Talk:Vote to Sprawl

I am not sure if the "four year lease" starts on 11/1 and goes for four years. I am a bit leery about adding 4 years to our lease, personally I would go for 2 years more than when our current lease ends next year. With how fast we are growing, I think 4 years will be too restrictive and we will need more space before then. My $.02 on the term of the lease. Other than that: JFDI! --Unsigned comment by Sevin

The square footage rate Excel sheet I put on the mailing list describes "Current Plus Two Effevtive (sic) 9/1/15", and lists out payments over four years. End date is 2019-08-31, which is about two years and two months past the end of our current lease (2017-06?) --Negativek (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2015 (CDT)

Why are you talking about what kind of lease term extension is appropriate? Have you done a projection of membership growth related to some kind of analysis of the rate of machine and tool purchases and pressure on current resources? If so, I'd lovvvvvvvve to see it. For all anyone knows, taking over Tony's space would alleviate any space concerns for the foreseeable future. Other makerspaces manage more resources for more members using better organization, far better leadership, and less space than we'd have if we took over 3517. Jason (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2015 (CDT)

We need to be careful not to ruin our negotiation power.

I know that Dan (that is the name of the landlord right?) should not be privy to our discussions and votes but I would just like to see some cautionary measures not to ruin our negotiations powers. One idea I had was to have a vote to pursue the extra area then a vote on a "final draft" of terms that have been negotiated with him. I understand that the idea of two votes in the time we have could seem daunting but it may just put more pressure on Dan to give us favorable terms.--Lucas (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2015 (CDT)

The suggestion that PS:One and Dan are somehow adverse such that there's any "pressure" to be exerted on him is offensive, alienating, and weird. I gather that you've never seen or negotiated a commercial lease. Jason (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2015 (CDT)

With everything I have ever seen or negotiated the seller wanted the highest price they could get and the buyer wanted to pay the lowest price they could get. If that is not the case here then my comments are mute. --Lucas (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2015 (CDT)

Of course that's the case here. But our negotiating position isn't any mystery and Dan/Tony are as well aware of the all the incentives on both sides as we are. There's no need to paint this as any more adversarial than any other business transaction between people who know each other's circumstances. Jason (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2015 (CDT)

Suggestions for changes to the language

We probably don't want to over complicate the language too much, but I think we can alleviate some concerns that we've been hearing about the vote. I think we should change the language to say that we authorize the board (or maybe even a designated member chosen by someone) to enter into negotiations for the new lease. The language could also maybe spell out a limit for how much the membership is willing to pay for rent, or whatever. I don't think we necessarily need to vote on the terms of the lease, though having them available for discussion during negotiations would probably help the designated negotiator decide what's best for the community. Justin (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2015 (CDT)