Camp and property sales

[jkhny 10]

From the "Camp Kilworth bites the dust" thread

 

"This land is worth millions of dollars but, there's a catch, BSA doesn't own it. In this case, the deed stipulates that if the camp is not maintained and used by the "Tacoma area Boy Scouts", the ownership of the property will revert back to the Kilworth heirs. BSA can't sell the property because it doesn't own it.

 

To get around this provision, the local council has struck a deal with a few representatives of the Kilworth family. BSA will give back the property if the Kilworths will cut them in for a major portion of the profits. They've even arranged a deal with a local developer that wants to harvest the timber and put expensive view homes on the property. In this deal, Pacific Harbors Council stands to gain about $2.3M for which the Kilworth family will pocket a tidy $1M bribe. Local Scouters are split on the deal. Some are accepting the Council's story that the family wants to donate the proceeds while others have noticed that the family is in no way in agreement and are encouraging the Kilworth family to just take possession of the property and keep the entire $3.3M. "

 

 

This story parallels many others and raises some questions - practical, ethical and moral.

 

Someone donates property to Boy Scouts with the condition that it be used for Scouting - the intent, specifically spelled out or not, that boys make use of the property itself (NOT the money obtained from its sale). If not USED by BSA it reverts to the donor or some other group. Here we had a bequest that had an escape clause of sorts - after 20 years the property could be sold but ONLY if the proceeds were used ("to purchase" everyont THOUGHT) for another property of eequal or greater value.

 

Years, decades, later Boy Scouts doesn't want to use the property - for whatever reason. But they don't own it. Legally can't sell it. In simple terms - they should simply give it back - to the heirs or whoever. Period. BSA was given USE of the property. They aren't going to USE it anymore.

 

But in cases like Kilworth - and so many others - a "deal" of some kind is brokered. BSA gets to somehow get part or all of the proceeds when such a property is sold. A great deal of legal effort is expended on such deals. Yes, it's better that BSA gets some money from such sales - but SHOULD they?

 

This type of transaction ENCOURAGES BSA to sell off property, NOT to make good use of it. Instead of real long term planning to maintain financial health and fund their facilities, too many Councils simply run through their assets, selling them off one at a time. Now here "camping and events" costs equal the revenues for "camping and events". These propertiies are free from taxes and CAN be self-funding.

 

The decline in properties does NOT match the declines in membership - it far outpaces them AND has hurt Scouting.

 

Facilities and Camps that are farther and farther away mean LESS use and contribute to more declines. Parents of a 12 year old boy - and the boy himself may be far more comfortable with a camp 1 hour away - that his Troop has already visited on weekends - than one 3 hours away.

 

Fewer facilities farther away HURT Scouting programs.

 

Our Council used to own 3 camps - two close and one far away. The closer camps (originally 2 different Councils) provided a more "civilized" summer camp eaxperience and could be also used on weekends during the year. The other camp was a more "high adventure" camp and far more "primitive."

 

Now we only have the more primitive one - too primitive for some of the younger Scous and their parents - and too far away. A Scout can do much of what there is to do in three or four weeks total - a time period covered by many in two stays. Many boys in our Troop have "been there done that".

 

With regards to the facility previously mentioned....it is on the Long Island Scound, with an indoor pool, docks, large meeting rooms and a large "garage" for boat storage and maintenance. It also has a trust fund for maintenance and upkeep. This facility makes money as a place used by other groups besides Scouting as well. It will NEVER be replaced given the unavailability of such parcels. It is expected that a few mansions will be be built by any buyer. Use of "alternate" public facilities will NOT make up for loss of this facility. We are NOT "replacing" it in a real and pragmatic sense with use of the already owned "rocks and stagnant lake" though that is the claim. So, why is it being sold? Volunteers oppose this sale and have fought it in court. BSA won - with the understanding that the funds will be uded for an EXISTING facility - a pile of rocks around a stagnant lake - itself a remnant of a far larger parcel.

 

The remaining Scout parcel (besides summer camp 4 hours away) has an environmental easement to preserve the remaining part of a great swamp - which says much about the property. It is 45 minutes to an hour away from us at the far end of our Council andd is NOT easy to reach. Some very nice - and EXTREMELY costly (some would scream "overpriced") cabins were built which serve Cub Scouts fine but are a bit too civilized for many Troops. But there are few flat spots for tent camping - and none without rocks in your back. Water facilities are an algae filled pond - replacing an indoor pool and access to LI Sound.

 

Does anyone NOT expect FEWER Scouts to go swimming, learn boating, learn sailing and (I doubt it Scuba Diving) like they did in the far closer old facility?'

So why is this and other camps being sold? MONEY.

 

If BSA could NOT profit from these sales they would focus far harder on finding a way to fund them and use them.

 

But there is NO incentive to do so. Scout owned facilities are the "piggybank" that is raided far too often.

 

Salaries for executives are a higher priority than camp maintenance and upkeep. MONEY in an endowment fund a higher priority than program resources. And WHAT is left to "endow?"

 

Scout Executives that can't balance their budgets are more than willing to sell off property - hey, they're only in a Council for so long. Meet your "goals" and move on. There is NO incentive to retain or even BUILD for the future.

 

We've all seen the routine.

 

Let a camp or facility run down by NOT keeping it up - even minimally. Then as use starts to decline BECAUSE it is not kept up, deliberately limit use more. Move previously held events elsewhere. Don't have it open often. Don't even mention that the place exitsts to new leaders. Make it difficult to use for those that still want to use it. The decline worsens and after a while use is minimal. Then Council leadership announces:

 

"Nobody's using it, it costs too much to maintain - we HAVE to sell it"

 

Chicago has seen that happen over and over and has said "NO MORE!" and is fighting - but volunteers don't matter. Leadership has said Owasippe is no more (the last of many there).

 

BSA is running through its assets everywhere - another sign of a poorly run and failing organization.

 

NATIONAL is sitting on $500,000,000 in LIQUID assets - securities and cash, bragging about what a great job they're doing for BSA's FINANCIAL future. Well where does all that money go when you have no camps and no boys? Salaries and retirement benefits for those running a contrive "educational" program - "Learning for Life". (I haven't seen too many people saying that LFL is a great program and far BETTER than Scouting but that's the way National leadership seems to think.)

 

Do these sales make sense on a practical level - limiting facilities and hurting access?

 

Do they make sense on an ethical and moral level - selling property actually USED by boys to obtaion money supposedly used for boys - but in a far less direct way?

 

Questionable property sales hurt Scouting Programs and hurt Scouting's image. The even HURT fundraising. A lot of donors get really annoyed when you close down THEIR old Camp or sell off THEIR old Scout Cabin

 

Why are camps being sold off and new Council offices being built at the same time? This IS occurring. Looks bad. Another warning sign - executives more concerned with THEIR own perks than what is available for the kids they are supposed to serve. Sorry but Council offices do NOT provide DIRECT "support" for kids. A Camp does. A local Scout Cabin does. A local Scout Center with a pool does. A local Reservation does.

 

And if BSA is claiming that less money is now coming in (at least for Scouting - they can't use all those LFL funds coming from grants and charitable donations on the "discriminatory" Scouts) - why is that?

 

"Field of Dreams" Build it and they will come. Kids WILL show up and join Scouting if you have great LOCAL facilities they can't find elsewhere. They DON'T join up to visit a new Scout Shop and offices.

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

jkhny, who at National pissed in your Wheaties?

 

[Bob White 20]

The assets of a council and the assets of the BSA are not the same. The council is an independent corporation from the BSA. The BSA does not own your camps. The Council owns your camps, unless it is a national camp within your council such a Philmont.

 

A council has assets, they also have income and expenditures. One way that a council can gain income is by converting physical assets to cash income. For instance. A council can no longer afford to operate munltiple properties. So they take the property that is either the most difficult to upgrade, the most valuable on the market, or has the least program potential (or a blending of each) and they sell it to generate funds to improve other camps or program areas or to reduce debt.

