CenterGrass
18th May 2013, 05:57
This coming week, on 22 May there will be a SGM to discuss the deal the majority of the committee have made with the airport owners to move the club house and hangar across the runway. The owners wish to redevelop the present site, and the rest of the Kapiti Road frontage, as retail and/or commercial.
Three committee members opposed the deal for two reasons.
First and most importantly, it did not give the club secure tenure - as the land the club would move to would continue to be zoned airport use, the club could get thrown off at three months notice and at the clubs cost to remove all buildings etc.
Second, the move is going to cost the owners a fraction of the value they would get from the moving the club from present location.
One opposing member has now changed sides and no longer opposes the deal struck. However, the remaining two members are continuing their opposition.
It should be noted that the two dissenting committee members both have considerable knowledge of property, one as an real estate agent of many years standing, and held in high regard for his ethics, and the other is a very successful business person, who has had a very similar experience negotiating a very favorable deal, using professional property negotiators. It is unbelievable that the remaining committee members have disregarded the experience of the two and instead chose to trust that the airport company will do the right thing.
What could, and should, have been resolved by continued dialogue and negotiation has instead descended into a rather vile campaign by the President and CFI against the 2 committee members. Personal insults, personality assassination have been aimed at these two, both to their faces and behind their backs. They have not been invited to meetings, committee meeting have been held otherwise than in accordance with the constitution. The CFI has been allowed to attend committee meetings and take an active part including voting, although I believe the constitution only allows his attendance as an observer. Etc.
This aside, the main cause of dissent is the presidents refusal to consult a professional property negotiator. The agreement tentatively agreed to has, as stated, no security of tenure and is just the first offer the owners have made. Total cost to the airport company is estimated at less then $200,000. In return they get a prime retail site on the main read worth an estimated $1,000,000 plus. The club currently pays $15,000 per anum. The lease is secure until 2033 with only inflation adjusted rises allowed, the land is zoned commercial so the club can not be thrown off under the airport act.
This is by far the most valuable asset of the club. Handled properly, the income to the airport company from the club's present site if it were to be redeveloped as retail use would be around $100,000 - $150,000 per year. They get their costs of moving the club back inside of two years extra income.
This deal in considerably worse than the offer the club turned down in 2003. Since then land values have soared, and so should the return to the club.
A conservative estimate is the club should get around $500,000 from the deal - $300,000 better than so far offered and agreed to.
But even if the club doesn't try to extract a better deal $$$$, it is vital that they don't give in to the airport owners without the agreement giving security of tenure.
Recently, the Wellington Aero Club was thrown off their site, ownership of the historic clubhouse was assumed by the airport, and only very minimal compensation paid after the club moved to a vastly inferior site. A better deal has now been reached, but only after court action. An ex-president has expressed his regret that they did not get professional advise - basically they felt intimidated and didn't know they could negotiate.
It seems our club executive feel the same.
That, in brief, is the situation.
I welcome your opinions.
Three committee members opposed the deal for two reasons.
First and most importantly, it did not give the club secure tenure - as the land the club would move to would continue to be zoned airport use, the club could get thrown off at three months notice and at the clubs cost to remove all buildings etc.
Second, the move is going to cost the owners a fraction of the value they would get from the moving the club from present location.
One opposing member has now changed sides and no longer opposes the deal struck. However, the remaining two members are continuing their opposition.
It should be noted that the two dissenting committee members both have considerable knowledge of property, one as an real estate agent of many years standing, and held in high regard for his ethics, and the other is a very successful business person, who has had a very similar experience negotiating a very favorable deal, using professional property negotiators. It is unbelievable that the remaining committee members have disregarded the experience of the two and instead chose to trust that the airport company will do the right thing.
What could, and should, have been resolved by continued dialogue and negotiation has instead descended into a rather vile campaign by the President and CFI against the 2 committee members. Personal insults, personality assassination have been aimed at these two, both to their faces and behind their backs. They have not been invited to meetings, committee meeting have been held otherwise than in accordance with the constitution. The CFI has been allowed to attend committee meetings and take an active part including voting, although I believe the constitution only allows his attendance as an observer. Etc.
This aside, the main cause of dissent is the presidents refusal to consult a professional property negotiator. The agreement tentatively agreed to has, as stated, no security of tenure and is just the first offer the owners have made. Total cost to the airport company is estimated at less then $200,000. In return they get a prime retail site on the main read worth an estimated $1,000,000 plus. The club currently pays $15,000 per anum. The lease is secure until 2033 with only inflation adjusted rises allowed, the land is zoned commercial so the club can not be thrown off under the airport act.
This is by far the most valuable asset of the club. Handled properly, the income to the airport company from the club's present site if it were to be redeveloped as retail use would be around $100,000 - $150,000 per year. They get their costs of moving the club back inside of two years extra income.
This deal in considerably worse than the offer the club turned down in 2003. Since then land values have soared, and so should the return to the club.
A conservative estimate is the club should get around $500,000 from the deal - $300,000 better than so far offered and agreed to.
But even if the club doesn't try to extract a better deal $$$$, it is vital that they don't give in to the airport owners without the agreement giving security of tenure.
Recently, the Wellington Aero Club was thrown off their site, ownership of the historic clubhouse was assumed by the airport, and only very minimal compensation paid after the club moved to a vastly inferior site. A better deal has now been reached, but only after court action. An ex-president has expressed his regret that they did not get professional advise - basically they felt intimidated and didn't know they could negotiate.
It seems our club executive feel the same.
That, in brief, is the situation.
I welcome your opinions.