The fact that he won’t sell to just anyone and he’s still running the store instead of letting lie fallow, says a lot about him.
The usual pattern is an owner sells to one who doesn’t maintain the standard, which drives the long-time customers away. (”That place has really gone down!”)
The the second owner bails while “the getting’ is good”, and the original place is gone.
No one is immortal. He may wish to enjoy is life while he is able. You cannot dispute the fact that he has stuck it out and maintained the standard. Frankly, when Louis died I thought he would sell then.
Thanks for writing.
Wilma de Soto
On 10/14/03 2:11 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In a message dated 10/13/03 3:02:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here’s an example at the other extreme; Koch's Deli. �Both parents are gone, and brother Louis, but Bobby struggled to maintain the business and its standard in spite of years of the abandoned Acme across the street and the crime wave during the 90's.
He stuck it out when he could have very well sold (he has health problems) and maintained the quality and standard that was there when his parents were running the deli and he was just helping out.
Would that block of Locust St. still be as welcoming to Penn students if Bobby had sold Koch's? �I believe not. �It’s an example of what can happen when people don’t flee.
Well, that would be a nice example, except that Bobby's had the deli placed with a broker for some time now (about 14 months, I think; roughly since Bobby's car accident). It was even reported in the Inquirer's food tid-bits column last fall. He's being rather picky about who he'll sell to, because he wants the next owner to carry on the store's tradition, but he IS planning to sell.
Theories about what's happened to the area, and what's going to happen, are all well and good. Some of them I even agree with. But theories that are backed up with factual inaccuracies tend to lose their force rather quickly, I fear.
