Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterG
I do not know his motive, but I think there's a good chance that a for-profit conference center is his primary goal. Nothing wrong with that at all, but it's not charity.
Also, when you say "the cost can be written off", that does not mean it is zero. $2MM has left Mr Everett's pocket. Once written off, the after tax amount falls, but it is still an investment of well over $1MM.
I agree that there are many people (and I trust that both of us are in this group) who seek to give back to the community. But that's the real puzzle--if you had $2MM (pretax) to give back to the community, would this be the first thing that came to your mind? Or maybe, if your primary goal is to enable more kids to attend camp--instead of sinking the cash upfront and crossing your fingers on approval of a new camp in a questionable area--you would support one of many existing struggling camps, or set up funds to support local kids who could not afford to attend one of the existing camps? In this model, $2MM could send dozens of kids to camp for decades, maybe forever.
This last question is not posed to be critical of Mr Everett, or to propose how he should spend his money. It's just a puzzle that his actions do not quite line up with his professed desire, or at least the desire most prominently attributed to him.
|
Peter, I don't disagree about the overall financial decisions (building new vs. supporting established), but there's a sizable difference (in terms of philanthropy) between leaving a legacy you created and just giving money to an establishment.
From what I've read, the owner would've made a lot more money--if that were his intent--by developing private homes.
Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk