Every city should have arts and cultural programs, the arts add an additional view and reference, and may bridge our effort to become more civilized. But, will an art center making much of a profit? Maybe in some larger cities, not expected in Pacifica.
The Art Guild of Pacifica lease extension with the City of Pacifica, 10 years (1/1/11 through 12/31/20).
1. Lease terms: City Council meeting 3/9/09, Art Guild LEASE, Item 4, print pages 11-18. Approval: City Council meeting 12/14/09, Art Guild, Item 12, (print pages 37-38).
2. Apparently no significant changes in the lease occurred from 3/9/09 until 12/14/09 because no revision was presented to the public.
3. The sub-lease applies to management of Sanchez Art Center (artist studios) only, and not to Pacifica Performances" (The Mildred Owen Concert Hall), which is a separate sub-lease.
Questions about the Art Guild of Pacifica lease transaction.
1. The city has a policy of sub-leasing to non-profit organizations, whereas the Art Guild of Pacifica is an association, a Club, is this an exception, if so why?
2. Note: Both Sanchez Art Center (artist studios) and Pacifica Performances (The Mildred Owen Concert Hall) are non-profit 501(c)3 corporations.
3. Note: If the Art Guild of Pacifica is merely a pass-through organization, no third party beneficiaries or brokers are named, (lease. section 8).
4. Is the Art Guild significantly capitalized, and how does it provide business and liability transactions?
5. Is the real leasing organization Sanchez Art Center (artist studios), and if so why was the lease extended without clear disclosure?
The confusion at Sanchez Art Center never goes away.
1. The Sanchez Art Center includes both performing and fine arts and is located at 1220 Linda Mar Boulevard, unless the site has been renamed-- has it?
2. "Sanchez Art Center" (the tenant studio non-profit organization) is NOT the same as Sanchez Art Center, and is separate from the Art Guild of Pacifica, the accountable sub-leasee.
3 Note: CA non-profit organizations disclosure indicates "Sanchez Art Center" (tenant studio organization) income and revenue is $153,834 (fiscal tax year 2008/09), asset amount $31,787; foundation code: "1/3 support from investment and unrelated business income, and 1/3 from fees."
4. Note: According to their "Dirty Palette" news letter, edition March, 2011, the Art Guild of Pacifica (unincorporated organization) is currently applying for non-profit 501(c)3 status, and their mission does not specify artist studio management. Do they even collect studio tenant fees, cover site expenses, and pay the monthly bill to the City? As a sub-leasee they are accountable to do that.
The City glossed-over report and approval, City Council meeting 12/14/09 , item 12 (link above).
1, Art Guild of Pacifica reasons to renew its 10 year lease 1 year or more in advance: "Schedule exhibits, obtain future grants, plan long range improvements" (letter 3/08) . Some of these issues (grants in particular) seem less likely for an unincorporated organization (Club).
2. Renovation information (1997-2001). Clarification: much of the Sanchez Art Center renovation funding was from grants, citizen donations and citizen labor.
3. City tax and revenue gain or loss is not significant. Tax gain (DeJarnatt 1% calculation), less than $100 annually. Financial benefit to city vendors, less than $10,000.
4. Expense impact to the City, + or - is not significant. Example, annual rent collection $17,880 (2009) vs. "site utilities" $16,696, variation $1,184 (2008/09). Utilities provided (gas, electric, water, sewer) are not defined specific to the studio site, nor is there a 10 year expense projection, or other ground/parking lot maintenance or other considerations noted.
Studio tenant rent assumption
1.The Art Guild of Pacifica (sub-leasee) tax return information is not available, but "Sanchez Art Center" (SAC) studio tenants is. SAC non-profit information indicates 1/3 of their income is from fees, part of what is claimed as $153,834 (2008/09) income is likely their own studio fees.
2. New studio rental fees are disclosed at Sanchez Art Studio Information, the range is approximately $480 for a small shared studio, to an estimated $675 for a large studio with a sink (4 tenants). Older contracts would be lower cost.
3. Note: The Art Guild of Pacifica (sub-lease) stipulates an annual flat fee will be paid to the city on a monthly basis. The "base rent" from 2011 is $1,568 (item 3.1). Each year from January 1st, the rent shall be adjusted upward 2.5% (Item 3.2). :
4. There should be about 20 studios. Average occupancy, whether all studios are filled or functional, average tenant rent cost are all unknown assumptions. The "base rent" for 2011 in the amount of $1,568 is known. Although not defined in the lease, the type of lease (modified net), management provided by the artist center, the arrangement with the City is to some extent known. Among other revenue producers, the art center may gain a higher percentage of revenue by filling studio vacancies, and raising prices as needed.
High gross rent assumption (an approximate guess) based revenue paid to the city, trial 1
Studios: 20 studios x 2 average shared occupants = 40 tenant units.
Tenant rental fees: $200 average tenant cost, x 40 tenants = $8,000 art center monthly income.
Rent fees paid to the City: $1,568 monthly (19.60%)
Retained by the artist center to provide management and maintenance: $6,432 (80.40%)
Low gross rent assumption (an approximate guess) based revenue paid to the city, trial 2
Studios: 19 studios x 1.75 average share occupants = 33.25 tenant units.
Tenant rental fees: $180 average tenant cost x 33.25 tenants = $5,985 art center monthly income.
Rent fees paid to the City: $1,568 monthly (26.20%)
Retained by the artist center to provide management and maintenance: $4,417 (73.80%)
Disclaimer. Social issues and fair process within the artist center have not been considered. Posted information is based upon documents viewed, presented, and reasonable assumption from these.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
51 comments:
At first look the art center websites are dazzling. 2nd look, Sanchez Art Center (tenants) and Art Guild of Pacifca smack of the same 'ol "smoke and mirrors". And, new studios leases are much expensive than they used to be.
The City sub-lease contract with the Art Guild of Pacifica (Club) looks very lose, sloppy and beyond marginal-- unless the contract itself was changed and not presented to the public.
How can anyone believe practices at the artist center are fair or better than they used to be when the controlling party (the tenants 501(c)3 organization) is not named, or the relationship defined in the sub-lease contract?
The city approval report (12/14/09) glosses-over NET $0 art center city revenue as if it were "an economic plan for the city". And characterizes grants and community effort as Art Guild of Pacifica revenue. Does the Art Guild of Pacifica even pay the monthly rent through their own check at this site?
Sure, this is another "economic plan" for the city-- that's what City staff promoted at the 12/14/09 city council meeting. No, its just another cozy arrangement with city council majority. And, as for it being "an economic plan", well that's part of the reason the city is in deep economic trouble.
And we wonder why we struggle? This (and others) should be 'income properties' Keep voting Pacifica, we're almost there...
We're almost where? Saddled with cleaning up this mess? Lotsa luck untangling the mess we know as the Sanchez Art Center. And we'll need dynamite to get those longtime leaches out of there. Dynamite and a good attorney. While newer leases are "better" than the old group, none are market-rate. This city has been left a legacy of favoritism, negligence, and mis-management and there is no "finer" example than this private club we foolishly call an art center. Don't think for a minute that a change of one seat or even two on council will make this mess go away in less than a decade. It will be a long and costly haul.
Did you know that Pacifica demographics have changed in the past 10 years? It is without question, the leeches in Pacifica who make the decisions are folks with financial interests and they need to vacate those seats. There are a LOT of them too. The majority of voters are the 55 and up club and the former avenue for slamming an election was through the Pacifica Democrats, that is now changing. The mission statement of Pacifica should read "get MORE voters out to the polls." We're almost there' refers to our last election being a two-fold victory - the 55+ club voting for change and newbies coming to the polls. There are some very well versed folks on FixPacifica. Aside from the gripe factor, what are the goals of FixPacifica? Pacifica has so much potential and not everyone thinks it's a loss. The goal is to FIX Pacifica, right? How frequently does this group meet in person with a plan and an election strategy? Can FixPacifica agree on a candidate? Quit yer bitchin' and do something.
