Go Mike Go!!!!!

If there is a clause that says Bierhaus gets first right of refusal to add years to the lease if there is a development planned.. the Trans cannot refuse to renegotiate the lease.

Injunction junction, stop that function
Don't throw Mike out
Keep that comin' with that stout !!!

I was supportive of Mike and Bier Haus then I heard him say he was never paying his rent on time and not until the 15th because the lease accidentally left off a clause for a late penalty and now I think he’s probably missing a sense of morals ... it’s maybe legal but what a dumb thing to do if you want a working business relationship. It’s too bad because I really like the place but that’s poor people skills....

@Beer Fan: I don't think Mike said he paid late. I think the Tran's said he did. Mike said he had former partners who caused a problem, and since they changed up the partnership, they have paid on time.

Mike Finley seems to get a dose of his own medicine: driving a hard bargain to make money for himself (not Mountain View!).

His Bierhaus concept works well because he charges high prices for beer with little in terms of service and the place really lives from the interactivity of the outdoors open space located smack in the middle of an attractive downtown corner with a lot of foot traffic. Nothing here that Mike "invented" as he likes to claim (IP), it is simply a great location coupled with a trendy concept.

Bierhaus is a business and as such is exposed to terms in agreements and contracts. Even more important than the words in contracts can be the personal understanding of partners such as landlord and renter. It seems that Mike may have been better off investing some time and effort into building/maintaining a good relationship with the landlord. In earlier stories about this Bierhaus saga it was mentioned how this relationship soured over time. Always trying to drive a hard bargain is not always the best long-term strategy.

Go Mike!!!

Bierhaus managing partner Mike Finley is more than disingenuous. His public statements point out what a bad renter he is, yet he seeks public sympathy. His "concept" is unoriginal, since places like The Oasis, Rossotti's (Alpine Inn) and Dutch Goose have had the same ordering/serving process for years. So does Crepevine, if you change menu items.

As for the truly interesting beers, you can credit one of his many partners for bringing these in. As far as I can see Mike did nothing but sit on his stool and drink red wine, parading his Bearnise Mountain Dog out for occasional affection. Mostly, there is no excuse for the way he has treated his landlords, often refusing them entrance to the restaurant.

Don't get sucked in by Finley's mea culpas. He doesn't deserve them. Ask his employees and his partners.

Mr. Finley will lose this lawsuit because it is without merit and he is in the wrong. His lease is expiring and he has soured his relationship with the landlord by being a poor tenant and attacking his landlord in the press. His "right of first refusal" if a new building is built only applies if his lease is in effect and the landlord no longer wants him there because he is a pain.

I agree with those who say Go Mike - please leave!

I like both of them. I hope they both win. #MAGA

If the lease required the good faith renewal, then that applies regardless of any complaints, so long as the landlord hasn't done an eviction.

I don't see the case at the Superior Court's "smart search" website inputting the names provided in the story. Maybe the landlord and tenant are business entities with other names. Anyone have the case number?

There are enough places to drink beer in Mountain View.

Bring back Wienerschnitzel.

Yep, I also want the house of the .99 chili cheese dogs back.

@ Beer = BFD. I'd rather bring back Generic Hamburger Stand, with their $0.39 cent hamburgers. =^)

If we could keep the patio and get rid of the drinkers, that's the winning combo. Drinkers ruin everything.

Let it go and move on. The land owner is waiting for the lease to expire and opting not to renew. That is the right of the landowner.

They also are opting not to lease the property to anyone, instead planning to redevelop the property. A good-faith re-lease ore renewal lease clause (if it exists in their contract) is only valid of the landowner chooses to lease the same property again. That is not happening.

It is really odd here that a soon-to-be former renter believes that he can dictate future property use by a landowner.

It is likely that a judge will through this suit out as meritless for lack of stating an actual cause of action under the law.

(Correcting typos from previous post caused by typing on my phone (dang autocorrect):)

Let it go and move on. The land owner is waiting for the lease to expire and opting not to renew. That is the right of the landowner.

They also are opting not to lease the property to anyone, instead planning to redevelop the property. A good-faith re-lease or renewal lease clause (if it exists in their contract) is only valid if the landowner chooses to lease the same property again. That is not happening.

It is really odd here that a soon-to-be former renter believes that he can dictate future property use by a landowner.

It is likely that a judge will throw this suit out as meritless for lack of stating an actual cause of action under the law.

I like Biergarden and will be sad to see it go, but such is the nature of renting. That said, I'd be interested in knowing more about why this particular lot has had such high turnover over the past 15 years. Also, re: redevelopment, we really need to find a policy solution for parking. Making buildings Castro more than one story sounds intuitively good and I'm for it _if_ we build more public parking -- simply granting variances isn't working.