-
Open Doors at the Annual Meeting
We promised feedback from the straw-poll at the annual meeting, so here it is, with some context.
The Open Doors Working Group (ODWG) was honored to give a brief presentation at the recent annual meeting on the work we have been doing and then to offer a straw-poll to gauge your reaction to suggested pathways forward. We are grateful to those at the meeting for the thoughtful and often detailed responses to the straw-poll. We felt we came away with a lot of useful information. So, thank you!
In particular, the straw-poll focused on the Mission Zone. ODWG recommended that we narrow our focus of possibilities for the use of that part of the building (Chidley Hall and above), eliminating such things as the outright sale of the building and using it for a mission activity with minimal financial return. The two suggested sets of options to consider were “Mission-Aligned Non-Profit Center” and “Community of Need Housing”. Below is the slide presented to the meeting for the straw-poll.
Of the 58 poll results, 33, 2, 21, 2 were for options 1-4 respectively. Comments revealed a great deal about what people were thinking as they made their selections. The wide discrepancy between #1 and #2 was significantly offset by the large number of people with an interest in #3, which was some combination of the 2 basic options. Comments made it clear that people had generally steered away from #2 on its own because of the negatives we had suggested in terms of complexity and the length of time it would be likely to take to realize, but many suggested interest in that kind of use.
Some particular themes that emerged from your comments were:
- Support for this narrowing of the field.
- A desire for more information about what we mean by “community of need”. (To answer that, at least in part, here are some ideas that have surfaced – we are always open to hearing about others: adults with intellectual/developmental disabilities, immigrant support, faith-based housing, end-of-life care.)
- Some questions as to how #1 is different from our current set-up. (To answer that: We now have a somewhat random set of rentals of different parts of the building at different times. We would anticipate leasing the building, either as a whole, or in major parts – such as by floor – with leasing partners.)
Other notable themes:
- Concern that non-profits may not have the resources needed to provide sufficient financial contributions.
- A desire to have a tenant non-profit in which FCCW congregants could participate if they choose
- Concerns about the level of management of the building that will be needed in any of these scenarios.
- A suggestion that we work in phases, starting with a non-profit tenant on one floor and taking the time to do the more complex work of housing on other floors.
- Desire to decarbonize as we redevelop.
- The challenge of parking with any option.
Thank you for all your interest and feedback. We hope that you will continue to think and pray about these exciting challenges as we research options that are feasible and sustainable – financially, environmentally and structurally. We want to hear from you. Please email any of us or talk to us directly.
Open Doors Working Group: Ben Keeler (LT representative and chair) bkeeler22@yahoo.com , Jonathan Goodell jcg.3bell@gmail.com , Kris Montgomery montgomeryk@aol.com , Andrew Sansom andrew@sansoms.net , Penny Sparrow pjsparrow2@gmail.com and Branda Wilhoite.
