[Imc] Finance Group Meeting Minutes (8/21/02):
Paul Riismandel
p-riism at uiuc.edu
Fri Aug 23 18:55:23 UTC 2002
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
>
>
More information about the IMC
mailing list