If your Lodge owned a large Masonic building that it could no longer properly afford, and that was much larger than needed given the current size of your Lodge…
And as a result, your Lodge decided to sell that building…
Assuming that your Lodge could afford it, would you:
Build a new, right sized building that met the Lodge’s current needs and budget?
Find an appropriate and adequate space to rent?
I know that in my Jurisdiction we have had one Lodge make this exact decision recently, and I know of two other Lodges that are considering that decision right now.
So, given all we have learned about Masonic property ownership, what would be the best course of action for these Lodges to follow?
A lodge is not a building. It is the group of men that come together in fellowship. Too often the building becomes a poor substitute for fellowship. I believe it is better to rent. Many restaurants will often charge nothing for their meeting rooms if you buy your festive board by eating first.
We in the UK run a system where more then one Lodge use the same building. This cuts down on the up keep of the building. Every Lodge which is based at each centre pays for the cost of the use of the centre over the year. We also rent out the main hall to clubs to use. I cant see how having one building per Lodge can ever cover the cost over the year. Last night I went to the same centre but a different Lodge that's how it works over here. You could find that by using the same centre with say 5 Lodges will bring the costs down but you will need to sell off your own building to make it work.
Neither. Don't build, and also don't rent. Plan for a fraternity that's smaller than the one that we've got. "Throw in and make common cause with an existing building". Go make a masonic relationship with another order or body. Commit to agreeing to make use of their building. If you have a budget, extend/improve/renovate their building, so that your body gets what it wants and you are helping other brethren at the same time.
If you build: you will make a mistake, because you'll "right size" the building for your current membership, except you won't have your current membership in 10 years (demographics). Bad move.
(Stop here a moment to think about the craziness of "not being able to afford your current building, yet being able to afford building") -- I have actually witnessed this scenario several times, it's real. The way it proceeds is that a masonic body falls behind on maintenance of an existing building, it gets to the point where they can't or don't want to afford repairs. The error here isn't the crisis (can't afford the building) the error was the previous 20 years were they under-invested. If we know, due to our structures and leadership that we've tended to under-invest in properties and fall behind on maintenance, why oh why brethren would we ever take that knowledge and roll it into building a new building? Specifically how will it be different next time? If we don't have a thorough answer to that question, you should not build.
If you rent: this is actually OK as far as it goes, but it does nothing to help your other brethren who are struggling with their generally under-cared for, under-utilized buildings.
I'm of the opinion that consolidations are coming, and various masonic bodies are going to end up in the same building over time anyway. Now is a time for smart, forward looking leadership to make the right calls proactively, to arrange the right marriages and building situations while we have the freedom to choose. Remember the alternative is for bodies to wither to the point where they get forced into shotgun weddings.
There are a number of lodges in whom I’ve seen the unfortunate aftermath of this decision play out. On the one hand if your lodge cannot afford the maintenance and upkeep of such a building it makes perfect sense. On the other hand if you aren’t thinking about the future your lodge may find itself back in the same circumstances in another decade. I forget who said it, but the gist of it was that Masons aren’t always the greatest real estate managers. The successful lodges here in the US have found or modified their buildings to generate income that can sustain the lodge in the long run, and that is a very important consideration.
There is a small town lodge I attended in Michigan who did this and I feel like they are a good example of poor planning. They used to own a beautiful brick building in the downtown corridor, century plus old. All the usual stuff, ya know maintenance, dwindling membership etc. so they sold, built a brand new purpose built building but with zero character. A steel pole building now resides on the edge of town and looks like a machine shop with an office attached. They spent all the money and own the building but it to is succumbing to age and disuse. They rent the hall occasionally but it’s a small town and the building has no character inside or out, so the hall rental doesn’t help much.
On the other hand I have seen many lodges share a building and that too has its challenges. Namely that it’s difficult to feel pride and ownership when all your lodge’s regalia and pictures are packed into a tiny closet and the friction of access and scheduling around building rentals can be onerous.
All of that said, I think the examples I’ve seen so far have mostly been failures when it comes to new buildings because they didn’t build something that can sustain itself. You need more than hall rental, you should have portions of the building that you can lease out to businesses or as offices. It’s really difficult to schedule degrees and events when your dining hall is always rented out. That problem of access to your own resources doesn’t help a lodge grow.
I spend a good amount of time trying to think about what a new Masonic architecture might look like and so far I haven’t come up with anything great. You can’t really build with brick anymore. I would love to help design a modern Masonic Center. If you’re in a larger city it is absolutely essential that you have a multi use building, otherwise you will never keep up with the expenses of maintenance and taxes.
Within my area there are varying degrees of building ownership, some more successful than others.
