Re: [Lnc-business] [Lnc-discuss] Mark Hinkle's alternative motion to buy a building
I vote "no" on this motion, for reasons I previously discussed below. I had hoped that Mark might revise it and give me grounds to consider supporting it, but this has not happened. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Mark Hinkle <mark@garlic.com> wrote: Dear LNC,
I'm seeking co-sponsors for this motion:
Moved, that the LNC approve the purchase of an office in the greater Washington, D.C. area, to be named in honor of David F. Nolan, contingent on the following conditions:
• A minimum of 20% of the down payment shall be raised from dedicated contributions. If a portion of that is in the form of pledges, the pledges must be converted to cash before a purchase contract and mortgage agreement are finalized. • The monthly payment of principle, interest, and OTM (Overhead, Taxes, and Maintenance) shall not exceed our current lease payments at the Watergate complex. This motion will constitute authority to incur a mortgage if the above conditions are met and if this motion passes by the necessary two-thirds vote as specified in the Libertarian Party’s Bylaws.
The final decision on what property to buy shall be ratified by the LNC's Executive Committee by a majority vote once the above conditions are met.
RSVP................Mark Hinkle, LNC At-Large & Retired LP Chair Tel: 408-779-7922 -- "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams
On Dec 3, 2012, at 6:48 PM, Starchild wrote:
Dan,
What is the cutoff point of equity below which one cannot sell a building? If there is such a fixed point, and if we buy, it does seem to me it would make sense to plan any proposed purchase in such a way that we meet that minimum threshold quickly, so that if our purchase plans don't end up coming to fruition, at least we do not have to walk away from money we've already sunk into making mortgage payments, but have at least the chance to recoup them by selling. However I don't claim to have any particular expertise about real estate transactions, so maybe I'm missing something here.
What I told Mark Hinkle when he called me last night to lobby for my vote for his alternate motion, I'll say here as well -- I'm potentially open to voting for a motion including language addressing the issues and concerns raised in the document copied below about how to get the most out of a Libertarian "brick and mortar" space. The more of these concerns a motion to buy a building addresses, and the more strongly it addresses them, the more likely it is to get my support. Conversely, a motion that offers nothing to address these concerns is unlikely to get my support.
One of my inspirations in terms of what a more functional and effective LP headquarters could look like is the "Freedoms Phoenix" workshop in Phoenix, Arizona. Here is a 9-minute video from 2010 where Ernie Hancock (LP member and former candidate for national chair, and the guy responsible for the "Ron Paul r3VOLution" meme, for those who don't know him) gives a tour of the space and explains what they do there -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFeeB41UpI8 .
I'm not saying the Freedom's Phoenix space is perfect -- in the video, Ernie touts its *lack* of external visibility as an advantage, which makes little sense to me since he goes on to say how they have lots of events there, and obviously the video and other information about the space is out there on the Internet as well so it's not like they're really hiding from anyone. I think almost any libertarian brick-and-mortar space is missing an opportunity by not seeking to expose passers-by to libertarian graphics and information. The Freedoms Phoenix space also feels a bit cold and uninviting; it could use more of a homey touch, imho. But there is a heck of a lot to like about the impressive work they've done down there. It is a functional space where people (not just a few insiders, but lots of freedom supporters) can come in and work and get stuff done. It doesn't look like a corporate office, and has a significant feel of being a community space, a place where libertarians can hang out, bond, network, etc., a place to which people can contribute in various ways without a lot of bureaucracy or hassle.
Since what a building offers is often considerably more important than specifically where it is located, and therefore we shouldn't automatically eliminate excellent spaces from consideration simply based on their location, I will also be more open to a motion that does not limit our building search to the Washington D.C. area. That being said, so far I've really only heard two options for relocating outside D.C. that seem like they could potentially outweigh the advantages of being located in or very near the U.S. capitol district:
(1) Basing our national HQ in New Hampshire, both to support, and be supported by, the Free State Project. I think the FSP is something that is likely to continue building over time, and therefore it's sort of an investment in the future. I think we should also try to work with and support other libertarian groups to the extent that we practically can. Not only does it increase the solidarity and strength of the libertarian movement as a whole, but they may return the favor by trying to do more to help and support the LP. In practical terms, New Hampshire offers not only the freest political climate in the nation, but a strong base of liberty-minded activists who could potentially volunteer at headquarters and help out with projects.
(2) Having a mobile office based out of a large RV, which could hypothetically be parked in the D.C. environs most of the time, perhaps moving around a bit to show up at D.C. protests on the national mall, important press conferences, etc., but go on the road during campaign season to make appearances with presidential, state and local LP candidates, at other (L)ibertarian events, etc. This option could be considerably cheaper than either buying or leasing a building, and would allow us major public visibility compared with a fixed location via having our "office" plastered with Libertarian propaganda like the Gary Johnson vans that were driving around, as well as the flexibility to quickly relocate to different areas if desired by this or future LNCs. (Thanks to California LP member Mike Seebeck for this idea)
During this whole discussion about what to do about the LP's national office (indeed, in lots of other LNC discussions too!), it's important we keep in mind that the "options on the table" are whichever options we choose to put on the table.
To the extent we make a habit of assuming that people won't support an idea just because it's new or unfamiliar, we may be shooting ourselves in the foot by precluding consideration of fresh new ideas and perspectives.
"Why should I vote Libertarian when everybody knows that realistically it's going to be Obama or Romney?" We know how that kind of thinking hurts the LP and the freedom movement out there in the real world. We know how the unwillingness to truly consider doing something differently because people don't think others will consider it, and therefore assume "that will never happen", can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We also know that some of our opponents realize this too, and deliberately encourage "that will never happen" thinking in the hopes that it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy!
So it's good to be similarly aware of these dynamics within our own organization, and to understand when the main reasons for not giving something a chance are "political" rather than factual. Many individuals may be privately thinking, "Boy, that actually doesn't sound like such a bad idea, but I don't want to be the one to stand up and say so." This is where being vertebrates comes in! :-)
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
The Ideal Libertarian “Brick & Mortar” Space
When Libertarian Party or other pro-freedom groups reach a certain size and have a certain amount of money at their disposal, talk inevitably turns to procuring some kind of office. The national Libertarian Party has an office, as does the California LP (circa 2012).
Unfortunately, our party is not getting as much benefit from these and other similar spaces as it could. Indeed, the term “office” itself may be part of the problem, in that it can prevent people from thinking outside the box when it comes to the potential of brick-and-mortar spaces!
