shapenaji wrote:@Jedo and shapenaji: The SGC is not self-sufficient then, if is is reliant on the building it doesnt hold ownership over.
by this logic, neither is any small business that has a landlord. I would hope you believe that small businesses have rights and cannot be simply tossed out because the landlord heard about this really sweet deal involving selling the land to make room for a strip mall. Tenants have rights.
.
Well, I have tried to stay out of this, but I suppose, now that "Hitler" is being thrown around, this thread's days may be numbered.
It seems to me that I stand between Ed Lee and Shapenaji on this situation. For what the Nihon Kiin has done, and for Iwamoto as well, I lean towards Ed, and I share his sense of ingratitude that it has come to this.
However, since I also sympathize with what it must be like to lose a successful, daily go club, knowing how it feels to lose an unsuccessful daily go club here in Baltmore - I want to understand the other point of view.
However, Shapenaji statements are way too emotional on the other side, and are really quite biased. A good example is his statement above. A small business pays the landlord money for the of the property. It makes enough money to pay all of its other bills and obligations, and makes some profit for its owner. The landlord is compensated for the present value of the property by the rent - in an arms length transaction. That is self sufficient, the Seattle Go Center is only self suffient if it is the de facto owner of the property.
I believe the relevant facts are as follows:
1. Iwamoto presented the world with a pile of money to spread go.
2. He gave the Nihon Kiin the power to manage this effort.
3. During his life, Go Centers in New York, Seattle, Amsterdam and Sao Paulo were founded.
4. The Seattle Center was planned to make money from first floor commercial rents in order to support the Center and the fees associated with the building.
5. Despite struggles, Seattle has managed to survive, if not thrive, without additional funds from the Nihon Kiin.
6. Amsterdam has "succeeded" as well, New York failed and I have no info on Sao Paulo.
7. The Nihon Kiin has decided to sell the building in Seattle, and use the funds to make NY viable.
8. Attempts to discuss this have not been successful, as far as the Seattle Go Center is concerned.
9. Seattle has filed suit.
Feel free to quibble, but these are the facts as I understand it. The value of this gift to American Go, both in NY and Seattle has been enormous, and demands our thanks. I do not believe Seattle can rely on generic "tenant's rights", they simply do not have the legal status of rent paying tenants.
But perhaps they do have some equitable rights along the lines judicata theorized. They have been carrying out the work, the mission, of the original grant, with reasonable, fairly stable success.
The big missing piece for me is the exact nature of the bequest from Honinbo Kunwa and how much latitude does the Nihon Kiin have in fulfilling his goals. This is the black box we are dealing with.
I hope I am wrong, but I find it hard to believe that the Nihon Kiin is hard wired, explicitly demanded to commit resources and assets permanently at each location. I find it hard to believe that it would not be rational, and in the spirit of their instructions, that having a thriving Go Center in the great metropolitan city (I would never want to live there - I would choose Seattle anyday) of New York is more important than a successful one in Seattle. If the assets of the bequest support only one location, then from an international point of view, New York seems a rational choice - so good they named it twice. So long as the funds from the sale of the building in Seattle are used to serve the purposes of the bequest - demonizing the Nihon Kiin is unfair.
But this is undeniably a bitter pill for Seattle, who can rightly claim, even if all circumstances might not have been equal, that they succeeded, and NY failed.
It is easy to honor the Honinbo for his generosity, and the Seattle folks for their hard work, but I see all manner of bad aji in demonizing the Nihon Kiin for this decision. I simply do not believe that the "black box" in this equation is going reveal that this call is outside of their authority.
Again, I hope I am wrong, and that the bequest states that assets, once placed and once established, belong to the Go community of that place, somehow forever. I am afraid this is unlikely however, and I do not welcome the bad aji of this development.