One lodge has a 99 year lease with a local Indian Tribe where they can use the land tax free and have paid off the building. Two lodges meet there, although in reality, those two lodges need to merge, and have needed to merge for years. Another lodge is relatively well off, financially with a decent sized building that isn't too large or too small. They had a windfall of cash from the sale of another building when two lodges consolidated. They are if not growing, at least they are keeping their heads comfortably above water.
A third lodge doesn't own their building, instead rent space from a Grange Hall. They are one of the more popular lodges in the area, and are growing quite rapidly. They are also financially secure with a comfortable nest egg.
Those situations are great, but there are just as many examples of lodges that own huge structures that are falling apart, with dwindling memberships and a serious cash flow problem.
Each lodge, each town is different and faces differing circumstances. But the biggest problem is that for lodges that are facing these issues, there is a serious problem of not recognizing - perhaps until it's too late - when they need to rethink their business model. Multiple lodges within minutes of each other stubbornly hold onto their buildings when in fact they need to let go of past grudges and do what's best for the fraternity, not their own egos.
The biggest problem here in the US is the perceived notion that we have to own something to call it ours, from our car, home, Lodge or even a pet. Maybe it started from the start and became more important with the Westward movement to have a piece of land with a building that one would fight to the death to keep. Times may change but something as deep rooted as ownership will be hard or almost impossible to change.
In my district in the early 90s all six lodges had old buildings, one had a fire, thee were planning to build new lodges. The DDGM at the time secured eight acers of land that could be purchased fo a dollar. Called a district meeting and proposed they all pool their resources and build one lodge that could be used by all six lodges. You guessed it, they wanted to run him out of Masonry. Only one lodge today is financially secure. because of good investments.
Like a lot of thing in Masonry this debate will go on for ages.
This is where a long-range planning committee and adequate property management comes in. If it were me, I'd file against the Temple Board's E&O coverage if their insurance because you have negligence and mismanagement of the lodge by warm bodies who have no business managing a commercial property. Yeah, it's all good and fun to give away everything for free - you know, "...because it's Masonic and we're all brothers...". Unfortunately, everything is always fine with a lodge, until it's not.
If you have a building, in order to attract renters and people who want to use the building, it needs to be somewhat extravagant. Masonic Lodges should, in my opinion, be pillars in the community. Build relationships with local City Council/City Hall, host fundraising events where local businesses can be sponsors and absorb the overhead and then some. I've been screaming this since I became a Mason, "Get the F*CK out of your own echo chamber and build relationships with the public!!!" I see the absolute insanity of youth groups trying to sell ads to lodges to be posted in the Masonic Tribune under the premise of attracting new Masons. (Feel free to join me in a group face-palm)
Look at the absolute abortion that was the Masonic Retirement Home in Des Moines, WA, is a prime example of nearly 100 years of history literally being pissed away because of mismanagement. A property, over 20 acres in size was sold for $11.5M. For over a decade, it sat and continued to deteriorate while every Grand Lodge officer during that time, sat idle and did nothing. We should probably ask some lodges on the East Coast what they do. They have some majestic buildings and historic landmarks that people literally book travel plans just to come visit. Those lodges likely don't need to advertise because people are proud to be associated with such a group and there's an element of prestige and perceived value. What's awesome about going into a hole-in-the-wall building that smells like a musty retirement home where just as many visitors show up?
The idea of selling a building, because you can't afford the maintenance, just to pay capital gains taxes on the sale, then buy/build a new building, which is likely doomed to see the same fate right from the start makes about as much sense as pissing up a rope. This day and age, it's likely that several lodges need to combine, pool their resources, acquire a nice building, and manage it properly (preferably with a professional property management company). I know of one lodge who rents their dining hall for regular use for parties, etc. The renters have no idea how to clean the floors, they always use too much cleaner and the floors are always sticky and attracting more dirt, not to mention that they look like absolute garbage. When your venue is nice, you can command a higher price for use and with it, attract more people who want to become involved.
A very dear friend of mine posited that the first rule of non-profits is: Do not own property. The second rule is: if you were dumb enough to violate rule 1 make sure that your property is intentionally setup to be more than self supporting.
Most Lodges have inherited whatever their building situation is at this point, but those Lodges in a position to make a change need to engage in careful consideration of rules 1 and 2. If you are in rule 1 and want to move to rule 2 what is that going to take to meet it? And you cannot rely on just other Masonic renters to make it work. You need to make your space attractive to all types of renters. You need to build relationships with event planners and event holders in your area to see what the area needs and if can you fulfill that need. How can your space become the go to for certain types of non-Masonic rentals/use as well as your own use.
The Houston Scottish Rite did a great job of this sort of planning when they created their current building primary space.
I also cannot express my agreement with the first comment strongly enough, a Lodge is not a Building, and too often that is forgotten.
I would like to thank everyone for providing all of this input and experience on this important topic. In far too many cases we see Lodge real estate holdings harming the Lodge itself. Ultimately, we need to get our building ownership issues addressed if we hope to see more of our Lodges thrive.