Here are some questions to ask about a proposed – or existing – brick-and-mortar location, roughly in order of importance. The more questions you can answer with a “Yes”, the more of an asset the space is likely to be to the LP and to the libertarian cause.
_______________________________________________________________ • Does the space function as a kind of libertarian community center (i.e. users have a sense of it not just being the private space of party officers or paid staffers who work there, but belonging to the whole party and to some degree the whole libertarian movement) that is important to the local LP chapter, pro-freedom activists, and friendly community groups as well as to people in the party?
• Is the space economically sustainable and cost-efficient (i.e. does it have cheap rent or overhead)?
• Can activists make lots of things (meetings, speakers, workshops, parties, etc.) happen at the space with a minimum of advance notice and bureaucracy?
• Is the space located in a high-visibility location such that messages and materials can be displayed which will be readily seen by passers-by?
• Is the space readily accessible (i.e. centrally located, in a walkable neighborhood, in proximity to mass transit and convenient/affordable parking, accessible to people with disabilities)?
• Is the space a friendly, welcoming place for locals and out-of-towners to drop in and visit, sit down and have a cup of coffee, read some back issues of party newsletters, chat with other libertarians, get online to do some activism, use the bathroom, take a shower, etc.?
• Is the space geared toward providing things for interns and volunteers to do, both long-term and on a drop-in basis?
• Does the space serve as a distribution hub for activist materials (free literature and other items which activists can stop in and pick up in bulk for distribution or passers-by can peruse or take with them to learn about libertarianism)?
• Is the space transparent in its operations so that people can readily discover how to fully make use of it and get things done (e.g. are there easily learned procedures for scheduling events or using equipment, posted office hours during which specific named staffers will be on hand to answer questions, etc.)?
• Is the space in proximity to centers of political power (U.S. or state capitol, city hall), and public spaces (plazas, parks, and other gathering places) to serve as a ready base camp for protesting, lobbying, and other outside political doings?
• Does the space have a participatory feel to it (e.g. are activists easily able to contribute their own decorations, materials, and so on to enhance it), and do its users have a say in how it is run?
• Does the space have a minimum of rules and restrictions (e.g. are eating, drinking, smoking, animals, bicycles, rollerblades, etc., allowed?)
• Does the space have an “organic” feel to it, a sense of being a place with a soul (e.g. is it comfortable, is it aesthetically pleasing, is there art, is the lighting friendly, is it neither too messy nor too pristine, etc.)?
• Does the space offer temporary to long-term storage for protest signs, banners, button-making machines, audio/PA equipment, and other materials people might not readily be able to store at home or might desire to maintain in a shared, accessible group space?
• Does the space serve as an effective workshop for activists to get things done (making signs and banners, filming and recording, creating art, etc.)?
• Is the space accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to trusted activists, and does it have places for people to crash if necessary?
• Does the space include a store where people can buy pro-freedom merchandise and supplies?
__________________________________________________________________
On Dec 3, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Daniel Wiener wrote:
I'm replying to this suggested motion on LNC-Discuss.
I for one am not willing to vote for Mark's motion, and I strongly doubt that there is a two-thirds majority of the LNC which will do so. I am very leery of imposing long-term obligations on future LNC's which could mire the Libertarian Party in a financial quagmire, and this applies to both long-term leases and mortgages. I will only vote to purchase an office if there is a sufficiently large down payment that I can be confident our mortgage will not sink under water, and if we commit to paying off the mortgage in a short time span. These are very uncertain economic times, and I believe there are significant risks in the commercial real estate market in Washington, D.C. (and elsewhere). But if we have a large enough equity, we can at least sell the building as a last resort if we're forced to by future financial exigencies.
Dan Wiener
Lnc-discuss mailing list Lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org
Starchild, The Secretary has not yet put forth the motion to be voted on. We don't even know if there are four co-sponsors at this point. Dan Wiener On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
I vote "no" on this motion, for reasons I previously discussed below. I had hoped that Mark might revise it and give me grounds to consider supporting it, but this has not happened.
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Mark Hinkle <mark@garlic.com> wrote: Dear LNC,
I'm seeking co-sponsors for this motion:
Moved, that the LNC approve the purchase of an office in the greater Washington, D.C. area, to be named in honor of David F. Nolan, contingent on the following conditions:
• A minimum of 20% of the down payment shall be raised from dedicated contributions. If a portion of that is in the form of pledges, the pledges must be converted to cash before a purchase contract and mortgage agreement are finalized. • The monthly payment of principle, interest, and OTM (Overhead, Taxes, and Maintenance) shall not exceed our current lease payments at the Watergate complex. This motion will constitute authority to incur a mortgage if the above conditions are met and if this motion passes by the necessary two-thirds vote as specified in the Libertarian Party’s Bylaws.
The final decision on what property to buy shall be ratified by the LNC's Executive Committee by a majority vote once the above conditions are met.
RSVP................Mark Hinkle, LNC At-Large & Retired LP Chair Tel: 408-779-7922 -- "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams
On Dec 3, 2012, at 6:48 PM, Starchild wrote:
Dan,
What is the cutoff point of equity below which one cannot sell a building? If there is such a fixed point, and if we buy, it does seem to me it would make sense to plan any proposed purchase in such a way that we meet that minimum threshold quickly, so that if our purchase plans don't end up coming to fruition, at least we do not have to walk away from money we've already sunk into making mortgage payments, but have at least the chance to recoup them by selling. However I don't claim to have any particular expertise about real estate transactions, so maybe I'm missing something here.
What I told Mark Hinkle when he called me last night to lobby for my vote for his alternate motion, I'll say here as well -- I'm potentially open to voting for a motion including language addressing the issues and concerns raised in the document copied below about how to get the most out of a Libertarian "brick and mortar" space. The more of these concerns a motion to buy a building addresses, and the more strongly it addresses them, the more likely it is to get my support. Conversely, a motion that offers nothing to address these concerns is unlikely to get my support.
One of my inspirations in terms of what a more functional and effective LP headquarters could look like is the "Freedoms Phoenix" workshop in Phoenix, Arizona. Here is a 9-minute video from 2010 where Ernie Hancock (LP member and former candidate for national chair, and the guy responsible for the "Ron Paul r3VOLution" meme, for those who don't know him) gives a tour of the space and explains what they do there -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFeeB41UpI8 .
