HKA wrote:
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.
Godwin's Law, bound to happen. An honorable mention for balistic's "Well you may think that, but your COUNTRY thinks otherwise: <insert various red herrings>"
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'm not sure how you can claim that I'm being biased. As I said, there has been no official statement from the Nihon Kiin. The only thing I'm defending here is SGC's right to litigate (If they have evidence of contract breach, which they say they do). Since the Nihon Kiin has not come out on this issue and we only have the releases of one side to consider, I think it is biased to assume they are biting the hand that feeds them.
I don't think emotional describes my comments at all
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.
One could very easily argue that the sale is at odds with the bequest and this may be the legal grounds that SGC is pursuing. (For starters, the rent on a center in Seattle is considerably less than the rent on a spot in midtown)
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.
I see nothing wrong with a legal remedy to a contract dispute. People hear the phrase "X is suing Y" and suddenly see the sides through "McDonald's Second-degree-burn style Coffee"-glasses. Even the Nihon Kiin can be remiss in their obligations, so I'm not sure that the results of the black box are so predictable.
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.
Iwamoto sensei planted a seed, that seed has grown and put down roots. I believe it is reasonable for the Nihon Kiin to suggest that the SGC should begin to stand on its own. Selling the building out from under them is not this kind of transitional step.
But the real point is that stories of outrageously frivolous lawsuits are almost always overblown and leave out significant details--the McDonald's suit among them. In other stories, they focus on the fact someone sued, which means nothing--judges throw out meritless claims all the time. That said, crazy verdicts/decisions do happen, though they are usually (but not always) corrected at some point (e.g. on appeal).
Yet your country believes otherwise. Bin laden, Muammar Al-Gaddafi ...
