City August 31, 2009 5:00 PM

ReUse: The Perfect Storm

ReUse: The Perfect Storm
It's safe to say that Buffalo ReUse (BRU) is an entity that has seen its share of upheavals in recent weeks.

As a result, benefactors of BRU, the John R. Oishei Foundation, have taken some heat concerning the origins of a building at 635 South Park being offered to BRU through Oishei. Specifically, suspicions were raised among ReUse members about the relationship between Oishei and Daniel Black of Jamestown, NY, owner of the building.  These allegations grew from individuals in the membership who felt that any talk of moving BRU to Buffalo's 1st Ward, rather than the portion of the East Side BRU has primarily dedicated itself to, is counter to BRU's original mission.  

Add to this the fact that news of the building came on the heels of interim CEO Harvey Garrett's firing of BRU's founder, Michael Gainer on August 17th, and the result is a perfect storm that has created divisive public controversy on many separate issues within BRU.

The first thing Black has to say is that he met Oishei's Paul Hogan 2 years ago at a community foundation meeting at the Chautauqua Institute, when Black sat on the board of the Chautauqua Community Foundation and Hogan gave a presentation about Oishei.  "I immediately introduced myself after the meeting, thinking that Hogan could find me the right non-profit to take ownership of the building because I'm not from Buffalo and I don't have Buffalo connections," Black said. "No one is trying to shove this building down anyone's throat."

He went on to say that he had already been working with the Buffalo Community Foundation, but as they hadn't found him a recipient for the building, he thought Oishei might find the right fit.  Though Black said he couldn't say for sure if BRU was the first organization introduced to him by Hogan, he said, "It was the first one that made sense."  Saying he's "not interested in engaging in turf battles," Black said he immediately felt BRU was "an organization with a good, solid purpose."

Black said he purchased the building in 1998 and that the United Way used it as a temporary facility while their new headquarters was being built.  Black also said the site has been home to a hardware store, a power and light company and Gibralter Steel, but never a foundry.  However, Beals, McCarthy & Rogers, who occupied the property at one time was a steelmaker/manufacturer according to the Steel Plant Museum in Lackawana, NY.

When asked if he had refused to allow a prior party who was interested in purchasing the building (for $1 million in the early 2000's) bore on the property, Black said that was true.  He also said that he sued to release the contract from the potential buyer because "they locked up the property for too long."

Black said that subsequent to his meeting Hogan, they spoke on the phone "maybe 6 times." He also said that he met Hogan at the site early last spring, and that Garrett was at that meeting.  Black went through his business cards on the other end of the phone and came up with Hogan's, and one from Garrett that he said was a generic ReUse card, with Garret's personal information handwritten on it.  "I don't remember [Garrett's] role at the time," Black said, "but I thought him to be a consultant, helping out, taking this to the next level."

Asked if he would let any recipient of the building bore on the property prior to taking ownership to assess whether there was contamination, Black said no, but that so far, interest in the building hasn't gone that far.  "They can do anything they want to after it's theirs," he said.  "We just want to see the building go into the right hands.  It's going to last 1,000 years"

According to Bob Biniskiewicz of Pyramid Brokerage, Black had said at the time of the prior listing that he felt one might turn up 'something anywhere they drill in Buffalo.'" Deeds show that the building passed from Black's company, Blackstone Business Enterprises to Black in May of 2003, then from Black to R. J. Gullo Properties #1 Inc., in April of 2006, then from Gullo to Black in March of 2007.

Black ended his conversation saying, "With rumors of environmental disasters, life becomes political as opposed to practical.  The Lipkes [of Gibralter Steel] went there every day.  They only moved when they wanted more opulent, palatial headquarters like so many of their peers."

Still, according to Black, the assessment of possible contaminants would only be allowed after the building was accepted.  To others, the likelihood of contaminants where there was a power plant, foundry and hardware store (prior to leaded paint restrictions), is high.

A local environmental attorney we spoke with feels that if there are contaminants, taking ownership of the building could be costly to any organization.  He also noted that when an organization has the wherewithal to take on such an endeavor, the results are a great benefit to the area, such as with the many brownfield sites and the new BlueCross BlueShield building in downtown Buffalo.  "There are incentives to take these projects on," he said, "but I most often advise clients not to."

