Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingScot
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
|
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The Arlington Girl Scouts cannot sustain it as a camp for girls. The initial listing and subsequent sale agreement came across to me as rushed and there was insufficient effort and publicity that I am aware of (maybe it existed) on pursuing alternative camp operators; this seemed to come about after there was outcry about the sale. It should have been done first. I think the value of the land is relevant, not a deciding factor. To ensure long term viaibility of the organization, the trustees should be looking at how to sustain and grow programs for the next generation.
That said let me be clear on my opinion - ideally the whole thing is preserved as a low impact campground - minimal infrastructure improvements. If that is not possible, I would love to to see the trustees make a decision based on both preserving as much open space and undeveloped shoreline as possible in perpetuity while also ensuring a meaningful and ongoing income stream for the benefit of the Arlington Girl Scouts and girls as outlined in the trust. Given the value of the land this will be challenging.
This feels similar to what is happening to some small art museums who are unable to sustain themselves on donations, grants, and admissions but have millions of dollars of art in their collection. Should they sell some to create an endowment?
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/th...d-saga-1260569