Jump to content

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Hard to believe these camps need yet another appraisal to be sold.  :confused:

...In part, a possible purchase is complicated by the fact that there is no price tag. Camp Bullowa is being marketed along with two other Hudson Valley camps, to liquidate assets to pay for the settlements but brokers Cushman & Wakefield have not included an asking price.

“If the town purchased the land, a portion would continue to house the scouts and would be used for recreation while the rest would be preserved as open space,” said the (town) supervisor (Jim Monaghan). “But here’s the problem. The municipality can only pay for the land’s appraised value, or a 10 percent increase over that value, and we don’t have an appraisal.”

The (town) supervisor said he would initiate an independent appraisal for the land.

Council CEO Richard Stockton said the 501C3 is looking for the highest bidder.

“The Town of Stony Point can make a bid like any other buyer, but the Attorney General’s office will not let us sell for anything less than the appraised value,” Stockton said. Nonprofit organizations must seek approval from the New York State Attorney General’s Office or the court when it sells an asset to prove the sale is fair market value.

Stockton, clearly upset over the prospect of losing one or more of these three camps, also said the Council is going to seek to get as much as it can on one or more of the assets to satisfy its legal obligations. “We hope to retain at least one of these properties depending on the market value needed to fund our council’s contribution to the survivor’s compensation Trust as part of the national organization’s bankruptcy process,” he said.

Stockton would not say how much the Council needs to raise but he did explain that if it could salvage one or even two of the camps by selling a third at a high enough price, his organization would do so because the organization wants to preserve any camp that can be saved...

More at source:

https://rcbizjournal.com/2021/06/23/stony-point-supervisor-explores-options-to-purchase-camp-bullowa/

This is an interesting situation because the market for camp properties or large acreage properties except for high value urban or resort areas can be limited and take years. The most realistic buyer might be a local government entity such as a municipality or county looking to add facilities to a park system or to preserve access. Those sales aren't always market rate however. It might be a question of not being able to sell a property at market rate vs. being able to sell it below market to an interested entity that would preserve it. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 171
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My opinion… councils don’t care.  Mine seems more than happy to be considering dumping their remaining two camps.  They said… go to State Parks.  Camps are seen as a liability to some councils.  Counc

Part of the problem, too, is that we are trying to create these country-club type experiences for people.  Swimming pools, air conditioning, hot showers and flush toilets, climbing towers, ATV program

Really? You're welcome to weed in my backyard any time. I have a great crop of bind weed and some nice thistle. Oh, and lots of mint.

Posted Images

June 24, 2021: Greater Hudson Valley Council

GHV Statement on National Bankruptcy

Greater Hudson Valley Scouting Community:

We would like to take a moment to update you on the National Bankruptcy and how it will affect our Council. We, the Council Key 4 were required to sign an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) regarding the bankruptcy, so there are some details (numbers) that we cannot share at this point. However, we can say that our Council has been assigned to pay a non-negotiable multi-million-dollar payment. The Council Board, which is made up of volunteers representing communities and districts from around the Council is discussing ways to satisfy this amount.

As the Council faces a multi-million-dollar payment, please understand that as a non-profit organization most of our worth is in our assets, which is our property. It is difficult to foresee a way of making this payment without selling a property. The Council Board will look at every option and will vote on the solution that will pay our debt and point us all toward the brightest outcome.  The decision to sell a camp is heart wrenching. To an outsider it is just acres of dirt, but to us it is so much more. Each of our camps hold generations of memories molded by time, sweat, laughter, gifts, and a passion for Scouting that will never end. We each have a camp in our heart that has been life changing and priceless. These are the reasons why selling a camping property is so difficult. We understand your commitment and passion because Scouting is a part of our families as well. However, it is the Board’s commitment to you, to ensure that Scouting survives in the Hudson Valley for todays and tomorrow’s Scouts.

