A spokeperson for Woodmont Grill's parent company confirmed that it is the new owners of their parking lot, not Woodmont Grill, who are charging and collecting that new fee. Marriott Corporation is building its new headquarters adjacent to the restaurant, in a deal with original landowner Bernstein Cos. and partner Boston Properties. Hillstone Restaurant Group says the $3 charge is "something over which we have no control."
The Marriott team sought to acquire the Tastee Diner and Woodmont Grill properties as part of the redevelopment plan. They were able to come to terms with the diner, but the bonus space was ultimately not realized, as Woodmont Grill declined to sell.
That lot has been a perk for woodmont grill diners.
ReplyDelete"A spokeperson for Woodmont Grill's parent company confirmed that it is the new owners of their parking lot, not Woodmont Grill, who are charging and collecting that new fee. Marriott Corporation is building its new headquarters adjacent to the restaurant, in a deal with original landowner Bernstein Cos. and partner Boston Properties. Hillstone Restaurant Group says the $3 charge is "something over which we have no control."
ReplyDeleteWho are the new owners of the lot? From your article, it is not clear whether it is Bernstein/Boston, or another party.
Marriott’s greed is without bounds. Everything it’s calling a public amenity in its site plan will make them money. They are objecting to spending for street safety and traffic improvements that will benefit not only the neighborhood but also their own employees. They will be depriving the area on weekdays of a public parking lot, a move that will likely hurt local bisinesses and restaurants. They are objecting to fees they are required to pay -park impact and transportation impact - even though the generous incentives they got from the county more than cover those costs. CEO Arne Sorensen should don an orange wig.
ReplyDelete6:55, I believe it is the developer and property owner objecting to these costs. Marriott is just leasing from them.
DeleteThere is and was no agreement with the diner.
ReplyDelete7:04: There was an agreement, but it could not be executed because the diner property was useless to Marriott without the Woodmont Grill property in-between the two sites.
ReplyDelete6:54: Marriott rarely owns its own properties, so it's a partnership.
You didn't answer 6:54's question.
ReplyDelete7:08 AM Yep, as confirmed at a public meeting, the Tastee site itself wasn't useful to Marriott. They needed Woodmont Grill as well (per Robert's reporting).
ReplyDeleteAn actual Ready-For-Google-News Bethesda news site would have published only the second paragraph, condensed, and identified the new owner of the parking lot.
ReplyDeleteAlso, this would have been one of several "short items" published in a single article, rather than meriting a separate article.
"Skippy" reports for duty just two minutes after Robert Dyer comments.
ReplyDeleteAs confirmed at a public meeting, the Tastee site itself wasn't useful to Marriott. They needed Woodmont Grill as well (per Robert's reporting).
ReplyDelete7:13: Sorry, this is why I'm the editor, and you're in a dark room taking potshots at the people getting things done. This is a major story that stands by itself.
ReplyDeleteI did identify the owners of the lot. It's a partnership. You can't just single out Marriott. As I said, they rarely actually own the land they build on. They don't own the land under their current headquarters. Use the noggin.
"A spokeperson for Woodmont Grill's parent company confirmed that it is the new owners of their parking lot, not Woodmont Grill, who are charging and collecting that new fee. Marriott Corporation is building its new headquarters adjacent to the restaurant, in a deal with original landowner Bernstein Cos. and partner Boston Properties."
ReplyDeleteYour article does not make it clear who is the new owner of the parking lot.
First "Skippy", now "Andy Van Sklyke".
ReplyDeleteHail, Hail, the Gang's all here!
People are complaining because the greedy capitalists took away their free parking in the heart of Bethesda. Give me a break. It is literally one of the most popular places to park in all of Montgomery County. There is no reason why it should be free other than you feel like you're entitled to it. Suck it up, buttercups.
ReplyDeleteKeep up the good work, Robert. Thanks.
"As confirmed at a public meeting, the Tastee site itself wasn't useful to Marriott. They needed Woodmont Grill as well."
ReplyDeleteExcept that they said no such thing at that meeting.
"(per Robert's reporting)."
#FakeNews
7:30: Partnership. Partnership. Partnership. If you've ever seen a document that breaks out that lot and assigns it to one member of the partnership, by all means let us know. Until then, it's a partnership agreement between Bernstein, Marriott and Boston.
ReplyDelete7:41: Except, they did. I realize your frustration that you didn't have sources inside the negotiations, but that's why people are turning to my website to find out what's really going on.
ReplyDeleteI see Dyer the Real Estate expert is in rare form.
ReplyDeleteDyer @ 7:41 - Your article mentions the parking lot. Your article mentions the partnership. Your article does not state that the latter own the former. Proofreading is your friend.