Cities that can afford this should have Art Centers? Who does this benefit besides the tanants getting taxpayer subsidized rent?
How is this far to a business trying to do the same thing as Steven Johnson. He pays 1/4 of market rent, has his utilities paid by the city and runs a for profit business in this scam.
The city needs to get rid of the 3 stooges on the council, who have allowed this over the years.
And I wonder how many of our city subsidized tenants are from out of town and enjoying Pacifica's largess?
What a gig. For profit operations, enjoying below market rent, competing with studios that pay full market rent. And council wonders why they have a budget problem. This is just one small example of mismanagement that the three stooges on council have mastered at the citizens expense. Anyone for an ocean front city hall? Powered by a waste oil plant?
"Enough" (719) Fix Pacifica is a shared public information blog. You have the desire to start or participate in an improved economy revolution, send me an email and we'll talk: improvedeconomy@gmail.com
Maybe if if all you real estate types would get off your big behinds and go out and sell some houses you'd be helping Pacific's economy more then worrying about the few pennies the Arts Center generates. You people are pathetic, oh wait, now I know why this place is called "Pathetica"!
Roost, you NAILED IT! Subsidized tenants are a huge part of Pacifica's problems. It's not just the Three Stooges on council, it's the manager, the Planning Commission, code enforcement and much more. Kathy, there are other groups that discuss local politics and I know my group looks to your blog frequently because you are very informative. The key word is 'start.' In order to be effective, the bickering needs to be checked at the door. Patience is a virtue...
Looking objectively at that last election we'd better hope for two, no more than two please, young, vibrant, hard-campaigning candidates like Stone. Wouldn't hurt if the incumbents chose not to run. At least one of them.
The Sanchez Art Center is a private club subsidized by the city. It's been that way since it started. Any attempts to sort it out over the years have been met with "hands off". We're even helping the for- profit photog studio make money. How grand! No wonder the guy feels entitled to run the place. When do we start helping other Pacifica businesses make money? Too late for some, I guess. This bullshit starts and stops with Council.
What maketh a good politician, youth?
Anon9:23 pennies, dollars whatever. Wrong is wrong. The cozy, preferential relationship between the city and the Art Center(particularly some tenants) is wrong. Your attitude avoids, condones and enables. That's always been the pathetic in Pathetica.
anon@11:05 A good politician gets elected. Youth is often seen as fresh and untainted, dynamic, full of potential and worthy of an opportunity. Untainted goes a long way in Pacifica. Stone won with those qualities. If it was all about change, or some bigger political shift in Pacifica, the incumbents would have been out.
As I recall, Councilperson DeJarnatt was the one who pushed this extension through.
well, what are friends for?
Thank you 11:13 this is the Bay Area, it's amazing here. If 9:41 wants to call himself Pathetica or Pasyphilis or whatever moniker he uses, so be it, but don't take down the rest of us. Some of us have a vision... and it's not Carmel or Half Moon Bay. Pacifica is a beautiful place with some serious issues. The Art Center is one such problem. Mr. Pathetica, why don't you contribute to the educational process? How many a) elected officials b) city employees receive subsidy income on their rentals?
What!!!Tell us what you know if you're sure of the facts.
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... I think it's a duck. Subsidized housing is one of the most lucrative markets in the US and people with multiple rentals figure it out quickly when they have vacancies. There are different categories too and different percentages of payment - you don't even have to list your property as Section 8 to receive these funds. Realtors are very aware of subsidy income - some partake, others do not.
Occasionally you'll find HUD tenants who trash a house, but for the most part these are pros who avoid work and live off the taxpayer for a living. Pacifica has more than a small share of freeloaders. Speaking of freeloaders, did you know the Pacifica Resource Center is a funded by the Tides Foundation (can you pronounce Soros?)
Subsidized housing guarantees income for landlords unless the County goes belly up and doesn't pay. Your tax dollars at work! Will share details as they surface.