I'm not saying the Freedom's Phoenix space is perfect -- in the video, Ernie touts its *lack* of external visibility as an advantage, which makes little sense to me since he goes on to say how they have lots of events there, and obviously the video and other information about the space is out there on the Internet as well so it's not like they're really hiding from anyone. I think almost any libertarian brick-and-mortar space is missing an opportunity by not seeking to expose passers-by to libertarian graphics and information. The Freedoms Phoenix space also feels a bit cold and uninviting; it could use more of a homey touch, imho. But there is a heck of a lot to like about the impressive work they've done down there. It is a functional space where people (not just a few insiders, but lots of freedom supporters) can come in and work and get stuff done. It doesn't look like a corporate office, and has a significant feel of being a community space, a place where libertarians can hang out, bond, network, etc., a place to which people can contribute in various ways without a lot of bureaucracy or hassle.
Since what a building offers is often considerably more important than specifically where it is located, and therefore we shouldn't automatically eliminate excellent spaces from consideration simply based on their location, I will also be more open to a motion that does not limit our building search to the Washington D.C. area. That being said, so far I've really only heard two options for relocating outside D.C. that seem like they could potentially outweigh the advantages of being located in or very near the U.S. capitol district:
(1) Basing our national HQ in New Hampshire, both to support, and be supported by, the Free State Project. I think the FSP is something that is likely to continue building over time, and therefore it's sort of an investment in the future. I think we should also try to work with and support other libertarian groups to the extent that we practically can. Not only does it increase the solidarity and strength of the libertarian movement as a whole, but they may return the favor by trying to do more to help and support the LP. In practical terms, New Hampshire offers not only the freest political climate in the nation, but a strong base of liberty-minded activists who could potentially volunteer at headquarters and help out with projects.
(2) Having a mobile office based out of a large RV, which could hypothetically be parked in the D.C. environs most of the time, perhaps moving around a bit to show up at D.C. protests on the national mall, important press conferences, etc., but go on the road during campaign season to make appearances with presidential, state and local LP candidates, at other (L)ibertarian events, etc. This option could be considerably cheaper than either buying or leasing a building, and would allow us major public visibility compared with a fixed location via having our "office" plastered with Libertarian propaganda like the Gary Johnson vans that were driving around, as well as the flexibility to quickly relocate to different areas if desired by this or future LNCs. (Thanks to California LP member Mike Seebeck for this idea)
During this whole discussion about what to do about the LP's national office (indeed, in lots of other LNC discussions too!), it's important we keep in mind that the "options on the table" are whichever options we choose to put on the table.
To the extent we make a habit of assuming that people won't support an idea just because it's new or unfamiliar, we may be shooting ourselves in the foot by precluding consideration of fresh new ideas and perspectives.
"Why should I vote Libertarian when everybody knows that realistically it's going to be Obama or Romney?" We know how that kind of thinking hurts the LP and the freedom movement out there in the real world. We know how the unwillingness to truly consider doing something differently because people don't think others will consider it, and therefore assume "that will never happen", can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We also know that some of our opponents realize this too, and deliberately encourage "that will never happen" thinking in the hopes that it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy!
So it's good to be similarly aware of these dynamics within our own organization, and to understand when the main reasons for not giving something a chance are "political" rather than factual. Many individuals may be privately thinking, "Boy, that actually doesn't sound like such a bad idea, but I don't want to be the one to stand up and say so." This is where being vertebrates comes in! :-)
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
The Ideal Libertarian “Brick & Mortar” Space
When Libertarian Party or other pro-freedom groups reach a certain size and have a certain amount of money at their disposal, talk inevitably turns to procuring some kind of office. The national Libertarian Party has an office, as does the California LP (circa 2012).
Unfortunately, our party is not getting as much benefit from these and other similar spaces as it could. Indeed, the term “office” itself may be part of the problem, in that it can prevent people from thinking outside the box when it comes to the potential of brick-and-mortar spaces!
Here are some questions to ask about a proposed – or existing – brick-and-mortar location, roughly in order of importance. The more questions you can answer with a “Yes”, the more of an asset the space is likely to be to the LP and to the libertarian cause.
_______________________________________________________________ • Does the space function as a kind of libertarian community center (i.e. users have a sense of it not just being the private space of party officers or paid staffers who work there, but belonging to the whole party and to some degree the whole libertarian movement) that is important to the local LP chapter, pro-freedom activists, and friendly community groups as well as to people in the party?
• Is the space economically sustainable and cost-efficient (i.e. does it have cheap rent or overhead)?
• Can activists make lots of things (meetings, speakers, workshops, parties, etc.) happen at the space with a minimum of advance notice and bureaucracy?
• Is the space located in a high-visibility location such that messages and materials can be displayed which will be readily seen by passers-by?
• Is the space readily accessible (i.e. centrally located, in a walkable neighborhood, in proximity to mass transit and convenient/affordable parking, accessible to people with disabilities)?
• Is the space a friendly, welcoming place for locals and out-of-towners to drop in and visit, sit down and have a cup of coffee, read some back issues of party newsletters, chat with other libertarians, get online to do some activism, use the bathroom, take a shower, etc.?
• Is the space geared toward providing things for interns and volunteers to do, both long-term and on a drop-in basis?
• Does the space serve as a distribution hub for activist materials (free literature and other items which activists can stop in and pick up in bulk for distribution or passers-by can peruse or take with them to learn about libertarianism)?
• Is the space transparent in its operations so that people can readily discover how to fully make use of it and get things done (e.g. are there easily learned procedures for scheduling events or using equipment, posted office hours during which specific named staffers will be on hand to answer questions, etc.)?
• Is the space in proximity to centers of political power (U.S. or state capitol, city hall), and public spaces (plazas, parks, and other gathering places) to serve as a ready base camp for protesting, lobbying, and other outside political doings?
• Does the space have a participatory feel to it (e.g. are activists easily able to contribute their own decorations, materials, and so on to enhance it), and do its users have a say in how it is run?
• Does the space have a minimum of rules and restrictions (e.g. are eating, drinking, smoking, animals, bicycles, rollerblades, etc., allowed?)
• Does the space have an “organic” feel to it, a sense of being a place with a soul (e.g. is it comfortable, is it aesthetically pleasing, is there art, is the lighting friendly, is it neither too messy nor too pristine, etc.)?
• Does the space offer temporary to long-term storage for protest signs, banners, button-making machines, audio/PA equipment, and other materials people might not readily be able to store at home or might desire to maintain in a shared, accessible group space?
• Does the space serve as an effective workshop for activists to get things done (making signs and banners, filming and recording, creating art, etc.)?
• Is the space accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to trusted activists, and does it have places for people to crash if necessary?
• Does the space include a store where people can buy pro-freedom merchandise and supplies?
__________________________________________________________________
On Dec 3, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Daniel Wiener wrote:
I'm replying to this suggested motion on LNC-Discuss.