Scouting is a movement fueled by passion and a desire to serve the community. Together, we will grow Scouting in the Hudson Valley after the National Bankruptcy is behind us. We will update you, our Scouting community, with details as soon as we are able. Thank you for your understanding and patience.

Yours in Scouting,

Paxton Louis, Council Board Chair
Gregg Dick, Council Commissioner
Ben Mills, Executive Vice Board Chair
Richard Stockton, Scout Executive

Related news story link

Below is a statement from the Greater Hudson Valley Council, Boy Scouts of America:
Regarding the Need for Camp Property Sales:
 
To ensure we are best positioned to continue serving local youth, families and communities for years to come, the Boy Scouts of America Greater Hudson Valley Council has made the difficult decision to list some camp properties for sale. While this has the potential to impact operations at one or more properties including Camp Bullowa, Durland Scout Reservation and Camp Nooteeming, we have not yet finalized any sales and will continue operations as planned in these locations for the summer 2021 season. We hope to retain at least one of these properties depending on the market value needed to fund our council’s contribution to the survivor’s compensation Trust as part of the national organization’s bankruptcy process. Additionally, our Curtis S. Read Scout Reservation property is not for sale and will continue to serve local youth this summer and beyond.
 
The national organization of the BSA and all local councils are working together to achieve two key imperatives: equitably compensate survivors of past abuse in Scouting and ensure that Scouting continues in our communities and across the country for generations to come.
 
This was a difficult decision, and we understand the concerns that this may raise with our local Scouting families, but this a necessary step as we work toward these shared imperatives. While all of the Greater Hudson Valley Council’s camp properties have been valued parts of our operations over the years, we are confident that this decision is the right course of action to ensure the future of Scouting in our communities.
 
As a reminder, our council has not filed for bankruptcy. The Greater Hudson Valley Council remains as dedicated as ever to delivering our nation’s foremost program for character development and values-based leadership training in the Hudson Valley region. The Greater Hudson Valley Council serves about 10,000 young people on an annual basis. We are looking forward to an enriching summer of programming including STEM workshops, merit badge workshops, family nights, and other summer adventures.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that we can anticipate dozens of letters similar to this one being sent off across the nation during the next months. The heart-wrenching history of abuse which led to the bankruptcy is extremely disturbing.  I think for many volunteers, the apparent extent of the abuse is shocking and a troubling reason itself to lose your beloved camp.   

However,  in addition to the impact of the bankruptcy, the pandemic has had a devastating effect on the membership and fund-raising of numerous councils. It is difficult to justify the expense of maintaining multiple camps when your  has plummeted. 

Unfortunately, many of our volunteers and donors are heavily invested in these camps both emotionally and financially. I would expect that volunteer morale will steeply decline in many areas as Scouting struggles to regain a footing. This is a tough time for Scouting and those involved both past and present.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree 100% as camps are lost so will support for the councils. Many people feel strongly about the camp they grew up with. The one I grew up with was sold last year and I feel rage towards the LC. I predict that support will fall in all councils that sell camps.

Edited by 1980Scouter
Typo
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

I agree 100% as camps are lost so will support for the councils. Many people feel strongly about the camp they grew up with. The one I grew up with was sold last year and I feel rage towards the LC. I predict that support will fall in all councils that sell camps.

I would not be surprised to see membership drops or other trauma in Councils where flagship camps have to be sold. Volunteers who haven't followed the bankruptcy process closely but are mentally and emotionally invested in these properties are going to react badly to their sale. Residents in surrounding communities will too if they are sold for development.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some thoughts and questions

As we are seeing here, multiple council properties will be cast into the real estate market to meet the council's non-disclosed bankruptcy levy. The prime properties will likely go first to developers. Local towns like Stony Point and camp alumni will be SOL.  Will more council properties (all three camps in this case) be sold over the levy amount but used for other purposes than the bankruptcy. i.e., mergers, endowments, rainy-day funds? We will not know.

"We, the Council Key 4 were required to sign an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) regarding the bankruptcy..."

