Smith College files suit to evict Green Street Cafe from Northampton location

by The Republican Newsroom
Tuesday July 21, 2009, 2:53 PM

By FRED CONTRADA
fcontrada@repub.com

NORTHAMPTON - The Green Street Cafe and Smith College are engaged in a game of chicken, and it isn't cordon bleu.

Last week, Smith filed for summary process in Northampton Superior Court, seeking to evict the restaurant from its 62-68 Green St.

It's the latest shot in a legal battle that has been going on for several years between the college and restaurant owners John A. Sielski and L. James Dozmati.

The dispute between the two parties goes back to 2003 when the cafe served as a gathering place for neighborhood residents opposed to the construction of Smith's new science center. The college, which owns the building where the restaurant is located, demolished several nearby buildings it owned to make way for the $73 million facility.

Sielski and Dozmati argued that the construction of the building next door to their restaurant would detract from their business. When Smith closed the 16-space parking lot behind the restaurant to use by their customers, Sielski and Dozmati filed suit in Hampshire Superior Court.

In the complaint filed July 14 by Smith, the college maintains that Sielski and Dozmati have not paid rent since April and owe $5,566. The non-payment violates the terms of the lease and allows Smith to take possession of the building, according to Daniel Finnegan the college's lawyer.

Mark A. Tanner, who represents Green Street, replied with a motion to dismiss the complaint or join it with the on-going suit in Superior Court. That suit also seeks damages for breach of contract.

"Smith College took back the parking lot for its own use," Tanner said Tuesday. "That's akin to renting me a house and saying that you're taking back the house."

Sielski said he believes the college has been trying to force him out for five years.

"They keep saying they're trying to help, but there's never any sane offer to help," he said.

Since it opened 18 years ago, Green Street has developed a loyal following, including many members of the Smith community.

Jan B. Carhart, a 1975 Smith alumna, has even offered to pay the overdue rent.

"I put it in writing to President (Carol) Christ," Carhart said. "They declined."

Carhart, who eats at Green Street three or four times a week, takes the restaurant's side in the dispute and said she is embarrassed by the way Smith has pursued the matter.

"I don't like to see my alma mater pull a stunt like that," she said.

Green Street closed for several months in 2007 after Sielski and Dozmati failed to address state fire code violations. The owners contended that it was Smith's responsibility, as landlord, to pay for the improvements. When Smith and the owners agreed to a new lease in September, 2007, the college promised to address noise and dust problems resulting from the construction of the science center. It termed the lease "favorable, generous and conducive to a successful restaurant business."

Tanner said he expects a hearing on the legal matters to take place in Northampton District Court on Aug. 6.

Smith Alumna Blasts President Christ's Office for Bullying Green Street Cafe

Jan Carhart, MSW

Ms. Laurie Fenlason

Executive Director of Public Affairs

and Special Assistant to the President

Smith College

Northampton, MA 01063 July 19, 2009

Dear Ms. Fenlason:

Many thanks for your recent reply to my letter concerning Green Street Café. I also appreciate having a copy of the piece you wrote for the Hampshire Gazette.

While it’s clear that your understanding of the situation and that of the owners of Green Street Café differ dramatically, I remain convinced that the construction process and Smith’s handling of it has done the Café great harm. It appears the College expected John and Jim to forego their original lease with its option to extend the lease and to absorb the considerable expense of relocating, remodeling at a new location, and re-establishing their business elsewhere for approximately $65,000 -- only $35,000 of which entailed an actual cash payment to cover the substantial cost involved.

This hardly seems reasonable when an established business with a solid lease in place is generating gross revenues up to $700,000.00 or more per year and is comfortably providing income and benefits to two owners plus approximately ten fulltime employees. (Another ten or so part time employees received income, but no benefits.) Having spent many years working in financial and investment management, I fail to see the attractiveness -- much less generosity -- of such an offer and, in the absence of the College negotiating more reasonable terms, can only describe Smith’s position as, at best, mean-spirited or even sharp-dealing and bullying. It clearly left Jim and John with no alternative but to attempt continuing their business in the face of all the various problems created by the construction.

Furthermore, the implication that Green Street Café has no basis for claiming that the College “ceased doing business with the Café” seems disingenuous. There are, I know, many Smith employees who personally enjoy the restaurant and who likely use it for College-related functions now and then. In 2003 or 2004, however, Smith revoked the Café’s ability to bill the College directly for such functions, requiring instead that those hosting them pay personally by check or credit card then seek reimbursement from the College. It seems fair to say that refusing to accept invoices from the Café for college functions, among a handful of other actions apparently taken by the College, constituted a decision by Smith as an institution to cease doing direct business with the Café and dramatically diminished the income generated by the restaurant’s major institutional client. It terminated the friendly, mutually beneficial relationship the Café and Smith once enjoyed, a situation that seems especially unfortunate when the alternatives to using Green Street Café may in fact be more costly to the College.

I don’t want to spend time here reviewing other perspectives on the parking situation, on the Café’s closing over fire code issues, and various other things. Suffice it to say that I fear Smith has chosen to discredit the valid concerns and needs of an established commercial tenant in order to assert its own interests in the property. In doing so the College has severely financially compromised the café owners and their employees. Rather than displaying the caring, responsible behavior of a good citizen, the College appears willing to trample a tenant whose interests do not match those of the College, even in the face of those divergent interests having a leasehold interest that should protect them.

In short, I couldn’t be sorrier to learn that Smith is determined to pursue the course it has chosen. That said, if, at any time, my earlier offer might prove helpful, please don’t hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely yours,

Jan Carhart