I for one am not willing to vote for Mark's motion, and I strongly doubt that there is a two-thirds majority of the LNC which will do so. I am very leery of imposing long-term obligations on future LNC's which could mire the Libertarian Party in a financial quagmire, and this applies to both long-term leases and mortgages. I will only vote to purchase an office if there is a sufficiently large down payment that I can be confident our mortgage will not sink under water, and if we commit to paying off the mortgage in a short time span. These are very uncertain economic times, and I believe there are significant risks in the commercial real estate market in Washington, D.C. (and elsewhere). But if we have a large enough equity, we can at least sell the building as a last resort if we're forced to by future financial exigencies.
Dan Wiener
Lnc-discuss mailing list Lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
I believe Mark posted the co-sponsors for his motion. VK On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Daniel Wiener <wiener@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
Starchild,
The Secretary has not yet put forth the motion to be voted on. We don't even know if there are four co-sponsors at this point.
Dan Wiener
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net>wrote:
I vote "no" on this motion, for reasons I previously discussed below. I had hoped that Mark might revise it and give me grounds to consider supporting it, but this has not happened.
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Mark Hinkle <mark@garlic.com> wrote: Dear LNC,
I'm seeking co-sponsors for this motion:
Moved, that the LNC approve the purchase of an office in the greater Washington, D.C. area, to be named in honor of David F. Nolan, contingent on the following conditions:
• A minimum of 20% of the down payment shall be raised from dedicated contributions. If a portion of that is in the form of pledges, the pledges must be converted to cash before a purchase contract and mortgage agreement are finalized. • The monthly payment of principle, interest, and OTM (Overhead, Taxes, and Maintenance) shall not exceed our current lease payments at the Watergate complex. This motion will constitute authority to incur a mortgage if the above conditions are met and if this motion passes by the necessary two-thirds vote as specified in the Libertarian Party’s Bylaws.
The final decision on what property to buy shall be ratified by the LNC's Executive Committee by a majority vote once the above conditions are met.
RSVP................Mark Hinkle, LNC At-Large & Retired LP Chair Tel: 408-779-7922 -- "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams
On Dec 3, 2012, at 6:48 PM, Starchild wrote:
Dan,
What is the cutoff point of equity below which one cannot sell a building? If there is such a fixed point, and if we buy, it does seem to me it would make sense to plan any proposed purchase in such a way that we meet that minimum threshold quickly, so that if our purchase plans don't end up coming to fruition, at least we do not have to walk away from money we've already sunk into making mortgage payments, but have at least the chance to recoup them by selling. However I don't claim to have any particular expertise about real estate transactions, so maybe I'm missing something here.
What I told Mark Hinkle when he called me last night to lobby for my vote for his alternate motion, I'll say here as well -- I'm potentially open to voting for a motion including language addressing the issues and concerns raised in the document copied below about how to get the most out of a Libertarian "brick and mortar" space. The more of these concerns a motion to buy a building addresses, and the more strongly it addresses them, the more likely it is to get my support. Conversely, a motion that offers nothing to address these concerns is unlikely to get my support.
One of my inspirations in terms of what a more functional and effective LP headquarters could look like is the "Freedoms Phoenix" workshop in Phoenix, Arizona. Here is a 9-minute video from 2010 where Ernie Hancock (LP member and former candidate for national chair, and the guy responsible for the "Ron Paul r3VOLution" meme, for those who don't know him) gives a tour of the space and explains what they do there -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFeeB41UpI8 .
I'm not saying the Freedom's Phoenix space is perfect -- in the video, Ernie touts its *lack* of external visibility as an advantage, which makes little sense to me since he goes on to say how they have lots of events there, and obviously the video and other information about the space is out there on the Internet as well so it's not like they're really hiding from anyone. I think almost any libertarian brick-and-mortar space is missing an opportunity by not seeking to expose passers-by to libertarian graphics and information. The Freedoms Phoenix space also feels a bit cold and uninviting; it could use more of a homey touch, imho. But there is a heck of a lot to like about the impressive work they've done down there. It is a functional space where people (not just a few insiders, but lots of freedom supporters) can come in and work and get stuff done. It doesn't look like a corporate office, and has a significant feel of being a community space, a place where libertarians can hang out, bond, network, etc., a place to which people can contribute in various ways without a lot of bureaucracy or hassle.
Since what a building offers is often considerably more important than specifically where it is located, and therefore we shouldn't automatically eliminate excellent spaces from consideration simply based on their location, I will also be more open to a motion that does not limit our building search to the Washington D.C. area. That being said, so far I've really only heard two options for relocating outside D.C. that seem like they could potentially outweigh the advantages of being located in or very near the U.S. capitol district:
(1) Basing our national HQ in New Hampshire, both to support, and be supported by, the Free State Project. I think the FSP is something that is likely to continue building over time, and therefore it's sort of an investment in the future. I think we should also try to work with and support other libertarian groups to the extent that we practically can. Not only does it increase the solidarity and strength of the libertarian movement as a whole, but they may return the favor by trying to do more to help and support the LP. In practical terms, New Hampshire offers not only the freest political climate in the nation, but a strong base of liberty-minded activists who could potentially volunteer at headquarters and help out with projects.
(2) Having a mobile office based out of a large RV, which could hypothetically be parked in the D.C. environs most of the time, perhaps moving around a bit to show up at D.C. protests on the national mall, important press conferences, etc., but go on the road during campaign season to make appearances with presidential, state and local LP candidates, at other (L)ibertarian events, etc. This option could be considerably cheaper than either buying or leasing a building, and would allow us major public visibility compared with a fixed location via having our "office" plastered with Libertarian propaganda like the Gary Johnson vans that were driving around, as well as the flexibility to quickly relocate to different areas if desired by this or future LNCs. (Thanks to California LP member Mike Seebeck for this idea)
During this whole discussion about what to do about the LP's national office (indeed, in lots of other LNC discussions too!), it's important we keep in mind that the "options on the table" are whichever options we choose to put on the table.
To the extent we make a habit of assuming that people won't support an idea just because it's new or unfamiliar, we may be shooting ourselves in the foot by precluding consideration of fresh new ideas and perspectives.
"Why should I vote Libertarian when everybody knows that realistically it's going to be Obama or Romney?" We know how that kind of thinking hurts the LP and the freedom movement out there in the real world. We know how the unwillingness to truly consider doing something differently because people don't think others will consider it, and therefore assume "that will never happen", can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We also know that some of our opponents realize this too, and deliberately encourage "that will never happen" thinking in the hopes that it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy!