Executive Director of the John. R. Oishei Foundation Robert Gioia, who has never met Black, by both their accounts, said that Oishei's only interest in the possible procurement of the building for Buffalo ReUse comes from nothing more than "connecting well-intentioned individuals.  This is Buffalo; no one accepts something for nothing without knowing what they're getting into."  Gioia went on to say that Oishei's due is to help all parties reach a reasonable decision.  He says that Oishei has not expended any money in the due diligence process, and that all of the final decisions will be board decisions.

"We're trying to help a start-up with a lot to learn on governance issues," Gioia said.  He also said he feels Oishei has spent too much time on the subject matter already, and that the board will decide about the building "through good governance.  We don't want input into the decision."

As for the placement of Garrett as CEO, Gioia said, "We suggested someone be brought in.  If I recall, Harvey was reluctant, but it was clear that the organization needed adult supervision - there were issues that needed guidance.  My recollection is that Harvey's name came up, and Michael and everyone else agreed.  Some organizations and boards mature and are well managed, while others are...young."

As for the possibility that the ReUse membership would move to overthrow the board, Gioia reiterated that he thought in would be a serious mistake, causing "damage to the organization's viability and integrity. We would have to reevaluate our position," he said "because the one key issue is governance.  We've been very patient, all well-intended."

As for not making more specific statements about Gainer's gaffs as CEO of Buffalo ReUse, Gioai said, "I'm not going to say anything about Michael; I have too much regard for him, but if this were the private sector it would have resulted in termination  Our hope is that all parties are able to hash this through, but we don't play a roll in the process."  He added that  ReUse is too important for our community and that the inspirational, passionate endeavor that Gainer started needs to be preserved.  "What's best for the organization?" he asked.



View image

Comments

Leave a comment

Elena, thank you for keeping with this story.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"We're trying to help a start-up with a lot to learn [about] governance issues," Gioia said.
.
"...needed adult supervision...". Gioia childishly said...

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"No comment"

See how easy that was, Bob? Give it a try sometime.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

All the "best intentions" in the world don't explain the heavy-handedness and disrespect shown to Michael Gainer. What I've seen in the private sector are similar situations where a company's founder was deposed by a board of directors over missteps like Gainer's and quite often, the company doesn't survive. Harvey Garrett is an excellent person who is doing his best to juggle his own interests and will hopefully succeed in bringing BRU back to health. But I wouldn't bet a nickel on it.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Similarly Sony, all the "best intentions" in the world will not make a business or NPO venture viable. This was a start up organization with an innovative service model. They only got off the ground with grants from the poison well of philanthropic money many now suspect of corrupting the organization (that's called hypocrisy and a double standard).

It wasn't long before the organization was in financial trouble (that's called a bad management, under funding, and/or a failed business model). The gorilla in the room that no one has mentioned is whether or not this venture is sustainably viable even with constant subsidy? It is the boards assertion that it is precisely this issue they have been wrestling with and there has been no evidence presented that they have been engaged in anything to the contrary.

Yes BRU does wonderful things. Yes they serve a segment of our population that shamefully is under-served, or more accurately abysmally served in spite of substantial tax dollars squandered and poorly spent on failed social initiatives - BUT that does not mean they are fiscally viable. Even a "NOT FOR PROFIT" has to balance books and cannot operate constantly in the red, robbing Peter to pay Paul. Maybe Michael was just a way better grant writer and salesman than an organizational planner? He has admitted as much, but seems to believe his failings are qualifications for his ability to judge the skills and actions of his successors (now that is just illogical)?

The manner of his dismissal however badly handled, seems entirely irrelevant to the future of this organization. There has been little to NO substantive discussion of the actual challenges that face ReUse in the immediate and long term future - especially from Gainer supporters, Harvey detractors, and most unfortunately the MEMBERS themselves.

That being said, statements like the above by 'sonyactivision' are entirely off topic as the title aptly points out that there are many different challenges at play here, Michael's firing and the style in which it was managed being only one. This is an entirely different issue that merits scrutiny and membership discussion.

But BuffaloRising reader's are already getting that "glazed over-dead fish eye-wow this is waaayyyy too complicated-malaise" as evidenced from this posts 5 comments down from 100 on Michael's firing. Perhaps it's the new sketchy but sparklingly scintillating rumor about police misconduct to spout off about with little to no factual information.

