DID CAP GIVE AWAY A Building?

[Capt Rivera]

Just wondering... Not to get into the legal issues that are being debated....

http://vdo1.us/capinsights.html

I was just wondering, if I'm understanding the limited views I've seen on the above page and one other.... 

Legal issues aside.

Why would CAP give up the use of the building? Or is the building still in use by CAP?

I know nothing really of the issue and don't want to debate bout Mr. Hayden, just whether CAP did give up use of a building and why? Seems like its something most Squadrons, and wings have issues getting and would make me wonder if doing something like this would cause other to NOT consider donating land/buildings etc to us....

[CadetProgramGuy]

Personally speaking, if it has to do with Mr. Hayden I would rather not speculate one way or the other.

[mikeylikey]

Interesting read either way

[BillB]

To answer the question, Yes CAP still has use of the building. CAP has two offices in the building and is scheduled the use of parts of the building for seven years. To use parts of the building outside the scheduled times, a phone call to the City is all that's needed, and CAP can have the use provided it's not scheduled for other meetings. Prior to turning the building over to the City, it was inspected by Florida Wing and it was found that lots of repairs were required. So the end result, the City did the repairs and CAP has just about as much use of the building now as they did before.

[Capt Rivera]

To answer the question, Yes CAP still has use of the building. CAP has two offices in the building and is scheduled the use of parts of the building for seven years. To use parts of the building outside the scheduled times, a phone call to the City is all that's needed, and CAP can have the use provided it's not scheduled for other meetings. Prior to turning the building over to the City, it was inspected by Florida Wing and it was found that lots of repairs were required. So the end result, the City did the repairs and CAP has just about as much use of the building now as they did before.

OK thanks for the info....

[Eagle400]

Personally speaking, if it has to do with Mr. Hayden I would rather not speculate one way or the other.

The thing you have to remember about Mr. Hayden is this:

When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. 

[CadetProgramGuy]

Personally speaking, if it has to do with Mr. Hayden I would rather not speculate one way or the other.

The thing you have to remember about Mr. Hayden is this:

When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. 

Time for my dip bath.......

[Earhart1971]

To answer the question, Yes CAP still has use of the building. CAP has two offices in the building and is scheduled the use of parts of the building for seven years. To use parts of the building outside the scheduled times, a phone call to the City is all that's needed, and CAP can have the use provided it's not scheduled for other meetings. Prior to turning the building over to the City, it was inspected by Florida Wing and it was found that lots of repairs were required. So the end result, the City did the repairs and CAP has just about as much use of the building now as they did before.

The building was taken from CAP, its a Half Million Dollar building.

The references to repairs, totally without, merit, and FALSE.

The Airport Manager, performed "repairs" (thats a story in itself), or someone did, as a campaign to get CAP out of thier half million dollar investment.

The City also, saw to it a pump backed up sewage that caused the flooding of the building.

Then CAP is beat up for the "Repairs".  The building is and was, in great shape, the City, took the building with the signoff of the Florida Wing Commander.

The Airport Manager has a bad reputation going back to Ohio, and also, the Wing Commander of Florida Wing bypassed the local Commander for the investigation of what was happening. Translation - the CAP Chain of Command failed to look into the whole story before, signing away the asset.

Leesburg Airport wanted the building and finally got it, and if the full story  was known to a responsible Wing Commander then, things could have been different.

The Air Force and the EAA, may still not be done with this.

The EAA was part owner in the structure.

[JohnKachenmeister]

To answer the question, Yes CAP still has use of the building. CAP has two offices in the building and is scheduled the use of parts of the building for seven years. To use parts of the building outside the scheduled times, a phone call to the City is all that's needed, and CAP can have the use provided it's not scheduled for other meetings. Prior to turning the building over to the City, it was inspected by Florida Wing and it was found that lots of repairs were required. So the end result, the City did the repairs and CAP has just about as much use of the building now as they did before.

The building was taken from CAP, its a Half Million Dollar building.

The references to repairs, totally without, merit, and FALSE.

The Airport Manager, performed "repairs" (thats a story in itself), or someone did, as a campaign to get CAP out of thier half million dollar investment.

The City also, saw to it a pump backed up sewage that caused the flooding of the building.

Then CAP is beat up for the "Repairs".  The building is and was, in great shape, the City, took the building with the signoff of the Florida Wing Commander.

The Airport Manager has a bad reputation going back to Ohio, and also, the Wing Commander of Florida Wing bypassed the local Commander for the investigation of what was happening. Translation - the CAP Chain of Command failed to look into the whole story before, signing away the asset.

