BD organization in jeopardy

[supersop]

Not knowing California Bingo laws ... I would hope the council for the City would help to make concessions for the BD organization by structuring a deal for BD to have 1 or 2 nights of their choice at the new place. If this does fall within the legal boundaries, I would expect BD to be very happy with such a deal.

I'm also basing this on the assumption that BD owns its' own hall and operates 5-7 days a week. I know in MIchigan there are very clear laws stating exactly how much rent is for a bingo facility and that a license is required for each night you will be providing games. If California is the same, it's just a matter of BD finding the volunteers or workers (who in Michigan are paid a set amount by law), and run a few nights at other locations or even in other cities.

Further, if they're so concerned about a hall moving in 3 miles down the road ..... why not put in the bid to buy the property and get the licenses to operate bingo in the facility themselves? There is much untold in this story and a ton left in the dark due to our lack of legal knowledge in the State of California.

There is money to be made just in owning the building and charging the set rental fees for bingo operators... so why not expand on your current Bingo operations rather than worrying about competition from private investors who only wish to own the building and charge rent to others who wish to have games in their town for their charities?

See ... I didn't even say G-7

[bmroth1]

If this proposal for another bingo operation close to BD's is legitimate then BD needs to just suck it up and deal with it....Ala that's the attitude they seem to be taking with the rest of the Drum Corps world save 6 others.

[tja273]

If the new place is for profit, which means illegal, why does BD need everyone to rally 'round the flag? If this is the case, the proposal should just be dumped in the trash.

The new business IS "for profit". They get around the law because they do not operate the bingo operation. hey rent out the facility and all equipment to local non-profit groups. The key here is that they will ALWAYS profit...depending on the rental costs, the groups renting may not.

[mobrien]

the reality is that either:

1. the new bingo is illegal. therefore it doesn't open.

-or-

2. the new bingo is legal, and should not be barred from operating freely under the law.

Cities turn down applications from private industries all the time based on criteria that are much more complex than "is it legal?" Try to open a strip club or a bar right next to a grade school lately?

It sounds like BD understands that Bingo is already a thing of the past (if it's not, then its players soon will be), and is looking to diversify. In the meantime, if they can demonstrate a greater community good being served by them having a little clear range on the Bingo front, then more power to them.

Edited July 9, 2010 by mobrien

[ajwdad]

One last comment on how a non-profit can turn a fortune.

Exp: I own a building. Let's say a commercial building that is 10,000 sq ft. But, I cannot get a tenant at the rates that I want. So, my brother and I form a not for profit business to save the hungry whales. We decide to have a bingo game every night. The new business rents the building from me at whatever I think that the fair rate should be. But, let's make it about 2x the current market rate as the location is near a proven venue. So, I am getting $4 a foot a month ($40,000/month or $480,000/year). The new non-profit bingo hall needs a managing director, which my brother becomes at a salary of $80,000 /year and he hires me as a business expert for another $80,000/year. The bingo hall brings in a cool $650k year after paying utilities etc.... After paying for our expenses or $480k + $160K, have $10k left over.

Perhaps we even have to give 5% of our gross to the actual charity. There are some very well known charities in this range. So, we give $37,500 away and the charity actually loses money. But, since my brother and I are such good people, we make up the $27500 out of our pocket.

I am not saying that the new non-profit does anything like this. But, non-profits that run Bingo are governed by local governments here in Ca. They are not open to anyone that wants to start one, neither is a lottery, or gambling. The arguments about free enterprise do not comprehend the government control required by CA law. And, as you can see, non-profits can make an awful lot of money for those running the organization.

Gibbs is trying to protect a very important source of revenue for BD. I think that most of the naysayers here are more interested in removing the revenue source. If DCI had a rule that all monies collected from all sources by drum corps would be shared, I doubt that that anyone would want to see this source of revenue jeopardized. But, since it is the blue devils, or G7, many posters want to punish the corp.

Very Sad!

Edited July 9, 2010 by ajwdad

[supersop]

The new business IS "for profit". They get around the law because they do not operate the bingo operation. hey rent out the facility and all equipment to local non-profit groups. The key here is that they will ALWAYS profit...depending on the rental costs, the groups renting may not.

My point exactly in my lengthy post. BD could just as easily rent out it's hall for the set amount within the law and make a profit on this as well. Just open another building next to yours and rent it out .... or buy the building the "for profit" company is looking to buy and do it yourself.

End point, is that there will be other Non Profits making money from bingo within close proximity. It has nothing to do with who is buying the building or renting it out. You guys really don't have a leg to stand on with this subject .... taking it to the City Council or the planning commission shouldn't help in any way, shape or form.

[supersop]

One last comment on how a non-profit can turn a fortune.

Exp: I own a building. Let's say a commercial building that is 10,000 sq ft. But, I cannot get a tenant at the rates that I want. So, my brother and I form a not for profit business to save the hungry whales. We decide to have a bingo game every night. The new business rents the building from me at whatever I think that the fair rate should be. But, let's make it about 2x the current market rate as the location is near a proven venue. So, I am getting $4 a foot a month ($40,000/month or $480,000/year). The new non-profit bingo hall needs a managing director, which my brother becomes at a salary of $80,000 /year and he hires me as a business expert for another $80,000/year. The bingo hall brings in a cool $650k year after paying utilities etc.... After paying for our expenses or $480k + $160K, have $10k left over.

Perhaps we even have to give 5% of our gross to the actual charity. There are some very well known charities in this range. So, we give $37,500 away and the charity actually loses money. But, since my brother and I are such good people, we make up the $27500 out of our pocket.

I am not saying that the new non-profit does anything like this. But, non-profits that run Bingo are governed by local governments here in Ca. They are not open to anyone that wants to start one, neither is a lottery, or gambling. The arguments about free enterprise do not comprehend the government control required by CA law. And, as you can see, non-profits can make an awful lot of money for those running the organization.

Gibbs is trying to protect a very important source of revenue for BD. I think that most of the naysayers here are more interested in removing the revenue source. If DCI had a rule that all monies collected from all sources by drum corps would be shared, I doubt that that anyone would want to see this source of revenue jeopardized. But, since it is the blue devils, or G7, many posters want to punish the corp.

Very Sad!

In almost every State I know of ... this would be illegal. Rental rates, service charges, expenses paid and salaries are all regulated to specific dollar amounts.

[Abbevillekid26]

I'm going to email the city council and tell them how excited I am to participate in their new bingo program.

I laughed really hard at this; I really like BD but this was funny.

As much as I enjoy BD and respect the corps I do find this attempt by Mr. Gibbs very ironic and I can't argue with soccerguy's logic.

[ajwdad]

In almost every State I know of ... this would be illegal. Rental rates, service charges, expenses paid and salaries are all regulated to specific dollar amounts.

Actually, rental rates are NOT regulated. I can charge what I want for my commercial property and the state just makes me pay my taxes. Remember, my example had 2 legal entities, myself and the new NP corporation. and less that 15% for a salary is quite within the bounds of reason. Service and expense charges need documentation, but in my example, they were not even listed. But, again 10% of the total rent is within reason. Finally, $4 per foot (about 2x the going rate) is more than justifiable by any business person. After all, I am sure that you have hear that location, location, and location are the 3 most important things in real estate. And what could be better than to open a business next to a competitor? I don't even have to advertise!

Finally, local governments routinely turn down licenses of legitimate business for all kinds of reasons. Livermore turned down a hair salon downtown as there were several there already. It also turned down a tatoo place without even giving a decent reason. Sounds like you are not to familiar with business law and local governments in Ca.

Are you certain about the legality here? Can you name a state where this is not legal? It happens to be a way that people with self-directed IRAs can run a personal business in CA, Hawaii, and Nevada.

Edited July 9, 2010 by ajwdad

[bmroth1]

I laughed really hard at this; I really like BD but this was funny.

As much as I enjoy BD and respect the corps I do find this attempt by Mr. Gibbs very ironic and I can't argue with soccerguy's logic.

Agreed 100% !!! The level of irony is hilarious! Any organization in drum corps that actively pursues the removal of services rendered to other corps in order to further support itself deserves to have it's major funding source cut up and thrown in its face! Perhaps its devine intervention!