And we wonder why nothing ever changes in this town?

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The title of this post is "Re Use: The Perfect Storm" In that context, what could possibly be "off-topic"? It's no big deal that you and many others would like to change the subject, put in a fresh typewriter ribbon and write the requisite happy ending, but this bell can't be unrung and this entire sordid affair appears to be a hostile takeover by a party that feels that it's $200,000 DONATION was actually the PURCHASE of an OWNERSHIP STAKE. Was there stock transferred? Were taxes paid? No, because both parties are non-profits so naturally, the law of the jungle doesn't apply, right? Yet in all of your summary explanations of "due dilligence" and "financial controls" there is this subtext of a for-profit business model being forcibly injected into an organization that bumped along haphazardly. Perhaps this is a good thing, it certainly seems more viable and functional than allowing a guy like Gainer to just fritter away the remaining funds and leaving a wonderful NON-PROFIT, the Oishei Foundation, with a LOSS. Here's how it usually works outside the boardrooms and country club toilet stalls: Gainer gets BRU in financial trouble, reaches out to the community for help, acknowleges his mistakes, and gets funds to keep the lights on while a more functional arrangement is developed with Gainer still in a leadership role ( because the guy is inspirational ) without subjugating all of the BRU members with outside proxies and without fueling DIVISIONS THAT ARE ESSENTIALLY AND PROFOUNDLY DESTRUCTIVE. You want to talk about the future? Talk to the volunteers that wonder just who their new bosses really are.

replied to paul morgan
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Yeah, I agree with Sony, I mean I was in ReUse and I thought Harvey was just some hanger-on weird customer looking for a shop to haunt. I do go in often times just to hang out or say hi and maybe do or buy a couple things while I am there. I am comfortable there but Harvey seemed like a rat who was trying to sneak out with the cheese. I thought I remembered being introduced to him once but I imagined the guy with the ambition to run a coup against ReUse to be about as large as Michael Gainer although not nearly as larger than life. Harvey is not just lacking in charisma; he has an empty tank.

Now do not get me wrong, as some one who got most of their own sex appeal from being dragged down the road and beaten with a stick (girls like scars) I have some advice for Harvey. Go finish your house. That pain you will feel is just the weakness leaving your body. Come volunteer and when you have earned your service stripes you will be accepted. When your volunteering has paid off I am sure the staff would give you a good discount on some wood and brass to finish off your house.

I am sorry but really Harvey you just do not seem like a captain to me, if you could even reach the helm. It would have been one thing if you had come on naturally or if you had made a smashing entry but lingering around like an odor and forcing out the founder while helping to bring a successful and innovative organization to the brink of civil war wouldnt fly in the Army, the mafia or the corporate world. It will not be allowed here either.

And Harvey I stand by my words. I can remain a nameless troll or I will bring my words to you man to man. I think you could use some counsel. Trust me, you are the wrong man at the wrong place at the wrong time. Please resign tomorrow morning. You should have expected that firing Gainer was a suicide mission. It was off the table but you didnt realize it. If you want to walk away from this with any dignity at all then walk away from it now, brother.

NYCRR

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I've known Harvey Garrett in various capacities for a long time and I think that you are off base with your assessment of him. He has been a good leader with strong vision, focus, and personal conviction much like Michael Gainer. The two are similar in many ways, although my experience with Michael Gainer has been limited to a few interactions with a non profit that I volunteer with and a few interactions with PUSH. I respect both men and commend them for what they have done for Buffalo.


It seems to me that you have a chip on your shoulder about Michael Gainer's termination and are taking that out on Harvey. Calling him a rat and demanding his resignation are out of line. You should give him a chance before setting him up for failure. As far as earning his stripes, he has done that time and time again.


Believe me, I have my criticisms of Harvey Garrett and have butted heads with him a time or two, but I still respect him and would follow him into battle any day. The same is probably true for Michael Gainer.


