

The only saving grace in all this is that, if this scenario is true, all the Beautiful People (including the developer himself) who will lease the place and make into something with appropriate levels of hipness and coolness, a place to congregate with other Beautiful People, and not be bothered by the site of people who built the city they enjoy, will, themselves, be old and gray one day, and may find some version of their own oxes gored. That, in the end, would be a sweet form of poetic justice.

As I said, perhaps none of this is true. Perhaps it really is as simple as the developer wants us to believe; if so, c'est la vie. But given the circumstances, I find that an increasingly difficult pill to swallow.

-SoonerDave