Leesburg Airport wanted the building and finally got it, and if the full story  was known to a responsible Wing Commander then, things could have been different.

The Air Force and the EAA, may still not be done with this.

The EAA was part owner in the structure.

... And General Pineda was seen in the World Trade Towers placing explosives moments before they went down. 

[JC004]

... And General Pineda was seen in the World Trade Towers placing explosives moments before they went down. 

Really?  ::checks NOTF archives::

[Earhart1971]

To answer the question, Yes CAP still has use of the building. CAP has two offices in the building and is scheduled the use of parts of the building for seven years. To use parts of the building outside the scheduled times, a phone call to the City is all that's needed, and CAP can have the use provided it's not scheduled for other meetings. Prior to turning the building over to the City, it was inspected by Florida Wing and it was found that lots of repairs were required. So the end result, the City did the repairs and CAP has just about as much use of the building now as they did before.

The building was taken from CAP, its a Half Million Dollar building.

The references to repairs, totally without, merit, and FALSE.

The Airport Manager, performed "repairs" (thats a story in itself), or someone did, as a campaign to get CAP out of their half million dollar investment.

The City also, saw to it a pump backed up sewage that caused the flooding of the building.

Then CAP is beat up for the "Repairs".  The building is and was, in great shape, the City, took the building with the signoff of the Florida Wing Commander.

The Airport Manager has a bad reputation going back to Ohio, and also, the Wing Commander of Florida Wing bypassed the local Commander for the investigation of what was happening. Translation - the CAP Chain of Command failed to look into the whole story before, signing away the asset.

Leesburg Airport wanted the building and finally got it, and if the full story  was known to a responsible Wing Commander then, things could have been different.

The Air Force and the EAA, may still not be done with this.

The EAA was part owner in the structure.

... And General Pineda was seen in the World Trade Towers placing explosives moments before they went down. 

Major

Myself, and others consider World Trade Center name as hollowed ground, I don't use it except to honor those that died there.

You can apologize for that comment in your next post.

The information I have comes from the unit Commander I have known him since, 1968. His word is beyond reproach.

Major you have nothing, and you know nothing about the CAP Building give away.  My information comes from being ON SITE, not from a web site.

The Squadron Commander has enough information to provide to anyone willing to look into the matter, the Air Force will get around to this to.

[lordmonar]

Earheart....you are misinformed.  I have read the MOU.  EAA does not and never owned any part of that building.  The MOU only gave EAA an option to take over ownership of the building if CAP was going to bail on it.

As far as I know EAA has not complained at all?  Maybe they have...but if they did I'm sure it would have been reported by NOTF or some of their contributors.

As far as the world trade center thing is considered....."lighten up Francis".  It means you are spinning conspiracy theories where none exists.

[JohnKachenmeister]

To answer the question, Yes CAP still has use of the building. CAP has two offices in the building and is scheduled the use of parts of the building for seven years. To use parts of the building outside the scheduled times, a phone call to the City is all that's needed, and CAP can have the use provided it's not scheduled for other meetings. Prior to turning the building over to the City, it was inspected by Florida Wing and it was found that lots of repairs were required. So the end result, the City did the repairs and CAP has just about as much use of the building now as they did before.

The building was taken from CAP, its a Half Million Dollar building.

The references to repairs, totally without, merit, and FALSE.

The Airport Manager, performed "repairs" (thats a story in itself), or someone did, as a campaign to get CAP out of their half million dollar investment.

The City also, saw to it a pump backed up sewage that caused the flooding of the building.

Then CAP is beat up for the "Repairs".  The building is and was, in great shape, the City, took the building with the signoff of the Florida Wing Commander.

The Airport Manager has a bad reputation going back to Ohio, and also, the Wing Commander of Florida Wing bypassed the local Commander for the investigation of what was happening. Translation - the CAP Chain of Command failed to look into the whole story before, signing away the asset.

Leesburg Airport wanted the building and finally got it, and if the full story  was known to a responsible Wing Commander then, things could have been different.

The Air Force and the EAA, may still not be done with this.

The EAA was part owner in the structure.

... And General Pineda was seen in the World Trade Towers placing explosives moments before they went down. 

Major

Myself, and others consider World Trade Center name as hollowed ground, I don't use it except to honor those that died there.

You can apologize for that comment in your next post.

The information I have comes from the unit Commander I have known him since, 1968. His word is beyond reproach.

Major you have nothing, and you know nothing about the CAP Building give away.  My information comes from being ON SITE, not from a web site.

The Squadron Commander has enough information to provide to anyone willing to look into the matter, the Air Force will get around to this to.