 

Not every council is selling camps, some even buy camps, most take the money and improve the camp they have. My own council used to have 5 we now have one. That was done nearly 23 years ago, so you see selling camps is nothing new. Councils have bought and sold or gained properties on and off for decades. We now have a very good one. We are now finally out of debt partly caused by trying to operate and develop more properties than we could afford.

 

But the important thing is Not a single scout suffered. No scout quit, although a few cranky leaders did (but they were a pain in butt even before the properties were sold) no troop stopped going camping, they just went other places. Today few scouts or scouters even knew those properties existed. Life goes on just fine thank you.

 

In Kilworth you have these options

1 Keep the property as it drains your resources and the heirs get nothing.

 

2 Give the property away for free and stop the drain but gain nothing for the property while giving the heir land you invested in. (I'll just bet you'd have a fit about that as well but we don't get to find out.).

 

3 Cooperate with the heirs so that the Council gets need funds and the family gets a portion of the inheritance. (Seems fair all around.)

 

I realize of the three you would choose #1. But that would be an irresponsible decision for those trusted with the council's long range financial health.

 

It is the responsibility of the board of directors (who make no personal income from the decision) to do what is best in the long run for their scouting community, not what will appease the emotions of volunteers. This is a business decision.

 

I offer this without the slightes possibility of you learning from it but in the hopes that other, more sensible folks, will.

 

I grew up in the Chicago are we rarely camped in the same campground twice, many are still there. Rather than weep over not being able to go to Owasippe why not grab your pack and go somewhere else, it's a big world.

 

What exactly do you do in scouting besides complain? I would love to talk with you about that.

 

 

[SemperParatus 1]

Has anyone ever seen historical data on the total acreage controlled by BSA and councils?

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

If a Scout Camp is sold and nobody is there to complain, has it really been sold?

[jkhny 10]

"If a Scout Camp is sold and nobody is there to complain, has it really been sold? "

 

Nobody ever joined BSA because a camp WASN'T there.

 

Many have joined because one was. I had a friend who joined our Troop after hearing stories about our first summer at Scout Camp. My youngest couldn't wait to get into Cub Scouts to go to the same place his brother was going to Day Camp - the place we are now selling.

 

Fewer and fewer members are the primary problem Scouting now faces - and a trend leadership has failed even to slow.

 

BSA may have the unquestioning loyalty of some but it is giving too many of its members reasons to leave and too many potential members reasons NOT to ever join. It is giving too many former Scouts reasons NOT to support Scouting. It's hard to appeal to someone's fond memories of Scouting when you've sold them off....

 

A sale like Owasippe and the refusal of leadership to be accountable to its members drives good people out of Scouting.

 

 

"I offer this without the slightest possibility of you learning from it but in the hopes that other, more sensible folks, will."

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

>Rather than weep over not being able to go to Owasippe why not grab >your pack and go somewhere else, it's a big world.

 

I don't see anyone "weeping" over Owasippe. The deal to sell the land was done in a very unusual way; in a way that gives the appearance of having done an end run around those in the Chicago Area Council that were against the sale. Owasippe should be a special place for Scouting. It is the oldest continuously operating Boy Scout camp in the U.S. If you include contiguous open land, it is probably large enough to hold the Jamboree if the military stops supporting it. It has problems, mostly money-related. But, if they do have to sell it, you would think that it would be done above board and with a clear consensus. That doesn't seem to be the case, and that should be brought out in the open.

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

jkhny, regarding your response to Fuzzy Bear's post, I just have one question. Have you ever heard of a "joke"?

[jkhny 10]

Not really a response to FB

 

Should have split

 

[Bob White 20]

Sentimentality will not pay bills or make an unprofitable camps profitable. The only consensus needed is a majority vote of the council executive committee which the Chicago Area Council had. Unit volunteers are not responsible for managing the council.

 

You want to keep your camps, use them, pay the usage fees, support FOS, attend your concils Summer Camp, Sell Popcorn. Operating and owning properties is expensive. If you are not helping your council to grow financially then you are giving away your camps, the council is only doing the paperwork that you created.