Key 4? I wonder if their Executive Council increased 33%?

Could eminent domain come into the picture, say the local town wanted water rights?

My $0.01,

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my concerns is that many councils may see this as a wonderful opportunity to rid themselves of the expense of inherited and unwanted camps under the guise of the bankruptcy.  Selling a beloved Scout camp is a sure way to stir up a firestorm among Scouters and donors. Now councils can say "the courts made us do it" and shift the blame. I am skeptical that every last dollar will go into the settlement trust.  

Edited by gpurlee
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gpurlee said:

One of my concerns is that many councils may see this as a wonderful opportunity to rid themselves of the expense of inherited and unwanted camps under the guise of the bankruptcy.  Selling a beloved Scout camp is a sure way to stir up a firestorm among Scouters and donors. Now councils can say "the courts made us do it" and shift the blame. I am skeptical that every last dollar will go into the settlement trust.  

While I cannot know the extent of truely unwanted camps, IF a council actually has unused and simply stagnant property it might be a good decision, even without the lawsuit.  Why would you sit on property that is not being used if you might have other viable options?  Also, IF property that is rarely used, but does get wilderness use on occasion, can the sale include contingencies to allow use of Scouts and other NP groups to use it?  Often, with effort, more acceptable arrangements might be made.  And going forward, include protection from overreaching lawsuits.  JMHO

 of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a situation underway the likes of which Scouting has never faced. A perfect storm of events which includes the impact of a bankruptcy around a staggering amount of abuse claims, a pandemic that has devastated membership in many areas and councils potentially on the verge of a financial crisis.   In an ideal situation, camp property retention would be part of a strategic process looking at a number of factors. And if we were really smart, we would begin to think beyond council boundaries in our planning. In our state we have situations where two adjacent councils have primary summer camps within ten miles of each other. 

My concern is that we not get into a knee-jerk panicked reaction that we regret later. I think Skeptic has valid points, Ideally we look at win-win solutions that include consideration of the best use of properties for our community. Many of these camps were made possible by donors and volunteers who saw them as their gift of time and effort for the greater good. There are potential partners such as county governments, nature conservancies and others that at least offer the possibility of maintaining them in a natural state and providing public use rather than logging,  bulldozing and building subdivisions. I would hope that we think about our organizational values in our decision-making such as the Outdoor Code that we teach our Scouts so that they are not just something we recite at the beginning of a troop meeting. The decisions being made today will affect our communities for generations to come. What does wise stewardship mean in a case like this?

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gpurlee said:

We have a situation underway the likes of which Scouting has never faced. A perfect storm of events which includes the impact of a bankruptcy around a staggering amount of abuse claims, a pandemic that has devastated membership in many areas and councils potentially on the verge of a financial crisis.   In an ideal situation, camp property retention would be part of a strategic process looking at a number of factors. And if we were really smart, we would begin to think beyond council boundaries in our planning. In our state we have situations where two adjacent councils have primary summer camps within ten miles of each other. 

My concern is that we not get into a knee-jerk panicked reaction that we regret later. I think Skeptic has valid points, Ideally we look at win-win solutions that include consideration of the best use of properties for our community. Many of these camps were made possible by donors and volunteers who saw them as their gift of time and effort for the greater good. There are potential partners such as county governments, nature conservancies and others that at least offer the possibility of maintaining them in a natural state and providing public use rather than logging,  bulldozing and building subdivisions. I would hope that we think about our organizational values in our decision-making such as the Outdoor Code that we teach our Scouts so that they are not just something we recite at the beginning of a troop meeting. The decisions being made today will affect our communities for generations to come. What does wise stewardship mean in a case like this?

I completely agree with a global, conservation minded approach to the processing of these properties. However, my fear is that the focus will be dollars and not sense. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2021 at 1:45 PM, gpurlee said:

I suspect that we can anticipate dozens of letters similar to this one being sent off across the nation during the next months. The heart-wrenching history of abuse which led to the bankruptcy is extremely disturbing.  I think for many volunteers, the apparent extent of the abuse is shocking and a troubling reason itself to lose your beloved camp.   

