From BTMFBA to "community right to buy"
BTMFBA, or Buy The Mother F------ Building Already, is a set of blog entries about how arts groups specifically and nonprofits more generally, need to own their facilities in order to be able to control their futures.
-- "BTMFBA: the best way to ward off artist or retail displacement is to buy the building," 2016
-- "BTMFBA: maintaining arts spaces in the face of rising real estate values | Seattle, New York City," 2024
-- "New form of BTMFBA in San Francisco," 2023
-- "A wrinkle on BTMFBA: let the city/county own the cultural facility, while you operate it (San Francisco and the Fillmore Heritage Center)," 2021
-- "BTMFBA: Baltimore and the Area 405 Studio," 2021
-- "Revisiting stories: cultural planning and the need for arts-based community development corporations as real estate operators," 2018
-- "BMFBTA revisited: nonprofits and facilities planning and acquisition," 2016
-- "BTMFBA: artists and Los Angeles," 2017
-- "BTMFBA Chronicles: Seattle coffee shop raises money to buy its building," 2018
-- "Dateline Los Angeles: BTMFBA & Transformational Projects Action Planning & arts-related community development corporation as an implementation mechanism to own property," 2018
although sometimes nonprofits can't be trusted either.
-- "Lack of a system breeds more of the same: Source Theater, Washington DC, up for sale 2006, 2024," 2024
-- "When BTMFBA isn't enough: keeping civic assets public through cy pres review," 2016
Under Conservative control of the UK from 2010-2024, local governments were severely crushed by actions of the central government, austerity and other cuts, and further mandates meant that local governments faced up to a 2/3 drop in revenues.
Many local governments have gone bankrupt and are blamed for lack of probity and good management, when really it is a mark of system failure.
Many shut down facilities like libraries and recreation centers ("Councils reduce library and culture spend by almost £500m since 2010, new analysis shows," CCN), and got involved in bad real estate deals to try to earn revenue ("Councils’ disastrous journey into commercial property investments," LandlordZone). From the article:
English councils collectively went on a near £7bn commercial property buying spree, a journey which has now proved to be responsible for bringing some of them to the edge of bankruptcy. Their commercial investments, often made at huge distances from their boroughs over the last eight years or so, involved the purchase of office and industrial buildings, shopping centres, cinemas and even solar farms.
And despite their impressive looking multi-page strategy documents justifying their investment cases, many of which are still available on these council’s websites, the edifice eventually came tumbling down. In the case of many of these councils it has led to budget cuts to many services, redundancies, fire sales of council properties and an appeal to central government for bailouts.
The Labor government has introduced a proposal giving communities the right of first refusal on properties up for sale, to pursue community/public good/social infrastructure goals ("The Guardian view on a ‘community right to buy’: unleashing the power of the local," Guardian). From the article:
In theory, the bill will give communities a head start over private investors in bidding to save, run and, in some cases, repurpose valued buildings and assets. As the local government minister, Jim McMahon, told the House of Commons last week: “When we talk about important community assets, we see from an economic point of view that it is far better for them to be used and be productive, but … we also recognise that they are hugely important to community identity and pride.”
That is an insight to be built on by a government that, while understandably prioritising growth, sometimes tends to an overly technocratic understanding of its mandate for change. The new “right to buy” legislation can help shift the balance of power in less well-off areas, where local development has too often meant more betting shops or fast food outlets. But Labour’s overall communities strategy needs to be considerably fleshed out if its impact is to be transformative.
In places that have suffered from underinvestment and a sense of disconnection from power for decades, the white paper’s aspiration to boost local engagement and “community voice” will only be fulfilled through a long-term injection of major funding and support. In a recent report [Fixing the foundations: A communities strategy for Britain], the Power To Change thinktank recommends the creation of a community growth network, dedicated to building up organisational capacity and confidence in areas where the social fabric has been steadily eroded.
Now you could argue that other attempts by local councils to own properties, or mis-management or failure to keep control of buildings in a nonprofit portfolio doesn't bode well for this policy.
The failure of ArtScape in Toronto ("Artscape tried to launch a ‘game changer’ for artists. Now it’s on the brink of collapse," Toronto Globe & Mail) is another illustration that arts groups buying properties with the expectation of major revenue generation are likely to fail.
I think the issue here is the focus on maintaining and extending social infrastructure rather than revenue generation and that this new policy is workable. And how Power to Change recommends capacity building is an important add on to better enable success.
Labels: capital improvements planning, civic assets, civic engagement, facilities management, government oversight, public finance and spending, public realm framework, urban design/placemaking
.webp)


5 Comments:
Amen! Landlords usually don't make it easy but you're right about the absolute necessity. Thanks for making this point clear and understandable.
There are so many examples of arts organizations having to close because they can't afford the rent increases.
One recent success story in DC is Dance Loft on 14. They began by renting a dusty, dark, unusable space in the storage attic of a furniture store and renovating it as a dance practice space. They did this because it is super hard to find dance spaces in DC, and even harder to find places that were affordable to movement artists. (This is true for all art creation in DC.) It was also nearly impossible to rent a space with a sprung floor, which is important to prevent injuries for some dance forms.
