Editorials & Opinion • Editorial Photo: Letters |
Editorial: This past Saturday at 9 a.m., over 200 political and community activists filed in to a large classroom at the law school of the University of Pennsylvania. Though most were Democrats, Mayor Street was not among them, nor were any sitting members of City Council, state legislators or representatives from Gov. Rendell’s office. But Tammy Gavitt was there. Gavitt, a member of Philadelphia NOW who is running for the PA House of Representatives in the 177th District, related a conversation she had recently with a campaign worker, “who I will call Joe.” “He asked me, ‘Does your organization accept money from candidates or do you accept promises of jobs?’ I said, ‘Neither.’ ‘I’m just learning the process,’ he told me. I told him, ‘What you’re learning is corruption.’” The room erupted in applause, as Gavitt had gotten to the heart of what brought this disparate group of Philadelphians together. This was the inaugural meeting of Neighborhood Networks, a reform effort co-founded by transit activist and West Mount Airy Neighbors president emeritus Marc Stier. The organization aims, as Gavitt said, to do no less than “change the landscape for people like me and other progressives who want to do good.” This means changing the pay-to-play culture that governs the political process, locally, statewide and nationally. It means empowering the poor and others who seek better political representation to force politicians to give them something real in return for their votes. It means returning politics to the neighborhood level, with street-level volunteers educating citizens on issues and candidates. It means bringing out the “inner liberal,” as Stier termed it, in well-meaning politicians who have had their progressive leanings “buried by the machine.” The frustration — and tentative sense of hope — of those alienated by the process was powerfully illustrated by Cheri Honkala of the Kensington Welfare Rights Union: “With Neighborhood Networks, gone will be the days when poor people will not be registered … when free t-shirts will determine an election … [when] election day is the number one day of employment for poor people … [when] drug dealers intimidate poor people [into not voting].” Ambitious goals, to be sure. But this group is not naïve. Fed up with both Democrats and Republicans (some of the bitterest barbs flung by this liberal audience were at the liberal PAC MoveOn.org; one speaker ruefully summarized the Democrats’ current platform as “we’re not the other guy”), the group’s vision is to work within the existing city party structure of wards and committees to promote issues and provide a means for upstart reformers to get the kind of support and funds needed to mount a campaign. In the process, they hope to pull the Democratic Party back toward advocacy for the underprivileged and away from the temptations of the patronage system. The group has a long way to go before it can become a force in city or state politics. There are bylaws to work out, as well as decisions to be made on how to choose leaders and endorsements. But, as steering committee member and Mt. Airy resident Stan Shapiro pointed out, only a few thousand votes can change the course of an election. Local, grassroots work by a cadre of committed volunteers can make a difference. Just getting so many people together on a Saturday morning with limited publicity is a hopeful sign. Punning on the address of Penn’s law school, Stier called the gathering a “miracle on 34th Street.” Whether Neighborhood Networks can bring about the miracle of transforming entrenched politics remains to be seen. James Sturdivant
Opinion: by LAWRENCE WALSH It is a good bet that by late summer or early fall, the board of directors of the Chestnut Hill Community Association will have been asked by its leadership to approve the CHCA’s purchase of the Masonic building — Hiram Lodge — at 8425 Germantown Avenue. This real estate venture would be the largest single charge on the CHCA’s exchequer in the association’s history. Enthusiasts of the contemplated deal are convinced of its visionary merits; as well, they place much confidence in the CHCA’s ability to master the complicated financial maneuvers that stand in the way of eventual community ownership of this excellent and important building. However: there are to be found on the board and in the greater community a number of skeptics, people who see some virtue in the purchase for Chestnut Hill but worry about what a great many of them appear to regard as the extraordinarily theoretical and even fanciful nature of the funding schemes now proposed for the acquisition, renovation and maintenance of Hiram Lodge. And then there are the dead-ender opponents, who dismiss the addition of Hiram Lodge to the CHCA’s already troubled real estate portfolio as reckless, senseless, perfectly unnecessary and, let it be said, vanity-driven (“edifice complex”) from start to finish by the association’s tippy-top leadership. Herewith, an early set of questions and recommendations that those who care about Chestnut Hill’s future might find useful when assessing the Hiram Lodge proposition. Board responsibilities