So it's good to be similarly aware of these dynamics within our own organization, and to understand when the main reasons for not giving something a chance are "political" rather than factual. Many individuals may be privately thinking, "Boy, that actually doesn't sound like such a bad idea, but I don't want to be the one to stand up and say so." This is where being vertebrates comes in! :-)
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
The Ideal Libertarian “Brick & Mortar” Space
When Libertarian Party or other pro-freedom groups reach a certain size and have a certain amount of money at their disposal, talk inevitably turns to procuring some kind of office. The national Libertarian Party has an office, as does the California LP (circa 2012).
Unfortunately, our party is not getting as much benefit from these and other similar spaces as it could. Indeed, the term “office” itself may be part of the problem, in that it can prevent people from thinking outside the box when it comes to the potential of brick-and-mortar spaces!
Here are some questions to ask about a proposed – or existing – brick-and-mortar location, roughly in order of importance. The more questions you can answer with a “Yes”, the more of an asset the space is likely to be to the LP and to the libertarian cause.
_______________________________________________________________ • Does the space function as a kind of libertarian community center (i.e. users have a sense of it not just being the private space of party officers or paid staffers who work there, but belonging to the whole party and to some degree the whole libertarian movement) that is important to the local LP chapter, pro-freedom activists, and friendly community groups as well as to people in the party?
• Is the space economically sustainable and cost-efficient (i.e. does it have cheap rent or overhead)?
• Can activists make lots of things (meetings, speakers, workshops, parties, etc.) happen at the space with a minimum of advance notice and bureaucracy?
• Is the space located in a high-visibility location such that messages and materials can be displayed which will be readily seen by passers-by?
• Is the space readily accessible (i.e. centrally located, in a walkable neighborhood, in proximity to mass transit and convenient/affordable parking, accessible to people with disabilities)?
• Is the space a friendly, welcoming place for locals and out-of-towners to drop in and visit, sit down and have a cup of coffee, read some back issues of party newsletters, chat with other libertarians, get online to do some activism, use the bathroom, take a shower, etc.?
• Is the space geared toward providing things for interns and volunteers to do, both long-term and on a drop-in basis?
• Does the space serve as a distribution hub for activist materials (free literature and other items which activists can stop in and pick up in bulk for distribution or passers-by can peruse or take with them to learn about libertarianism)?
• Is the space transparent in its operations so that people can readily discover how to fully make use of it and get things done (e.g. are there easily learned procedures for scheduling events or using equipment, posted office hours during which specific named staffers will be on hand to answer questions, etc.)?
• Is the space in proximity to centers of political power (U.S. or state capitol, city hall), and public spaces (plazas, parks, and other gathering places) to serve as a ready base camp for protesting, lobbying, and other outside political doings?
• Does the space have a participatory feel to it (e.g. are activists easily able to contribute their own decorations, materials, and so on to enhance it), and do its users have a say in how it is run?
• Does the space have a minimum of rules and restrictions (e.g. are eating, drinking, smoking, animals, bicycles, rollerblades, etc., allowed?)
• Does the space have an “organic” feel to it, a sense of being a place with a soul (e.g. is it comfortable, is it aesthetically pleasing, is there art, is the lighting friendly, is it neither too messy nor too pristine, etc.)?
• Does the space offer temporary to long-term storage for protest signs, banners, button-making machines, audio/PA equipment, and other materials people might not readily be able to store at home or might desire to maintain in a shared, accessible group space?
• Does the space serve as an effective workshop for activists to get things done (making signs and banners, filming and recording, creating art, etc.)?
• Is the space accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to trusted activists, and does it have places for people to crash if necessary?
• Does the space include a store where people can buy pro-freedom merchandise and supplies?
__________________________________________________________________
On Dec 3, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Daniel Wiener wrote:
I'm replying to this suggested motion on LNC-Discuss.
I for one am not willing to vote for Mark's motion, and I strongly doubt that there is a two-thirds majority of the LNC which will do so. I am very leery of imposing long-term obligations on future LNC's which could mire the Libertarian Party in a financial quagmire, and this applies to both long-term leases and mortgages. I will only vote to purchase an office if there is a sufficiently large down payment that I can be confident our mortgage will not sink under water, and if we commit to paying off the mortgage in a short time span. These are very uncertain economic times, and I believe there are significant risks in the commercial real estate market in Washington, D.C. (and elsewhere). But if we have a large enough equity, we can at least sell the building as a last resort if we're forced to by future financial exigencies.
Dan Wiener
Lnc-discuss mailing list Lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Mark has modified his motion, by changing the requirement to say that the monthly payment will not exceed 75% of the Watergate lease amount. He telephoned me and I agreed to co-sponsor the modified version as well, but I have not yet seen that version in writing. While I presume that the other co-sponsors will also agree, I do not know that for a fact. The Secretary has not yet put anything out for a vote. When she does, I will be voting against Mark's motion. Dan Wiener On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Vicki Kirkland <vickilp12@gmail.com> wrote:
I believe Mark posted the co-sponsors for his motion. VK
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Daniel Wiener <wiener@alum.mit.edu>wrote:
Starchild,
The Secretary has not yet put forth the motion to be voted on. We don't even know if there are four co-sponsors at this point.
Dan Wiener
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net>wrote:
I vote "no" on this motion, for reasons I previously discussed below. I had hoped that Mark might revise it and give me grounds to consider supporting it, but this has not happened.
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Mark Hinkle <mark@garlic.com> wrote: Dear LNC,
I'm seeking co-sponsors for this motion:
Moved, that the LNC approve the purchase of an office in the greater Washington, D.C. area, to be named in honor of David F. Nolan, contingent on the following conditions:
• A minimum of 20% of the down payment shall be raised from dedicated contributions. If a portion of that is in the form of pledges, the pledges must be converted to cash before a purchase contract and mortgage agreement are finalized. • The monthly payment of principle, interest, and OTM (Overhead, Taxes, and Maintenance) shall not exceed our current lease payments at the Watergate complex. This motion will constitute authority to incur a mortgage if the above conditions are met and if this motion passes by the necessary two-thirds vote as specified in the Libertarian Party’s Bylaws.
The final decision on what property to buy shall be ratified by the LNC's Executive Committee by a majority vote once the above conditions are met.
RSVP................Mark Hinkle, LNC At-Large & Retired LP Chair Tel: 408-779-7922 -- "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams
On Dec 3, 2012, at 6:48 PM, Starchild wrote:
Dan,
What is the cutoff point of equity below which one cannot sell a building? If there is such a fixed point, and if we buy, it does seem to me it would make sense to plan any proposed purchase in such a way that we meet that minimum threshold quickly, so that if our purchase plans don't end up coming to fruition, at least we do not have to walk away from money we've already sunk into making mortgage payments, but have at least the chance to recoup them by selling. However I don't claim to have any particular expertise about real estate transactions, so maybe I'm missing something here.
