[sudo-discuss] Buy the building report back thread

Mon Oct 10 14:29:01 PDT 2016

If we want to keep this clean as a strictly financial arrangement it
should just be 50% undivided interest (think this is assumed in tenants
in common arrangement other than the division of space)  No special
rules, roles, or responsibilities for sudoers vs. other collectives, no
geographic carving up of territory ownership.

Yar mentioned a good idea worth exploring, looks like it was touched on
in the minutes - a subcollective under fiscal sponsorship of sudo but
focused on maintaining the building.  Revenues would all be paid out
50/50 to omni and to "sudo building" or whatever we would call this
entity and expenses would also be split per Jesse's suggestion.

I am thankful appreciative of all the effort put to get us to this point
and MEGA STOKED about getting into the next chapter if we can pull this
together.
On 2016-10-08 09:22, robb wrote:

> i still think that if sudoroom managed the a/v aspect of event rentals & omni kept the general rent from same, not much would functionally change. 
> all the working groups would be omni's & delegates would still make the decisions. sudoroom would merely handle the a/v side (which we currently contract out to trained members) 
> most of the a/v stuff is sudoroom's anyway several sudo members are willing to start an a/v training program
> 
> instead of splitting the building in half, we could split rentals...omni gets the space rental/sudo gets the a/v contracts which, if part of an educational program, will be considered charitable. 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:47 AM, <discuss-request at lists.omnicommons.org> wrote:
> Send discuss mailing list submissions to
> discuss at lists.omnicommons.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss [1]
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> discuss-request at lists.omnicommons.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> discuss-owner at lists.omnicommons.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of discuss digest..."
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
> 1. Buy the building report back thread (Laura Turiano)
> 2. Re: [omni-consensus] Buy the building report back thread
> (Patrik D'haeseleer)
> 3. Re: [omni-consensus] Buy the building report back thread
> (Jenny Ryan)
> 4. Re: [omni-consensus] Buy the building report back thread
> (Yardena Cohen)
> 5. Re: [omni-consensus] Buy the building report back thread
> (Mary Ann Tenuto)
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Laura Turiano <scylla at riseup.net>
> To: "discuss at lists.omnicommons.org" <discuss at lists.omnicommons.org>, "consensus at lists.omnicommons.org" <consensus at lists.omnicommons.org>, "finance at lists.omnicommons.org" <finance at lists.omnicommons.org>
> Cc: 
> Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 21:05:22 -0700
> Subject: [omni-discuss] Buy the building report back thread
> Everyone,
> 
> At the delegates meeting we discussed the proposal to buy the building by creating a tenants in common agreement between Omni Commons and one member collective that is a 501c3. Please see the proposal and additional information on the pad (pad.riseup.net/p/omninom [2]) if you didn't see it before.
> 
> We agreed to update each other at least once a week on the progress of discussions in the collectives and the development of the contracts. This is the thread where we will put our updates.
> 
> Everyone is welcome to attend the Finance/fundraising working group meeting at 6pm on Mondays to get more information or raise any concerns/questions.
> 
> Laura
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Patrik D'haeseleer" <patrikd at gmail.com>
> To: Laura Turiano <scylla at riseup.net>
> Cc: "consensus at lists.omnicommons.org" <consensus at lists.omnicommons.org>, "discuss at lists.omnicommons.org" <discuss at lists.omnicommons.org>, "finance at lists.omnicommons.org" <finance at lists.omnicommons.org>
> Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 21:34:46 -0700
> Subject: Re: [omni-discuss] [omni-consensus] Buy the building report back thread
> Thanks Laura, 
> 
> One thing I didn't understand about the two-non-profit idea was whether this was just a temporary fix, and eventually the ownership of the building would be with the Omni, or whether the building will be shared in perpetuity between the Omni and Sudo. 
> 
> If this is intended to be a permanent arrangement, I would greatly prefer setting up a new 501(c)3 just for the purpose of receiving the donation, even if that might take a bit longer to arrange. 
> 
> Patrik 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Laura Turiano <scylla at riseup.net> wrote:
> Everyone,
> 
