[Lnc-business] [Lnc-discuss] Mark Hinkle's alternative motion to buy a building

Vicki Kirkland vickilp12 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 17 10:39:35 EST 2012 

I will co-sponsor the modified motion as well.
VK



On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> Mark has modified his motion, by changing the requirement to say that the
> monthly payment will not exceed 75% of the Watergate lease amount.  He
> telephoned me and I agreed to co-sponsor the modified version as well, but
> I have not yet seen that version in writing.  While I presume that the
> other co-sponsors will also agree, I do not know that for a fact.  The
> Secretary has not yet put anything out for a vote.  When she does, I will
> be voting against Mark's motion.
>
> Dan Wiener
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Vicki Kirkland <vickilp12 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I believe Mark posted the co-sponsors for his motion.
>> VK
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu>wrote:
>>
>>> Starchild,
>>>
>>> The Secretary has not yet put forth the motion to be voted on.  We don't
>>> even know if there are four co-sponsors at this point.
>>>
>>> Dan Wiener
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net>wrote:
>>>
>>>>         I vote "no" on this motion, for reasons I previously discussed
>>>> below. I had hoped that Mark might revise it and give me grounds to
>>>> consider supporting it, but this has not happened.
>>>>
>>>> Love & Liberty,
>>>>                                 ((( starchild )))
>>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Mark Hinkle <mark at garlic.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> Dear LNC,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I'm seeking co-sponsors for this motion:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Moved, that the LNC approve the purchase of an office in the greater
>>>> Washington, D.C. area, to be named in honor of David F. Nolan, contingent
>>>> on the following conditions:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>      • A minimum of 20% of the down payment shall be raised from
>>>> dedicated contributions.  If a portion of that is in the form of pledges,
>>>> the pledges must be converted to cash before a purchase contract and
>>>> mortgage agreement are finalized.
>>>> >>      • The monthly payment of principle, interest, and OTM
>>>> (Overhead, Taxes, and Maintenance) shall not exceed our current lease
>>>> payments at the Watergate complex.
>>>> >> This motion will constitute authority to incur a mortgage if the
>>>> above conditions are met and if this motion passes by the necessary
>>>> two-thirds vote as specified in the Libertarian Party’s Bylaws.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The final decision on what property to buy shall be ratified by the
>>>> LNC's Executive Committee by a majority vote once the above conditions are
>>>> met.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> RSVP................Mark Hinkle,
>>>> >> LNC At-Large & Retired LP Chair
>>>> >> Tel: 408-779-7922
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
>>>> tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of
>>>> men."
>>>> >>                                             - Samuel Adams
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On Dec 3, 2012, at 6:48 PM, Starchild wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Dan,
>>>> >
>>>> >       What is the cutoff point of equity below which one cannot sell
>>>> a building? If there is such a fixed point, and if we buy, it does seem to
>>>> me it would make sense to plan any proposed purchase in such a way that we
>>>> meet that minimum threshold quickly, so that if our purchase plans don't
>>>> end up coming to fruition, at least we do not have to walk away from money
>>>> we've already sunk into making mortgage payments, but have at least the
>>>> chance to recoup them by selling. However I don't claim to have any
>>>> particular expertise about real estate transactions, so maybe I'm missing
>>>> something here.
>>>> >
>>>> >       What I told Mark Hinkle when he called me last night to lobby
>>>> for my vote for his alternate motion, I'll say here as well -- I'm
>>>> potentially open to voting for a motion including language addressing the
>>>> issues and concerns raised in the document copied below about how to get
>>>> the most out of a Libertarian "brick and mortar" space. The more of these
>>>> concerns a motion to buy a building addresses, and the more strongly it
>>>> addresses them, the more likely it is to get my support. Conversely, a
>>>> motion that offers nothing to address these concerns is unlikely to get my
>>>> support.
>>>> >
>>>> >       One of my inspirations in terms of what a more functional and
>>>> effective LP headquarters could look like is the "Freedoms Phoenix"
>>>> workshop in Phoenix, Arizona. Here is a 9-minute video from 2010 where
>>>> Ernie Hancock (LP member and former candidate for national chair, and the
>>>> guy responsible for the "Ron Paul r3VOLution" meme, for those who don't
>>>> know him) gives a tour of the space and explains what they do there --
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFeeB41UpI8 .