They couldn't afford to buy the building at first -- not even close -- but buying was part of their vision from early in the project, so they broached the topic with their landlord and began persuading them. Many people don't know: even if you can't do a purchase right now, you can get a right of first refusal or even a purchase agreement in writing. Anyway, after they renovated the space with four practice/education spaces and started to have income, they worked tirelessly to raise the capital to purchase the building, and after some years were successful. (As an aside, I must say I am very impressed at the management team's skill in both operations and fundraising.)
Subsequently, they were able to get approval to completely redevelop the site (https://www.danceloft14.org/our-future-home ), adding a huge amount of affordable housing and many sustainable/green features. They were also able to relocate the dance practice spaces and performance venues to the ground floor, which made sense for accessibility.
They are revitalizing the upper 14th Street commercial corridor... after seeing a dance performance, many in the audience of course go out to eat and drink at businesses on that same block and nearby. But because they worked hard to "BTMFBA", they are not putting themselves out of business -- and they'll even own three retail spaces now to further share in their revitalization.
One element of the "community right to buy" is about nonprofit and public uses competing with the market. The cy pres BTMFBA article is about when a state AG intervenes in the sale of property held by nonprofits.
In Philadelphia, the University of the Arts shut down and its buildings are being sold off. There is debate in the community about whether or not those buildings should retain their nonprofit uses, therefore abrogating sales to for profit actors.
Should arts buildings remain in the arts community in the case of bankruptcy? The sale of UArts’ assets may hinge on the answer.
https://www.inquirer.com/education/uarts-building-sale-highest-bidder-decision-20250122.html
The AG has stepped in on one case. And there are competing offers, for profit or arts-focused, on another couple buildings.
https://www.inquirer.com/education/university-arts-building-bids-hamilton-hall-20250204.html
More bids come in for three UArts buildings, including the iconic Hamilton Hall on South Broad Street
https://www.inquirer.com/real-estate/commercial/uarts-hamilton-hall-lindsey-scannapieco-bok-20250215.html
Mayor Parker can help keep the arts in the Avenue of the Arts — if she acts quickly
Yet, despite this remarkable contribution to Philadelphia’s cultural life, Hamilton Hall’s legacy is now being threatened by bankruptcy proceedings that are designed to dispose of the university’s real estate as fast as possible with little concern for the city’s best interests. Earlier this month, a bankruptcy judge accepted a bid for the historic, and history-filled, building from a developer who specializes in “affordable luxury apartments.”
It’s hard to believe that the city’s political and philanthropic leaders would allow one of Broad Street’s great cultural anchors to be sold off like so much factory surplus. The original portion of Hamilton Hall went up in 1824, making it the oldest building on Broad Street. Today’s building is the combined work of three of Philadelphia’s most important 19th-century architects: John Haviland, William Strickland, and Frank Furness.
https://www.crainsdetroit.com/nonprofits-philanthropy/city-birmingham-sues-community-house-maintain-center-site
City of Birmingham sues Community House to maintain center on site
12/2/2025
The city of Birmingham has sued the nonprofit Community House to enforce deed restrictions that require its downtown property to be held exclusively as a community center for Birmingham residents.
It is asking the court to issue a temporary restraining order to prohibit the sale or transfer of the property for any purposes that violate the deed restrictions.
“Such a sale is expressly prohibited by the governing deed restrictions, violates the 1989 Probate Court order and would permanently deprive the residents of the city of Birmingham of a unique civic and charitable asset intended for their benefit,” Kathleen Martone, the city's attorney with Varnum Law, said in the filing.
The lawsuit comes after the nonprofit Community House, in operation for just shy of 100 years, announced its plan last month to end its early child care and event rentals programs, lay off most of its employees, sell the historic property and convert itself to the Birmingham Area Community Foundation, effective July 1.
The moves are part of a plan to ensure its viability and help fund a permanent endowment to support other nonprofits focused on education, wellness and cultural vitality with grants and mentorship as well as provide scholarships for local students pursuing education beyond high school, the Community House told Crain’s last month.
But the city — giving voice to pushback from residents — is concerned that a sale of the Community House property to a private, third-party buyer might lead to development that isn’t consistent with the deed restrictions that it continue to operate as a community center, it said in the court filing, noting that any sale to a non-charitable, private party is expressly prohibited.
The Community House was originally formed in 1927 to promote social, civic and philanthropic activities for the benefit of Birmingham residents. It created a community trust in May 1928 to hold the real estate and executed the deed of trust in 1930, conveying the property it held to a board of trustees.
A 1989 order subsequently terminated the deed of trust and transferred the property to the Community House. The order expressly reaffirmed that the Community House must hold the property in accordance with the terms and conditions of the original 1930 trust, the city said.
Additionally, under the Dissolution of Charitable Purpose Corporations Act, a charitable-purpose corporation may not dissolve, convert, merge or amend its organizational purposes without notice to and the oversight of the Michigan attorney general, the city said.
The Community House’s plan to shift its charitable purpose and liquidate its principal charitable asset constitutes a termination of charitable purposes, the city said, and therefore requires review by the attorney general — who is also a party in the case — and compliance with the deed restrictions.
Post a Comment
<< Home