This doesn't need to be a war of Michael's people vs. Harvey's people. If you can get past your emotional outbursts about Michael Gainer's termination and look at things clearly, you might see that there is a lot to gain from this move especially if Michael stays on board with ReUse in some capacity.

replied to NYCRailRoad
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I disagree. To me it seems that all those involved have made their compromises and they do not wish to back away from what they have already decided. The reality is ReUse needs Michael. I am not raining on your parade reality is. You had best start re-compromising, IM

Strong personalities smell emotions like dogs. Leaders have to project a stone wall around themselves to make their followers feel secure and their opposition feel insecure. Charisma is essential to great leadership. Charisma makes people feel good about what they are doing for the organization.

When Michael spoke before volunteers for the tree planting I realized that he had that preacher gene. After I heard his sermon and planted some trees I felt real good about myself and I was filled with hope and possibility for the future of the city.

Harvey may be a nice enough and dedicated enough guy but while Michael is the round peg in the square hole Harvey is the square peg beating his face against the round hole.

replied to similitude
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

You have a very limited understanding of leadership. I am not going to get into a pissing match with you or cater to the petty threats that you have offered others. It isn't worth my time. If you are the type of person who thinks that a leader needs to build a stone wall and win you over with words, then I understand a bit about your character and emotional intelligence. Honestly, you aren't worth the time.

replied to NYCRailRoad
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I resent your implying that I have threatened anyone. Just because someone felt threatened doesnt mean anyone has threatened him. What I was essentially saying (and what was misunderstood) was that I remain nameless because it is a wiser policy. If I have someones real name I could look that person up in the phone book and prank call them. That was more the threat I was making but it was an empty threat. I was not really going to crank call the gentleman. I was just showing why I will remain nameless and why his decision to remain named is a poor one. Then of course he threatened to have me arrested so I you have to wonder who is overreacting here. Your friend is a troll, he doesnt need you to defend him.

I said thats what it takes to be a great leader. Anyone can lead you over a cliff. Ask Harvey. That is what he is doing to ReUse right now.

The thing about leadership is you either have it or you do not. There is little in between but a handful of wanna-bees and lame ducks. If ReUse falls into the hands of a wanna-bee director and a lame duck board then it will fail. And it will fail under Harvey, mark my words. Harvey needs to resign.

replied to similitude
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

You're getting a little scary NYC RailRoad. One can't help but wonder if you represent the majority of BRU's membership and volunteers? Is the majority cruel, sarcastic, mean-spirited and totally unrestrained. Or, are you the minority who speaks with a REALLY loud, bullying voice for all, whether they want you to or not?

replied to NYCRailRoad
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"Is the majority cruel, sarcastic, mean-spirited and totally unrestrained."

Yeah generally we just sit around catching rats and burning them in coffee cans.

I should not be taken all so seriously. To me this is a form of protest. I know ReUse well and it isnt going to survive the loss of Michael Gainer or the move to another building (at least without Michael's leadership). ReUse must be saved before Sept 3rd. If this thing does not get resolved tomorrow then the ship is lost. All that is going to be left to decide on the 3rd is who will control the blown up hull of what used to be ReUse.

NYCRR

replied to moderate
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"are you the minority who speaks with a REALLY loud, bullying voice for all, whether they want you to or not"

Yeah I only represent myself. I avoided their special meeting last week and I have been avoiding the shop because I do not wish for anyone to tell me what I should say and when I should speak. I am sure that I am probably dancing on my partners feet but I will have to apologize later. ReUse is lost and there is not much time left to act. The loss of Reuse enrages me so I excite and enrage others because if enough people get angry enough at the same time then maybe this can still be repaired. To me freedom is being able to shout theater in a crowded fire (Abbey Hoffman).

NYCRR

replied to moderate
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I am not defending anyone here and know only a couple people who post here. The guy you were bickering with is not one of them. The only person that I am vouching for is Harvey Garrett based on my past dealings with him. I don't think that he has changed much in the year since I last worked with him, but you never know.


As far as ReUse goes, there are some people who say that it was a poorly run dictatorship run by Gainer and his sycophants. I don't believe that personally, but I have heard that criticism presented in much the same way that people criticize P.U.S.H. I am not sure that Michael needs you to defend his actions on this forum, but you seem hell bent on proving to everyone that Harvey Garrett was a bad choice because he is not Michael Gainer.


My only hope for ReUse is that they make their prices a little more affordable for the average home owner. There are many items that are being sold at or above Home Depot prices. I love the charm of old fixtures but would expect a bit of a larger discount off retail.