>>>> >
>>>> >       I'm not saying the Freedom's Phoenix space is perfect -- in the
>>>> video, Ernie touts its *lack* of external visibility as an advantage, which
>>>> makes little sense to me since he goes on to say how they have lots of
>>>> events there, and obviously the video and other information about the space
>>>> is out there on the Internet as well so it's not like they're really hiding
>>>> from anyone. I think almost any libertarian brick-and-mortar space is
>>>> missing an opportunity by not seeking to expose passers-by to libertarian
>>>> graphics and information. The Freedoms Phoenix space also feels a bit cold
>>>> and uninviting; it could use more of a homey touch, imho. But there is a
>>>> heck of a lot to like about the impressive work they've done down there. It
>>>> is a functional space where people (not just a few insiders, but lots of
>>>> freedom supporters) can come in and work and get stuff done. It doesn't
>>>> look like a corporate office, and has a significant feel of being a
>>>> community space, a place where libertarians can hang out, bond, network,
>>>> etc., a place to which people can contribute in various ways without a lot
>>>> of bureaucracy or hassle.
>>>> >
>>>> >       Since what a building offers is often considerably more
>>>> important than specifically where it is located, and therefore we shouldn't
>>>> automatically eliminate excellent spaces from consideration simply based on
>>>> their location, I will also be more open to a motion that does not limit
>>>> our building search to the Washington D.C. area. That being said, so far
>>>> I've really only heard two options for relocating outside D.C. that seem
>>>> like they could potentially outweigh the advantages of being located in or
>>>> very near the U.S. capitol district:
>>>> >
>>>> > (1) Basing our national HQ in New Hampshire, both to support, and be
>>>> supported by, the Free State Project. I think the FSP is something that is
>>>> likely to continue building over time, and therefore it's sort of an
>>>> investment in the future. I think we should also try to work with and
>>>> support other libertarian groups to the extent that we practically can. Not
>>>> only does it increase the solidarity and strength of the libertarian
>>>> movement as a whole, but they may return the favor by trying to do more to
>>>> help and support the LP. In practical terms, New Hampshire offers not only
>>>> the freest political climate in the nation, but a strong base of
>>>> liberty-minded activists who could potentially volunteer at headquarters
>>>> and help out with projects.
>>>> >
>>>> > (2) Having a mobile office based out of a large RV, which could
>>>> hypothetically be parked in the D.C. environs most of the time, perhaps
>>>> moving around a bit to show up at D.C. protests on the national mall,
>>>> important press conferences, etc., but go on the road during campaign
>>>> season to make appearances with presidential, state and local LP
>>>> candidates, at other (L)ibertarian events, etc. This option could be
>>>> considerably cheaper than either buying or leasing a building, and would
>>>> allow us major public visibility compared with a fixed location via having
>>>> our "office" plastered with Libertarian propaganda like the Gary Johnson
>>>> vans that were driving around, as well as the flexibility to quickly
>>>> relocate to different areas if desired by this or future LNCs. (Thanks to
>>>> California LP member Mike Seebeck for this idea)
>>>> >
>>>> >       During this whole discussion about what to do about the LP's
>>>> national office (indeed, in lots of other LNC discussions too!), it's
>>>> important we keep in mind that the "options on the table" are whichever
>>>> options we choose to put on the table.
>>>> >
>>>> >       To the extent we make a habit of assuming that people won't
>>>> support an idea just because it's new or unfamiliar, we may be shooting
>>>> ourselves in the foot by precluding consideration of fresh new ideas and
>>>> perspectives.
>>>> >
>>>> >       "Why should I vote Libertarian when everybody knows that
>>>> realistically it's going to be Obama or Romney?" We know how that kind of
>>>> thinking hurts the LP and the freedom movement out there in the real world.
>>>> We know how the unwillingness to truly consider doing something differently
>>>> because people don't think others will consider it, and therefore assume
>>>> "that will never happen", can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We also
>>>> know that some of our opponents realize this too, and deliberately
>>>> encourage "that will never happen" thinking in the hopes that it will
>>>> become a self-fulfilling prophecy!
>>>> >
>>>> >       So it's good to be similarly aware of these dynamics within our
>>>> own organization, and to understand when the main reasons for not giving
>>>> something a chance are "political" rather than factual. Many individuals
>>>> may be privately thinking, "Boy, that actually doesn't sound like such a
>>>> bad idea, but I don't want to be the one to stand up and say so." This is
>>>> where being vertebrates comes in!  :-)
>>>> >
>>>> > Love & Liberty,
>>>> >                                   ((( starchild )))
>>>> > At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > The Ideal Libertarian “Brick & Mortar” Space
>>>> >
>>>> > When Libertarian Party or other pro-freedom groups reach a certain
>>>> size and have a certain amount of money at their disposal, talk inevitably
>>>> turns to procuring some kind of office. The national Libertarian Party has
>>>> an office, as does the California LP (circa 2012).
>>>> >
>>>> > Unfortunately, our party is not getting as much benefit from these
>>>> and other similar spaces as it could. Indeed, the term “office” itself may
>>>> be part of the problem, in that it can prevent people from thinking outside
>>>> the box when it comes to the potential of brick-and-mortar spaces!
>>>> >
>>>> > Here are some questions to ask about a proposed – or existing –
>>>> brick-and-mortar location, roughly in order of importance. The more
>>>> questions you can answer with a “Yes”, the more of an asset the space is
>>>> likely to be to the LP and to the libertarian cause.
