Buffalo Rising Online

Me thinks The zoning board has lost its mind. Why didn't they. renovate a block of abandoned houses. I wonder how much the principles keep for themselves, and where they live.

1. The principles don't keep any of it for themselves. It's a non-profit organization. The money that is raised is used to run the organization's programs. They're required by law to keep track of where the money goes, and they can be shut down if goes anywhere improper. I'm not aware of any such improrieties. If you are, you should share them. Otherwise, you should shut up.

2. Where the group's employees live is irrelevant and none of your business.

3. They renovated this building because they own it. Seems like a good thing. Why would they spend money to buy and renovate abandoned houses when they already have the space they need?

4. There's a reason these places were typically built pre-income tax. No matter the state of our economy, these places were going to be sold off, and this process began back when the local economy was still strong.

Yes, Colin it is relevant where the staff lives. That will determine how they relate to the adjacent neighborhood. . And Yes Colin whether you like to admit it or not it is a business. These organizations solicit government funds and private contributions and dertemine their own salries. There is green in them there hills, and it isn't grass.

I tend to agree that where someone lives has a huge impact on their perceptions of other people and places.

1. I don't know what where someone lives has anything to do with how they "relate to the adjacent neighborhood" at their work. If someone lives in another part of town, they shouldn't be able to work on Delaware? Your point is incoherent.

2. This organization is a corporation -- a NON PROFIT corporation. No one is making any profits. The people who work there get paid for the work they do, just like any other job. Why do you insinuate that there is something odd or improper about this?

3. Yes, they do solicit funds. Their funding is the result of their hard work, and the free choice of the donors. Again, I don't understand how this is somehow a bad thing.

While I assume that the leaders of this organization collect salaries I doubt that they are anything near equivalent of salaries for similar positions in the private sector. It really does not matter where the staff lives and if they do it on their salary, their spouse's or inheritance. It is simply irrelevant. By the same logic they'd need to be battered or children to work here. Don't think that there aren't battered and abused families in the Delaware District because there are.

This post is about how a local organization raised a lot of money to do something good and all we can do is debate where the employees live or why they couldn't have chosen another location? Get a life.

First, this is a private sector organization. Second, no one is insinuating anything illegall, unless you are having qualms about it on your own. The point is non-profits are also a business. what percentage of the take is Overhead? And See those buildings, they are off the Tax roles. And if you don't like what I have to say, well that is just too bad.

This is not just about their going around town with a collection basket, these organiztions get substantial federal and state aid. You know i.e. taxpayer dollars.

1. Yes, they get public money -- to do specific work that would otherwise have to be done by the government, or go undone.

2. "Overhead" is part of getting the job done.

3. The building is off the tax rolls. So are churches. So are schools. So what?

4. I don't get the hostility that people have shown towards this organization. They do good work and have renovated an important building. People respond by criticizing them and making veiled comments about their finances. Why?

And the directors salary is somewhere around 200,000 a year.

And the directors salary is somewhere around 200,000 a year.

Child & Family Services has long owned the 824 & 830 Delaware mansions where they have provided residential treatment for emotionally disturbed young boys for over 50 years. Initially called "Child Care Center", I moved to Bflo in 1970 to become its third director . . . at a salary of $16,000, an indication that the agency does not squander public funds!

Obviously, the board seves as volunteers with no payment of any kind. And I have never had any reason to believe that there is corruption within the agency.

Many of the Delaware Avenue mansions were taken over by non-profits long ago because there were few potential buyers who could afford the massive cost of their upkeep. C&FS took over the 844 Delaware mansion, adjacent to #824 & #830 from the Catholic Diocese more recently after the struggling seminary for future priests was closed. C&FS provides a range of other social services from that complex, while still also using its longtime 330 Delaware downtown office building.

Dick Kern (in Mpls)

Don't you think it is a contradiction to say money isn't squandered by non-profits, and then at the same time to say that ONLY non-profits could afford the massive costs of their (mansions) upkeep? 16,000 was not a bad salary for 40 years ago when houses in good east coast suburbs could be had for 30,000 to 50,000. So lets cut to the quick, what does the position pay now? about 200k.

1. Unlike most of the companies written about here on BRO, the finances of Child and Family Services are pretty transparent. You can go look up the salaries that their top officers make, where the money comes from, etc. There's nothing "shady" going on here -- things are open to the light.

2. The top officers of this place do make good salaries -- so what? If you insist that those who work to help the poor be poor themselves, you'll quickly find that no one wants to do it on a day-in, day-out basis.

Well, Colon , it is so nice to see that you have done an about face on everypoint and de-facto admitted you were wrong, no matter how many times you added the phrase.. So What. Yes they get public money, yes they have a high overhead due to phenomenal salries, And yes the building is off the tax rolls. You can add so what to every senetence, hey that is ok with me. Why does your daddy work at Club Beamer. And if you are offended by any of the comments here, well ...so what .

1. I haven't done an about-face on anything. I never claimed that this group had no overhead, or that they didn't get public funding, or that the building was on the tax rolls. So what are you talking about?

2. I haven't admitted that I'm wrong, de facto or otherwise. Both my specific position -- that this group does good work and should be commended for rehabbing an important building -- and my general position -- that those who habitually insinuate that non-profits are shady should provide specific proof or shut up -- have been validated by the argument on this thread. Any rational observer would say that I cleaned your clock.

3. My Dad is a retired electrician. I don't know what "Club Beamer" is, but sisnce you brought it up, I doubt it's relevant.

rd --

I probably agree that there are better uses for these buildings than housing social service agencies. But a better use has to be connected to an actual plan and funding, right? I don't know the history, but I can't imagine that qualified "higher use" buyers were turned down in favor of these agencies. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If I'm not, then these agencies stabilized and rehabbed these buildings in the absence of any better alternative. That sounds like a good outcome to me, especially when we consider how many great buildings have just been allowed to rot in this city.

If this agencyis gonna move, it'll be because they got an offer that enables them to better pursue their mission in some other location. But it won't be done as a favor to people who want to see some unspecified higher use there. Why should it?

Colin, if you can't figure out what is meant by Club Beamer, then maybe its time to STFU.

Child and Family Services is a great organization and a great neighbor. I like the non-for-profits better than the mansions broken into several apartments with absentee landlords.