The closing of Dominick’s stores in the Chicago region left a number of large vacant stores. One location in Schaumburg is now no longer vacant after ten years:
When first elected four years ago, Dailly said negotiating an end to the vacancy was among his top priorities.
Tony’s bought the Town Center anchor site at 200 S. Roselle Road in 2015. But because of the Albertsons lease, work to prepare it for a new grocery store was stalled until 2021…
The village’s redevelopment agreement with Tony’s ensures the employment of at least 200 workers and a minimum $10 million investment in the building. The store is expected to generate more than $300,000 in annual sales taxes and food and beverage taxes for the village.
In addition to recommending approval of a Class 7b Cook County property tax break lasting 12 years, Schaumburg trustees agreed to provide $3 million in village funds for the expected $13 million renovation of the building.
The building’s vacancy potentially could have lasted until 2036 if Albertsons hadn’t stopped exercising its long-term lease options.
It is interesting to read about the tax breaks and agreements needed to help fill this vacancy. Is this standard fare in the difficult days of bricks and mortar business or is it that hard to fill a big, vacant site?
Ten years is a long time for an empty building to sit. Was Albertsons doing this to prevent competition with its own stores in the area or looking for a good payout from a new property owner or lessee?
In the long run, how many vacant properties can we expect in suburban shopping areas? If there are more coming, does this mean some retail space will be demolished or are there new uses for former shopping spaces?
3 thoughts on “Former Dominick’s in Schaumburg vacant for ten years until a new grocery store opened this week”
Pingback: Big box stores in Michigan can have their property taxes assessed on their value as an empty building | Legally Sociable
Pingback: How suburbs can lose millions in revenue when office parks sit empty | Legally Sociable
Pingback: What could go wrong if a suburb buys up a vacant shopping mall to redevelop it? | Legally Sociable