The Lodge in my city owns a significant building, with two large commercial tenants.
We also have Masonic tenants, including:
The Lodge that owns the building, plus a second Lodge that does not have ownership interest. Two Eastern Star Chapters. Three York Rite Bodies. And the Rainbow Girls. Occasionally another Masonic group of some sort or another will rent the building, and our Members rent for personal events from time to time. These Masonic rents are very low. Like under $1000 per year, per organization.
The trouble is, while the income is enough to keep the building up, in its current condition, it is also badly in need of some upgrades, and the income is not enough to cover upgrades.
I imagine that a lot of Lodges are in a similar situation, so I thought that we might all benefit from a discussion about that here.
Does your Lodge own a building, and if so, does your Lodge pay rent to the Temple Board?
If your Lodge was host to another Lodge, or Lodges in your building, do you feel that these Lodges should pay the same rent as your Lodge, or some higher amount given that they don’t hold ownership?
How much is it fair to ask a group like OES or the York Rite to pay? Should it be the same, or different from the Lodge that owns the building?
What about a youth group such as Rainbow. I’ve always thought, and I think most members of my Lodge think that we should provide the space to Rainbow without cost, but whenever that has been brought up, Rainbow seems to want to pay. We compromise by charging very little. Is that the best course, or should we rather insist that they not pay? Or should we be charging them the same as the other groups?
What about Masonic groups that just rent for a special occasion every year or two? Should we just figure out what our Lodge pays per meeting and charge that amount for their evenings use, or should we charge differently for these one off events?
What about Masons who rent the space for private events? Should we be charging them at all? Should it be in line with what we charge for one off Masonic events, or should we be charging even more, given that it is a private event?
When it comes to these one off events, either with a Masonic group, or a Mason, should we be requiring an insurance policy for the event? What about a cleaning or damage deposit?
I know that these are rather dull things to have to think about and talk about, but if we own a Masonic building, it is something we have to face. I also imagine that we will have to face it more and more as Masonic buildings are sold, and Lodges move in with their neighbors.
My lodge owns the building and other lodges, masonic orders use it for rehearsals and meetings.
We all pay equal shares for the upkeep and outgoings of the building ie. Water, gas, electricity rates insurance.
We don't have youth groups, but if it was up to me, I wouldn't charge a rent to these groups but have them contribute to the at the rate of 12/365 or number of days used of the total costs.
If they insist on paying rent take it and donate an appropriate amount back for their charities.
All other rentals for weddings or birthdays etc. Masonic discount to members and all others $250 Inc $100 key deposit.
If the building is of historical significance ask government for a grant to bring the building up to code.
>>>If they insist on paying rent take it and donate an appropriate amount back for their charities.
Agreed, this makes a lot of sense. The Temple Board can just remit whatever it might receive from the youth groups to the Lodge, and the Lodge can donate it back.
Sep 20, 2022·edited Sep 20, 2022Liked by Cameron M. Bailey
Well MW I would not call it "dull" but this is a lot of questions the can use many answers.
I am a member at Lodge #6 and #107 and both are owned by the Lodge and also the cemetery.
We seem to always pay the bills and have money in the accounts but I see many small things and BIG things that we need to do as far as upgrades and even new additions that I think about every time I am at the Lodges.
Especially #6 since it is old and could use many repairs and upgrades and some important things are one the list right now but still should be taken care of before Winters since it is ALL of the OLD windows need to be replaced.
That isn't cheap and then there is updating to the modern world as far as heating and in the kitchen since it is part of using to collect rent money and when I was about early for the last week Stated meeting by an hour I opened up and actually had a person stop by asking about renting the Lodge so maybe we can add another renter.
#107 tends to get things like that taken care of but there are a couple things we should take care of.
In that case updating the Outdoor area.
I see some Lodges that look fantastic and makes me think about even more upgrading.
The Lodge where I am an a S.R. member is huge and nice but I am not an expert there but I know it is a shared Lodge
But the 2 District 11 Lodges are mainly Masons and then the Rainbow Girls and Eastern Star something I am not involved in but I know who is and he is a member that seems to do everything at 4 or the 5 District Lodges ( so you know who I mean)
As far as #6 , I don't know if I should mention things I wish we would do but some are very much needed and one is something I think should have been there since 1938 .
But I did at tonights Stated meeting give the Brothers a surprise lesson about satellites and the International Space Station since I knew that 10 minutes after we closed I got them out in the parking lot in the dark to watch the ISS fly over us at 17,000 mph and 225 miles above us and let them know when it was almost out of sight that it was actually already over Montana and would be back close to 90 minutes later........now if I can get them to look at and think about some of my actual important Lodge subjects ......well maybe.......and while I am at home at 3:30am I tend to think about just doing it myself ( and I have done that before)
Ok goodnight and thanks for another great emeth topic MW
>>>We seem to always pay the bills and have money in the accounts but I see many small things >>>and BIG things that we need to do as far as upgrades and even new additions that I think about >>>every time I am at the Lodges.