What I told Mark Hinkle when he called me last night to lobby for my vote for his alternate motion, I'll say here as well -- I'm potentially open to voting for a motion including language addressing the issues and concerns raised in the document copied below about how to get the most out of a Libertarian "brick and mortar" space. The more of these concerns a motion to buy a building addresses, and the more strongly it addresses them, the more likely it is to get my support. Conversely, a motion that offers nothing to address these concerns is unlikely to get my support.
One of my inspirations in terms of what a more functional and effective LP headquarters could look like is the "Freedoms Phoenix" workshop in Phoenix, Arizona. Here is a 9-minute video from 2010 where Ernie Hancock (LP member and former candidate for national chair, and the guy responsible for the "Ron Paul r3VOLution" meme, for those who don't know him) gives a tour of the space and explains what they do there -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFeeB41UpI8 .
I'm not saying the Freedom's Phoenix space is perfect -- in the video, Ernie touts its *lack* of external visibility as an advantage, which makes little sense to me since he goes on to say how they have lots of events there, and obviously the video and other information about the space is out there on the Internet as well so it's not like they're really hiding from anyone. I think almost any libertarian brick-and-mortar space is missing an opportunity by not seeking to expose passers-by to libertarian graphics and information. The Freedoms Phoenix space also feels a bit cold and uninviting; it could use more of a homey touch, imho. But there is a heck of a lot to like about the impressive work they've done down there. It is a functional space where people (not just a few insiders, but lots of freedom supporters) can come in and work and get stuff done. It doesn't look like a corporate office, and has a significant feel of being a community space, a place where libertarians can hang out, bond, network, etc., a place to which people can contribute in various ways without a lot of bureaucracy or hassle.
Since what a building offers is often considerably more important than specifically where it is located, and therefore we shouldn't automatically eliminate excellent spaces from consideration simply based on their location, I will also be more open to a motion that does not limit our building search to the Washington D.C. area. That being said, so far I've really only heard two options for relocating outside D.C. that seem like they could potentially outweigh the advantages of being located in or very near the U.S. capitol district:
(1) Basing our national HQ in New Hampshire, both to support, and be supported by, the Free State Project. I think the FSP is something that is likely to continue building over time, and therefore it's sort of an investment in the future. I think we should also try to work with and support other libertarian groups to the extent that we practically can. Not only does it increase the solidarity and strength of the libertarian movement as a whole, but they may return the favor by trying to do more to help and support the LP. In practical terms, New Hampshire offers not only the freest political climate in the nation, but a strong base of liberty-minded activists who could potentially volunteer at headquarters and help out with projects.
(2) Having a mobile office based out of a large RV, which could hypothetically be parked in the D.C. environs most of the time, perhaps moving around a bit to show up at D.C. protests on the national mall, important press conferences, etc., but go on the road during campaign season to make appearances with presidential, state and local LP candidates, at other (L)ibertarian events, etc. This option could be considerably cheaper than either buying or leasing a building, and would allow us major public visibility compared with a fixed location via having our "office" plastered with Libertarian propaganda like the Gary Johnson vans that were driving around, as well as the flexibility to quickly relocate to different areas if desired by this or future LNCs. (Thanks to California LP member Mike Seebeck for this idea)
During this whole discussion about what to do about the LP's national office (indeed, in lots of other LNC discussions too!), it's important we keep in mind that the "options on the table" are whichever options we choose to put on the table.
To the extent we make a habit of assuming that people won't support an idea just because it's new or unfamiliar, we may be shooting ourselves in the foot by precluding consideration of fresh new ideas and perspectives.
"Why should I vote Libertarian when everybody knows that realistically it's going to be Obama or Romney?" We know how that kind of thinking hurts the LP and the freedom movement out there in the real world. We know how the unwillingness to truly consider doing something differently because people don't think others will consider it, and therefore assume "that will never happen", can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We also know that some of our opponents realize this too, and deliberately encourage "that will never happen" thinking in the hopes that it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy!
So it's good to be similarly aware of these dynamics within our own organization, and to understand when the main reasons for not giving something a chance are "political" rather than factual. Many individuals may be privately thinking, "Boy, that actually doesn't sound like such a bad idea, but I don't want to be the one to stand up and say so." This is where being vertebrates comes in! :-)
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
The Ideal Libertarian “Brick & Mortar” Space
When Libertarian Party or other pro-freedom groups reach a certain size and have a certain amount of money at their disposal, talk inevitably turns to procuring some kind of office. The national Libertarian Party has an office, as does the California LP (circa 2012).
Unfortunately, our party is not getting as much benefit from these and other similar spaces as it could. Indeed, the term “office” itself may be part of the problem, in that it can prevent people from thinking outside the box when it comes to the potential of brick-and-mortar spaces!
Here are some questions to ask about a proposed – or existing – brick-and-mortar location, roughly in order of importance. The more questions you can answer with a “Yes”, the more of an asset the space is likely to be to the LP and to the libertarian cause.
_______________________________________________________________ • Does the space function as a kind of libertarian community center (i.e. users have a sense of it not just being the private space of party officers or paid staffers who work there, but belonging to the whole party and to some degree the whole libertarian movement) that is important to the local LP chapter, pro-freedom activists, and friendly community groups as well as to people in the party?
• Is the space economically sustainable and cost-efficient (i.e. does it have cheap rent or overhead)?
• Can activists make lots of things (meetings, speakers, workshops, parties, etc.) happen at the space with a minimum of advance notice and bureaucracy?
• Is the space located in a high-visibility location such that messages and materials can be displayed which will be readily seen by passers-by?
• Is the space readily accessible (i.e. centrally located, in a walkable neighborhood, in proximity to mass transit and convenient/affordable parking, accessible to people with disabilities)?
• Is the space a friendly, welcoming place for locals and out-of-towners to drop in and visit, sit down and have a cup of coffee, read some back issues of party newsletters, chat with other libertarians, get online to do some activism, use the bathroom, take a shower, etc.?
• Is the space geared toward providing things for interns and volunteers to do, both long-term and on a drop-in basis?
• Does the space serve as a distribution hub for activist materials (free literature and other items which activists can stop in and pick up in bulk for distribution or passers-by can peruse or take with them to learn about libertarianism)?
