The center has been self-sufficient as long as a tenant has been in place. There have been periods when that has not been the case, but over the long haul the SGC has done well.

Shapenaji, like others here, I know nothing about the legal details other than what was posted here in this thread.

So, who owns the SGC building? Does anyone know? This question has been asked a few times now in this thread,
and so far I don't see a definitive answer.

Whether or not the SGC is self-sufficient seems immaterial to me -- what's the relevance?

Again, my gut feeling for the SGC's honte reply in this case is "Thank you."
This lawsuit is extremely bad shape to me.

So you say you don't know the details, but you've made a decision already. I think you should be patient and do more reading before playing a move.

Yes, oren, it is my gut feeling, subject to change with the details.
So, do you know who owns the SGC building? I'd like to read your reply.

I also don't know the answer to this, and this may be bad shape. But my gut feeling is that if the SGC had any recourse prior to the legal one, they would probably be using it.

I don't like the idea of a lawsuit here. If the SGC jumped to this conclusion without exhausting an appeals process, then I think it was hasty. But if the SGC closes, then I start wondering "What do we still owe to the Nihon Kiin?"

The reason why we owe them is for their contributions in creating a go scene in this country, if they are willing to take back those contributions, I don't see any reason why "Thanks" are in order.

_________________
Let my comments be as eggs thrown on stones... explosive and hard to wash.

Could you elaborate?

No, I know the Nihon Kiin owns the building, but I do not know what the contract details are. The bank owns my house, but I would certainly sue them if they kicked me out to claim ownership. A real estate company owns the building my company leases, and they will get sued if they breach the lease.

Ownership is only a single part of the issue. I know the people responsible, and they are not foolish and doing this without reason. I'm not making up my mind for the SGC management or for the part of Nihon Kiin that wants to sell the building. I will say the one thing is that I really do not believe there is any intent to use any proceeds to bring back New York Go Center.

Regardless of who is in the right legally, I think it is bad karma to sue your benefactors, even if you think they haven't done as much for you as they should have.

If Seattle can't support its own Go Center financially and pay rent on its own building, maybe it doesn't deserve a Go Center.

Suing the Nihon Ki'in strikes me as extremely poor form. Like biting the hand that feeds you. Or attacking your own family.

"He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."

Thank you, oren. Like you, I also don't know the contract details -- which may be relevant.Seems to me these two analogies are not good here.
The bank and the real estate company are not offering help to you --
they are trying to make a profit from you (a business transaction).
They did not "let" you stay in the house or the company building "for free" for SIXTEEN+ years.

The following are my feelings (oren, emphasis on "feelings"; I don't know the facts ):

Iwamoto Sensei and the Nihon Kiin founded the NYGC and SGC --
Iwamoto Sensei and the Nihon Kiin helped to promote Go all these years.
They asked for nothing in return. They just wanted to promote Go.
It is not a "business transaction". They did it entirely out of good will.
(As mentioned earlier, they did similar to help re-build Go in China in the 1980's.)
They donated/funded the NYGC and SGC (and many other Go centers around the world).
Without Iwamoto Sensei and the Nihon Kiin, there would not have been the NYGC and SGC.

The SGC should be thankful for their help all these years.
This is why their honte reply is "Thank you." This lawsuit is extremely bad form.

Let's see if more details emerge. My gut feelings stand.

SGC WAS self sufficient. NYGC could have been If not for some shady management at one point in its life. ( this is an over simplification, but I can't/don't want to go into details)

In any case japan maybe totally allowed to do what they are doing, I have no understanding of law, so I couldn't say, but perhaps if they were more transparent in their intentions and more open to communication, there wouldn't be talk of lawsuits. Again perhaps I am wrong.

How about the 16+ years (1995-2012) ?
The Nihon Kiin could have rented out the SGC building for all these years and made some profit.
Should the SGC pay something back to the Nihon Kiin in return?

NHK did not buy the centers it was Iwamotos personal money. NHK are taking back a gift they did not give.

Also you don't give a gift expecting something in return. That would be called a trade, not a gift.

Except Iwamoto Sensei did not give the ownership of this "gift" to the SGC, did he? He gave it to the Nihon Kiin? Is this correct?And since when is it good form to "use" this "borrowed gift" (if it's owned by the NHK) for 16+ years and instead of saying "thank you," sue the gifter?

Again NHK is not the gifter, even though they own the building. I am not for suing but desperate times... I am sure if NHK waa more open to a dialogue things would be different.

In any case I have nothing more I can add, I understand your point ED, I share a certain aspect of your feelings, but I know what its like to lose your go club without someone to ask of " why". They say god giveth and taketh, I doubt many people will argue if I say he was a jerk to Job.

Obviously the best solution is if the SGC can find a rich Seattle-based patron like perhaps Bill Gates or Paul Allen to purchase the building and continue to let SGC use it rent free. Probably just wishful thinking though.

_________________
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A private blog on Asian go books and interesting go sightings
Now open only for a select few.
Go is such a beautiful game.

Um, what am I missing here? They're not paying rent? Clearly this is some alternate definition of "self-sufficient" that I'm not aware of...

_________________
Let my comments be as eggs thrown on stones... explosive and hard to wash.

If they are as self sufficient as they claim to be, then they can move on without Nihon Ki-in. With a smile and a thank you. Clinging on to them as they leave however is the direct opposite of self sufficient. The Nihon Ki-in owe the SGC nothing.

Even if the SGC is as in your own words self sufficient, it is still only through the Nihon Ki-in. Of which without there would have been no benefactor. The project would not have happened with out them and quite frankly the attitude towards them after all of the work they have done is quite disgusting.

Quite frankly, if this is the kind of communication that the Nihon Ki-in has been recieving then i can not blame them for wanting to redirect their assets elsewhere. The world is a big place, why would they want to stay where they are taken for granted and where the seed of go has already been planted. Sounds like a smart idea to move, does it not?

Again, we seem to be disagreeing on the definition of self-sufficient. If those from the SGC are correct, they have been producing enough funds to support rent for the space.

The Nihon Kiin is not a real estate mogul, they are not in the position of renting small properties half-a-world away. Their goal in creating the center(An admirable one, but not entirely altruistic) was the spread of go. They benefit from this in the long-term (As they did in Korea).

At the very least, their decision to close a successful location, costing them nothing, seems to be at odds with their charter.

_________________
Let my comments be as eggs thrown on stones... explosive and hard to wash.

They do not own the building, though they pay rent on it (from what I understand). So, much like the law prevents landlords from merely kicking out tenants who are not in violation of the lease, the law could also prevent the Nihon Kiin from merely kicking out the SGC.

In fact, in some regions of the country, a tenant that has been around for as long as the SGC has, has additional rights.

As far as this being the Nihon Kiin's right, owing to their benefactor status. The Nihon Kiin may have started the SGC, but they are not solely responsible for what it has accomplished.

I'm afraid your attitude is out of place. You are demonizing these people without even clarifying the rights owed to a tenant (and one that has kept to the terms of the agreement).

You are welcome to think that the SGC has no claim here (As Ed believes), but your argument that "They are biting the hand that feeds them" has no more merit than the counterclaim that "The Nihon Kiin is being an abusive parent"

EDITED to make the position clearer.

_________________
Let my comments be as eggs thrown on stones... explosive and hard to wash.