ReplyDeleteThis is a scoop if I have ever seen one. Robert has been the biggest reporter on this breaking news in downtown Bethesda. From tastee diner agreeing to sell to this parking lot, Robert has been the first guy on the scene.
ReplyDelete7:41 AM must not have attended the meeting. Marriott & team confirmed Robert's reporting without reservation- Tastee by itself wasn't of interest. They needed Woodmont Grill.
ReplyDeleteOk everyone let’s just clear this up once and for all. Dyer reported a deal was stuck between Tastee and the Marriott owners/developers. Ultimately it did not go through, whether it was because of a contingency or requirement for Woodmont Grill or not. Dyer claims this was a fact, and surely it may have been. Of note, in Dyer’s original report, he did not indicate any contingency, only that a deal was struck.
ReplyDelete"surely it may have been"
ReplyDeleteWhat does this mean? "Surely it was" and "it may have been" mean completely different things.
Ok... ��
DeleteOk everyone let’s just clear this up once and for all. Dyer reported a deal was stuck between Tastee and the Marriott owners/developers. Ultimately it did not go through, whether it was because of a contingency or requirement for Woodmont Grill or not. Dyer claims this was a fact, and sure, it may have been. Of note, in Dyer’s original report, he did not indicate any contingency, only that a deal was struck.
Good luck trying to clear this mess up 8:40 AM! It will always be a huge focal point for Robert's criticism and for why his supporters believe in him.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the name of the Partnership?
ReplyDeleteScrew Woodmont Grill. Thanks to them, Marriott has to awkwardly build around their lot and we're all stuck with overhead power lines, tiny sidewalks, and Tastee's trailer park building. A plague on Woodmont Grill and anyone who patronizes their restaurant.
ReplyDeleteMarriott's team confirmed Dyer's reporting at a public meeting. Full stop.
ReplyDeleteIt's due to Woodmont Grill not selling that we'll have Tastee Diner.
Thankfully we still have Tastee diner.Much rather have Tastee than tons of traffic congestion thanks to Marriott
ReplyDeleteI'm happy to have tastee as well. The other "diners" in town don't stack up as true diners.
ReplyDeleteRobert reminds me of the main character (Tommy Wiseau) in Disaster Artist.
ReplyDelete"Andy Van Slyke": "9:05 am plagarism is theft. Full stop."
ReplyDelete"Anonymous": "It is defamation to continue posting lies about what Robert posts or claiming he writes every comment here. Full stop."
"Roald": "You're not a very successful person if you have all day to troll Dyer here. Full stop.
"Anonymous": "I've been hearing lately that the press is supposed to have a skeptical/adversarial relationship to elected officials to serve as a check on their power. Other than Robert Dyer's news sites, there's no other local MoCo media outlet that is even skeptical of the Council & Planning Board. Full stop."
"Andy Van Slyke said:"Stay in your lane and leave site analytics to Dyer. You don't have his data. Full stop."
It's NOT a partnership. Someone else is building the property. Marriott is simply leasing it for 20 years.
ReplyDeleteMr. Dyer, who currently owns the parking lot? Your previous answers have been unclear.
ReplyDeleteRobert's site is so popular that he has at least several historians like 10:37am who study and curate his content.
ReplyDeleteSame as Dyer does for others. It’s important to make sure everyone gets the facts straight.
DeleteDidja ever notice that Dyer and his sheep use a lot of colloquialisms?
ReplyDeleteDidja ever notice they all use the same ones?
He's pointed out how he recognizes certain commenters from their repeated use of the same phrases.
I guess the same is true for him too.
"Full stop"... "litany of grievances"... "stay in your lane"... "at my dentist's office" or "doctors' waiting rooms"... "no one else is skeptical"... "giving attaboys"... "same guy who watches Dyer at public meetings, but too scared to engage him"... "Hans Riemer peed in his pants"... "Reamer"...
ReplyDeleteAnd many more! Add your favorites to the iist.
You forgot the best "Baba Booey"
ReplyDeleteDon’t forget Saul Alinsky.
DeleteMore...
ReplyDelete"Sold for $1"
"banker's hours"
"It's telling that you refuse to just email Dyer rather than..."
"Interns...freelancers...bored housewives...Frederick..."
Liberals don't respond well when someone tries to pop their bubbles with the truth.
ReplyDeleteSaith Dyer: "Some diners have told me they were surprised by the new $3 fee to park in the lot right next to the highly-popular restaurant."
ReplyDeleteWhat's more surprising is that you didn't see the sign that clearly said, "ATLANTIC PARKING - $4.00". Did you actually visit the lot? I'm asking because the photo you included with this article was taken no later than June 2017.
