[Hunter]

Is there a Non-Residential Relocation component associated with this acquisition?  Either an Owner Occupant or a Landlord Business displacement?  If yes, then the displacing agency should be providing current and continuing information on the availability of suitable replacement properties. 

24.205 (C) (2) (iii)

Provide, for nonresidential moves, current and continuing 

information on the availability, purchase prices, and rental costs of 

suitable commercial and farm properties and locations. Assist any 

person displaced from a business or farm operation to obtain and become 

established in a suitable replacement location.

Also, and assuming that there is most likely a Relocation component, this owner may want to consider that even though a replacement property may not be suitable "as-is" .... that there may be relocation entitlements available in addition to the acquisition payment that may assist. For example: If the business requires 3-Phase power and the owner is currently only looking at replacement properties that already have this utility, then he/she may want to consider other options that may have this utility available in the nearby ROW and then have that expense covered under Relocation.

Then there is also the additional and available Reestablishment entitlement to consider.

It is important for this owner to understand upfront that the Uniform Act does not require that displaced businesses, including Landlord businesses, be made whole. Unfortunately this is often the expectation.

[Hunter]

If there’s no project and no one to talk to then I’d say that selling your business is just that……..your business.

IF a project does ever happen then the agency should deal fairly and consistently with whomever owns the business at the time eligibility is established.

To be perfectly honest….. it seems a bit off that this question is being asked with no project in sight. Also, any agency that even might have future plans for your area is most definitely going to answer their phones. Makes me wonder what it is that you are “planning” that would make this issue important at this stage.

[Hunter]

My take is that “knowing that the business will be relocated” and “counting on the assistance as part of the deal” is not the same as “occupying the site for the purpose of obtaining assistance”..

Maybe the regulation should read something more like…….”occupying the displacement site for the sole intent and purpose of obtaining assistance”.

In over 25 years working in this field I have never seen a business disqualified under this regulation.

Bottom line is that as a displaced business, you should communicate early, often, openly, transparently and directly with the displacing agency. Simply ask them the questions you are asking here…..since they are the entity that is 100% responsible for making relocation determinations.

[Hunter]

My opinion is that relocation benefit eligibility is specific to the business and not the owner. I can see no reason why eligibility would be affected if ownership changed hands.

The exception would be if the business was acquired and the displacement site occupied for the purpose of obtaining assistance under the uniform act.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 4 months ago by  Martyn.