3 Nov
2015
3 Nov
'15
1:13 p.m.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Mari M. <strawberrypilabs(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Some think we should continue as a non-profit, some
think that we should try
to actually turn the Ballroom into a money-making venue to help better serve
the community. Perhaps a Benefit Corporation could be the bridge between the
two?
Also, I want to unpack this: "turn the Ballroom into a money-making
venue to help better serve the community". Can you explain what you
mean by this? Who would be better served and how?
It's worth mentioning that the whole point of making money in the
ballroom is to help the Omni Commons survive as a horizontal
collective dedicated to the radical commoning of space and resources,
fighting gentrification, and creating alternatives to capitalism. I
hope we will always be mindful that we're doing it as a last resort,
it will never be the core of our project, everything will always to be
sliding scale down to zero, the community will still be able to block
events which conflict with our values and delegates can override
anything that a production collective does. And if someday we are able
to own the building and lower our expenses enough, we will return to
doing what we've wanted to do all along - offer everything for free to
the people who need it most.
This will bring changes if we are not careful. When people are making
money, they have an incentive to manipulate our processes in order to
keep making money, and new people are incentivized to join who care
more about money than about the project's values. All of our processes
are designed with the assumption of good faith, and vulnerable to
rules-lawyering unless we have a healthy, vigilant culture.
3 Nov
3 Nov
1:22 p.m.
New subject: [omni-discuss] Benefit Corporation?
Do we need the Omni to be come a non-profit entity since we will have
several fiscal sponsors in the building? We can be a for profit business
that makes no profits, without risking an audit, and with less accounting
headaches.
Best,
Mary
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:13 PM, yar <yardenack(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Mari M.
<strawberrypilabs(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Some think we should continue as a non-profit,
some think that we should
try
to actually turn the Ballroom into a money-making
venue to help better
serve
the community. Perhaps a Benefit Corporation
could be the bridge between
the
two?
Also, I want to unpack this: "turn the Ballroom into a money-making
venue to help better serve the community". Can you explain what you
mean by this? Who would be better served and how?
It's worth mentioning that the whole point of making money in the
ballroom is to help the Omni Commons survive as a horizontal
collective dedicated to the radical commoning of space and resources,
fighting gentrification, and creating alternatives to capitalism. I
hope we will always be mindful that we're doing it as a last resort,
it will never be the core of our project, everything will always to be
sliding scale down to zero, the community will still be able to block
events which conflict with our values and delegates can override
anything that a production collective does. And if someday we are able
to own the building and lower our expenses enough, we will return to
doing what we've wanted to do all along - offer everything for free to
the people who need it most.
This will bring changes if we are not careful. When people are making
money, they have an incentive to manipulate our processes in order to
keep making money, and new people are incentivized to join who care
more about money than about the project's values. All of our processes
are designed with the assumption of good faith, and vulnerable to
rules-lawyering unless we have a healthy, vigilant culture.
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss(a)lists.omnicommons.org
https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss
1:36 p.m.
New subject: [omni-discuss] Benefit Corporation?
Many venues generate handsome profits. The question is how those proceeds
are distributed. If it's a private company, it's back to investors. If it's
an arts/culture NGO, then they are distributed according to their cause.
There's little reason not to form a .org that operates the ballroom to make
money. You could even put the Omni on the board of directors to govern
where the net proceeds go (building capital fund, ballroom improvements,
annual party, etc.). The better the team runs the venue (utilization *
rates, less costs), the more it could contribute back to the Omni Commons.
What other marketing programs could do a better job of conveying who we are
than having interested people coming to our ballroom each week?
2:33 p.m.
New subject: [omni-discuss] Benefit Corporation?
"Also, I want to unpack this: "turn the Ballroom into a money-making
venue to help better serve the community". Can you explain what you
mean by this? Who would be better served and how?"
I'm really glad you brought this up. Thanks, yar! XD
Firstly, the Omni would be better served simply by not only having enough
money to continue to rent without the fear of losing the building, but also
to accumulate funds to eventually purchase the building ourselves.
Furthermore, with an influx of money above the bare necessities, we can
invest on the building's infrastructure, make it more accessible to people
with disabilities, general building maintenance, etc.
Secondly, if we had more money coming in, we could help each collective on
their mission by helping them financially to remain here (assuming their
purpose/values are in line with the Omni's, of course). I'm not sure of the
needs/wants of all of the collectives but if there's money coming in,
collectives doing good won't have to be pushed out because they can't pay
rent, anymore.
Thirdly, by having great collectives that continue to thrive within the
Omni, it does Oakland in general a great service by providing food for the
homeless, science/technology education, arts education and social work. All
of the collectives prospering not only benefits the Omni and it's regulars,
but also the community as whole.
I know I'm just an Omni noob, but everyone I have met here has been great
and are doing amazing community work. This makes me passionate about seeing
it thrive and not just whither away.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:13 PM, yar <yardenack(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Mari M.
<strawberrypilabs(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Some think we should continue as a non-profit,
some think that we should
try
to actually turn the Ballroom into a money-making
venue to help better
serve
the community. Perhaps a Benefit Corporation
could be the bridge between
the
two?
Also, I want to unpack this: "turn the Ballroom into a money-making
venue to help better serve the community". Can you explain what you
mean by this? Who would be better served and how?
It's worth mentioning that the whole point of making money in the
ballroom is to help the Omni Commons survive as a horizontal
collective dedicated to the radical commoning of space and resources,
fighting gentrification, and creating alternatives to capitalism. I
hope we will always be mindful that we're doing it as a last resort,
it will never be the core of our project, everything will always to be
sliding scale down to zero, the community will still be able to block
events which conflict with our values and delegates can override
anything that a production collective does. And if someday we are able
to own the building and lower our expenses enough, we will return to
doing what we've wanted to do all along - offer everything for free to
the people who need it most.
This will bring changes if we are not careful. When people are making
money, they have an incentive to manipulate our processes in order to
keep making money, and new people are incentivized to join who care
more about money than about the project's values. All of our processes
are designed with the assumption of good faith, and vulnerable to
rules-lawyering unless we have a healthy, vigilant culture.
4008
days inactive
4008
days old
3 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Mari M. -
Mary Ward -
Phil Wolff -
yar