Take care!

replied to NYCRailRoad
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

seems like a threatening post to me BRO! i'm growing very disapointed in what BRO is finding to be appropriate.

replied to NYCRailRoad
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

troll

replied to Scottwf
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

^^ Yes NYCRR, you definitely are a troll.

replied to NYCRailRoad
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

At least I can admit it.

replied to dblplusgood
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

There are a lot of trust issues here that were created and exacerbated by a whole lot of people that focus on both Michael Gainer and Harvey Garrett. Both are high profile grass roots activists who have sacrificed many years of their lives to make Buffalo better, especially low income neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are places that frighten most "leaders" and send them running in the opposite direction while espousing cliches like "we shall overcome." Both Michael and Harvey have earned the deep respect (and occasional jealousy) of other activists for their courage and accomplishments. Accepting that as a given, the styles of Michael and Harvey are as different as night and day. Michael brings so much passion, energy and charisma to everything he does. He's a ver likeable guy who has little difficulty recruiting volunteers to getting their hands dirty by tearing down old houses with their bear hands and cleaning up the wood for reuse. That should be a very tough sell, but it isn't for Michael. Harvey, on the other hand, is somewhat aloof and stoic, often sounding like a headmaster teaching his students how to bring about change. He's not afraid to break into abandoned houses in defiance of the authorities to clean them up and figure out ways to resell them to people who have the skills to do it. He does this in a way that gives the clear impression that he views anyone who doesn't follows his silver bullet instructions is open to contempt. His way works, therefore it is the wrong way. Of course, this has led to many feeling a whole lot of resentment toward him by those who are also doing their best to make poor communities a better place. That does not mean that Harvey is not respected for his sacrifices and work. However, it does account for all of the trust issues that have bubbled up around his firing of Michael Gainer. It is my sincerest of hopes that both Michael and Harvey can set aside their styles of doing things and figure out a common ground that involves them both in strengthening Buffalo ReUse. They both have very different strengths that, if are rationally joined together, can only benefit everyone. I'm not sure if they're mature enough to do that. One has to temper his enthusiasm and the other has to stop being so didactic all of the time.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

very well said. i think michael and harvey deserve our respect. i'm uspet BRO has participated in attempting to discredit one of these guys.

i lost a bit of respect for this site recently.

replied to LuvBuffalo
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Re: accepting building as a donation. As I mentioned last article, I once had a listing on this place and as Elena explains, a deal we had five or six years ago fell apart over environmental testing. Since the last article I've given this some thought. I support BRU taking this donation. I think it's a good move with limited downside and lots of upside. Just to be clear, I haven't spoken to Dan Black in years and neither I nor my firm benefits in any way one way or another regarding this potential donation.

Let me begin with a caveat: BRU should get good environmental counsel and I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a real estate guy. But as a real estate guy I like this site. Even without being able to do boring on the site before closing, I think the set of buildings are very useful and would be worthwhile to acquire. If possible (lawyerly help solicited here), BRU should form a subsidiary non profit (or for profit) to accept the site. This subsidiary could be set up either prior or subsequent to accepting the donation. The subsidiary's only asset asset would be the set of buildings (this is the way all the developers do it). In the event that any environmental contamination is later discovered, the subsidiary corporation, worst case, goes belly up with no liability to BRU itself. BRU might then have to relocate, but they would have had free, or nearly free rent for the whole time they used it.

Developers typically own every real estate asset in a separate corporate entity specifically to protect the umbrella organization. Each and every building is usually held by a separate LLC, created only so that any lawsuit affects only one specific property, not any other assets owned by the developer. A non profit can form a similar subsidiary corporation whose only asset is this real estate, thereby protecting the controlling organization (BRU) from liability associated with that asset. This could be done either before or after accepting the donation (so as not to impede the donation timetable).

Here are my reasons for supporting acquiring this set of buildings:

1. The buildings are well constructed, in excellent condition (much better shape than 99% of the property one might receive in donation--Gibralter had their HQ here). These are solid. Roofs are generally good. Freight elevator functions well. Electric, HVAC, plumbing, etc. are all up to snuff. Big ticket items are done. These are functioning, useful buildings, not shells requiring massive rehabs.