This is I think my concern as well. We seem to charge enough to keep things going, but not enough to actually update or improve things. We have enough money to handle one disaster, we do not have enough to handle two. Yet we have three potential disasters (roof, elevator, stucco on a 4 story high wall.)
Business must keep up with inflation. I would see what the going rate is for similar space rentals at hotels, restaurants, and other venues, then set the rental for unaffiliated organizations to a rate about 25% below those going rents to be competitive, and 50% lower for affiliated adult organizations and members and 99% lower for children's organizations. These numbers would still be a significant increase over what is currently charged for all but the rainbow. But will still be lower than what any of these organizations will have to pay if they lose the building to disrepair and have to rent space at hotel conference rooms.
Part of the increase should go toward hiring professional janitorial services and building maintenance services on a regular basis. Don't wait for the heater to fail. Hire a heating company to do annual checkups. Have a roofer do semi annual checkups. Have a plumber do annual checkups. Etc.
Agreed. 100%. Most of our Masonic buildings in this Jurisdiction are obviously not getting the cleaning nor TLC that they need, haven't for decades, and it shows.
Such things do not make a good impression on the younger man who is contemplating Freemasonry, nor do they encourage the seasoned Mason to remain.
I actually looked into this today. The old Elks building is very close to my house, so I know that its Lodge room is rented out very frequently. $1,300 per day for that Lodge room on weekdays, $2,200 per day for it on weekends.
Contrast that to our Lodge charging Masonic organizations $900 per year.
It is no wonder that there is never enough money to properly maintain the building.
Hopefully we can get those rents raised to a more realistic level within the next month or two.
Sep 20, 2022·edited Sep 20, 2022Liked by Cameron M. Bailey
So let's see if I understand ... the costs are at market and the rents are often below market. Clearly that equation is out of balance so unless there's a way to bring the costs below market the rents should increase to a market level.
A discount for Lodge (owner) members' private events is fine.
This leads to a related issue. If the rents are adjusted to market and the equation is still out of balance it's time for a new approach. If the market-rate rents are still inadequate to properly maintain the building, or if there's simply not enough demand from non-Masonic renters, then the choice is to either sell the building or let it crumble in place. The right choice would be obvious if some of us didn't have an Edifice Complex.
>>>If the market-rate rents are still inadequate to properly maintain the building, or if there's simply >>>not enough demand from non-Masonic renters, then the choice is to either sell the building or let >>>it crumble in place. The right choice would be obvious if some of us didn't have an Edifice >>>Complex.
Agreed. We have Lodges in this Jurisdiction that are truly superb, but do not own a building, or meet in a building owned by the Fraternity.
When we can't afford our building, we need to sell it. Selling it doesn't mean that our Lodge is going away.
We also of course have Lodge buildings that are on very firm financial foundations, proving that it can be done, if we are willing to do it.
This is a tough topic that we have been dealing with. We had a tenant for well over 50 years who rent was a third of the market rate.
Now we are renovating our rental space from a state grant and the anticipated rental income should take us from closing in 10-15 years to another 100 years of history at a minimum.
The lodge needs to run the temple as a business in order to maintain it. Youth should be charged a fair rate to utilize the spaces we have, but within reason. This is an opportunity to teach responsibilities and we can guide them by having them understand the realities of running an organization.
One thing i always hear is dues are expensive, but brothers Men in the early 1900’s would have dues in the hundred dollar range which is close to $1,000 today. I dont know a single lodge that could easily build a new building from member donations outside of extremely large ones.
Rent and dues should increase to match the market. Masonry is a noble and glorious task, why do we trivialize it? There should be a weight and value. Why do we always pass the hat? Yet if we took that money and paid it into dues we would have reserves and be able to replenish scholarship funds and vote on resolutions to fund things.
As for dues being expensive its the choice of a brother to hold multiple memberships and as such you should bear the responsibility of supporting that lodge as well as any brother. Did we not receive the right to travel?
You are 100% correct that we need to increase Lodge dues. I think I can say with confidence that we need to increase dues in every single Lodge within Washington State.
As a concrete example of what you write above, when my Great Grandfather petitioned for the Degrees a little over a hundred years ago he paid the equivalent to over $1500 in today's dollars. That was at a time when Freemasonry was growing like mad, among all income classes, so claims that men will not join, or will quit if dues are raised to a reasonable level are absurd on their face, and deny our own history.
Unless we are willing, as an institution, to pay for Freemasonry, we will eventually lose Freemasonry.