 

Stop blaming other people and become personally responsible for your role in scouting.

 

jhkny, I do not question your loyalty, you have already displayed what little you have for all of us to see. I question your purpose in posting the tripe that you do, I question the extremely limited and often flawed knowledge of scouting you show. But I have no doubts as to the limits of your loyalty.

[jkhny 10]

Got it now....

 

"Loyalty" comes first.

 

So, "loyalty" should be unquestioning, preferrably absolute and takes precedence over all else. Anything less is unacceptable, almost traitorous.

 

"Whoever is in Boy Scouts of America is not one among millions but one dedicated to an idea - Scouting. The individual member's value to the whole is determined by the degree to which he is permeated by the idea. The best Scout, irrespective of rank and office, is he who completely surrenders himself to the view of B.S.A."

 

paraphrasing the awkwardly translated words from a speech by the head of an immensely successful and far larger youth organization - Schirach

 

 

Is THAT what you're trying to say?

 

Just confirmed my worst fears......

 

I would argue - vociferously - that this is NOT what Scouting should be teaching ANYONE. I am appalled that I can even make the comparison in attitudes (NOT organizations).

 

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

jkhny,

 

Your emotional response to a situation beyond your control is something that some of us can relate to because we have been a recipient of similar situations. It is a mixture of anger, despair, betrayal, and disbelief. Change is all around us and we live on the edge of losing most of what we value in life when we least expect it. We may feel like we are caught in a web of living with values that others have decided on and are contrary to our most cherished dreams. So, questioning your Scouting knowledge or your loyalty should be last on the list. It is how we live with change and that is the basis of our Law regarding Courage that is foremost.

 

What is happening is not directed at you and no matter how silly the decision appears, someone believes it to be utmost in their world of values. Scouting will not cease even if the decision was totally wrong. Your values will not cease or your dreams. Our world is full of change and the things we hold most dear in Scouting are less than one hundred years old. There are those that have gone before us that have lost centuries of heritage. It doesn't make it right or any easier to accept but it is inevitable and sad nonetheless.

 

FB

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Bob, no one said anything about the unit volunteers having anything to say about the sale of Owasippe. I said it would have been good to have a consensus before the sale was completed. That isn't required, but at least then there's a better chance that every idea for saving the camp could have been viewed.

 

As far as the vote goes, there are conflicting stories about what actually occurred. It seems that a majority of the voting quorum were in favor of the sale. However, 3 of the approving votes were reportedly made via conference call, and it's unclear whether this is allowed under the CAC bylaws. By contrast, voters thought to be against the sale were allegedly not allowed to vote by proxy or otherwise. If these allegations are true, then while the sale may have been technically "legal", it smacks of political maneuvering that is most unScoutlike.

 

But you are correct, good intentions don't pay the bills. Currently the Owasippe sale is contingent on rezoning of the area. But, even if the camp doesn't get rezoned and the sale falls through, what then? The camp is still short on funds to continue operating. As I understand it, participation at the camp is rising again, and the deficit appears to be much less than in previous years. And, while it is CAC property, you would think that the National office, while having no legal obligation to do so, would be interested in helping to preserve the oldest continuously operating Boy Scout camp in the U.S. Might be a nice place invest a bit of the $500M they're reportedly sitting on these days.

[Bob White 20]

jkhny writes "Is THAT what you're trying to say? "

 

Not at all, in fact there is nothing in what I wrote that comes anywhaere near that, which is another testament to the tripe you post.

 

What I said was (and as you already understand I am sure) is that scouters like you (if you actually are one) are what cause camps to have to be sold. You resolute position that all is evil beyond the unit is what weakens a councils resources and brings about the very actions that you protest. You are your own worst enemy and proof that leader selection is one of the most imposrtant roles of a charter organization.

 

[nldscout 18]

2 things. While CAC people like to advertise it as the oldest camp its not .

 

And a lot of councils have camps just as nice as it if not better.

 

As for National investing money in this camp, I think not.