Belmont could annex Seven Oaks Farm for residential development

[Robert Stowe]

Mr Belmont wrote:

<quoted text>
What happens when that money is gone. What are you going to sell next. Soon you will run out of things to sell. Oh yeah, the National Mill is still hanging on. You should be able to put 40 or 50 houses on that 3 acres. Or maybe you can sqeeze a few more houses into Hawthorne. The older generation Stowes help build this community. All the new generation is doing is selling out. Belmont appreciates when any contributions or help the Stowe family gives. But Belmont DONESN'T OWE YOU ANYTHING.

The land which only generates expenses such as property taxes, insurance and upkeep will be sold and the proceeds invested in income producing assets which will provide income to the Garden. Those assets will continue to grow in value with the economy which in turn will produce even more income for the Garden. It's called an endowment.

[Mr Belmont]

Thats fine. What do you do with the 500 children that live in these new homes? Oh I have an idea. Maybe we can put 25 more trailers behind South Point High School or lets see if we can jam about 60 kids in every classroom. And the traffic is never a problem on South Point Road in the mornings. Several hundred homes wont affect traffic at all. I'm not a grand buisness man but it seems like if your going to build something, it should be self-sustaining. And I'm almost certain that a poll would show that the people in this area would rather see the Botanical Garden close than have 1000 more homes in this area.

[Realist]

Mr Belmont wrote:

Thats fine. What do you do with the 500 children that live in these new homes? Oh I have an idea. Maybe we can put 25 more trailers behind South Point High School or lets see if we can jam about 60 kids in every classroom. And the traffic is never a problem on South Point Road in the mornings. Several hundred homes wont affect traffic at all. I'm not a grand buisness man but it seems like if your going to build something, it should be self-sustaining. And I'm almost certain that a poll would show that the people in this area would rather see the Botanical Garden close than have 1000 more homes in this area.

You're worrying about nothing. The chance of Crosland being able to close on this deal is remote. They just let two properties they owned go to foreclosure.

[Realist]

If the garden did close what would happen to that property. Maybe some for-profit company would buy it and turn it into a theme park of something. What would the neighbors think about that?

[Mr Belmont]

Realist wrote:

If the garden did close what would happen to that property. Maybe some for-profit company would buy it and turn it into a theme park of something. What would the neighbors think about that?

Cant afford it. Obama want send me no money.

[other side of the bridge]

can someone tell me why the old seven oaks restaurant went under. has anyone tried to revive it? who owns it? do you think they would entertain the idea of leasing it out again? would it not be nice if it was put back to good use?

[Darnoc]

Robert Stowe wrote:

<quoted text>That would be great Cathie. Maybe you'll agree to raise the $1M per year that the Garden needs to operate over and above what it receives from admissions and contributions. Then we won't need income from an endowment and we won't need to sell the land.

Are the gardens now operating under an endowment? Are you requesting that the city of Belmont undertake increased operating cost to assist with the enhancement of this endowment? Is the "park' public or private?

[Erie]

Robert Stowe wrote:
<quoted text>That would be great Cathie. Maybe you'll agree to raise the $1M per year that the Garden needs to operate over and above what it receives from admissions and contributions. Then we won't need income from an endowment and we won't need to sell the land.
Darnoc wrote:
Are the gardens now operating under an endowment? Are you requesting that the city of Belmont undertake increased operating cost to assist with the enhancement of this endowment? Is the "park' public or private?

The gardens are beautiful, wonderful, and exclusive. It is not a public garden in any true sense of the word; admission, classes, holding private events there are all too expensive for the average family. It is a lovely playground for those who can afford it. And it's amazing how the seven oaks development project is being spun as a good will deed to endow what is essentially a private garden. It will make a lot of money for a few people and some of that money might be used to prop up the garden but the implication that the development of that land is a great humanitarian deed only being done reluctantly in order to provide income for an endowment to the gardens is more than a little hard to swallow.

[Robert Stowe]

Erie wrote:

Robert Stowe wrote:
<quoted text>That would be great Cathie. Maybe you'll agree to raise the $1M per year that the Garden needs to operate over and above what it receives from admissions and contributions. Then we won't need income from an endowment and we won't need to sell the land.
Darnoc wrote:
Are the gardens now operating under an endowment? Are you requesting that the city of Belmont undertake increased operating cost to assist with the enhancement of this endowment? Is the "park' public or private?
The gardens are beautiful, wonderful, and exclusive. It is not a public garden in any true sense of the word; admission, classes, holding private events there are all too expensive for the average family. It is a lovely playground for those who can afford it. And it's amazing how the seven oaks development project is being spun as a good will deed to endow what is essentially a private garden. It will make a lot of money for a few people and some of that money might be used to prop up the garden but the implication that the development of that land is a great humanitarian deed only being done reluctantly in order to provide income for an endowment to the gardens is more than a little hard to swallow.

Erie, have you ever been to a botanical garden of any stature public or private that does not charge admission? I'll say it again. Seven Oaks Farm is owned by a private foundation and by law its assets must be used for philanthropic purposes. It is required to give away 5% of its assets, that's assets not income, to other charities annually. It cannot enrich private individuals.

[Darnoc]

Robert Stowe wrote:

<quoted text>Erie, have you ever been to a botanical garden of any stature public or private that does not charge admission? I'll say it again. Seven Oaks Farm is owned by a private foundation and by law its assets must be used for philanthropic purposes. It is required to give away 5% of its assets, that's assets not income, to other charities annually. It cannot enrich private individuals.

What exactly are you asking from the citizens of Belmont? That they endure an additional thousand homes and potentially two thousand new students to our schools to provide a boost to the endowment to the gardens? Are you offering land for what will be a greatly needed addition to our school system, what about funds to build such a school? You are asking the average citizen to endure a great deal in order to secure the gardens future, what if anything are you willing to contribute to the town to secure such an agreement?... The primary selling point of the gardens is that it brings alot of people to Belmont, The biggest negative may also be thet it also brings alot of people to Belmont, depending on your perspective...

[IntheKnow]

Robert Stowe wrote:

<quoted text>Erie, have you ever been to a botanical garden of any stature public or private that does not charge admission? I'll say it again. Seven Oaks Farm is owned by a private foundation and by law its assets must be used for philanthropic purposes. It is required to give away 5% of its assets, that's assets not income, to other charities annually. It cannot enrich private individuals.

Why not make it (Seven Oaks Farm) something special the way it always was? A neighborhood on the water is typical.

In the true spirit of philantorpy, give it Gaston County and build a park on it.

[Robert Stowe]

Darnoc wrote:

<quoted text>
What exactly are you asking from the citizens of Belmont? That they endure an additional thousand homes and potentially two thousand new students to our schools to provide a boost to the endowment to the gardens? Are you offering land for what will be a greatly needed addition to our school system, what about funds to build such a school? You are asking the average citizen to endure a great deal in order to secure the gardens future, what if anything are you willing to contribute to the town to secure such an agreement?... The primary selling point of the gardens is that it brings alot of people to Belmont, The biggest negative may also be thet it also brings alot of people to Belmont, depending on your perspective...

No one is forcing the Garden or Seven Oaks on the citizens of Belmont. If Belmont is not interested I'm sure that Gastonia or Cramerton will be. Crosland's master plan includes land for a school and a church. The Garden itself was a major contribution to Gaston County. Just because you aren't interested doesn't mean others are not.

[webster]

Robert Stowe wrote:

<quoted text>Erie, have you ever been to a botanical garden of any stature public or private that does not charge admission? I'll say it again. Seven Oaks Farm is owned by a private foundation and by law its assets must be used for philanthropic purposes. It is required to give away 5% of its assets, that's assets not income, to other charities annually. It cannot enrich private individuals.

Yes, and the reason for that requirement is that the Foundation enjoys tax-exempt status. Everything you say is true but leaves out the fact that an LLC like the one that shares ownership of this land with the Foundation certainly can and will "enrich private individuals" with its share of the proceeds. The fact that DSBG charges admissions was not my point; that is its right and necessity. My point was that DSBG is not a publicly owned trust, acessible to all, and while the owners and developers of Seven Oaks can do whatever they want with their property, it is asking a lot of other tax-payers to accept that the inevitable effects on schools, traffic, fire and police, not to mention the gigantic environmental impact are an acceptable trade-off just because a portion of the profits from the sale will be used to endow the Garden. It cannot be a surprise that many who are not going to reap any benefits whatsoever from this development will look at it a bit differently than those who will. Casting it as some big philanthropic sacrifice that we should all be happy for doesn't really help to make the case for the project.

[Robert Stowe]

webster wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, and the reason for that requirement is that the Foundation enjoys tax-exempt status. Everything you say is true but leaves out the fact that an LLC like the one that shares ownership of this land with the Foundation certainly can and will "enrich private individuals" with its share of the proceeds. The fact that DSBG charges admissions was not my point; that is its right and necessity. My point was that DSBG is not a publicly owned trust, acessible to all, and while the owners and developers of Seven Oaks can do whatever they want with their property, it is asking a lot of other tax-payers to accept that the inevitable effects on schools, traffic, fire and police, not to mention the gigantic environmental impact are an acceptable trade-off just because a portion of the profits from the sale will be used to endow the Garden. It cannot be a surprise that many who are not going to reap any benefits whatsoever from this development will look at it a bit differently than those who will. Casting it as some big philanthropic sacrifice that we should all be happy for doesn't really help to make the case for the project.

Check the NC Secretary of State website. The Seven Oaks Farm Foundation is the sole member of Seven Oaks Farm, LLC.

[Darnoc]

Robert Stowe wrote:

<quoted text>No one is forcing the Garden or Seven Oaks on the citizens of Belmont. If Belmont is not interested I'm sure that Gastonia or Cramerton will be. Crosland's master plan includes land for a school and a church. The Garden itself was a major contribution to Gaston County. Just because you aren't interested doesn't mean others are not.

The level of interest is irreverent, the effects on the community relate to whether you are a taxpayer of said community. Will the Gardens level of commitment include funds to build this church and school or only the acreage to do so?
Your sound is benevolent but to me it appears as though a great deal of cost are associated with this non-profit procedure...Other than the church and school what about fire and police satellite stations etc. who absorbs the cost for these? It’s really about dollars and cents will the revenue from the gardens support the long-term effect of the build-out of the area and all the cost associated with that? The gardens will produce a static number more or less in regards to revenue for Belmont while the cost associated with the development in this area will outstrip the revenues almost immediately. Rest assured Belmont will acquire this regardless of the cost, it sounds good, and it looks good, particularly in an ad or brochure. Whether it is good business or not is really not he point.

[Robert Stowe]

The Garden is not responsible for building schools or churches. The Garden is a public charity with a specific purpose. It will be the beneficiary when the Seven Oaks property is sold. The Directors of the Seven Oaks Farm Foundation have the fiduciary responsibility to maximize the value of that real estate asset while also protecting the Garden. That is our sole intention.

[Mr Belmont]

Robert Stowe wrote:

<quoted text>No one is forcing the Garden or Seven Oaks on the citizens of Belmont. If Belmont is not interested I'm sure that Gastonia or Cramerton will be. Crosland's master plan includes land for a school and a church. The Garden itself was a major contribution to Gaston County. Just because you aren't interested doesn't mean others are not.

If I didn't know any better, I would consider that a subtle threat.
Check out the poll Robert. Nobody wants your Garden or your developement. We proved that in a small way by voting out your man Cromlish. Belmont is starting to realize that these land swaps and back alley deals may not always be in the best interest of the town! We know you are still mad about selling the Imperial to the Pharrs. It's history. You will find another place to put some more houses.

[crystal clear]

Robert Stowe wrote:

The Garden is not responsible for building schools or churches. The Garden is a public charity with a specific purpose. It will be the beneficiary when the Seven Oaks property is sold. The Directors of the Seven Oaks Farm Foundation have the fiduciary responsibility to maximize the value of that real estate asset while also protecting the Garden. That is our sole intention.

land is an asset greater that a price paid for property in the midst of a recession.
give the land to the gardens and let their board of directors determine the highest and best use. perhaps to maximize it's value means not to sell it in a down market. ask the monks at belmont abbey the value of land. their philosophy is all sustaining the college. had they sold the land that's now leased as montcross in the 70's, the college may not be here today. food for thought. prove you valiantness and do what is truly best for the gardens, give them the land.

[Glam Dicenn]

Mr Belmont wrote:

<quoted text>
If I didn't know any better, I would consider that a subtle threat.
Check out the poll Robert. Nobody wants your Garden or your developement. We proved that in a small way by voting out your man Cromlish. Belmont is starting to realize that these land swaps and back alley deals may not always be in the best interest of the town! We know you are still mad about selling the Imperial to the Pharrs. It's history. You will find another place to put some more houses.

The people who voted for Bill Toole are not against the Botanical Gardens or the developing of seven oaks. They are against the toll road that is going to take other peoples homes. Improve & widen the existing roads.

[Robert Stowe]

crystal clear wrote:

<quoted text>
land is an asset greater that a price paid for property in the midst of a recession.
give the land to the gardens and let their board of directors determine the highest and best use. perhaps to maximize it's value means not to sell it in a down market. ask the monks at belmont abbey the value of land. their philosophy is all sustaining the college. had they sold the land that's now leased as montcross in the 70's, the college may not be here today. food for thought. prove you valiantness and do what is truly best for the gardens, give them the land.

The Garden's mission statement does not include banking land. The land they own is to be used to complete the master plan which tops out at 350 acres. They also can't afford to hold the land. Property taxes, insurance and upkeep are expensive.