Ian, This is an entirely different situation than what we're dealing with right now. Courtney can attest to how Leon A Brown (rental agency) operates, as she's done business with them before. We are not looking at some kind of insanely low rent that doesn't make sense, we are evaluating a number that has proven to be more in line with realistic property values based on a finished space.
In response to your question on insurance, the generic lease that I saw makes no mention of being required to even hold insurance. We already have an insurance that covers comfortably with a cost - we are not looking at any additional costs here. Heating is radiator-controlled on the floor, and is not electric. There is some sort of cooling unit in the ceiling, or it may be a heating unit. This is also water, not electric. Concerning cooling, Bob mentioned that there would probably be a week or two of hot heat in the summer months, but it's very bearable. We have new insulated windows that can open and close, and we are insulated on four sides (top, bottom, each side) with the exception of the front and back of the space, which we can deflect heat using blinds/etc. I have not contacted Bob in the past week because I don't want to keep baiting the guy with the possibility of us taking this or not. I am waiting for the go-ahead from our members before asking him to prepare a lease and giving our offer - I feel I cannot ask before this decision gate because the membership has not approved me to do so yet. Ian, if you would like to come with me to talk to Bob once we're ready, I am fine with that. I don't think a big meeting between him and our board is necessary - let one person be the point of contact who conveys the concerns of our organisation, and then brings back relevant information to the membership, along with an unsigned lease. If everything is still good, then we can sign it. I don't want to drag out discussion with Bob; my goal in all of this has been to keep things on track as much as possible with little wait time. I want to make it clear that there is no back-room discussions involved with this new prospect; what you will see on the lease is exactly what we will be entitled to/have. If there is a concern that we're getting "boned" on this, then either I haven't been clear enough in my presentation of this idea (which I would want to rectify), or there is something someone does not understand (which I would want to rectify as well). Does this sound fair? I'm open to your suggestions. On 6 November 2012 16:16, Ian E. Trump <itr...@octopitech.com> wrote: > Ok, I know meth addicts with more patience. > > Having said that one of Justin's slides in his GTFO deck was a competitive > analysis of avail options. Certainly this has a bit of "fools rush in" feel > to it, but he did do some due diligence I'm inclined to trust him. > > I agree that loan sharks might have more candor than Justin as well. His > numbers are realistic and not from Mars, the organization is excited about > change. Note: no one is re-visiting staying. > > He is the right man, with the right plan. I feel it's the right move to the > right space, who really knows what the future may bring, but right now it's > viable and we can do it. > > So, where does that leave us as prudent board members? It leaves us with a > very attractive option, however we need some concessions on the monthly rent, > even if short term, clarifications (WRT electricity and HVAC) and a sense of > who we are dealing with. We may need insurance on the space for accidents, > this may add to our monthly cost due to the nature of the space. > > I will be asking Justin on behalf of the board to set up a meeting with our > potential new landlord, so we can 99 percent understand what we are on the > hook for. I don't mind if he leads the negotiations, but I want to be in the > room when the deal get's done. > > I don't feel comfortable till I can look someone in the eye and ask "Are we > getting boned on this?" > > Ian > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 2012-11-06, at 15:08, "Mark Jenkins" <m...@parit.ca> wrote: > >>> It may not be our asses on the line >>> financially, but if we made a decision that caused sksp to run into >>> undue financial burden and collapse, it'd be on our shoulders >>> (politically). >> >> You have cover politically from the members if the members pushed the >> organization in this direction. I suppose there will be some form of >> non-binding attempt to gauge the will of the membes (in attendance) tonight, >> not just by seeing who talks the loudest/most but some kind of show of hands >> again? >> >>> One question: was this endorsement given freely, or was it coerced? >> >> Justin gives a good lobby -- he should ditch architechure and go into that >> dark underword of political lobbying. >> >> Or perhaps a combination of the two arts -- either lobbying for particular >> archecural choices or designing great lobbys. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SkullSpace Discuss Mailing List >> Help: http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List#Discuss >> Archive: https://groups.google.com/group/skullspace-discuss-archive/ > _______________________________________________ > SkullSpace Discuss Mailing List > Help: http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List#Discuss > Archive: https://groups.google.com/group/skullspace-discuss-archive/ _______________________________________________ SkullSpace Discuss Mailing List Help: http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List#Discuss Archive: https://groups.google.com/group/skullspace-discuss-archive/