2. Stop paying rent. If you own the buildings, no rent is required (or choose to pay rent to the subsidiary corp whose earnings can then be used to support BRU's mission with unencumbered dollars--grants require spending on very specific expenses; earnings from a subsidiary corp can be spent in any way the controlling corp deems useful--much less interference).

3. PLENTY of room to grow for BRU. 200,000', more than quadruple the space they have now.

4. Cranes: Two major portions (about half the square footage) were used for handling steel, with heavy crane capacity. Heavy cranes are very useful for some businesses. Maybe Re-Use finds them convenient down the road for new business ideas. Or maybe Re-Use just rents the space to private companies (like tenants who used to be here, such as Samuel & Sons and Gibralter before them) who need heavy capacity. Or maybe the cranes just get parked to the side for now. The fact that the crane rails and updated operable cranes are there waiting for use will make this space attractive to some user down the road.

5. Environmental contamination: Let's be clear: There is NO evidence that contamination exists. We have a Seller who is afraid something MIGHT exist (simple conjecture, no solid evidence at all), and so he doesn't want anyone to poke holes into the ground to find out (he thinks everything in Buffalo might be contaminated, just out of water seepage under the ground if nothing else). But the owner certainly does not KNOW of any contamination at all--if he did, he'd have to remedy it (he can't test it himself to find out and then keep the findings quiet--no one can. Any testing company is legally required to report any findings of contamination to the DEC. An owner can't simply peek under the hood, so to speak. If testing is done, the owner finds out and at the same time the DEC finds out and then the DEC wants an immediate plan for remediation--that's the potential liability that scares Dan Black and worries environmental attorneys).

So let's say it's the worst case scenario and the site is contaminated with heavy metals or volatile organic compounds. First of all, no testing (or subsequent remediation) needs to be done at all. If you don't know of anything wrong, you don't need to do anything to fix it. No testing = no remediation. There is no threat to any workers, even if the ground isn't clean. All of the real estate is already capped, either by buildings or blacktop (look at the aerial shot of the site: there's not much space that's not covered up by buildings). Usually the DEC doesn't require digging underneath buildings at all; they say the building acts as a permanent cap. So long as the ground underneath the buildings or blacktop isn't disturbed, even if it is contaminated, there is no need to address the issue right now (if ever).

Even down the road, in the event that testing is done and contamination IS found to be present, if the property is owned by a separate entity, what's the worst case scenario? The subsidiary entity which owns the buildings (for BRU's benefit) is told by the DEC to clean up the site. They can't afford to correct the pollution. What happens next? The assets of the corp (the buildings) get liquidated to help pay for the cleanup. The subsidiary corporation can't lose more than it owns, and it only owns the buildings. Ru-Use (not liable for the cleanup on property it doesn't own) has to move to a new location. Oh, well. Come that day (IF that day ever comes), BRU is no worse off than today. In the meanwhile, BRU gets use of a great site for minimal cost. The downside of this deal seems pretty limited to me.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Gotta hand it to you for being willing to change your position. Kudos for you. It all makes a great deal of sense (finally). But is it too little too late...

It's both ironic and disheartening to consider that perhaps BRU's board and committee proceeded through these analyses – financial, real estate, and legal - some time ago. If so, it would've been inappropriate for them to comment on it publically. Instead, they've had to bite their tongues the whole time while uninformed, speculating critics beat BRU and this possibility (not to mention the donor and Oishei) senselessly and bloodily.

The damage has been done. People tend to remember the gory sensationalistic stuff, rather than solid logic and analysis. Your new position joins the minority of logical, analytical positions taken to date. But does this statement, and the other minority voices of reason, undo the hundreds of others that were way off base, reckless, and malicious? We can only hope….

replied to biniszkiewicz
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Can we name BRO as on of those that were "way off base, reckless and malicious"?????????

replied to moderate
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

BRO? as in NYCRR?? if the shoe fits....

replied to Scottwf
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Are you speculating that the board has already decided, or are you in the know? Your position is that the publicity over this past week is sufficient to turn the board away from acceptance of this donation. I hope not. That characterization of the board doesn't jibe with a group that had the stones to fire the organization's founding icon. I'm hopeful they'll do a careful condidered analysis and that they have not already made up their minds.

