No, that is actually pretty much exactly how things work. Successful restaurants get higher rents on lease renewal which is why they're incentivized to sign longer lease terms. The restaurant is usually paying for all the necessary renovations to kit a property out with their equipment, decor, and branding, so the switching costs are very high, and the landlord is heavily incentivized to squeeze them. It's one of the largest, most common, and most existential issues for restaurants as a business, and a major reason why the largest and most successful chains usually operate on a franchise lease-back model where the corporate entity owns the free-standing building, preventing mis-aligned landlords from making the business unsustainable and eating into their profit-margins. Have you ever wondered why an Applebee's or similar is a free-standing building even on a mall property, even though it doesn't need a drive-through? Because Darden Restaurant Group, just like McDonald's, is as much a real-estate investment company as it is a restaurant company, and it understands that both the franchisee/operator and their primary corporate entity benefit from cutting out landlords that are incentivized to be a rent-seeking as possible.
Your comment is deeply misinformed and it's clear you've never been involved in running a restaurant as a business. Rent is often the #1 factor that can drive a restaurant out of business, because it's the thing you have the least control over. You can often structure your menu to help manage food/ingredient and staffing cost, but you cannot do the same about rent. Restaurants are somewhat unique in that for single-location entities, too /much/ success can actually kill you because of asshole landlords.
They don't. But when the local newspaper food reviewer gives you a glowing review and there's lines out the door waiting for a table when you have full covers for the night, and they happen to drive by /their/ building and see this, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you're doing well. The unfortunate reality of restaurant economics means you could have booming business and still making little or no excess profits though, depending on how adept you are at controlling other business costs, but since the landlord can't see your books they use these other indicators to decide to fuck with you instead.
There is neither a legal nor inherent natural requirement that a landlord choose a reasonable or accurate metric to decide to raise your rent. In fact, in most parts of the country (world?) raising your rent is an entirely arbitrary decision in their full discretion. You seem to be under the impression that the just world fallacy is a truth, when in fact it's not only untrue, most landlords are scum who will happily do as much financial harm as possible to you to the very edge of the limit for what it takes for you to go out of business. The landlord doesn't want you to go out of business or move, which is the only incentive tempering their greed at all.
Successful restaurants usually get higher rents because the value of the location increases with the success of a restaurant. This generally means higher costs for the property owner. This is also why most successful restaurants have long term leases, meaning 10 years or more, and major chains like McDonalds can have even longer leases; it's not unusual for an Applebee's location to have a 30 or 50-year lease.
So sure, McDonald's might have a 50-year lease w/ the mall property owner, but the actual franchisee/operator likely has a 1-5 year lease w/ McDonald's for the building + land that's tied to their franchise license.
I allude to this very thing in my prior comment, by pointing out that landlord's incentive to rent-seek in turn incentivizes restaurants to look for longer lease terms.
When you hear of a popular, well-reviewed, by all accounts successful place closing after 5+ years with no whiff of professional scandal or business partner discord, this is usually the reason.
Land value tax would solve this. (We have property taxes, but they're not as good, and in California they're capped.)
Once they've covered all their expenses so they can "retire" from their regular job, they put all the extra income into other RE efforts (namely buying other such strip malls). For lease renewals, they'll usually charge just the market rates. They are very unlikely to hyperfocus on one particular business they rent out to - they have better uses of their time, and don't want volatile income. They want something steady and reliable. They know restaurants have thin margins and may fail.
There's an Indian restaurant in one of the top food streets in my city that people love - a lot of folks consider it amongst the best in the city. I once jokingly told the owner "What will it take for you to open in my suburb?" She said that before she opened where she did, she tried to open at a plaza close to my house, but the rent was too high. I was shocked - that plaza is a graveyard of restaurants and businesses, and is not at all a happening location. Yet a top food street in the city charges less?
It's not a crazy story. It happens often.
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/triple-net-lease-nnn.as...
I'm not an expert on commercial leasing, but I suspect a landlord who tried to do that would quickly find themselves with no tenants.
I don't get why there isn't some level of Trust Busting going on regarding the rental property pricing management at all.
Almost all landlords are small time, only own one or two buildings, and can't organize a cartel. Except there's one way they can - by changing the law to favor them by banning new construction.
Posted prices can be misleading because they prefer to give discounts (X months free) rather than lower the sticker price, so it also depends how you count.
In all seriousness, businesses can move (easier said than done for a restaurant) and commercial leases are very long, 5-10 years.
Couldn't be a coincidence, just couldn't. /S