I did nothing to apologize for.  Your penultimate post sounded like some sort of "Conspiracy theory" what with the city sabotaging a building in order for force out the CAP.  My post merely, and I thought gently, pointed out the absurdity of your allegations.

Real estate law is complicated.  Frankly, I do not know the sitation, but if CAP actually owned the building, how could EAA also own it?  To create that condition there would have to be either joint ownership of the building and an existing contract relation between EAA and CAP, or a condimunium agreement.  Real estate transactions cannot be concluded by a handshake.  All transactions must be in writing to be enforceable.  Bill B has weighed in on this issue, and, to be very honest, I give greater weight to his assesment of the situation than I do yours.

[sparks]

Real estate law is complicated but usually a property ownership document is a common denominator. If CAP had such a document disposal of the property should have followed CAPR 87-1. It requires CAP/GC review the disposal request and the National Board to approve it in writing. The proceeds of the sale go to CAP/FM. All real property is supposed to be titled to CAP HQ not squadrons, wings or regions. Publishing the rules is one thing, following them is another matter but the key ingredient in this discussion is whether CAP really owned the property or was just a tenant leasing it. Once that's established the legality of what happened should be simple to determine.

[sparks]

After my previous post I looked at Hayden's site, yes I hear the BOOing, to check his allegations. He mentions an MOA and a lease for the building/property but not a title. If CAP never received a title that probably means the building, on leased property, reverts to airport ownership. Without the actual agreement it's impossible to determine what was correct. Bottom line is it seems that CAP never owned anything so nothing was given away except the right to the leased space.

[lordmonar]

No...CAP owned the building but not the property.  They had a long term 10$/month lease for the land.  So back in the way beyond CAP, EAA, Lake County Aviation Association and Home Builders Association of Lake County got together and pooled their money.  I looks by the MOU that CAP "owned" the building and had an agreement with two of the other parties to give them first shot of taking ownership if they wanted to bail.


Then years later the Airport manager wanted the building and so FLWG signed it over.......oops....he discovered that he did not follow the regs and so they pushed the paperwork through the next NB.

It was a FUBAR but it was not a criminal FUBAR.  I'm not quite sure who the NOTF and their sources think the bad guy here is.  Sometimes they make the airport manager out as the Evil One with FLWG CC just being incompetent.  Other times they make the FLWG CC as part and parcel of the conspiracy to "take the building away" from the squadron.

The weird part is that the new MOU giving the building to the airport still allows CAP to use the building.

Again....from my read of the evidence provided by NOTF and their sources....it seems that the only ones with a claim are the EAA and the Lake County Aviation Association.  I don't hear anything from them.

[sparks]

A strange arrangement for sure. Since the NB authorized it then I assume a check was sent to NHQ FM. Maybe no one knows that detail. Anyway it seems to be a closed deal with no bad guys or illegal trail.
Thanks for the clarification

[lordmonar]

The trail is very transpartent.  I'm not saying anything was done "wrong"...but let's get it straight.  CAP regs are not the law.

Did the NB authorise the transfer of a building for free?  Looks like it.  Was it done after the FLWG CC signed an MOU with the city?  Looks like it.  Like I said before.  I'll grant you incompetance....but that is not the same a criminal.

Do you have evidance of something going on behind the scene between the City and FLWG?  Or is this just another attack on CAP leadership?

As it is....it looks like maybe FLWG made a bad (as in not a smart move) deal but I don't see anything criminal.  Maybe FLWG was in possesion of more information about the costs of maintaing the building and he found a way of passing them off onto the city and still have access to the facility?  i.e. why buy when you can rent?

[BillB]

The building was in disrepair even after CAP worked on it. It did NOT meet building code. There is also a question about the original MOU not having gone before the National Board because at the time, any corporate officer could sign the MOU. The original MOU (read that lease) expires next year and the new lease allows CAP use of the building for seven more years. And the city did the repairs to bring the building up to code

[JohnKachenmeister]

Ownership follows the land, not the structure.  If I build a non-temporatry structure on land I do not own, the owner of the land is the owner of the structure.

Unless this building was a tent or a trailer, the land title determines title to everything on it.

[Earhart1971]

Here's how most of these threads develop.

Nobody on this thread knows from direct knowledge whats going on.

They try and refute what a person that has direct knowledge has to say.

For no reason other than to be contrary.

Who else on this thread has been at the building during the time material to this action?

I was there and met there months before the building was signed over.

The rest of you can read the MOU, suppose all you want about the condition of the building.

The Building was in great shape and not inviolation of any codes.

There were problems with the Real Estate Agreement originally put through, which could have been worked out - if there had been a Wing Commander that would spend some time to retain a Half Million Dollar asset for CAP.

