Jackson's Lease Was Extremely Clear About Free Parking At RTC: Court Documents

RESTON, VA — It was Boston Properties that first reached out to Great American, operator of Jackson's Mighty Fine Food and Lucky Lounge, to talk about opening a restaurant in Reston Town Center in 2007. Great American agreed, but only after inserting some very specific language banning Boston Properties from ever charging its customers for parking in any way, shape, or form, according to court documents from the recent injunction against ParkRTC.

That didn't stop Boston Properties from making Jackson's patrons use the ParkRTC system, however.

Jackson's filed suit against BXP in March over the introduction of paid parking two months prior, and won a preliminary injunction recently in Fairfax County Circuit Court. Jackson's said in a statement announcing the suit that they had negotiated terms that made charging for parking a violation of the lease, but until now there was no public indication of just how clear those terms were.

As it now appears, Jackson's wasn't exaggerating.

According to court documents, the lease provided that "all parking in the garage 'shall be free' for Jackson's and its customers and employees," and that any access control system put in place would not "unduly impede [Jackson's] rights for free parking and access."

The lease even further stipulates that if the landlord instituted a pay-to-park system, it would validate tickets for Jackson's customers at "its sole cost and expense."

Furthermore, the validation system would operate "so that parking for such customers and employees shall be free and without charge at all times and in all instances," the documents state.

So what was Boston Properties' defense? The documents state that BXP's core legal argument against Jackson's is that the lease "clearly contemplates a future when paid parking would be necessary and complaints about paid parking simply reflect an unrealistic expectation by suburbanites that all parking should be free."

Unconvinced, the court granted a preliminary injunction against ParkRTC for Jackson's customers, an action that the court stated was an "extraordinary remedy" that required a substantial burden of proof on the part of the entity requesting it.

The court noted that it would be difficult for Boston Properties to argue that they would face irreparable harm from the injunction, as BXP had originally planned to roll out ParkRTC last September but delayed it until January.

The court further stated that the lawsuit filed by Jackson's was likely to succeed on its merits. "The evidence, as a whole, favored Jackson's request for relief," the documents state.

Jackson's has also reported a significant decline in sales as a result of the pay-to-park system, another factor working in their favor, the court noted.

The court documents seem to imply -- but do not directly state -- that Boston Properties was allowing Jackson's to validate parking tickets for their guests, but the court decided it wasn't sufficient for a number of reasons.

One reason listed is that it put the onus on Jackson's and their customers to get the validation system right, even though the lease puts the burden on Boston Properties to make sure parking is 100 percent free for patrons and the restaurant staff. Guests who want to pay with cash or over the phone can't use the validation code at all, and even those that use the ParkRTC app are sometimes confused and end up having to pay for parking, the documents state.

"The exercise of the Parking Rights by the Building Owner and the Building Owner Parties shall be free of charge, and the Building Owner shall have no obligation to pay any fees or other charges to the Garage Owner in connection therewith," the lease states.

In the end, the decision to install ParkRTC appears to be a cash grab on the part of Boston Properties, the court ruled, and not really an attempt to ensure that parking spaces would be available to tenants, employees, and customers.

"Boston Properties argues that if the system is enjoined, then the entire pay-to-park system will have to shut down, thus resulting in an amount likely to be many millions of dollars," the documents state. "That argument, however, is inconsistent with Boston Properties' initial argument that the pay-to-park system was necessary to ensure parking spaces would be available for the tenants and their employees and customers. Boston Properties has not yet admitted that the primary motivation to install the pay-to-park system was to monetize an asset that has become more valuable as the area has become more densely populated. Thus, the Court does not consider Boston Properties' lost revenues argument to be persuasive in determining the amount for bond."

The case goes to trial on Feb. 12, 2018.

Image: Patch staff