• Is the space transparent in its operations so that people can readily discover how to fully make use of it and get things done (e.g. are there easily learned procedures for scheduling events or using equipment, posted office hours during which specific named staffers will be on hand to answer questions, etc.)?
• Is the space in proximity to centers of political power (U.S. or state capitol, city hall), and public spaces (plazas, parks, and other gathering places) to serve as a ready base camp for protesting, lobbying, and other outside political doings?
• Does the space have a participatory feel to it (e.g. are activists easily able to contribute their own decorations, materials, and so on to enhance it), and do its users have a say in how it is run?
• Does the space have a minimum of rules and restrictions (e.g. are eating, drinking, smoking, animals, bicycles, rollerblades, etc., allowed?)
• Does the space have an “organic” feel to it, a sense of being a place with a soul (e.g. is it comfortable, is it aesthetically pleasing, is there art, is the lighting friendly, is it neither too messy nor too pristine, etc.)?
• Does the space offer temporary to long-term storage for protest signs, banners, button-making machines, audio/PA equipment, and other materials people might not readily be able to store at home or might desire to maintain in a shared, accessible group space?
• Does the space serve as an effective workshop for activists to get things done (making signs and banners, filming and recording, creating art, etc.)?
• Is the space accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to trusted activists, and does it have places for people to crash if necessary?
• Does the space include a store where people can buy pro-freedom merchandise and supplies?
__________________________________________________________________
On Dec 3, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Daniel Wiener wrote:
I'm replying to this suggested motion on LNC-Discuss.
I for one am not willing to vote for Mark's motion, and I strongly doubt that there is a two-thirds majority of the LNC which will do so. I am very leery of imposing long-term obligations on future LNC's which could mire the Libertarian Party in a financial quagmire, and this applies to both long-term leases and mortgages. I will only vote to purchase an office if there is a sufficiently large down payment that I can be confident our mortgage will not sink under water, and if we commit to paying off the mortgage in a short time span. These are very uncertain economic times, and I believe there are significant risks in the commercial real estate market in Washington, D.C. (and elsewhere). But if we have a large enough equity, we can at least sell the building as a last resort if we're forced to by future financial exigencies.
Dan Wiener
Lnc-discuss mailing list Lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
I will co-sponsor the modified motion as well. VK On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Daniel Wiener <wiener@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
Mark has modified his motion, by changing the requirement to say that the monthly payment will not exceed 75% of the Watergate lease amount. He telephoned me and I agreed to co-sponsor the modified version as well, but I have not yet seen that version in writing. While I presume that the other co-sponsors will also agree, I do not know that for a fact. The Secretary has not yet put anything out for a vote. When she does, I will be voting against Mark's motion.
Dan Wiener
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Vicki Kirkland <vickilp12@gmail.com>wrote:
I believe Mark posted the co-sponsors for his motion. VK
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Daniel Wiener <wiener@alum.mit.edu>wrote:
Starchild,
The Secretary has not yet put forth the motion to be voted on. We don't even know if there are four co-sponsors at this point.
Dan Wiener
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net>wrote:
I vote "no" on this motion, for reasons I previously discussed below. I had hoped that Mark might revise it and give me grounds to consider supporting it, but this has not happened.
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Mark Hinkle <mark@garlic.com> wrote: Dear LNC,
I'm seeking co-sponsors for this motion:
Moved, that the LNC approve the purchase of an office in the greater Washington, D.C. area, to be named in honor of David F. Nolan, contingent on the following conditions:
• A minimum of 20% of the down payment shall be raised from dedicated contributions. If a portion of that is in the form of pledges, the pledges must be converted to cash before a purchase contract and mortgage agreement are finalized. • The monthly payment of principle, interest, and OTM (Overhead, Taxes, and Maintenance) shall not exceed our current lease payments at the Watergate complex. This motion will constitute authority to incur a mortgage if the above conditions are met and if this motion passes by the necessary two-thirds vote as specified in the Libertarian Party’s Bylaws.
The final decision on what property to buy shall be ratified by the LNC's Executive Committee by a majority vote once the above conditions are met.
RSVP................Mark Hinkle, LNC At-Large & Retired LP Chair Tel: 408-779-7922 -- "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams
On Dec 3, 2012, at 6:48 PM, Starchild wrote:
Dan,
What is the cutoff point of equity below which one cannot sell a building? If there is such a fixed point, and if we buy, it does seem to me it would make sense to plan any proposed purchase in such a way that we meet that minimum threshold quickly, so that if our purchase plans don't end up coming to fruition, at least we do not have to walk away from money we've already sunk into making mortgage payments, but have at least the chance to recoup them by selling. However I don't claim to have any particular expertise about real estate transactions, so maybe I'm missing something here.
What I told Mark Hinkle when he called me last night to lobby for my vote for his alternate motion, I'll say here as well -- I'm potentially open to voting for a motion including language addressing the issues and concerns raised in the document copied below about how to get the most out of a Libertarian "brick and mortar" space. The more of these concerns a motion to buy a building addresses, and the more strongly it addresses them, the more likely it is to get my support. Conversely, a motion that offers nothing to address these concerns is unlikely to get my support.
One of my inspirations in terms of what a more functional and effective LP headquarters could look like is the "Freedoms Phoenix" workshop in Phoenix, Arizona. Here is a 9-minute video from 2010 where Ernie Hancock (LP member and former candidate for national chair, and the guy responsible for the "Ron Paul r3VOLution" meme, for those who don't know him) gives a tour of the space and explains what they do there -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFeeB41UpI8 .
I'm not saying the Freedom's Phoenix space is perfect -- in the video, Ernie touts its *lack* of external visibility as an advantage, which makes little sense to me since he goes on to say how they have lots of events there, and obviously the video and other information about the space is out there on the Internet as well so it's not like they're really hiding from anyone. I think almost any libertarian brick-and-mortar space is missing an opportunity by not seeking to expose passers-by to libertarian graphics and information. The Freedoms Phoenix space also feels a bit cold and uninviting; it could use more of a homey touch, imho. But there is a heck of a lot to like about the impressive work they've done down there. It is a functional space where people (not just a few insiders, but lots of freedom supporters) can come in and work and get stuff done. It doesn't look like a corporate office, and has a significant feel of being a community space, a place where libertarians can hang out, bond, network, etc., a place to which people can contribute in various ways without a lot of bureaucracy or hassle.