"Patience is a virtue... " so you say "Enough" (950). But, 30 years of working the "virtue" of dumb, blind "patience" is more than enough.
The election numbers show city voters support better, pro-economy city council candidates and would prefer to usher-in a functional, economically solvent city (of course). The problem is those who want NOTHING for Pacifica are unified enough to count candidates during any given election. You want to work on this together next election? BTW, by posting an email address invitation, I got the answer I expected from you. Do you think you were playing with me?
Anon (202) some people need subsidized housing, you know the old, poor, handicapped, unemployable. How do you suggest solving that civic need? Would you prefer theses section 8 tenants live on the street with their bed roll and beg, or does rounding them up and trucking them off to a concentration camp sound better to you? Interesting how this comparison came-up in a conversation about the artist center.
Did you learn anything with this post "Enough"?
"...did you know the Pacifica Resource Center is a funded by the Tides Foundation (can you pronounce Soros?)"
Then good for Soros.
"The election numbers show city voters support better, pro-economy city council candidates and would prefer to usher-in a functional, economically solvent city (of course)."
I'm going to disagree Kathy. Vreeland and Digre got elected.
From what I can tell, the candidates with the most name recognition win, and unfortunately, I'm not trying to be cynical.
No we don't want low income trucked off to concentration camps, wow. Completely misunderstood. The direction of the conversation landed at subsidized tenancy because anon @ 7:54 commented about Steven Johnson. Subsidized housing is a huge problem in Pacifica because they are not contributing to the tax base. There's nothing derogatory about such a comment, it's a fact. And we don't need to draw additional low income residents into a city that is already under water. Low income residents cost the city money in services. They cost more than we'll make in subsidies. Does that make me a machiavellian pig? Pacifica needs to take care of Pacifica before we add to our financial woes.
Pacifica does a great job through Pacificans Care and other community based groups. I learned on THIS blog that the city doles out $ to PRC. Our tax dollars go to the Tides Foundation aka Pacifica Resource Center, that's a damn crime because not all of it goes back into our community.
Kathy, the bloggers on this site can turn unfriendly quickly which is why the majority are anons and I chose not to email you today. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to meet you and all the bloggers. You took it very personally, I am sorry. I made a pretty fair statement about doing something organized. I am doing something already and I see fellow bloggers on this site at our Council meetings. I love that. I will be working on the next election. I connected with every voter I knew (and some I didn't) and asked them to vote for Len Stone because I met him personally, heard him speak and saw his level of professionalism and commitment to this coastal town. I share this blog too because it is informative: that is also 'doing something.' You are doing a fantastic job at providing information to Pacifica. So was that new Patch kid. What happened to him? He barely roasted Vreeland and now he is mute. I guess he got his hand slapped? I digress....
We need a candidate NOW to replace Pete DeJarnatt in 2012. Leon, Davidson, Clifford, Arietta, Vellone? There were too many candidates in 2010. That really hurt us. And, if you really desire change, it cannot be a native OR it has to be someone so grounded in his or her beliefs that he will not be infected by the leeches. I suspect someone so strong would not be well received by the NOTHING group.
Were there any endorsements on this blog in 2010? Yes, I learned something. I learn something about Pacifica each time I read this blog.
"Vreeland and Digre got elected." Well there is that, Steve (542).
Different analysis. 5 passable pro-economy candidates, some people voted for 2 as a strategy???? Status quo candidates were no more than 3. And, with a look back at past elections there is a similar pattern. With a vote delusion on the pro-economy challenger side its pretty hard to win, but total numbers collectively favor the pro-economy candidates. Net result, however, as you've so aptly pointed out: we lose.
Name recognition is a default advantage for sure.
I only considered Stone, Vellone and Arietta to be the only seriously pro-economy candidates.
"Enough" (641) thanks for your reply. You were playing with me so I whacked you, its only fair.
Of course you're right, too many challenger city council candidates, and on this blog there was equal opportunity for all to post articles.