I've thought about this quite a lot through the years, and I've thought quite a lot about each and every thought posted here. I think I'll put all of those thoughts into one large post for everyone soon.
A lodge is not a building. It is the group of men that come together in fellowship. Too often the building becomes a poor substitute for fellowship. I believe it is better to rent. Many restaurants will often charge nothing for their meeting rooms if you buy your festive board by eating first.
We in the UK run a system where more then one Lodge use the same building. This cuts down on the up keep of the building. Every Lodge which is based at each centre pays for the cost of the use of the centre over the year. We also rent out the main hall to clubs to use. I cant see how having one building per Lodge can ever cover the cost over the year. Last night I went to the same centre but a different Lodge that's how it works over here. You could find that by using the same centre with say 5 Lodges will bring the costs down but you will need to sell off your own building to make it work.
Neither. Don't build, and also don't rent. Plan for a fraternity that's smaller than the one that we've got. "Throw in and make common cause with an existing building". Go make a masonic relationship with another order or body. Commit to agreeing to make use of their building. If you have a budget, extend/improve/renovate their building, so that your body gets what it wants and you are helping other brethren at the same time.
If you build: you will make a mistake, because you'll "right size" the building for your current membership, except you won't have your current membership in 10 years (demographics). Bad move.
(Stop here a moment to think about the craziness of "not being able to afford your current building, yet being able to afford building") -- I have actually witnessed this scenario several times, it's real. The way it proceeds is that a masonic body falls behind on maintenance of an existing building, it gets to the point where they can't or don't want to afford repairs. The error here isn't the crisis (can't afford the building) the error was the previous 20 years were they under-invested. If we know, due to our structures and leadership that we've tended to under-invest in properties and fall behind on maintenance, why oh why brethren would we ever take that knowledge and roll it into building a new building? Specifically how will it be different next time? If we don't have a thorough answer to that question, you should not build.
If you rent: this is actually OK as far as it goes, but it does nothing to help your other brethren who are struggling with their generally under-cared for, under-utilized buildings.
I'm of the opinion that consolidations are coming, and various masonic bodies are going to end up in the same building over time anyway. Now is a time for smart, forward looking leadership to make the right calls proactively, to arrange the right marriages and building situations while we have the freedom to choose. Remember the alternative is for bodies to wither to the point where they get forced into shotgun weddings.
There are a number of lodges in whom I’ve seen the unfortunate aftermath of this decision play out. On the one hand if your lodge cannot afford the maintenance and upkeep of such a building it makes perfect sense. On the other hand if you aren’t thinking about the future your lodge may find itself back in the same circumstances in another decade. I forget who said it, but the gist of it was that Masons aren’t always the greatest real estate managers. The successful lodges here in the US have found or modified their buildings to generate income that can sustain the lodge in the long run, and that is a very important consideration.
There is a small town lodge I attended in Michigan who did this and I feel like they are a good example of poor planning. They used to own a beautiful brick building in the downtown corridor, century plus old. All the usual stuff, ya know maintenance, dwindling membership etc. so they sold, built a brand new purpose built building but with zero character. A steel pole building now resides on the edge of town and looks like a machine shop with an office attached. They spent all the money and own the building but it to is succumbing to age and disuse. They rent the hall occasionally but it’s a small town and the building has no character inside or out, so the hall rental doesn’t help much.
On the other hand I have seen many lodges share a building and that too has its challenges. Namely that it’s difficult to feel pride and ownership when all your lodge’s regalia and pictures are packed into a tiny closet and the friction of access and scheduling around building rentals can be onerous.
All of that said, I think the examples I’ve seen so far have mostly been failures when it comes to new buildings because they didn’t build something that can sustain itself. You need more than hall rental, you should have portions of the building that you can lease out to businesses or as offices. It’s really difficult to schedule degrees and events when your dining hall is always rented out. That problem of access to your own resources doesn’t help a lodge grow.
I spend a good amount of time trying to think about what a new Masonic architecture might look like and so far I haven’t come up with anything great. You can’t really build with brick anymore. I would love to help design a modern Masonic Center. If you’re in a larger city it is absolutely essential that you have a multi use building, otherwise you will never keep up with the expenses of maintenance and taxes.
There are many facets to this issue.
Within my area there are varying degrees of building ownership, some more successful than others.
One lodge has a 99 year lease with a local Indian Tribe where they can use the land tax free and have paid off the building. Two lodges meet there, although in reality, those two lodges need to merge, and have needed to merge for years. Another lodge is relatively well off, financially with a decent sized building that isn't too large or too small. They had a windfall of cash from the sale of another building when two lodges consolidated. They are if not growing, at least they are keeping their heads comfortably above water.
