X-Message-Number: 2384
From: 
Subject: CRYONICS Building Notes
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 93 01:56:19 PDT

To CryoNet
>From Steve Bridge, President
Alcor Life Extension Foundation
August 10, 1993

In response to: Message #2328 - Acoma Building.
                August 8, 1993
                From "A.J. Clifford"  

     Thanks to Andrew for his pleasant words.  A couple of comments and 
corrections:

>Moving from the L.A. area does have two downsides.  It means leaving
>(one of?) the greatest concentration of suspension members behind; and
>for overseas members the convenience of an international airport
>behind.

     SkyHarbor Airport in Phoenix is an "international" airport, though 
of course it has nowhere near the number of international flights that 
Los Angeles does.

>*If* the Comos building is built two or
>three years later Alcor could move into that - which should be the last
>move required of it - and sell the Acoma building or rent out the 3
>units that it would have been occupying.  

     Another possibility is keeping one unit to do research or other 
activities and as a "disaster" backup.  When one has the flexibility
of two buildings, many things become thinkable that were mere dreams 
before.

>Alcor would be renting 8 units of the Acoma building and it has been
>pointed out on Cryonet that the board has no experience of commercial
>letting. This is not an issue as a management agency can be engaged who
>would be entirely responsible for the tenants in exchange for
>commission off the rent earned.

     There is a constant misunderstanding in regards to this building,
possible as a result of sloppy writing and talking by myself and other
Directors.  Alcor will NOT own the building.  A "limited liability company" 
(somewhat similar to a "limited partnership") is being formed to own this
building.  Alcor will probably be a member of this company.  

     Alcor's Board of Directors will not have anything to do with the 
management of the building.  The LLC will do that.  I'll be able to say in
few days exactly how the LLC proposes to handle the management, but it has 
experienced advisors.

     Also, "renting 8 units" does not mean "8 renters."  It appears that the 
building will only have *four* tenants: an air-conditioning company in one
unit; an electronics assembly company in three units; a distributor for 
imported  beer in four units, and Alcor in three units.  This is a  little 
simpler.

>It may be a good idea, if Alcor relocates out of California to
>publically commit itself to eventually opening a small office with an
>emergency response vehicle somewhere in the middle of California.  This
>could not be done for a few years but should be feasible when Alcor is
>large enough.
	
     We may not have made many public statements to this effect, but I
am positive that this is what all of the Directors want, also.


*****   CryoNet readers who do not receive Section 0014 (CRYONICS.POLITICS)
may not understand that I posted several pages of informative material
on  the  building in that section recently.  Maybe Kevin can  include  the 
message numbers here of the two messages I posted to .POLITICS last night, 
so you can request them.

Steve Bridge

[ The Tue. Aug. 10 CRYONICS.POLITICS messages from Steve Bridge are:
    0014.231 - Scottsdale Building Details [S.Bridge]
    0014.232 - Alcor Board Update [S.Bridge]
  You may also want to see today's message:
    0014.235 - Building Corrections [S.Bridge]
  To retrieve these messages, send email to me ()
  with the Subject line:
    CRYOMSG 0014.23[125]
  - KQB ]

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2384