By the way, I thought of a business angle for RE-USE to make use of all that crane space: metal recycling and salvage. Here's the deal: lots of metal gets recycled at a dozen scrap yards all over town. But all that metal gets melted, eventually to be refabricated, which is fine if it's all junk. None of the scrap is saved and re-used. It's all smelted. For some scrap there's no better use, but that's not always the case. Instead of trashing all of it, BRU could pay more than going scrap rate for better metal (beams and girders, architectural features, metal plate, whatever could be re-used easily). All the regular scrap could be processed just like the other guys (cranes make this easy; the building also used to feature interior rail, which makes shipping the scrap garbage metal out easier). But save the better stuff for resale. Make better markup on the salvaged stuff than scrap prices. Become the destination for anyone looking to buy or sell quality salvaged metal, much as Re-Use is now a destination for wood (doors and floors and trim--and small metal stuff like hinges and doorknobs; I'm looking for a place to buy steel girders and decking to redo a roof. That kind of thing).

replied to moderate
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I'm not speculating on whether the Board has or hasn't made a decision and, no, I'm not in the know. I'm only observing and commenting like the rest of us (well, some of us). I like your style though! It's rational, reasoned, and creative.

I suspect (or at least hope) that the majority of those involved in BRU's decision re: a building would be hitting these touchstones too. I've been sensitive all along to the Board's silence and respected that its a void that can't (because it would be improper were it to) be filled in this public forum.

Now, more importantly, as to your new/most recently posted ideas... Hmmm, fabulous and interesting. I hope those connected to the organization see your idea. I also think your comment serves as an shining example of what blogging can be. It goes to disprove several others' theories about the purpose and limited use of blogging as a forum, i.e., that blogging is for "cowards", that it's to be filled with cruel or coarse "satire", or even purported forms of disobedience (which aren't quite how MLK envisioned it).

Biniszkiewicz: You've shown by example that blogging can / should be just positive, productive, and offer meaningful, creative, and sustainable solutions. Bravo! (hat tips toward you, nod and salute).

replied to biniszkiewicz
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

We all know what opinions are like. Yeah we can blog all day about what a great new building it could be but it just doesnt matter because there will be no operation to move. Without Michael there is no way Harvey will be able to move the shop. The amount of labor it will involve compared to the amount of labor Harvey can muster just is not there. It is a pipe dream. In reality we have only been fully set up on N Hampton for eight months and we got there almost two years ago. If Harvey wanted to lead ReUse then he should have rode in on elephants because that is what he will need to move ReUse.

And this idea that moderate and polite is always right is BS too. You know a poll found that 75% of Americans think JFK was not killed by LHO. Yet the 25% moderate and polite crowd spends it days convincing us that that the elite do not operate like a mafia in the shadows and that to question the status quo is just plain weird. Why it was only our chrismatic leader murdered before our eyes because he spoke out against the elite and their insane agenda of WW3. No reason why anyone should be obsessed or paranoid.

You see this deal was step up when Garrett and Hogan and Black all met at a diner party. It was certainly not arranged by a tax-cheat attorney in the shadows. That is a radical and rude idea. Why the whole fabric of our nations existance could come unglued if we believe our leaders are crooked so question nothing and throw chrismatic leaders under the bus if they stand in the way. Is this what we teach our kids? The new boss is the same as the old boss.

Why should you and I be concerned with elitist racketeering? Our inability to act has resulted in them doing it again and again. Not all their operations have been clean. Check the 7/7 subway bombings if you do not believe me.

You stay moderate and polite and next time it might be your family. Politicians and industrialists and journalists never should have been allowed to meet in their secret societies in the first place. If we had the sense the Italian Democrates had we would outlaw membership among the powerful in societies that do not publish their memberships. At least then we could make a good challenge under RICO to keep them on their toes (Gods Banker Scandel).

Now the connection between ReUse and JFK's murder may be stretched but my point is that what the people want and what the foundation wants varies. I am sure we have common ground but back-door proceedings, secrecy and the firing of a chrismatic leader who stood in the way is not how we wish to do business.

So excuse me if I am playing the character of a troll and cannbalizing this thread. I admit the tatics I use openly. Some people would like my real name so it seems. You think you would want it but you wouldnt, trust me. You admit your tatics and I will admit who is writing these comments that repulse people so with their rudeness.