I still think you would prefer to send our poor and disadvantages to Daly City.
Kathy, the bloggers on this site can turn unfriendly quickly which is why the majority are anons and I chose not to email you today. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to meet you and all the bloggers.
A word of warning, Enough is Enough,
I emailed Kathy at that address about 18 months ago when I was under a different impression about this site and its attitude about Pacifica. She unfortunately chose to share my personal information (name/employer/position) that I naively included in my email with other individuals who subsequently posted that info to Patch and other local sites in not-so-subtle threats about contacting my employer (whom they named) and getting me fired. It was a very unfortunate and disappointing thing to have happen.
While I recognize Kathy for her involvement in Pacifica organizations such as POOCH (and others) and for her efforts on this site to bring public awareness to local topics, she will unfortunately always be known in my mind for crossing that ethical line. So be aware of this history before you share anything you might consider private.
Along those lines, certain individuals here also have access to that little "Visitors" counter app you see in the bottom-left corner of the webpage here and have used that to track IPs in an attempt to "out" posters, so be aware of that as well.
I'm glad Fix Pacifica is online and provides an outlet for alternate discussion. I simply realized some time ago that I didn't find the discussions here very fruitful, and that's okay -- it's just not a site for me -- so I just stopped participating and instead direct my energies elsewhere these days.
The Pacifica Resource Center is with Tides because the city cut them loose about 5 years ago. Don't misunderstand...the city stopped its administrative support and oversight of the Resource Center, cut funding to $83,000 per year (where it is now)and wished them well. Pacifica just did not want to be in the Human Services business any longer. The PRC board found Tides so that the PRC could continue its important work. Tides provides an administrative umbrella for the PRC and by handling all the back-office stuff (not insignificant) the small local staff can focus on clients (a growing population). Sorry to disappoint but there is nothing sinister in this association with Tides. And if Soros is a power behind Tides then he's helping a lot of people all over this country. Somebody has to.
Nope, you give me tax money and a healthy economy and I'll take the poor and disadvantaged because we have the funds to give them the quality of life they deserve that includes housing, education and opportunity - the great American way. Subsidy is a four letter word = F A I L
Name recognition plays a huge role in elections but it can and has been overcome by dynamic challengers who capture the voter's interest. When Lancelle quit she opened the door for one new face. Thank God the voters found Len Stone to be far more interesting than Leon. I don't think it had much to do with being pro-business
for most voters...they easily re-elected two incumbents.
Enough, taking care of the poor and disadvantaged only when it's comfortable for us to do so is certainly not the great American way.
There is a difference between the poor/disadvantaged and freeloaders. Yes, I flatly refuse to enable, but I will gladly help someone stand on their own two feet. Millions of immigrants over the years brought talents, culture and amazing work ethics to America. Unfortunately, the Age of Entitlement is upon us.
I agree with Anon 8:40 name recognition is critical. Again, your candidate needs to surface now so he/she becomes a household name well in advance of election 2012. The candidate needs to do the rounds like Stone did. That takes a lot of time since meetings are held monthly and there are lots of sub groups in Pacifica. What about Clifford?
Bright, honorable man but he just didn't capture the voter's interest. Uphill battle that would require a lot of work and resources and a team behind him. I think he did his own thing last time.
Stone announced his candidacy at the last minute. There's no need for Council candidates to start running now.
And he had a big sign.
Len campaigned in-person all over Pacifica. He did have a big sign, but that's not what got him elected. He schmoozed the right people who were connected to the key voting groups and earned his seat. He was also a good listener, people liked that. If we lose the seat back to an incumbent again, change will occur when I have grandchildren.
Enough, you are gonna breed??
Len is the last person I would have voted for BUT having said that I think he is making a determined effort, a sincere and honest effort to be a good council member. For that he deserves an Attaboy.
Chris, I don't think Kathy was involved in what happened to you. From what I can tell, a couple of former editors who had access to the logs were able to figure out who you were, and they were the ones who sent you the threatening emails.
