Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia
But let's not lose sight of the bigger picture: the current Girl Scouts model isn't working. The property is worth $18 million, and the real question isn't just camp vs. no camp. It's recognizing the current model isn’t working, so what approach best preserves the shoreline and allows the Arlington Girl Scouts to get the most benefit from what is ultimately their asset? Seven houses and millions or an expanded camp that pays an annual rent? Personally, I'd love to see that undeveloped shoreline stay that way, but is that a realistic outcome without a financially sustainable plan behind it?
|
I think this is where we differ. To me, it is irrelevant that the camp is worth $18MM. The donor's objective as I understand it was to provide a great camping experience for kids, it was not to set up a financial endowment. He essentially gave them free rent in perpetuity so that the model would work forever. Now that the land value has skyrocketed, the Scouts see the dollar signs and they have gravitated to your position. But that does not mean the model does not work, it only means the Scouts are trying to maximize their finances