X-Message-Number: 1676 Date: 24 Jan 93 18:15:56 EST From: David S Pizer <> Subject: CRYONICS Reply to Mike Darwin from Dave Pizer on the Arizona Building. Mike makes some allegations about "my" failure to aquire the Arizona Building. I reply to these because there is a lot to be learned from this matter. Soon, Alcor will be considering that we move again. It is only by examining the mistakes we have made in the past that we can hope to avoid them in the future. I invite Mike, and others, to ask any further questions about this matter so we can all understand it more. It is true that Mike did a good job on raising money for our existing building in Riverside, as he states. I was one of the largest contributors to that project. I also encouraged others to contribute. However in retrospect, (just a few of) the problems with the Riverside building are: It is in an area that does not have "hard" zoning. That means that we have had to apply for a conditional use permitt. This has been very expensive and that expense must be added when computing our cost of the building. In addition, to get the conditional use permit, we will now have to spend several thousand dollars more on remodeling. In addition, to get the conditional use permit, we had to give up our right to do any more research. I find this unacceptable. In addition, since we do not have hard zoning, the conditional use permit can be withdrawn by the city at any time in the future, if they can prove we violated the conditions under which they granted it to us (or perhaps a lot of trouble can be caused to us, if some anti-cryonics people come to power on the city council). At any time in the future they might find some way to close us down? (This is not very comforting). In addition, the existing building is in a community that is hostile to research, cryonics and Alcor. (How can one calculate what this has cost us?) In addition, the existing building is in dangerous earthquake territory. In addition, the zoning we are in is an industrial type of zoning that allows our neighbors to do all kinds of nasty-looking things that makes the whole area look very bad. We are losing existing members, (many of them very wealthy), because of this appearance. The press and new prospective members are often dissapointed when they visit us. In addition, the building was not a very good buy from an economical venture. I think the real estate in that area is not doing very well. In retrospect, I admit that I was a chief contributor and supporter of the existing Riverside building and I hereby admit that I feel we could have done better. Also, I would like to note that the Arizona building that Ramon and Laly Comos picked out (NOT DAVID PIZER), has none of these drawbacks. Mike calls the Arizona building the "Pizer project." This was the original idea of Ramon and Laly Comos and many of our members looked at the building and liked it. I liked it too. I thought it was a good buy and volunteered to help the Board try to raise the money. Mike is in error in his account of how we approached the possible sale. (Mike has also misquoted me; perhaps, not on purpose?). Here is a more accurate account of what happened: 1. In the beginning, we were in second place with a back up offer. I felt that at some time we would get a chance to purchase the building. 2. During that time, Alcor advised its members that we might be able to purchase the building in the future, and Alcor members were invited to come see the building. 3. We also looked at other buildings in the nearby area. 4. Eventually the original building was offered to us by the (new) legal owner. At all times, after signing the contract, we had the seller commited, while we had an escape clause in the contract. 5. Mike is confused about the time period that we were looking at the building (and showing it to our members), and the time period that we began to try to raise money to purchase it. We had the building properly secured during the time I helped with the fund raising. I have old copies of the signed agreement to sell (with the legal owner) in my possession. 6. Mike is wrong when he says Saul was not for the building in the beginning. I have the original flyer that Saul wrote, and circulated, listing 17 reasons why Alcor should buy the Arizona building. (To give the readers an idea of how things have changed since then, one of the 17 reasons Saul argued that we should move to that building was that it was near one of our best members, David Pizer). During the time period, Saul became disenchanted with Carlos. At the early beginning of his dispute with Carlos, I asked Saul to wait a few weeks before starting his war with Carlos. Saul refused. I still beleive that the war that followed had a major impact on our not getting the building. If Mike is implying that the building was not good for Alcor, then he has also recently changed his mind. I video-taped (with his permission) Mike's visit to the building. He was very enthusiastic. On that visit, Mike said, several times, that he thought it was a very good deal for Alcor. Mike is right in that there were concerns of the Southern California members (who make up our largest group of Alcor members). They were very unhappy about any possible move from the area, and there was a lot of anxiety. If Alcor ever decides to try to move again, I believe that they should be given great consideration. It is true that one Alcor member did become anxious when I called her. She was a Southern California member. Mike is wrong about his claim that I argued with her "Incessantly." She was unhappy, and anxious, with the idea of Alcor moving and did not want to talk with me about it at all. The call lasted less then one minute. If Mike insists on holding his incorrect position on this matter, I will present my old phone bill as evidence of the length of the call. In any case, I am sorry if my call to her caused her any distress. The Arizona building was a very good buy and most of the Alcor members with real estate expertise felt that way too. I have been involved in over 200 real estate purchases, or sales, and I liked the Comos' selection because it was a very good deal. However, I now realize that real estate purchasing is confusing, and perhaps threatening, to some people. I know, because I have been on the other side, when Alcor members with lots of expertise in the stock market have made suggestions that Alcor should start to act faster in our dealings in the stock market. I think that because of the time that will be required to discuss this with our members at length, Alcor is never going to ever be able to make a fast purchase on an "exceptional good deal" on any building. In real estate, the very best offerings do not remain unsold for long. Because of this we are going to have to accept that we are going to have to pay high dollar for what we purchase, as we did the last time in Riverside. We should allow extra money in our building budget for this. I do hope we will not make the mistakes we made both the last times, in the failed attempt to purchase the Arizona Building and the problems we got in the Riverside Buildings. In order (of what I feel is most important) I suggest we look for the following: 1. Location out of earthquake territory. 2. All weather access. 3. "Hard" cryonics and research zoning; Not conditional use permitts. 4. Friendly community 5. Good area with zoning to prohibit nasty-looking uses from neighbors. 6. Fire sprinklers and quality construction 7. A good deal on the price 8. Consideration to the Southern California members I admit that there were mistakes made in the Arizona building purchase attempt (and the Riverside purchase). However, I still think the building the Comos' found was the best deal Alcor will ever be offered. And, I challange anyone who says it was not to find us a better deal. (I still have the original documents for comparison). If we can not find a better deal, then we should at least learn from the mistakes of the past and try to find the best new deal we can. Sincerely, David Pizer Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1676