Again, they no longer have access to the logs.
I appreciate the steps you took at the time, Steve.
In what I thought was a private email to Kathy, I mentioned my job title and as she was the only one I ever mentioned this to... well, when I saw my name and job title appear in threatening posts over on Patch... what else explains it -- an IP address won't tell anyone what I do for a living.
Again, it was unfortunate that she chose to cross that line, but more to the point it's important that posters here realize how people associated with Fix Pacifica (editors past and present) have conducted themselves and that to participate on this blog is to potentially open themselves up to this sort of behaviour.
Yes, if people had your actual job title, then there must have been an issue beyond the logs.
Chris Fogel (6/2, 7:15pm and (442pm), I don't know your personally, and your characterization of me is GARBAGE. There is plenty of information about you on the internet, which has nothing whatsoever to do with this blog, me or an email we shared "18 months ago".
Steve (300) stated a plausible explanation about your email address; but personal information, addresses and email directories do exist on the internet-- as do comments you have posted under your name mainly on Patch and Riptide and Tribune letters under your name. Check-it-out.
You say you have had problems on Patch. So, what does that have to do with Fix Pacifica?
You have suggested without cause, justification or valid reason someone has called your work to get you fired. Or, the reason may even be based upon "I don't agree with your opinion". Chris, to threaten your job based upon no reason is a serious issue which may have legal recourse; otherwise, although it may be true it sounds NUTS.
You seldom post on Fix Pacifica under your name (but you do post elsewhere under your name, namely Patch and Riptide). Your reaction to these "job threats" has apparently been passive over several months (no complaints on this blog or to my email address). Yet, here you are yesterday and today, spreading "bad news", cautioning people to FEAR posting here with their names on Fix Pacifica.
Fix Pacifica is not the source of your blog problems (so stated by you). So, does your urgent TRASH comments have something to do with this art center article? Are you the anonymous person who bluntly without facts defended the art center several days ago on another post?
What am I to make of what you say, it doesn't make sense? And as Judge Judy says IF IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, IT PROBABLY ISN'T TRUE.
Todd, they give us time to procreate in the asylum. They keep taking my computer away from me. Apparently, I have delusions. Any endorsements, Todd?
Chris, I'm assuming that's an alias too considering Steve's comment "were able to figure out who you were, and they were the ones who sent you threatening emails" thank you for the information. I am deeply sorry your commentary on a blog would result in an injury to you professionally. That's really sad.
Chris did contact me about a year ago about some threats, and I do think they came from one or two former editors who are no longer affiliated with the blog and who were upset with Chris's comments. There was an email that Kathy sent out to the PLUS group that included some information on Chris, but there was nothing hostile intended. Unfortunately, it looks like one of the former editors saw it, and by going through the logs, was able to put 2 + 2 together to figure out who Chris's employer was.
Enough is Enough,
I used to post under a pen name here, but I guess my points of view made some people upset enough that they began posting bogus posts using the same alias. At one point I'd say only 50% were actually mine -- it was actually kind of funny, but of course the fun and games stopped when (prior?) moderators/webmasters of this site started with the personal threats. Interestingly they started in with the personal details like my real name and place of business only after I shared that info with an editor on this site.
It's all a bunch of dumb Internet drama that I haven't felt the need to get into, but when you mentioned you were thinking about contacting people off-site, I thought you ought to know about my experience. I guess it's always just rubbed me the wrong may.
All you folks who think Mr. Stone is different from the other four councilmembers; you gotta look at is his voting record:
Sewer tax increase: One of three yes votes, he could have voted no and stopped the thing in its tracks. No guts there.
Garbage rate increase: A yes vote, part of a five-vote majority, and not a word in opposition.
If you think he's going to help you - you need help.
Chris (902), what possible reason would these past editors come after you? MOTIVE???? Steve believes one of them may have, I don't (crossing my fingers on 1). If there are complaints at your work, HR may have a traceable record unless they were crank calls.
