Few people in Montpelier — outside the realms of politics, media and state government — rise in popularity/notoriety to the level of becoming household names. Capital City landlord Jeff Jacobs is one of the few exceptions. Even those who’ve never rented one of Jacobs’ apartments or leased one of his many downtown commercial spaces have likely heard his name. Jacobs’ reputation definitely precedes him.
Ever heard of the guy who tried to put a McDonald’s in a historic downtown building with plans to outfit it with a three-story fryer vent? That was Jacobs. The 67-year-old recluse — well, reclusive from Vermonters, anyway — was also the man who tried to sell the city of Montpelier the airspace over the north branch of the Winooski River for $495,000. Seven Days profiled Jacobs, one of the largest private landlords in Montpelier, in this March 9, 2011 cover story, “Capital Capitalist: Meet Jeff Jacobs, Montpelier’s most notorious landlord.”
Plenty of Montpelier-area artists also know Jacobs’ name, and more than a few blame him for last year’s demise of the much-beloved Langdon Street Café, a popular community meeting space and artists’ enclave, which was housed in a Jacobs’ building. And, though few would dispute that his properties are well-maintained — some even meticulously restored to museum-like standards — many of his downtown retail spaces have remained unoccupied for months, sometimes even years.
In response, Montpelier artists have begun hanging local artwork over Jacobs’ vacant store windows (see photo), in an effort to both beautify the space and protest what they say is the landlord’s hostile business practices.
According to Josh Schlossberg, who’s been involved with “Occupy Central Vermont” — by its very nature, the Occupy movement doesn’t appoint “official” spokespeople — Occupy Central Vermont’s general assembly has not officially endorsed the artwork but has “consensed” on dealing with the general issue of Jacobs’ empty buildings in downtown.
“The action was to call attention to the half a dozen vacant commercial buildings in downtown Montpelier that are owned by Jeff Jacobs,” writes Schlossberg, in an email. “Jacobs’ practices — high rents, 30+ page rental agreements, etc. — make it so local businesses have a hard time renting from him… which negatively impacts our local economy at a time where we need a thriving downtown.”
Jacobs’ “absentee landlordism,” Schlossberg adds, “flies in the face of our movement for a local sustainable Vermont economy advocated for by pretty much every single entity in the state. The art shows one example of a local sustainable businesses that could be there — Occupy Cafe, providing services, living-wage jobs, keeping money in the community, and holding community space — if Jacobs were to change his practices.”
Technically, Jacobs’ real estate firm, Montpelier Property Management, is a local business; it’s located in a second-floor office at 70 Main Street, which he also owns. That said, the 67-year-old landlord doesn’t spend much time in Montpelier anymore. Most of his properties are now managed by his son, Jesse, who didn’t return a phone call as of this posting. It’s unclear whether the folks at MPM approved of the makeshift window coverings or have an opinion about them.
As for attacks leveled on Jacobs for being Montpelier’s own “1 percenter,” critics can only guess at his annual income and net worth. The New York Times has estimated that in order to qualify for the elite 1 percenter club and all the perks it entails — bonus frequent flyer miles, use of the executive washroom, free glasses of champagne to spit at the unwashed masses below — one must have a household income of at least $380,000. In Vermont, that figure is $321,387. Measured by net worth, however, the 1 percent threshold is nearly $8.4 million. Hard to say exactly what Jacobs’ dozen or so downtown Montpelier properties are worth, especially in today’s market, without a thorough market analysis.
Interestingly, despite the high visibility of his real estate holdings, Jacobs himself is no Donald Trump; he is very protective of his privacy and, ironically, his anonymity. When he’s not in Florida, he lives in Mexico and comes to Vermont for just six months of the year. And, though Jacobs and I spoke for nearly a half-hour prior to the publication of last year’s cover story, he refused to grant permission for any of the interview to be used in print. What a shame, actually, because Jacobs had plenty of sharp words for his critics and Montpelier in general.
Storefront photo courtesy of Anthony Pagani. Window art by Donna Sawyer of Wing Studio. File caricature of Jeff Jacobs by Marc Nadel.
Related Stories
This article appears in The Health & Fitness Issue 2012.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
I live in a Jacobs place, frankly I’ve never had so reasonable a landlord or a lease. The fact of the matter is that he runs a business as a business man, in a place that seems to expect everyone to run businesses like a happy go lucky college roommate. I’m all for sticking it to the man, But Jeff Jacobs is not the F——G man folks. hes not the reason you don’t have a job, he’s not the reason you’re poor, he’s not the reason everything from gas to milk is suddenly more expensive . He’s a guy who through careful practice happens to have made more money than you. that is all. Focusing your disillusionment on him does nothing but take your attention away from the Bastards who really deserve it.
