9 Comments
User's avatar
Annabelle's avatar

Dr. P seems to be getting shafted. To move a practice like hers could take years of planning and searching to find a good location and space. The expectation that she should leave because of the new owners' plans may not be unusual, but the tactics used to force her out (some not mentioned here) are disappointing and would be seen as unethical by many readers if they knew the full story. Sorry to see this happening to a longtime Marquette practitioner and business owner. I also hope that the mercury/amalgam dumping was done without her knowledge and knowing her, I think that would be the case, because that is in no way okay!

Scott's avatar

I'd say it's more shady of the previous landlord to issue a new lease, let alone one that includes a 5year extension clause, when they were in the process of selling the building

Sheryl Feldman's avatar

Not Polzin again! His styles are dated and his color palate is borning. Surely we have younger more inventive and creative architects to choose from. All we hear about in Marquette is multi-use buildings. Well, now we have a dentist already in the clock tower building so why try to get rid of her and her practice? Is this not multi-use?

MRMmqt's avatar

This seems pretty amateur by the developer to but the building and try to perform construction with a tenant in a long term lease, no?

Taryn Okesson's avatar

I like some developments way less than others. In the case of this one, I love to see an old building invested in. This one needed attention. It’s unfortunate that even with the long, long lead-up to the beginning of the project… this.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Oct 25
Comment deleted
Taryn Okesson's avatar

I was referring to the tenant, but polzin’s style is too much 90’s McMansion for my taste. I agree the Ore Dock project was executed perfectly. More of that!

Johny Krause's avatar

Dr. P was offered a six figure settlement to leave but she demanded a million. She claims her previous lease allows her to stay another five years but she didn’t mention it needs to be with both parties mutual agreement. She’s nearing retirement with no potential buyer for her practice. She is using the situation to play hold out with the intention of getting as big of settlement as she can for retirement. She will also need as much cash as possible for settlements with other tenants who come down with any type of sickness or cancer that arises from mercury-containing dental amalgam.

srobak's avatar

Well here's a crazy thought.... Since the lower level(s) is being developed into retail space - make part of it into space that could be used as clinical. Once complete - dentist moves in, runs out the 5 year option and extends again - or moves out after it's up and another dentist, doctor, optometrist or domestic moves in. The demand should be there in any case after 5 years.

srobak's avatar

Somesuch - not domestic