So, instead of that being done. Col Levitch jumped headlong, into the deal without talking to the Squadron Commander, and signed a MOU.

[JohnKachenmeister]

You are right, E.  I don't know the specific situation. 

Please explain to me how CAP can "Give away" a building that is on land owned by another.

To me, this sounds like merely the end of an agreement to use a structure.

There cannot be a building owned by one party on land owned by another.  Unless the building is a trailer, or a similar temporary structure.  If an improvement is made to property, it is a part of the property.

[lordmonar]

Here's how most of these threads develop.

Nobody on this thread knows from direct knowledge whats going on.

They try and refute what a person that has direct knowledge has to say.

For no reason other than to be contrary.

Who else on this thread has been at the building during the time material to this action?

I was there and met there months before the building was signed over.

The rest of you can read the MOU, suppose all you want about the condition of the building.

The Building was in great shape and not in violation of any codes.

There were problems with the Real Estate Agreement originally put through, which could have been worked out - if there had been a Wing Commander that would spend some time to retain a Half Million Dollar asset for CAP.

So, instead of that being done. Col Levitch jumped headlong, into the deal without talking to the Squadron Commander, and signed a MOU.

But you don't understand.....this has NOTHING to do with the condition of the building.  It has to do with the law and CAP regulations.   

The WING commander DOES NOT HAVE TO TALK WITH THE SQUADRON COMMANDER to decide what to do with with CAP assets!

Sorry CAP is NOT a democracy.

Was FLWG/CC's decision arbitrary, could he have done more home work....maybe...I don't know all the details.  But the accusation that the law or CAP regs was broken...is not really true.  Yes FLWG entered into the agreement in violation of the regs...but he did finally go though the proper channels and his actions were approved......so it was belated complaince...but he did in fact get NB approval for his actions.

The condition of the building, and the wants and actions of the Airport Manager and the fact that the building was a labor of love has nothing to do with this situation.

Did CAP give away a building?  Yes....but from the MOU they (the local CAP squadron) still have access to that same building.....FREE OF CHARGE....where before CAP was paying a majority (if not all) of the utilities and up keep.  What's the problem?  It seems like a good deal.

[Earhart1971]

The Wing Commander cannot sign over assets without approval of National HQ.

But thats not the real issue.  The real telling issue is how  CAP is working against the best interests of CAP.

There was a lack of desire of the Wing Commander, to even look into a situation and talk to the local Commander, but instead, go around the local Commander and talk direct to the Airport Manager.

And degrade the negotiating position of the local Commander by doing so.

Many other things could have been done.

[lordmonar]

The Wing Commander cannot sign over assets without approval of National HQ.

But thats not the real issue.  The real telling issue is how  CAP is working against the best interests of CAP.

There was a lack of desire of the Wing Commander, to even look into a situation and talk to the local Commander, but instead, go around the local Commander and talk direct to the Airport Manager.

And degrade the negotiating position of the local Commander by doing so.

Many other things could have been done.

First....the wing commander made the deal and then had the NB approve it.  There may be some incompetence in the timing but you can't say the regulation was not followed/

Second....in what way of removing a drain on CAP financial resources NOT in CAP's best interest?  It's not like we can sell the building and get the money....it was never our building to sell (if what John was saying is correct).  So the value of the building is not the key here.  But the costs to the CAP.

Third...it seems like we got a better deal.  We get the same building, with more or less the same access with none of the headache of maintaining it and paying for the utilities.  Seems like a sweetheart deal to me.

Finally...the local (squadron) commander has NO negotiating power.  Only corporate officers have that power and that is the WING commander and above.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Lord M:

You beat me to it.  I was just about ready to type in that the Wing Commander has sole authority over real estate transactions, MOU's and appointment of investigators.  He is a "Corporate Officer" and as such can commit CAP asets.

Squadron commanders cannot.

[RiverAux]

Interesting, our buddy RayH has been stealing sections of posts out of this CAPTalk thread and posting them on his blog site, along with all sort of "friendly" commentary about how some of our more distinguished contributors are so stupid. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Does he publish the "Smilin' Kach" comic series?

[Earhart1971]

The Wing Commander cannot sign over assets without approval of National HQ.

But thats not the real issue.  The real telling issue is how  CAP is working against the best interests of CAP.

There was a lack of desire of the Wing Commander, to even look into a situation and talk to the local Commander, but instead, go around the local Commander and talk direct to the Airport Manager.

And degrade the negotiating position of the local Commander by doing so.

Many other things could have been done.