All board members should demand of the executive committee written detailed answers to the following questions. • What is the purchase price? At what price did the negotiations begin? • What is to be the down payment? • Where will the down payment money come from? Recommendation: do not borrow money. • What will be the mortgage’s monthly payment, and at approximately what rate of interest? • What will be the real estate taxes (based on the purchase price and not on the property’s current assessment)? How about the Business Improvement District tax on this property? • What are the projected annual expenses before renovations? What provisions, if any, will be made for emergency (“old house”) outlays, expenses that must sensibly be regarded as inevitable and perhaps numerous? Thousands of dollars were spent on work caused by 2004's flooding at the CHCA’s 8431 Germantown Avenue property. Early-warning problems were not tackled on time and the eventual repair bill was much higher than it needed to be. All board members should study, unhurriedly, any inspection reports on Hiram Lodge well before any targeted closing date. A dedicated board meeting should be called to discuss the report(s). • What is the current rental income from El Quetzal? What rent does the CHCA leadership expect to charge El Quetzal if we became its landlord? Any indication from this retail business of its ability (or willingness) to pay a higher rent? • What is the current cash flow of the CHCA? Recommendation: if the cash flow is negative or even zero — and it has often been one or the other of late — the board should not entertain a purchase. • Throughout the period of negotiations with the lodge’s leadership, what has been the role of the CHCA’s budget and finance committee as a sober-minded overseer? Was any dissent raised and duly recorded in association minutes? Are these minutes available to CHCA board members? • A professional consultant specializing in advising nonprofits must be mandated by the full board to undertake a serious, unsentimental study of the finances of both the CHCA and the CHCF, going back to about two years before the purchase of 8431 Germantown Avenue and going up to the early summer of 2005. The report should include the status of the asset reserves and endowment of the CHCA and the Community Fund in light of the objectives set out by CHCA president Maurice McCarthy three years ago. (It is true, is it not, that McCarthy’s first priority was that the CHCA pay off the mortgage on 8431 Germantown Avenue before embarking on any other large undertaking?) • Why are all records of the CHCA and CHCF — agendas, minutes, the original paperwork dealing with our 501(c)(3) certification — not readily and conveniently available for study by any and all board members? They are chronically unavailable. • The Hiram Lodge purchase has been an item of consideration for almost a year, but there are no substantive plans in writing, and specific donor lists are no-shows, at least for board members and the Local. How come? The purchase of Town Hall was a model of openness in comparison to the largely secret process surrounding the lodge negotiations. Town Hall provided a home for the Community Association. Hiram Lodge would not. No community need exists here. The addition of 8431 Germantown to our fief has proved a financial burden that threatens some longstanding CHCA activities. It has pulled cash away from some valuable services. Many in the community have resented the diversion of their money caused by the debt and upkeep associated with the ownership of 8431. • Over the last six to eight months of lodge negotiations, what, if any, has been the role of the CHCF trustees? If the trustees have indeed been nonplayers all this time, what could and should they have been doing? The full board should insist on an immediate accounting of the trustees’ involvement in any and all purchase negotiations to date. If meaningful involvement of the trustees is still something in the offing, minutes must be taken of all upcoming trustee meetings that finally focus on the lodge matter, with all dissents recorded. These minutes must be promptly made available to the full CHCA board and to the Local. • If the income from the current rent — El Quetzal’s — cannot support the building expenses, mortgage, property and BID taxes, where will the immediately required money come from? Recommendation: do not expect future fund-raising to pay for these relentless expenses, which would become a burden the very day of closing. Projected income from future fundraising campaigns may never materialize, as certain bitter CHCA experiences have taught us. Executive