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________________________
>>>> > • Does the space function as a kind of libertarian community center
>>>> (i.e. users have a sense of it not just being the private space of party
>>>> officers or paid staffers who work there, but belonging to the whole party
>>>> and to some degree the whole libertarian movement) that is important to the
>>>> local LP chapter, pro-freedom activists, and friendly community groups as
>>>> well as to people in the party?
>>>> >
>>>> > • Is the space economically sustainable and cost-efficient (i.e. does
>>>> it have cheap rent or overhead)?
>>>> >
>>>> > • Can activists make lots of things (meetings, speakers, workshops,
>>>> parties, etc.) happen at the space with a minimum of advance notice and
>>>> bureaucracy?
>>>> >
>>>> > • Is the space located in a high-visibility location such that
>>>> messages and materials can be displayed which will be readily seen by
>>>> passers-by?
>>>> >
>>>> > • Is the space readily accessible (i.e. centrally located, in a
>>>> walkable neighborhood, in proximity to mass transit and
>>>> convenient/affordable parking, accessible to people with disabilities)?
>>>> >
>>>> > • Is the space a friendly, welcoming place for locals and
>>>> out-of-towners to drop in and visit, sit down and have a cup of coffee,
>>>> read some back issues of party newsletters, chat with other libertarians,
>>>> get online to do some activism, use the bathroom, take a shower, etc.?
>>>> >
>>>> > • Is the space geared toward providing things for interns and
>>>> volunteers to do, both long-term and on a drop-in basis?
>>>> >
>>>> > • Does the space serve as a distribution hub for activist materials
>>>> (free literature and other items which activists can stop in and pick up in
>>>> bulk for distribution or passers-by can peruse or take with them to learn
>>>> about libertarianism)?
>>>> >
>>>> > • Is the space transparent in its operations so that people can
>>>> readily discover how to fully make use of it and get things done (e.g. are
>>>> there easily learned procedures for scheduling events or using equipment,
>>>> posted office hours during which specific named staffers will be on hand to
>>>> answer questions, etc.)?
>>>> >
>>>> > • Is the space in proximity to centers of political power (U.S. or
>>>> state capitol, city hall), and public spaces (plazas, parks, and other
>>>> gathering places) to serve as a ready base camp for protesting, lobbying,
>>>> and other outside political doings?
>>>> >
>>>> > • Does the space have a participatory feel to it (e.g. are activists
>>>> easily able to contribute their own decorations, materials, and so on to
>>>> enhance it), and do its users have a say in how it is run?
>>>> >
>>>> > • Does the space have a minimum of rules and restrictions (e.g. are
>>>> eating, drinking, smoking, animals, bicycles, rollerblades, etc., allowed?)
>>>> >
>>>> > • Does the space have an “organic” feel to it, a sense of being a
>>>> place with a soul (e.g. is it comfortable, is it aesthetically pleasing, is
>>>> there art, is the lighting friendly, is it neither too messy nor too
>>>> pristine, etc.)?
>>>> >
>>>> > • Does the space offer temporary to long-term storage for protest
>>>> signs, banners, button-making machines, audio/PA equipment, and other
>>>> materials people might not readily be able to store at home or might desire
>>>> to maintain in a shared, accessible group space?
>>>> >
>>>> > • Does the space serve as an effective workshop for activists to get
>>>> things done (making signs and banners, filming and recording, creating art,
>>>> etc.)?
>>>> >
>>>> > • Is the space accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to trusted
>>>> activists, and does it have places for people to crash if necessary?
>>>> >
>>>> > • Does the space include a store where people can buy pro-freedom
>>>> merchandise and supplies?
>>>> >
>>>> > __________________________________________________________________
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Dec 3, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Daniel Wiener wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I'm replying to this suggested motion on LNC-Discuss.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I for one am not willing to vote for Mark's motion, and I strongly
>>>> doubt that there is a two-thirds majority of the LNC which will do so.  I
>>>> am very leery of imposing long-term obligations on future LNC's which could
>>>> mire the Libertarian Party in a financial quagmire, and this applies to
>>>> both long-term leases and mortgages.  I will only vote to purchase an
>>>> office if there is a sufficiently large down payment that I can be
>>>> confident our mortgage will not sink under water, and if we commit to
>>>> paying off the mortgage in a short time span.  These are very uncertain
>>>> economic times, and I believe there are significant risks in the commercial
>>>> real estate market in Washington, D.C. (and elsewhere).  But if we have a
>>>> large enough equity, we can at least sell the building as a last resort if
>>>> we're forced to by future financial exigencies.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Dan Wiener
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > Lnc-discuss mailing list
>>>> > Lnc-discuss at hq.lp.org
>>>> > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20121217/cc3ee5e2/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list