[Imc] Finance Group Meeting Minutes (8/21/02):

[Paul Riismandel]

John,

I'm the one who raised the concern with the IMC being a landlord.  My 
concerns have nothing to do with legal or tax issues, and everything to 
do with relationships between organizations, people and the community. 
 I think it's fair to say that many landlord-tenant relationships are 
rocky or hostile, for any number of reasons. Living space is vital, 
necessary and emotional.

My concern is that it's a difficult position to be in. Does the IMC ever 
want to have to evict someone?  Can we really be fair in offering 
housing?  What about people who might be utterly hostile to the IMC's 
mission--can they rent from us and share a civil relationship?

These are just some of the issues in being a landlord.  I understand the 
IMC's need for cash, but I'm also hestitant to see us gain it that way. 
 I will always prefer a more cooperative approach -- and between being a 
landlord for rent or exchanging a safe, clean living space for some 
valuable labor, I find the latter to be more cooperative.  What if we 
were able to have artists or journalists in residence who could instruct 
and dedicate significant time to production in exchange for housing? 
 What if most of us didn't have to pay rent -- how much less might we 
have to work at "straight jobs" and therefore be able to pursue our 
passion in Indymedia?  To me that's a goal much more in line with our 
principles.

Further, while the IMC does have a small retail operation, we don't sell 
anything that is utterly essential for a person's daily survival. This 
means, our pricing on these things or their availability is not a life 
or death matter.  Shelter, however, is different.  Would the IMC offer 
apartments at market rate?  Or a "living rate"?  What about credit? 
 What kind of lease terms?  As someone who's rented many apartments, 
these can be sticky issues. Not insurmountable, but definitely something 
to be concerned about.

On the flip side, renting living space does present the opportunity to 
be the best landlord in town. That's not insiginificant.

But I'm not living in a fantasy world, and so I raise these concerns so 
that we all have the opportunity to think about them, not because I 
necessarily plan to block any action.  I recognize that it might be 
practical for us to start out renting space and transition into a more 
cooperative arrangement.  Frankly, that's what I'd prefer and, at least 
right now, I'd be hostile to any plan that did not somehow include 
cooperative arrangements.

--Paul


John Wason wrote:

>At 12:33 PM 08/23/02 -0500, Sascha Meinrath wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Finance Group Meeting Minutes (8/21/02):
>>
>>Attending: Paul R., Sascha M., Mike L.
>>    
>>
>
>[ ... ]
>
>  
>
>>Buying the building: due to a family emergency, the Beavers would like to
>>sell their building ASAP; the finance group discussed this issue and some
>>length.  Generally, the group supports the idea and the following concerns
>>were raised:
>>
>>1. Lasers Edge would like to sign a long-term lease on their space.
>>2. Landlord status could be construed as counter to the IMC's mission and
>>barter agreements (instead of rent) should be encouraged if fiscally
>>possible.
>>3. What is the state of the roof, water dammage in the northwest corner of
>>the building, and the front facade -- are any of these concerns pressing?
>>    
>>
>
>With regard to number 2 above, I'm wondering what is the precise nature of
>the concern.  For tax purposes, the IRS construes barter in exactly the
>same way that it construes cash transactions.  But if you take the income
>from rent and put it into the eleemosynary work of the IMC, you're still a
>non-profit organization.  And frankly, the IMC needs all the cash income it
>can get to help defray (a) the purchase of the building and (b) normal
>monthly operating expenses. 
>
>John
>
>_______________________________________________
>IMC mailing list
>IMC at www.ucimc.org
>http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc
>  
>