First....the wing commander made the deal and then had the NB approve it.  There may be some incompetence in the timing but you can't say the regulation was not followed/

Second....in what way of removing a drain on CAP financial resources NOT in CAP's best interest?  It's not like we can sell the building and get the money....it was never our building to sell (if what John was saying is correct).  So the value of the building is not the key here.  But the costs to the CAP.

Third...it seems like we got a better deal.  We get the same building, with more or less the same access with none of the headache of maintaining it and paying for the utilities.  Seems like a sweetheart deal to me.

Finally...the local (squadron) commander has NO negotiating power.  Only corporate officers have that power and that is the WING commander and above.

In your opinion, the Local Squadron Commander had no negotiating power, you are right, but that was a condition that was created by the stupidity of the Wing Commander.

Ok, so its not in CAP's best interest to have its own building, in YOUR OPINION.

But don't go trying to say its not in Squadron's best interest to have a Squadron Building, you look foolish, all over this thread, by forcing your Opinion on the rest of us.

[BillB]

How about a moderator locking this thread since some people are getting nasty and false information.

[lordmonar]

The Wing Commander cannot sign over assets without approval of National HQ.

But thats not the real issue.  The real telling issue is how  CAP is working against the best interests of CAP.

There was a lack of desire of the Wing Commander, to even look into a situation and talk to the local Commander, but instead, go around the local Commander and talk direct to the Airport Manager.

And degrade the negotiating position of the local Commander by doing so.

Many other things could have been done.

First....the wing commander made the deal and then had the NB approve it.  There may be some incompetence in the timing but you can't say the regulation was not followed/

Second....in what way of removing a drain on CAP financial resources NOT in CAP's best interest?  It's not like we can sell the building and get the money....it was never our building to sell (if what John was saying is correct).  So the value of the building is not the key here.  But the costs to the CAP.

Third...it seems like we got a better deal.  We get the same building, with more or less the same access with none of the headache of maintaining it and paying for the utilities.  Seems like a sweetheart deal to me.

Finally...the local (squadron) commander has NO negotiating power.  Only corporate officers have that power and that is the WING commander and above.

In your opinion, the Local Squadron Commander had no negotiating power, you are right, but that was a condition that was created by the stupidity of the Wing Commander.

Ok, so its not in CAP's best interest to have its own building, in YOUR OPINION.

But don't go trying to say its not in Squadron's best interest to have a Squadron Building, you look foolish, all over this thread, by forcing your Opinion on the rest of us.

Let's assume for a moment....that the building was in fact CAP building, just for argument sakes.  CAP pays rent on the land, utilities, up keep, and is responsible for keeping it in code, paying for the liability and a host of other things necessary to own and run a public building.

Okay...the city comes a long and says.....sign over your lease and we'll give you access to the building in pretty much the same manner as you do now and we'll assume all the costs.

So....CAP was paying some sort of money each month to maintain the building and now they pay nothing.  They still get to meet there, they still get to use it as a mission base, they still get to use it for special occasions (this is the only thing they that has change...now they have to schedule special access instead of doling it out).

So CAP....the squadron.....has lost nothing except a drain on its finance, and building that it had to manage.

The squadron benefits by having more money at its disposal, it benefits from a good relationship with the city (everyone got what they wanted).

Sure this is my opinion....and in no way am I forcing my opinion onto you or anyone else.  I just wonder why the heart burn? 

Before the agreement the squadron had a nice building....after the agreement the squadron meets in that same building....free of charge.

Good deal?  You tell me.

Before the agreement the squadron had problems with the Airport Manager...now he should be happy...having a happy airport manger is bad how?

Good deal?  You tell me.

Let's suppose for a moment that the $0.75M value is true....so what?  If anything it would make it a tax liability.  You were paying property taxes right?  We could not use it as collateral for a loan, we could not sell it to buy a couple of planes (or better yet flying hours).  In what way is owning a building vice just using one in CAP's interest?

I will grant you that it was YOUR building and it may seem callus and arbitrary that the Wing CC would take it away from you and give it to someone else.  You may be too emotionally involved with the issue to really look at it objectively.

End state though.......what has changed?  The squadron still has a place to meet and do their operations.....but they no longer have the bills that go with them.

[Earhart1971]

That MOU can be cancelled by the City of Leesburg at any time.

You pretend CAP still gets the same benefit.

Lots of Squadrons meet in nice places, and they can be booted out at any time.

The MOU is like that, CAP can be booted out at any time at the pleasure of the City of Leesburg.

Its a lost asset to CAP.

The Radio tower came down, the Radio room was closed, and two rooms can be used with permission.

They went from several thousand feet to 800 s.f.

End of Story.

[MIKE]

End of thread.