> At the delegates meeting we discussed the proposal to buy the building by creating a tenants in common agreement between Omni Commons and one member collective that is a 501c3. Please see the proposal and additional information on the pad (pad.riseup.net/p/omninom [2]) if you didn't see it before.
> 
> We agreed to update each other at least once a week on the progress of discussions in the collectives and the development of the contracts. This is the thread where we will put our updates.
> 
> Everyone is welcome to attend the Finance/fundraising working group meeting at 6pm on Mondays to get more information or raise any concerns/questions.
> 
> Laura
> 
> _______________________________________________
> consensus mailing list
> consensus at lists.omnicommons.org
> https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/consensus [3] 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jenny Ryan <tunabananas at gmail.com>
> To: "Patrik D'haeseleer" <patrikd at gmail.com>
> Cc: "consensus at lists.omnicommons.org" <consensus at lists.omnicommons.org>, "discuss at lists.omnicommons.org" <discuss at lists.omnicommons.org>, "finance at lists.omnicommons.org" <finance at lists.omnicommons.org>
> Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 01:49:32 -0700
> Subject: Re: [omni-discuss] [omni-consensus] Buy the building report back thread
> Replying all primarily for those I just subscribed who signed up for the mailing list at the end of the meeting - apologies! Your thoughts welcome and appreciated ~ 
> 
> Jenny
> 
> Help open a people-powered common space in Oakland, California! 
> https://omnicommons.org/donate
> 
> `~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
> "Technology is the campfire around which we tell our stories."
> -Laurie Anderson
> 
> "Storytelling reveals meaning without committing the error of defining it."
> -Hannah Arendt
> 
> "To define is to kill. To suggest is to create."
> -Stéphane Mallarmé
> ~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~` 
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Patrik D'haeseleer <patrikd at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> [4] This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (patrikd at gmail.com) Add cleanup rule [5] | More info [6] 
> Thanks Laura, 
> 
> One thing I didn't understand about the two-non-profit idea was whether this was just a temporary fix, and eventually the ownership of the building would be with the Omni, or whether the building will be shared in perpetuity between the Omni and Sudo. 
> 
> If this is intended to be a permanent arrangement, I would greatly prefer setting up a new 501(c)3 just for the purpose of receiving the donation, even if that might take a bit longer to arrange. 
> 
> Patrik 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Laura Turiano <scylla at riseup.net> wrote:
> Everyone,
> 
> At the delegates meeting we discussed the proposal to buy the building by creating a tenants in common agreement between Omni Commons and one member collective that is a 501c3. Please see the proposal and additional information on the pad (pad.riseup.net/p/omninom [2]) if you didn't see it before.
> 
> We agreed to update each other at least once a week on the progress of discussions in the collectives and the development of the contracts. This is the thread where we will put our updates.
> 
> Everyone is welcome to attend the Finance/fundraising working group meeting at 6pm on Mondays to get more information or raise any concerns/questions.
> 
> Laura
> 
> _______________________________________________
> consensus mailing list
> consensus at lists.omnicommons.org
> https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/consensus [3] 
> _______________________________________________
> consensus mailing list
> consensus at lists.omnicommons.org
> https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/consensus [3]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Yardena Cohen <yardenack at gmail.com>
To: Laura Turiano <scylla at riseup.net>
Cc: "consensus at lists.omnicommons.org" <consensus at lists.omnicommons.org>,
"discuss at lists.omnicommons.org" <discuss at lists.omnicommons.org>,
"finance at lists.omnicommons.org" <finance at lists.omnicommons.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 09:05:42 -0700
Subject: Re: [omni-discuss] [omni-consensus] Buy the building report
back thread
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Laura Turiano <scylla at riseup.net> wrote:
> pad.riseup.net/p/omninom [2]

Hi all, I'm really sorry I'm not more involved right now and very much
appreciate all the work that's being done to make this project work! I
have some questions about this proposal...
* Why can't the donor just wait until January? Do they really need
that 2016 write-off?
* Would it work to create a new project that's fiscally sponsored by a
501c3? (like Sudo, CCL, FNB)
* Maybe we should get a second legal opinion on ways to make this
work. Anyone know a good accountant?