However,  in addition to the impact of the bankruptcy, the pandemic has had a devastating effect on the membership and fund-raising of numerous councils. It is difficult to justify the expense of maintaining multiple camps when your  has plummeted. 

Unfortunately, many of our volunteers and donors are heavily invested in these camps both emotionally and financially. I would expect that volunteer morale will steeply decline in many areas as Scouting struggles to regain a footing. This is a tough time for Scouting and those involved both past and present.

It's been a tough 20 years for scouting.  Ever since Dale v BSA, there's been a target on BSA's back.  

This whole thing is wrong and evil.  The original abuse and the current legal wrangling.  It's very sad to see.  There is no good from any of it.  It's all very dystopian.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2021 at 3:39 PM, yknot said:

... going to react badly to their sale.  Residents in surrounding communities will too if they are sold for development.

Really depends on the sale.  Many will be sad to see a camp that is usually quiet and more of a wilderness preserve lost.  Sad at seeing a lost tradition.  BSA camps are often as much about preserving nature. 

I can see a local camp that has cities encroaching becoming multiple apartment / housing complexes and strip malls.  Cities will appreciate the tax base.  But, I'm always sad to see the open space being lost. I could see one of our local camps (if it had to be sold) being consumed by the city.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only good is ... with BSA bankruptcy moving forward ... so does an end to past liabilities.  That is a very good thing.  

As for scouts, there is absolutely no reason we can't camp in county, state and national parks.  Our troop has done it repeatedly.  Group sites.  Individual sites.  You have to modify your behavior, but there is no reason that you can't. 

The real loss is for bigger events:  summer camps, etc.  Even then, we've run our own summer camp before at group sites.  

Perhaps the biggest impact will be state parks will need to build more "group sites" as youth groups like scouting start reserving more.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Really depends on the sale.  Many will be sad to see a camp that is usually quiet and more of a wilderness preserve lost.  Sad at seeing a lost tradition.  BSA camps are often as much about preserving nature. 

I can see a local camp that has cities encroaching becoming multiple apartment / housing complexes and strip malls.  Cities will appreciate the tax base.  But, I'm always sad to see the open space being lost. I could see one of our local camps (if it had to be sold) being consumed by the city.  

 

I don't know, those are the kinds of situations that are most controversial near me. Developing communities and urban areas don't want to lose their last green spaces. Part of the whole green new deal movement has been focused on making urban areas more livable with less undesirable development. However, it probably varies by region like so much else does. Bottom line though is that I don't think it's going to be a net positive for BSA. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, yknot said:

I don't know, those are the kinds of situations that are most controversial near me. Developing communities and urban areas don't want to lose their last green spaces. Part of the whole green new deal movement has been focused on making urban areas more livable with less undesirable development. However, it probably varies by region like so much else does. Bottom line though is that I don't think it's going to be a net positive for BSA. 

"City planned" green space is big.  Privately owned or special purpose green space not so much.  I can quote multiple in our own area where it is big green space the city has taken for other use.  

One was a local farm used for a farmers market.  It was effectively big open space.  Part was taken by eminent domain for development.  So much for open space.   ... The farmer did not want to sell.  It started development on that open space ...   The sad park (or satisfying part) ... the farmer sued and ten years (??) later got a judgment saying his property had been taken inappropriately and undervalued.  The judgment bankrupted the county(??) sponsored non-profit to pay the real value of the land that was taken.  ... Property was directly next to our charter org. ... We followed that case for a long time.

Our local county has a beautiful public golf course.  Makes a little money, but not a lot.  Issue is it's off the tax base and in the sights of advocates for lower income hosing.  I won't repeat the arguments, but it's gotten really ugly.  Ugly over a golf course.  :( ... It's now closing to enable that housing development.  

"

Edited by fred8033
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...