Toby as Executive Director Maicharia Weir Lytle -- the lead person from the United South End Settlements pointed out - -when they move to a place they have on Rutland st in need of some reno work [to be paid for by the sale of 566 Columbus] -- it will be the 4th location for the Tubman House*1 -- so moving is not something with which they are unfamiliarThanks. It is rough when good organizations have to asset strip to survive.
Executive Director Maicharia Weir Lytle. “We’ve been looking at how we can utilize our real estate to further our mission.”
Long before its building at 766 Columbus Ave. was constructed, the Harriet Tubman House began in 1892 as a settlement house for black women moving to Boston from the South. Harriet Tubman, the abolitionist for whom the nonprofit was named, was an honorary president of the settlement house until her death in 1913. For nearly 60 years, the organization was located on Holyoke Street in the South End.
In 1975, United South End Settlements built the 566 Columbus Ave. building and the nonprofit moved to that location, expanding its programming and functioning more as a multi-service organization.
I'm never in support of the NIMBYs, but since this land was apparently given to the organizations by the City to build a social services center, should they be able to simply sell it for a profit? In this case, there seems to be some logic to the NIMBYs arguments.Thanks. It is rough when good organizations have to asset strip to survive.
From the article:
They call this building “historic”, but it reeeally isn’t.If the deal goes through, United South End Settlements would join a growing list of Boston nonprofits — universities, arts organizations, and social service agencies — that are selling their historic properties in this hot real estate market to help fund and grow operations.
Is that really the concern, though? I think they just don't want the site redeveloped, but don't care whether the USES gets a windfall. Who gets the profit, by the way, is only an issue because the city doesn't put in place strong policies on such questions. Had the structure been built using federal support, there would be what's known as a "federal interest" in the asset, and they would recoup their share of the gains. The city, on the other hand, seems happy to grant all of that to the non-profit. And maybe they should. If USES isn't able to do this, they likely disappear. There have likewise been other non-profits -- shelters, neighborhood health centers, etc., that have been able to survive fiscal trauma by the city essentially converting what might be seen as loans in to unrestricted grants. This falls within that category, and if it enables USES to maintain viability, then that's a net good in my opinion.I'm never in support of the NIMBYs, but since this land was apparently given to the organizations by the City to build a social services center, should they be able to simply sell it for a profit? In this case, there seems to be some logic to the NIMBYs arguments.
They are planning on staying on their main campus on Rutland street, between Tremont and Shawmut.What I don't uderstand is where are they going to move that is cheaper than land they already own? How much of that sale money is just going to be sunk back into land acquisition or lease payments? If they want to be anywhere near where they are now, I would guess the answer would be 'most' (if not "all" or "more".)