From 59 comments down to 44 in the blink of an eye.
ReplyDelete7:25: The diners I spoke to were charged $3, not $4. It took the company more than a week to answer my message, so the price must have gone up very recently. That sign is new, too. I understand there are sour grapes about my scoop.
ReplyDeleteDid you visit the lot did you visit the lot did you visit the lot did you visit the lot LOL
10:40: NO KIDDING! I said that several times above - Marriott rarely owns their properties. You keep trying these Saul Alinsky tactics to get me to make a misstep you can then pivot to. Not gonna do it, old sport.
ReplyDelete"The diners I spoke to were charged $3, not $4."
ReplyDeleteThe sign says $4. Are you accusing the sign of lying?
Also, who owns the lot? If you don't know, just say it.
5:20: No, you're accusing the diners of lying. If it now says $4, they must have jacked it up an additional dollar in the last week or so. In fact, I was told they will now charge you $8 if you are there more than 2 hours.
ReplyDeleteI've already told you who owns the lot. How dense can someone be?
"If it now says $4, they must have jacked it up an additional dollar in the last week or so."
ReplyDeleteSo your article was based on hearsay information from a week ago?
#PhoningItIn
Saith Dyer:
ReplyDelete"I've already told you who owns the lot. How dense can someone be?"
Previously saith Dyer:
"A spokeperson for Woodmont Grill's parent company confirmed that it is the new owners of their parking lot, not Woodmont Grill, who are charging and collecting that new fee. Marriott Corporation is building its new headquarters adjacent to the restaurant, in a deal with original landowner Bernstein Cos. and partner Boston Properties. Hillstone Restaurant Group says the $3 charge is "something over which we have no control."
If you meant to say that Bernstein Cos. and or Boston Properties owns that lot, you should have said so. You didn't. You just jumped from Woodmont Grill straight to Marriott.
6:22: That's because the change is happening as a result of Marriott. Otherwise, it would have happened years ago.
ReplyDelete5:45: No, dumbass, it was based on actual diners who were charged $3. It was a great story, and I broke it. Baba Booey.
"That's because the change is happening as a result of Marriott. Otherwise, it would have happened years ago."
ReplyDeleteWhy so cagey? Just admit that you don't actually know who owns the parking lot.
"No, dumbass, it was based on actual diners who were charged $3. It was a great story, and I broke it. Baba Booey."
I'll trust my own lying eyes, which reported the "ATLANTIC PARKING - $4" to me, on the same day you published this article, over your "actual diners" from "the last week or so".
When Robert breaks stories, who fixes them?
ReplyDeleteSad to say, but we were charged $4 by the attendant on Thursday night.
ReplyDeleteRobert Dyer in article, published at 6:37 AM Dyer Standard Time (9:37 AM EST), Friday December 15 2017: "Some diners have told me they were surprised by the new $3 fee to park in the lot right next to the highly-popular restaurant."
ReplyDeleteAnonymous @ 7:25 PM: "What's more surprising is that you didn't see the sign that clearly said, "ATLANTIC PARKING - $4.00". Did you actually visit the lot? I'm asking because the photo you included with this article was taken no later than June 2017."
[Several previous comments, posted between 9:00 AM and 7:25 PM (Dyer Standard Time), which mentioned the $4 fee to park in the lot, had been deleted.]
Robert Dyer @ 8:09 PM: "The diners I spoke to were charged $3, not $4. It took the company more than a week to answer my message, so the price must have gone up very recently. That sign is new, too. I understand there are sour grapes about my scoop.
"Did you visit the lot did you visit the lot did you visit the lot did you visit the lot LOL"
Robert Dyer @ 7:35 AM Saturday December 16 2017: "No, dumbass, it was based on actual diners who were charged $3. It was a great story, and I broke it. Baba Booey."
Anonymous @ 1:49 PM: "Sad to say, but we were charged $4 by the attendant on Thursday night."
9:22: You're the one who doesn't know. I've told you eight times who owns the parking lot. If I was wrong, now is your chance to tell us who really owns it, "ya big baby."
ReplyDelete2:40: No kidding, Sherlock. The sign and price went up in recent days, while I awaited a response from their corporate parent on the original $3 charge.
The price went up. The price went up, Saul Alinsky.
"If every letter must receive a response, send 3000 letters." - Saul Alinsky
You did not say who owns the lot. Where?
ReplyDelete"A partnership" is all you've said.
At 8:46AM I asked for the name of the partnership. No reply.
Dyer did not even say that "the partnership" owns the lot. He mentioned that they are building the Marriott HQ but repeatedly declined to say explicitly that they owned the lot, then attempted to deflect with his "Alinsky" talking point.
ReplyDelete