Since what a building offers is often considerably more important than specifically where it is located, and therefore we shouldn't automatically eliminate excellent spaces from consideration simply based on their location, I will also be more open to a motion that does not limit our building search to the Washington D.C. area. That being said, so far I've really only heard two options for relocating outside D.C. that seem like they could potentially outweigh the advantages of being located in or very near the U.S. capitol district:
(1) Basing our national HQ in New Hampshire, both to support, and be supported by, the Free State Project. I think the FSP is something that is likely to continue building over time, and therefore it's sort of an investment in the future. I think we should also try to work with and support other libertarian groups to the extent that we practically can. Not only does it increase the solidarity and strength of the libertarian movement as a whole, but they may return the favor by trying to do more to help and support the LP. In practical terms, New Hampshire offers not only the freest political climate in the nation, but a strong base of liberty-minded activists who could potentially volunteer at headquarters and help out with projects.
(2) Having a mobile office based out of a large RV, which could hypothetically be parked in the D.C. environs most of the time, perhaps moving around a bit to show up at D.C. protests on the national mall, important press conferences, etc., but go on the road during campaign season to make appearances with presidential, state and local LP candidates, at other (L)ibertarian events, etc. This option could be considerably cheaper than either buying or leasing a building, and would allow us major public visibility compared with a fixed location via having our "office" plastered with Libertarian propaganda like the Gary Johnson vans that were driving around, as well as the flexibility to quickly relocate to different areas if desired by this or future LNCs. (Thanks to California LP member Mike Seebeck for this idea)
During this whole discussion about what to do about the LP's national office (indeed, in lots of other LNC discussions too!), it's important we keep in mind that the "options on the table" are whichever options we choose to put on the table.
To the extent we make a habit of assuming that people won't support an idea just because it's new or unfamiliar, we may be shooting ourselves in the foot by precluding consideration of fresh new ideas and perspectives.
"Why should I vote Libertarian when everybody knows that realistically it's going to be Obama or Romney?" We know how that kind of thinking hurts the LP and the freedom movement out there in the real world. We know how the unwillingness to truly consider doing something differently because people don't think others will consider it, and therefore assume "that will never happen", can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We also know that some of our opponents realize this too, and deliberately encourage "that will never happen" thinking in the hopes that it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy!
So it's good to be similarly aware of these dynamics within our own organization, and to understand when the main reasons for not giving something a chance are "political" rather than factual. Many individuals may be privately thinking, "Boy, that actually doesn't sound like such a bad idea, but I don't want to be the one to stand up and say so." This is where being vertebrates comes in! :-)
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
The Ideal Libertarian “Brick & Mortar” Space
When Libertarian Party or other pro-freedom groups reach a certain size and have a certain amount of money at their disposal, talk inevitably turns to procuring some kind of office. The national Libertarian Party has an office, as does the California LP (circa 2012).
Unfortunately, our party is not getting as much benefit from these and other similar spaces as it could. Indeed, the term “office” itself may be part of the problem, in that it can prevent people from thinking outside the box when it comes to the potential of brick-and-mortar spaces!
Here are some questions to ask about a proposed – or existing – brick-and-mortar location, roughly in order of importance. The more questions you can answer with a “Yes”, the more of an asset the space is likely to be to the LP and to the libertarian cause.
_______________________________________________________________ • Does the space function as a kind of libertarian community center (i.e. users have a sense of it not just being the private space of party officers or paid staffers who work there, but belonging to the whole party and to some degree the whole libertarian movement) that is important to the local LP chapter, pro-freedom activists, and friendly community groups as well as to people in the party?
• Is the space economically sustainable and cost-efficient (i.e. does it have cheap rent or overhead)?
• Can activists make lots of things (meetings, speakers, workshops, parties, etc.) happen at the space with a minimum of advance notice and bureaucracy?
• Is the space located in a high-visibility location such that messages and materials can be displayed which will be readily seen by passers-by?
• Is the space readily accessible (i.e. centrally located, in a walkable neighborhood, in proximity to mass transit and convenient/affordable parking, accessible to people with disabilities)?
• Is the space a friendly, welcoming place for locals and out-of-towners to drop in and visit, sit down and have a cup of coffee, read some back issues of party newsletters, chat with other libertarians, get online to do some activism, use the bathroom, take a shower, etc.?
• Is the space geared toward providing things for interns and volunteers to do, both long-term and on a drop-in basis?
• Does the space serve as a distribution hub for activist materials (free literature and other items which activists can stop in and pick up in bulk for distribution or passers-by can peruse or take with them to learn about libertarianism)?
• Is the space transparent in its operations so that people can readily discover how to fully make use of it and get things done (e.g. are there easily learned procedures for scheduling events or using equipment, posted office hours during which specific named staffers will be on hand to answer questions, etc.)?
• Is the space in proximity to centers of political power (U.S. or state capitol, city hall), and public spaces (plazas, parks, and other gathering places) to serve as a ready base camp for protesting, lobbying, and other outside political doings?
• Does the space have a participatory feel to it (e.g. are activists easily able to contribute their own decorations, materials, and so on to enhance it), and do its users have a say in how it is run?
• Does the space have a minimum of rules and restrictions (e.g. are eating, drinking, smoking, animals, bicycles, rollerblades, etc., allowed?)
• Does the space have an “organic” feel to it, a sense of being a place with a soul (e.g. is it comfortable, is it aesthetically pleasing, is there art, is the lighting friendly, is it neither too messy nor too pristine, etc.)?
• Does the space offer temporary to long-term storage for protest signs, banners, button-making machines, audio/PA equipment, and other materials people might not readily be able to store at home or might desire to maintain in a shared, accessible group space?
• Does the space serve as an effective workshop for activists to get things done (making signs and banners, filming and recording, creating art, etc.)?
• Is the space accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to trusted activists, and does it have places for people to crash if necessary?
• Does the space include a store where people can buy pro-freedom merchandise and supplies?
__________________________________________________________________
On Dec 3, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Daniel Wiener wrote:
I'm replying to this suggested motion on LNC-Discuss.
I for one am not willing to vote for Mark's motion, and I strongly doubt that there is a two-thirds majority of the LNC which will do so. I am very leery of imposing long-term obligations on future LNC's which could mire the Libertarian Party in a financial quagmire, and this applies to both long-term leases and mortgages. I will only vote to purchase an office if there is a sufficiently large down payment that I can be confident our mortgage will not sink under water, and if we commit to paying off the mortgage in a short time span. These are very uncertain economic times, and I believe there are significant risks in the commercial real estate market in Washington, D.C. (and elsewhere). But if we have a large enough equity, we can at least sell the building as a last resort if we're forced to by future financial exigencies.
Dan Wiener
Lnc-discuss mailing list Lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
participants (3)
-
Daniel Wiener -
Starchild -
Vicki Kirkland