Kitchen supply store Whisk will be closing its Williamsburg location after the store’s rent was unexpectedly hiked by 44 percent.

Whisk’s owner Natasha Amott, who opened the store in 2008, announced the news in-store and on the company’s social media pages on Sunday that the store will close its doors for good on April 30.

According to Amott, the landlord of the 231 Bedford Ave. building wanted to increase the rent to $26,500—a significant jump from the $18,452 Whisk she had been paying.

“To accept that rent would mean increasing prices and depressing wages,” Amott wrote on Whisk’s Facebook page. “And that’s not the contribution I want to make.”

Amott put the blame for her predictament on real estate industry. With real estate prices soaring in the gentrified area, landlords are favoring higher-paying chain stores over smaller local businesses, she said.

“Private equity supported brands want in; food chains want in; heck, all the banks want in,” Amott wrote. “Big landlords are happy and finally so too are the small landlords who can now say ‘me too!’ on high rent demands.”

The store will be having a sale of 30 to 50 percent off nearly every item until it closes next week. In the note, Amott asked customers to continue to visit Whisk’s two other locations–one in the Flatiron District and the other in Downtown Brooklyn.

“On April 30 we will close our Whisk here on Bedford Avenue. As the owner and creator of Whisk, it pains me to say goodbye. And so I wrote you this love letter to express my adoration for you and to tell you of my decision. It is a story of greed, commercial banking and the distortion of “fair” market rents.

When we opened Whisk on November 26, 2008, our rent was $8,625/month; it ended at $18,452/month. The thing is, we could sustain that high rent. We are a great, busy store and online retailers have not cut into our sales enough to hurt us. But to renew our lease for just 5 years, our landlords asked for no less than $26,500/month, or a 44% increase. To accept that rent would mean increasing prices and depressing wages. And that’s not the contribution I want to make.

So how did it come to be that it’s $26,500 or leave? I believe the story goes like this:
Developers identify Williamsburg as the cool place to be. Developers seek loans to amass more land ownership. Banks underwriting these mortgages demand to know payments can be met via higher rent rolls. “We like chain stores for tenants,” they say. Williamsburg businesses shift from independent, unique services to large American and multinational businesses seeking to grow their brand. Can’t actually pay the high rent demand? “No matter,” say these businesses. “It’s an advertising investment!” Private equity supported brands want in; food chains want in; heck, all the banks want in! Big landlords are happy and finally so too are the small landlords who can now say “me too!” on high rent demands.
And therein we see why Whisk has to leave you.
I love you for having passed through our doors so many times over all these years. You chose to shop locally; you chose to support Whisk. I am grateful for all my staff now and those of the past. We built Whisk together and I am a better person for all that I’ve learned. I am going to miss Whisk on Bedford so deeply.

And here’s where I make my plea to you to help build a better future. One, honor your neighborhood and decide how to spend wisely. There’s no need to prop up businesses that don’t serve a good purpose; but there’s every reason in the world to support the ones that do. Two, ask yourself: what do you want from your community? Small business decimation does not happen without structural consent, without community consent. Cities like Paris and San Francisco are working to create change. We can too. Help keep this discussion alive by emailing me at natasha@whisknyc.com. Let’s talk about a vacancy tax; let’s talk about zoning; let’s talk about a no formula chain policy; let’s talk about online vs brick and mortar sales taxes. There are no easy fixes but we won’t get to a better place without investing in the tough discussion.”