committee responsibilities The CHCA board, the Local and Chestnut Hill loyalists without formal board ties or roles should demand that the executive committee quickly supply written, grown-up answers to these questions: • What is the executive committee’s intended use or uses of the lodge? • What income is expected from any use or uses currently imagined by the executive committee? • How will the building be marketed to tenants? Who will do the marketing? • Why, after all these months of secretive, hide-the-ball, dance-of-the-seven veils build-up and chat and gossip and blind speculation, is there no study for board consideration on the projected renovations for any use or uses the executive committee foresees? • What is the projected overall cost of both essential and elective renovations? These should be separated out and priced with exactitude as soon as possible. • What is the source of cash to pay for any such renovations or improvement? What would the installation of a lodge elevator cost? • What is it that the continued use of the Free Library’s fine (and already wheelchair accessible) meeting room cannot offer the CHCA? Or rooms at Jenks, at St. Paul’s, Our Mother of Consolation, St. Martin’s in the Field, to name only a few of the possible for-free meeting sites for expanded CHCA activities? If the Water Tower initiative succeeds, wouldn’t there be a super-abundance of new meeting space available there for the CHCA? • Has the lodge’s leadership fielded competing bids from other interested buyers? • What, to date, has been the role of the Chestnut Hill Business Association in the Hiram Lodge matter? Do we know whether or not a single credible, private, for-profit entity has demonstrated an interest in purchasing Hiram Lodge for use, say, as a first-rate restaurant and live-music venue? Have the lodge brothers suggested a purchase to any other party besides the CHCA? Been rebuffed any overtures other than ours? • Is there, to date, any trace of executive committee dissent on the lodge purchase? Are there credible minutes recording any such dissenting expressions? • Is it of any interest to anyone in Chestnut Hill that the executive committee’s lead negotiator on the lodge purchase is himself the owner of something like six Germantown Avenue storefronts, and that the ultimate disposition (private and commercially directed vs. institutional/ nonprofit) of the lodge cannot possibly be a matter of indifference to him? Or that another executive committee member and enthusiast for the lodge purchase is also the owner of prime commercial real estate on Germantown Avenue, not far from the lodge? • What quorum size should be required for a final, binding vote on a CHCA purchase of Hiram Lodge, a momentous and risky step in any sensible estimation? How big a majority should be required for a purchase go-ahead, from the full board to the leadership? Recommendation: there should be at least two open houses at the lodge for the entire Chestnut Hill community at the earliest possible dates. Architects, accountants and entrepreneurs who might or might not favor the CHCA’s purchase of Hiram Lodge should be enlisted to give tours of the building before negotiations go much further. Final points When anyone in Chestnut Hill comes to the CHCA for approval of a project, large, small or even very small, we require the submission of written details to be followed by three committee approvals over a six-week period, all before the executive committee and the full board votes on a given project. This practice must not be abandoned or fudged in any way in the matter of Hiram Lodge. No vote should be taken until the board members — and the Local and the community at large — have had at least four weeks to study an executive committee document that answers all the questions and recommendations given here. If anything like a binding vote is taken by the board before all of its members have had good, complete documentation put before them as well as the time to study them properly, then board members will not possibly know what they are voting for or against, and that, to say the least, would make them irresponsible. Time is not of the essence here. There must be no rush to vote. All board members, and all in Chestnut Hill who care about the future of the CHCA and Germantown Avenue as an inviting, prosperous commercial corridor, must be on guard against the introduction of a manufactured sense of urgency by proponents of the lodge purchase — good-faith proponents, as well as advocates driven by vanity and self-aggrandizement. The negotiations have been going on for many months. Another two months built into the schedule — the two months immediately following the submission of a final package of detail by the executive committee to the full board and the Local — will not make a difference. Lawrence Walsh is a member of the CHCA board of directors. Archives | Subscribe | Classifieds | Advertising
|
