One who intends to leave others better off for his having existed.

2/28/14

Very serious problems with the GPAC (Tanger Center) contract between the city and the Greensboro Community Foundation

file:///C:/Users/George/Downloads/GPAC%20MOU%20(4).pdf

During the next 50 years, if the City of Greensboro gets another Robbie Perkins like administration, a $65 million facility could be transferred to the non profit by City Council, the non profit, of which could be/have to be dominated by cronies of the City Council and the Community Foundation, could vote to cease to exist, leaving the Community Foundation a $65 million facility that it used $35 million of other people's money to acquire.

The Community Foundation could be acquired by a larger foundation, or a trust company.

If the facility is funneled to the Community Foundation, they could sell it, and charge ongoing fees as the money is invested.

If the Community Foundation owns it, any profits go to the Community Foundation tax free.

The Community Foundation could then begin paying board members salaries and increasing the compensation of Foundation employees.

I believe members of the Community Foundation who are advocating for this language have a direct financial interest in the terms.
.
.
Who gets how much of what if the “Donor Loan Commitment” defaults?

If the donor commitments come up short, is the city liable for the difference to the lending institutions?
.
.

Should Greensboro's legal department ok the articles of incorporation?

Should City Council have zero input on the bylaws?

All of the above is contained under "Miscellaneous" in the Contract.



All it would take is five of nine City Council votes and seven of thirteen non profit votes to transfer $65,000,000 and future revenue streams of other people's money to the Community Foundation tax free.

The Community Foundation appears set on taxpayers picking up any donor shortfall on tens of millions of debt.

If the Community Foundation defaults, the lender could acquire the property if the city doesn't cover the shortfalls.

For Greensboro's City Council to agree with these terms would be fiduciary malpractice, in my view.

Previously;

From the GPAC Tanger Center MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING to be discussed at tomorrow's Greensboro City Council Work Session

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2014/02/from-gpac-tanger-center-memorandum-of.html

Roch Smith Jr.;

On closer inspection, PAC scheme worse than thought

http://roch101.blogspot.com/2014/02/on-closer-inspection-pac-scheme-worse.html

No comments: