Beathan wrote: We also are not really setting aside funds for expansion or reconstruction, and we need to be. When that is considered, I don't see that we are making a profit at all. Rather, I see that we are reserving less than 10% for expansion and redevelopment. I would rather see that number be 15% or even 20%.
Beathan, please. I've asked this now a number of times in these forums. If you're going to comment on our finances, please read the financial reports. They are NOT complex, especially for a RL attorney.
We have a considerable reserve fund "set aside" for expansion and other investments in our community. Not six months ago the extent of this fund, and the magnitude of its monthly growth, was subject to a lengthy and heated debate over whether the fund was too large (about US$10,000) and over whether we should reduce tier and thus reduce the fund's growth. I argued that having such a fund was a reasonable and conservative strategy to enable safe expansion as well as insurance against hard times, which of course are never anticipated. But Trebor and others spearheaded a move to reduce tier. They succeeded, thus slowing... but not so far reversing... the growth of this fund. That said, the fund is still there (utterly obvious in any current financial statement) and so far continues to slowly grow. Tier reductions or not, my position has always been that the reserves are there for investment in the community and insurance for the community. Either of those uses might temporarily cause the reserve fund to drop, and that would be an entirely appropriate thing.
Statements such as yours look pretty foolish when seen against reality, which when it concerns money in as simple a structure as this is, is pretty clear. Please... for your own sake... study the financial reports (and I for one am entirely willing to discuss them and answer questions) before wading into position statements such as this. I'm sure good attorney practice demands suitable research before taking positions.
Beathan wrote: Rather than provide stipends indiscriminately to government officials, I would rather provide tier waivers to citizens with demonstrable need -- a CDS version of social housing, if you will.
Ha!...so we'll require copies of citizens' tax returns in order to establish "demonstrable need"? Ahh... law-makers. They can dream up such wonderful concepts so long as they don't have to administer them!
Sudane...............................................