https://omnicommons.org/mediawiki/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Event%3A2015%2F08%2F03_Until_the_Revolution_Working_GroupEvent:2015/08/03 Until the Revolution Working Group - Revision history2026-04-28T22:33:12ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.37.2https://omnicommons.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Event:2015/08/03_Until_the_Revolution_Working_Group&diff=3861&oldid=prevYar: copy from pad2015-08-11T01:58:54Z<p>copy from pad</p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div>8/3 "Until the Revolution" Meeting<br />
<br />
== Who's Here ==<br />
* yar, gwen, daniel, daron, marlin, remote-laura<br />
<br />
== Locking In Use ==<br />
The lender wants to know if a land trust can "lock in the use of the building". What does that mean for us?<br />
* gwen: so we can't have flexibility, certain kinds of business activity, very restrictive. aren't we consulting with university people?<br />
* yar: jenny was doing that. is there a specific question you'd ask them?<br />
* gwen: should be clear what use we have, besides meeting space. retail? food?<br />
* yar: yeah it's a can of worms, very vague. what's he actually worried about? again i'm worried about what it means for us to have that kind of string attached to us.<br />
* gwen: comes with tax benefits. what about SELC?<br />
* yar: our primary lawyer is Jesse Palmer. He's an expert on land trusts. He said he'd get back to us tomorrow.<br />
* [copy from sidebar]<br />
* matt: he's not scary, you can just ask him without asking the lawyer first, he knows he's not a lawyer<br />
<br />
=== sidebar convo ===<br />
yar: 19:07 seems there's not much to talk about, it's just waiting on jesse at this point?<br />
yar:19:07 and waiting on the lender<br />
yar:19:07 and waiting on the delegates<br />
laura :19:07 And following up with the lender<br />
laura :19:08 yup<br />
yar:19:08 what should we say to them? i was waiting on jesse's response to the "lock in use" question<br />
laura :19:10 From my one meeting with him, he doesn't want the property to be mortgaged and he wants some kind of positive community use to be continued in the building. He doesn't have the same radical perspective that we have but he supports us to continue the work we are doing, as far as he understands it.<br />
yar:19:11 i'm just curious what he imagines the "use" to be, what are some examples of what he's talking about<br />
yar:19:11 hmm i'll look up foundation house<br />
yar:19:11http://brewster.kahle.org/2013/09/14/purchasing-the-first-foundation-house-debt-free-housing-experiment-is-starting/<br />
laura :19:12 I don't know what is his understanding of what we are doing. In his view, the contract between the 2 non-profits, whether or not it's a land trust, can be written specifically to deal with the unique situation.<br />
yar:19:13 i was picturing that the use could be a term in the ground lease but idk<br />
laura :19:16 I think this blog entry explains his perspective and what is important to him pretty well. The Omni is another "stable foundation" under several non-profits.<br />
laura :19:18 Yes, we can specify the range of uses that is acceptable for the building as part of the"covenant" between the Omni and the land trust. If that is broken, the the building would transfer to another non-profit that could be designated ahead of time, wither by name or by characteristics of a type of new owner that would be acceptable.<br />
laura :19:19 Prob also with the land if the land trust beaks the agreement somehow it could transfer to a different land trust.<br />
yar:19:20 i just don't know what this means in practice and what kind of rules that sets for what we do here<br />
yar:19:23 it's kinda scary<br />
yar:19:24 how do we even express what we're currently using it for?<br />
yar:19:24 in a way that wouldn't end up changing it<br />
laura :19:25 Maybe we should start trying to do that. I think the visioning/planning will help.<br />
yar:19:25 i feel like this needs to be a communitywide decision and not one just a few people make<br />
yar:19:25 yeah<br />
laura :19:26 The description of acceptable uses for the building has to be specific enough hat it means something but not so specific that it closes options for the future.<br />
yar:19:27 i agree<br />
laura :19:29 Reading a bit of Brewster's blog...he seems to have a good heart and questioning mind. Needs a little more political and social science education though.<br />
laura :19:31 Who is still there?<br />
yar:19:31 nobody left, matt just got here<br />
laura :19:32 Thanks everyone who came out!<br />
laura :19:37 Are there any collectives that aren't aware of what is happening re buying the building at this point?<br />
laura :19:39 I just replied all to B's email with a brief answer o his question<br />
yar:19:43 thanks. excellent phrasing!<br />
yar:19:44 i don't know who's aware of what<br />
yar:19:45 i sent it to the consensus list<br />
yar:19:45 i'll send a reminder and also CC the delegates who've showed up lately<br />
<br />
== Delegates ==<br />
* They're voting on Thursday on buying the building. Should we check in with some of the collectives?<br />
* Sudoroom members are very in favor. CCL delegate said they're also very interested. That leaves BAPS, TIL, Opal, FNB, MPM. Hard to imagine groups objecting, because we have no choice. It's this or everyone files bankruptcy and walks away for good.<br />
* yar sent a reminder to consensus<br />
<br />
== Previously ==<br />
https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Event:2015/07/27_Until_the_Revolution_Working_Group<br />
https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Event:2015/07/20_Until_the_Revolution_Working_Group<br />
https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Event:2015/07/06_Until_the_Revolution_Working_Group<br />
https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Event:2015/06/29_Until_the_Revolution_Working_Group</div>Yar