That's a nice gesture, but not really in it together.
In it together would be rent forgiveness.
The bookstore and restaurant have lost business, their customers aren't deferring payments with a gradual payback.
In it together would be rent forgiveness.
The bookstore and restaurant have lost business, their customers aren't deferring payments with a gradual payback.
Being "in it together" means he's giving them time to repay the back rent instead of evicting them if they can't pay, as he legally could. Commercial lease tenants have far fewer rights than residential ones do.
It's easy to spout "rent forgiveness" but where is that money coming from?
Maybe OP is struggling making their own payments because they don't have the rent money. But ultimately it seems the bookstore ends up with the rough end of the deal. The landlord will recover deferred rent, but the bookstore will not get their lost business back.
To clarify, I applaud OP for doing something that eases the stress of payment. But I think the wording could have been better.
I said it was a nice gesture, and it is, but to me in the long run (assuming the book store doesn't go out of business) you still get your pound of flesh, you just get it a bit later, that's not really suffering together.