Landlords not taking terrorist threats lightly

Real Estate Weekly, June 5, 2002 by Parke Chapman

Jonathan Zich isn't taking the recent spate of government-issued terror alerts lightly. Like other landlords, he is now casing--rather than simply considering--potential tenants.

"Over the past two weeks, we had some people come in who we weren't too sure about," said Zich, principal of the Burak Organization.

Burak owns several Manhattan office buildings, including the Bar Building on East 44th Street.

Zich contacted the FBI with his concerns, who promptly told him that the people in question were not a security threat.

Along with rigorous tenant screening, Zich said that his security details are now more concerned with checking the bags of those who enter Burak properties, most of which are mid-block.

Bad credit alone was once enough to prevent potential tenants from renting office or residential space. Government terror alerts are now forcing landlords to scrutinize potential tenants in altogether new ways, forcing out many 'suspicious' types with impeccable credit.

When asked about the efficacy of frequent terror alerts, he said that it is hard for any owner to react to such vague announcements. He added that a threat such as this cannot be controlled by landlords, any more than the FAA can forestall hijackings.

On the residential side, one landlord viewed the terror alerts as validating his already-stringent approach. Only last week, the government warned that Al Qaeda terrorists would seek to rent apartments as a way to blow up apartment buildings.

"For many years now we have been in the practice of interviewing every potential tenant," said Robert Nelson, president of Nelson Management, Ltd., which owns and manages 1,000 rental units in Manhattan, the Bronx and Brooklyn.

Nelson said that he never relies strictly on brokers.

"We want to look somebody in the eye. This is tremendously effective," said Nelson who has turned down potential tenants due to suspicious behavior.

"It's not just bad credit anymore," he said.

Critics of the terror alert protocol fear that unrequited threats will lead to complacency. That may be so, but the government has decided to err on the side of caution. For commercial managers, however, the sporadic nature of these alerts can be confusing, especially when local law enforcement is not in line with the FEB.

"The FBI was downplaying the terror alert last week. Yet the police were up-playing it. So who do you listen to?" said Larry Conlon, director of asset services for Cushman & Wakefield Conlon is responsible for coordinating security nationwide at 1,500 Cushman & Wakefield-managed properties.

Despite the confusion between local and government law enforcement, Conlon erred orr the side of caution by ordering perimeter searches around several of his New York City properties. He takes issue with the lack of guidance originating from law enforcement to the private sector.

"We could use a little more guidance here. We need basic guidelines to bring security up to a minimum standard everywhere," said Conlon.

Conlon's point may be valid, but there is little reason to believe that even local law enforcement is offered guide-lines when a terror alert is issued.