By the way, not that i’m entirely sure how many people reading this will remember the term considering it has become something of a societal normalcy, but this is some of the yellowest journalism i have ever seen.
Glad you have had such a great experience with Mr. Jacobs, Josh. Others, not so much. The issue at hand in this piece of reporting is the vacant storefronts in Montpelier (and I would add Barre to the list). And the art that was put up in reaction to it as part of this 99-to-1 debate.
In some ways, you’re right: Jacobs isn’t the reason I was poor for half my life. He’s not the reason for inflation. He’s not the reason for mass unemployment. But he is a reason why there are so many vacant storefronts. (albeit big box stores and internet shopping are too).
I co-owned a restaurant in a Jacobs space, which moved as soon as we got a chance. The rent and heat were too damn high. Then there was that time some friends and I tried to rent the space where the old subshop was on the corner of Barre Street (a 2nd hand store is there now). We had a great idea for a little shop, and needed to find something affordable (and vacant). Not much was vacant except for Jacobs spaces. That storefront had been vacant for 5+ years after the subshop closed down, and as I recall he wanted more for it than Cool Jewels (which has 4x the square footage and is in the most prime location in town). Needless to say, we didn’t open that business.
The kids today are calling his style “vulture capitalism” — it’s a new word, so you probably won’t remember it.
It basically means the vultures get to win because they lock everyone else out of business or take most of the money from your good idea.
Our downtown shops should be places where small businesses can get their ideas (or products or services) out there. Not all will flourish. But at least they should have a chance to try. But if a landlord is more concerned about making Boston-style rents, then it’s going to be pretty darn hard to make the math add up, especially when the vultures are feasting.
Are you suggesting he keeps those properties vacant out of spite?
Heather: You’re suggesting he rent properties for less then they’re worth because the little guy deserves a shot? It’s a nice idea, but it is certainly not how things work in the business world. If you buy a used car for 1000 dollars and refurbish it till it’s worth 10’000, should you have to sell it to someone for 5’000 because no one has the 10’000 to pay you for it that year? Should he take constant risks and significant financial losses just because he was willing to invest his money time and workforce to make a profit on a building? You are right in that it doesn’t seem fair, but frankly, it doesn’t seem fair to him.
“And, though few would dispute that his properties are well-maintained — some even meticulously restored to museum-like standards”
Clearly you have not inspected the building at 49 Greenwood Terrace. The windows don’t open and close correctly, don’t seal tightly when they do close, and don’t lock due to hundreds of coats of paint since their installation (likely when the building was built). The bathrooms have no windows, and no vents or fans causing moisture to build up and the wood around the shower to grow mold. The solution when I was there was to simply paint over it, and whenever it grows through, paint it again. The bedrooms have no heat source, and the walls no insulation, making winters brutal on your electric bill for need of portable electric heaters.
I like Kevin and Jesse, and I felt like from a business standpoint they ran the company well, and were always flexible and helpful. But from my point of view they seem understaffed for the amount of properties they manage, and wholly unwilling to spend the money that it takes to keep the building I lived in up to a comfortable standard of living. Its a shame that Montpelier Property Management controls such a large portion of the available housing in Montpelier in my opinion.
Renting an apartment with a $1000/mo market value for $700 a month and paying $200 on upkeep for it is still going to net you more money than not renting it at all. Holding property vacant out of refusal to lower rent is certainly not making him any richer. I wont even get into details on macroeconomic factors such as having more open stores bringing more shoppers, which makes your property more desirable, which allows you to charge more for your rent. Charging premium prices for non premium properties is like investing to lose – you drive business away rather than bring it in.
I agree wholeheartedly with your comment. My first VT apartment was in the 49 GWT apartment building and I was forced to terminate my lease after MPM refused to fix the horrible mold issue (which is a health issue and probably a legal violation) and refused to investigate our unusually high electric bills, which were likely the result of a broken hot water heater which we did not have access to. That building is sub-par and so overpriced (parking fees, cleaning fees, pet fees, fee fees), it is incredible. Worst of all is the fact that they do keep these downtown store fronts vacant, thus thwarting potential growth and development. I think that the difficulties with property rental in Montpelier have led to greater development of the surrounding towns. His business model has obviously made him a great deal of money, and adjusting rentals to the needs of the town in which he owns property would, in fact, make him even more.