<< 9/3 Opening For Anchor Bar in Rochester | Artisan Market and People’s Market >>

Skopelos On The Bay in Pensacola Has Closed

Posted by Bruce Bilmes and Sue Boyle , August 30, 2009 01:59

SK 1

Back on July 4th we reported that Skopelos on the Bay was facing the possibility of closure later this summer, after 50 years in business. That is exactly what happened. The Pensacola landmark’s final day of business was yesterday (Saturday, 8/29/09). Owner Gus Silivos said he is considering looking for another location in Pensacola to reopen Skopelos. The legal issues that led to the closure sound pretty muddy, as we read it. If you’re interested, you can give it a go with this 8/2/09 Pensacola News Journal story, or this one from 8/18/09, but it sure sounds to us like this had more to do with family squabbling than with any real necessity to close the restaurant. You can also read this column by J. Earle Bowden where he reminisces about Pensacola’s, Skopelos’, and his own, bygone days. And this PNJ story from 8/30/09 reports on the final day at Skopelos.

Permalink | Comments (2)

Categories: News | From The Web

Skopelos of Pensacola May Be Forced to Close After 50 YearsSkopelos on the Bay in Pensacola,FL may be closing after 50 years of business.6/21: Roll In the Mud and You Might Win a Wedding Rehearsal Dinner at Skopelos Here’s a minor league baseball promotion that certainly qualifies as “unique.” The Pensacol...Waldorf A’Story in Story, WY Has ClosedWaldorf A'Story in Story, WY has closed.

Comments

9/2/2009 9:09:33 PM #

Simple: the real estate that restaurant sits on is worth a fortune. IIRC, Silivos also owns another restaurant a ways on down the same road (US 90), but not on the bay side. Look for the restaurant to re-open.

David_NYC |

9/2/2009 9:46:47 PM #

But...

Silivos doesn't own the real estate. He leases it from his sisters (but they are always referred to as the heirs to his father's estate, not his sisters). And he had the right, if he wanted, to renew that lease for another five years, and five more years after that. But he chose not to exercise that right.

He instead chose to exercise another of his rights, to purchase the property. But the owners of the property came up with an appraisal he finds unfair, so he decided not to buy it at that price. Thing is, he could have just kept on running the restaurant as he always has. He just wouldn't have owned the real estate (which he never has anyway).

He wasn't kicked off the property, and he didn't have to close.

Bruce Bilmes and Sue Boyle |

Comments are closed