I don't know any behind-the-scenes info, but it seems like this would
fundamentally change how power works at Omni. Right now anybody in the
community can come to a delegates meeting or this list to voice their
concerns about use of space, but under this scheme, half the building
would be off limits. For instance, there's been a proposal to have a
co-working space in the basement, and some people have been blocking
consensus for a while because of their concerns. If hypothetically,
Sudoroom's 50% included the basement, there would be no way for people
to have any say. I'm not saying I'm for or against Marcus's plan, but
if there is strong opposition to it, it seems like a good thing that
people have a chance to talk it through rather than be forced to
accept it.

I would most like to hear from people who aren't Sudoroom members in
this conversation, because it seems they would have the most to lose.
I hope the fiscal urgency - and our desire to be polite to our
hard-working friends - doesn't overshadow questions about values and
power. I hope nobody feels pressured to keep quiet during this
process. That could do a lot of damage to the community.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mary Ann Tenuto <cezmat at igc.org>
To: Yardena Cohen <yardenack at gmail.com>
Cc: "consensus at lists.omnicommons.org" <consensus at lists.omnicommons.org>,
"discuss at lists.omnicommons.org" <discuss at lists.omnicommons.org>,
"finance at lists.omnicommons.org" <finance at lists.omnicommons.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:47:36 -0700
Subject: Re: [omni-discuss] [omni-consensus] Buy the building report
back thread
I'm inclined to share some of Patrik's and Yar's feelings. I think it's
at least worth exploring/researching
the option of another nonprofit, which I believe was Option D in our
meeting with Jesse. Since time is
of the essence, that would need to be an important first part of the
exploration/research.

Mary Ann

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 9:05 AM, Yardena Cohen <yardenack at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Laura Turiano <scylla at riseup.net> wrote:
>> pad.riseup.net/p/omninom [2]
>
> Hi all, I'm really sorry I'm not more involved right now and very much
> appreciate all the work that's being done to make this project work! I
> have some questions about this proposal...
> * Why can't the donor just wait until January? Do they really need
> that 2016 write-off?
> * Would it work to create a new project that's fiscally sponsored by a
> 501c3? (like Sudo, CCL, FNB)
> * Maybe we should get a second legal opinion on ways to make this
> work. Anyone know a good accountant?
>
> I don't know any behind-the-scenes info, but it seems like this would
> fundamentally change how power works at Omni. Right now anybody in the
> community can come to a delegates meeting or this list to voice their
> concerns about use of space, but under this scheme, half the building
> would be off limits. For instance, there's been a proposal to have a
> co-working space in the basement, and some people have been blocking
> consensus for a while because of their concerns. If hypothetically,
> Sudoroom's 50% included the basement, there would be no way for people
> to have any say. I'm not saying I'm for or against Marcus's plan, but
> if there is strong opposition to it, it seems like a good thing that
> people have a chance to talk it through rather than be forced to
> accept it.
>
> I would most like to hear from people who aren't Sudoroom members in
> this conversation, because it seems they would have the most to lose.
> I hope the fiscal urgency - and our desire to be polite to our
> hard-working friends - doesn't overshadow questions about values and
> power. I hope nobody feels pressured to keep quiet during this
> process. That could do a lot of damage to the community.
> _______________________________________________
> consensus mailing list
> consensus at lists.omnicommons.org
> https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/consensus [3]

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at lists.omnicommons.org
https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss [1]

_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss 

Links:
------
[1] https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss
[2] http://pad.riseup.net/p/omninom
[3] https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/consensus
[4] https://www.boxbe.com/overview
[5]
https://www.boxbe.com/popup?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boxbe.com%2Fcleanup%3Fkey%3Dg20ZUOvD%252FvClXzblv9BwmIB5%252FdnjS%252F5RbdDht0HxaiU%253D%26token%3DW9ABBhCfZihxNauunxYLFnx9qKf6j4q%252BkU5p0%252BsAHWpyIA0FT4ltL849C4odoTTlyYixagW7h1keQcDpK8iJrk1tQne%252F2aQRxMHmw7J3wYlC0ZqLkODyWHf3IRJRKDMASO%252BG0KanuXw%253D&tc_serial=27071323876&tc_rand=102726429&utm_source=stf&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADD&utm_content=001
[6]
http://blog.boxbe.com/general/boxbe-automatic-cleanup?tc_serial=27071323876&tc_rand=102726429&utm_source=stf&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADD&utm_content=001
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20161010/51f3faa8/attachment.html>