NYCRR

replied to moderate
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

That sounds similar to what Issa did with the Statler. He had BSC Development then formed Connex Construction LLC. When the OSHA and labor fines started pouring in he tried to dissolve Connex but everything ultimately came back to BSC. I'm not a lawyer either but I don't think forming a separate LLC or whatever means you can just wash your hands of any problems that arise completely. Someone has to be accountable. I could be way offbase too.

replied to biniszkiewicz
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

When I was on the board at Hispanics United the real estate was held by a separate entity (different board, different officers, related by mission but operated independently, subsidiary corporation). This subsidiary's sole corporate mission was to assist HUB. It did this by acting as developer/landlord and handing over any profit to HUB. This subsidiary, which owned the real estate that Hispanics United of Buffalo rented, would bank all the rent (minus building maintenance and admin) and at the end of the year make a donation to HUB in the amount of whatever its profit was. Again, it's sole mission was to help HUB.

Why this set-up? A couple of reasons. First, some grants will pay for rent if your organization rents space, but they won't pay for building expenses if you already own the building. So because HUB didn't own the space (it rented from this other corporation) HUB was allowed to expense some rent costs in some worker's grants, thus increasing our gross revenue. The second reason for this set up is because it releases some money from grant encumbrances. Let's say you pay $50k/yr in rent and your rent is paid for by grants. You have no choice in how to spend that money. You have to spend it on rent (just as you must spend the rest of the grant money on whatever you budgeted when the grant was approved; hope you guessed right about what you'd need this year, back when you were writing the application last year). With almost every grant, there are very specific guidelines on what you may and may not expense. There are very few 'unencumbered' dollars available (money you can spend any way you'd like, provided it furthers your organization's goals). Unencumbered dollars are gold. A little can go a long way if you can just spend a few dollars where you really need them at times. Usually you don't have any grants to pay for what you really need when a fire pops up, so to speak. So follow along: at the end of the year your subsidiary corp makes a donation to your org. Now you get that rent money returned to you ($50k-operational expense) with no strings attached. It's free money in the sense that you are not required to spend it any particular way. You can spend it on ice cream sundaes if you want, so long as it benefits the organization, furthers your corporate mission.

Let me assure you this set up does pass muster with the state and auditors. HUB set this up long before my terms there and the structure passed rigorous audits every year.

replied to brownteeth
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

How long is everyone going to beat this dead horse? Unless something drastic happens or changes can we move forward please?

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Some BRU members have called for a meeting on 9/3. As new information emerges daily, this horse of a story is quite alive and coverage should continue.

replied to brownteeth
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"The damage has been done. People tend to remember the gory sensationalistic stuff, rather than solid logic and analysis."

So Harvey started a s.hit storm and everyone got dirty, imagine that.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

NYC RailRoad, don't twist my words. Those words were directed toward bloggers that engage in unrestrained personal attacks others to satiate their own personal axe to grind and vendetta.

A review of Harvey's posts show the opposite to be true. Yours, on the other hand, are spent "railing" on Harvey individually and holding Harvey accountable for everything under the sun. Then you jump onto other people who disagree with you. It's odd... and disturbing for the rest of here... and it's totally damaging to the organization of BRU, which you claim to love.

replied to NYCRailRoad
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"Buffalo ReUse’s members have called a special meeting. Word is that the Board of Directors sent a letter to the members indicating that the board would not recognize anything that takes place at the 9/3 meeting because it’s somehow illegal. Problem for the board is that the 9/3 special meeting was called in 100% compliance with the bylaws, and they ignore what happens there at their peril."

What is the peril? The destruction of ReUse. They will split the baby it seems instead of returning it to its mother (Gainer) in hope that the mother will just abandon the baby for its safety. King Solomon will not be there to intervene. Lord knows that there are no leaders on this board. Well at least their power lust will be obvious when they refuse to comply with a lawful order. It will be very clear who killed ReUse.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Railroad: I haven't read through any of this trail but a cursory glance shows you are single handly cannibalizing this forum with your agenda as a form of civil disobedience or protest thereby killing discussion. Very effective.

I think this should all be resolved behind closed doors so by stifling the emotion by being ubiquitous with your posts you are providing a great service. To be honest I could care less where you stand on the issue but thank you for doing this

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Leave a comment