When you expressed an interest in our Improved Economy meeting, of course I asked the e-group, "does anyone know him"? Reasonable question.
Information on you (all of us) is available through the internet, and depending upon access background checks may also be available. I don't know about your "internet drama", but I plan to view some of your comments.
Good, careful information and ethics are important to me, so to suggest otherwise is suspect of you, as well as an annoyance to me. Sorry you have had internet problems, and hope these get cleared-up soon if they have not already.
As a point of reassurance or discomfort depending on how you look at it, the former bloggers are still listed as affiliated with this site and their other blogs are connected even though they are deactivated. Bloggers need to remember what happens on the internet...stays on the internet even if the moderator deletes it. It's called a digital fingerprint aka digital dossier. Chris you have nothing to worry about, your IP address actually protects you or incriminates you depending on what you're typing and to whom. 2012 should be an interesting election. I will not be running, but "we" will be campaigning when the right candidate surfaces.
This thread began as a conversation about the Art Center. While it may be a failed revenue source, art centers are usually philanthropic by nature anyway. If it's not costing the City money, leave it alone. Pick and choose your battles wisely. While it's very relevant, it's near the bottom of the list. Is it true that Eureka Square is not renewing leases so it can be sold off for housing? Crap, here we go again!
Anon (959) my unofficial citizen voting record: Sewer and garbage Yes on both. Develop the OWWTP and the Quarry Yes on both. Golf course and sea wall, Yes on both. Develop the OWWTP and the Quarry,Yes on both. LEN STONE VOTES THE SAME WAY, AND THE DIFFERENCE IS HE HAS CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY. OUR CITY NEEDS MORE OF THAT.
Thanks for the sympathtic ear, Kathy.
I realize that you felt passing along my info was harmless, but it ended up causing me a lot of stress because of the subsequent actions of these individuals. I truly have no idea why they did what they did and yes, I continue to weigh my options about what to do in a legal sense though most of the offending posts were eventually deleted by the editor of the site.
As for the subject of this thread, the Sanchez Art Center -- I don't know much about it and as I mentioned up-thread^, I appreciate your dissemination of info on this site -- as you've illustrated, there's a really complicated set of agreements and arrangements covering the complex and in the end, I don't know if anyone knows the true story. I do know however that it's too complicated for me to follow.
Take care.
-Chris Fogel
Chris, if not too personal, offending articles were posted where? On Jeff's blog, somewhere else, or here?
I do understand the past financial history of the artist center, it was corrupt and city council majority failed to do a needed forensic audit.
The current City arrangement is leased to one entity (not qualified by usual city standards), while a separate entity (SAC) controls, collects and stores the money. There is no cross-over accountability in the paperwork presented to the public 3/9/09. It may have been changed after-the-fact, but that was not what was passed through city council (so that's not right either).
As "Enough" suggested, the artist center is not an economic plan for the city, even though at the city council meeting "dog and pony show" (12/14/09) the artist center was falsely described as that.
I posting the research because of a comment opinion stalemate on another article. The anonymous who defended the artist center without facts seems to have disappeared.
Chris, I have begun to read your comments posted on the internet (looks good, and I do see an initial dust-up with Rocky on Patch). "18 months ago" you mentioned there are 2 Chris Fogels in Pacifica. Are you the only one posting, or is that a confusion and how do we distinguish one from the other?
BTW, quick search: cost for an email address $2. Some occupations and company affiliations no charge. (However, I will take your advisement to be careful with these).
These days, there is almost no way to hide, which makes some of the goofy stuff the city does even more transparent (example, as described on this article).
Anon 6/3, (9:59pm), I think Len Stone will fight the bigger battles, and is more conciliatory on the smaller ones. (Just an opinion).
Anon (1006), that is such a nothing comment coming from you.
As Todd has been known to say: "man-up" and put your name to that comment. Viewing some of the Patch blog comments, Chris Fogel seems intelligent, knowledgeable and has something to say-- unlike some Anons we do know.
Post a Comment