A third lodge doesn't own their building, instead rent space from a Grange Hall. They are one of the more popular lodges in the area, and are growing quite rapidly. They are also financially secure with a comfortable nest egg.
Those situations are great, but there are just as many examples of lodges that own huge structures that are falling apart, with dwindling memberships and a serious cash flow problem.
Each lodge, each town is different and faces differing circumstances. But the biggest problem is that for lodges that are facing these issues, there is a serious problem of not recognizing - perhaps until it's too late - when they need to rethink their business model. Multiple lodges within minutes of each other stubbornly hold onto their buildings when in fact they need to let go of past grudges and do what's best for the fraternity, not their own egos.
The biggest problem here in the US is the perceived notion that we have to own something to call it ours, from our car, home, Lodge or even a pet. Maybe it started from the start and became more important with the Westward movement to have a piece of land with a building that one would fight to the death to keep. Times may change but something as deep rooted as ownership will be hard or almost impossible to change.
In my district in the early 90s all six lodges had old buildings, one had a fire, thee were planning to build new lodges. The DDGM at the time secured eight acers of land that could be purchased fo a dollar. Called a district meeting and proposed they all pool their resources and build one lodge that could be used by all six lodges. You guessed it, they wanted to run him out of Masonry. Only one lodge today is financially secure. because of good investments.
Like a lot of thing in Masonry this debate will go on for ages.
This is where a long-range planning committee and adequate property management comes in. If it were me, I'd file against the Temple Board's E&O coverage if their insurance because you have negligence and mismanagement of the lodge by warm bodies who have no business managing a commercial property. Yeah, it's all good and fun to give away everything for free - you know, "...because it's Masonic and we're all brothers...". Unfortunately, everything is always fine with a lodge, until it's not.
If you have a building, in order to attract renters and people who want to use the building, it needs to be somewhat extravagant. Masonic Lodges should, in my opinion, be pillars in the community. Build relationships with local City Council/City Hall, host fundraising events where local businesses can be sponsors and absorb the overhead and then some. I've been screaming this since I became a Mason, "Get the F*CK out of your own echo chamber and build relationships with the public!!!" I see the absolute insanity of youth groups trying to sell ads to lodges to be posted in the Masonic Tribune under the premise of attracting new Masons. (Feel free to join me in a group face-palm)
Look at the absolute abortion that was the Masonic Retirement Home in Des Moines, WA, is a prime example of nearly 100 years of history literally being pissed away because of mismanagement. A property, over 20 acres in size was sold for $11.5M. For over a decade, it sat and continued to deteriorate while every Grand Lodge officer during that time, sat idle and did nothing. We should probably ask some lodges on the East Coast what they do. They have some majestic buildings and historic landmarks that people literally book travel plans just to come visit. Those lodges likely don't need to advertise because people are proud to be associated with such a group and there's an element of prestige and perceived value. What's awesome about going into a hole-in-the-wall building that smells like a musty retirement home where just as many visitors show up?
The idea of selling a building, because you can't afford the maintenance, just to pay capital gains taxes on the sale, then buy/build a new building, which is likely doomed to see the same fate right from the start makes about as much sense as pissing up a rope. This day and age, it's likely that several lodges need to combine, pool their resources, acquire a nice building, and manage it properly (preferably with a professional property management company). I know of one lodge who rents their dining hall for regular use for parties, etc. The renters have no idea how to clean the floors, they always use too much cleaner and the floors are always sticky and attracting more dirt, not to mention that they look like absolute garbage. When your venue is nice, you can command a higher price for use and with it, attract more people who want to become involved.
A very dear friend of mine posited that the first rule of non-profits is: Do not own property. The second rule is: if you were dumb enough to violate rule 1 make sure that your property is intentionally setup to be more than self supporting.
Most Lodges have inherited whatever their building situation is at this point, but those Lodges in a position to make a change need to engage in careful consideration of rules 1 and 2. If you are in rule 1 and want to move to rule 2 what is that going to take to meet it? And you cannot rely on just other Masonic renters to make it work. You need to make your space attractive to all types of renters. You need to build relationships with event planners and event holders in your area to see what the area needs and if can you fulfill that need. How can your space become the go to for certain types of non-Masonic rentals/use as well as your own use.
The Houston Scottish Rite did a great job of this sort of planning when they created their current building primary space.
I also cannot express my agreement with the first comment strongly enough, a Lodge is not a Building, and too often that is forgotten.
I would like to thank everyone for providing all of this input and experience on this important topic. In far too many cases we see Lodge real estate holdings harming the Lodge itself. Ultimately, we need to get our building ownership issues addressed if we hope to see more of our Lodges thrive.
I've thought about this quite a lot through the years, and I've thought quite a lot about each and every thought posted here. I think I'll put all of those thoughts into one large post for everyone soon.