[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by rtinder

Is it true that the commercial renters pay not only rent but also a percentage of their proceeds? Maybe it’s not the rent that is too high, but the cost of the combination. It’s no wonder the commercial space is hard to keep full.

That's standard in the Commercial Leasing world, particularly for retail & restaurants. That doesn't mean the rent is "too high" or "too low" ... it's simply the way it's done in the commercial world and it works for both parties. If a business is very successful, they pay higher rent ... if business is slow, they pay less.

That's really not the question in my opinion.

The question is, the Square at Sumter Landing was approved with NO RESIDENTIAL USE on the 1st floor of the commercial buildings and I don't think that should change.

No different than the land next to your home, was approved ONLY for another single family home. You have a right to expect, no one can erect an apartment building next to you.

It's very similar to what the opponents of STR's use to justify their opposition. They say: "I own in a single family neighborhood, how can someone turn the house next door, into a hotel".

Unfortunately, converting commercial space in a Square to residential use, effects everyone and will eventually change the dynamic and atmosphere of the Town Squares.

To say nothing of the "slippery slope". Suppose you own a home on an Executive Golf course & the Developer or the District (depending on who owns it at time), decides that particular piece of land is better suiting to be a leaching field for a sewerage treatment plant (admittedly not likely, but possible). How would you feel about your golf course view, transforming into an underground disposal area? I bet if that happened, everyone in the neighborhood would be petitioning the County Supervisors, not to allow it to happen.