In my former lodge, the temple board charges all of the appendant/concordant bodies rent, which includes all three youth groups and OES. They also have an outside group that pays a pittance for rent, they only use the downstairs room for a couple hours a month. They also get occasional rentals for private events.
But specifically, they waive rents for the youth groups if they complete their assigned chores for the month. For the boys, it's maintaining the outside (mowing, trimming, etc.) as well as cleaning the mens bathroom. The girls are supposed to clean the women's bathroom and the upstairs carpet outside of the lodge room.
The worst was OES, as they balk and push back if the TB tried to raise rent. OES has ridiculously low annual dues of $35 dollars and refuses to charge more.
That particular lodge had a unique situation where they own the building, and the two lots on either side of it. One is neglected (for a reason) but the other side is used as a parking lot, which the county rents for day time use for the employees at the community center across the street. The annual rent typically was enough to cover the property taxes every year. A few years ago the TB secretary was able to file for tax exempt status, so that money now is just profit.
Parking lots, especially in urban areas, can be cash cows. Make deals with local businesses or government agencies, set up pay stalls, etc. My current TB rents the parking stalls for workers at the shipyard next door. Parking at the shipyard is a nightmare, and the city is making piles of cash off parking enforcement nearby.
Our OES Chapter charges $15 per year in dues. A shamefully low amount that leads to an inability to meaningfully contribute to anything, let alone the building they have met in for the last century.
How would your lodges feel about renting / leasing to other Orders, mixed or female masonry perhaps? You'd have regular renters who honor and respect the temple building; who believe in stewardship and would help to maintain and improve the building. Seems like it might be a positive for both.
Sep 20, 2022·edited Sep 20, 2022Liked by Cameron M. Bailey
renting to mixed or female freemasonry is a very interesting test case for a lodge. If one looks at the building as a business to be used by the broader community and generate rents, it is 100% obvious to me that those users of the building would be fine. Their money is as green as anyone else's, and they're not damaging anything.
If we look at governance of a masonic building as an extension of a lodge, I would expect major trouble renting to those groups; general grumbling.
It's an interesting wedge in the sense that it forces the administration of a building to decide whether it's a business or a masonic lodge, for the purposes of administering that building.
The Temple Board at my Lodge clearly doesn't think like a business when it comes to the amount of rent it charges the Lodge.
But I don't think we would have a debate about this if such an opportunity arose. Perhaps because we have major commercial tenants. We seem to always look at the tenants (other than ourselves) in a very businesslike manner.
Renting to people other than ourselves always seems smooth and easy. We have attorneys write good leases, we charge market rates as best we can figure them, we collect the rent on time, and we meet our responsibilities.
It's only when we rent to the organizations that we ourselves belong to that we seem to twist ourselves up in knots.
I would have no objection at all. I am aware of one of our buildings that has a long time landlord/tenant relationship with an OTO body.
Our obligations restrict us from 'communicating Masonically' with those we don't consider to be Regular. They certainly don't restrict us from renting to each other, talking about shared concerns, or assisting each other.
I'm on the Temple Board for a SR Valley. We have 3 Washington Lodges, Scottish Rite, Prince Hall Lodges / Scottish Rite and Oddfellows as permanent paying tenants. Also there is a Rainbow Assembly but they don't pay rent, but support the Valley with clean up and servicing at a few special dinners.
The Masonic bodies have the same rent per meeting.
There are also catering services that use the kitchen to prepare the meals for transport for their own businesses. They have a different rate due to the nature of their work.
>>>The Masonic bodies have the same rent per meeting.
This is part of our debate right now. Currently we are going on a per meeting plan, with I think the goal of keeping that rate about the same for everyone.
But I'm not sure if that is fair, given the actual use of our building.
Specifically, the Royal Arch. So the Royal Arch only meets about 4 times a year, yet pays about the same per meeting as the two Masonic Lodges and the two OES Chapters. So, significantly less per year.
But, while the Lodges each have a fairly small closet to keep their things in, and the OES Chapters are the same, the Royal Arch has our building stuffed full of stuff! They have piles of stuff in the attic, they have consumed all of the storage on our 4th floor, (most people don't even know our building is 4 stories high, because there is nothing up there but York Rite stuff) have more storage on the 3rd (Lodge Room floor) floor than any other group, and the stuff still sometimes overflows into the dining room.
Where on earth all this stuff ever came from is beyond me, but we are drowning in stuff.
So I wonder, if this body, that utilizes more space in the building, by a very large percentage, should really be allowed to pay the lowest rent?
I wonder if a per use rent plus a storage rental combination would work? Our catering vendors rent storage on a monthly basis plus an hourly rate to use the kitchen.
I want to preface these comments (which may be strong) with a disclaimer that nothing's right for everybody (because I'm afraid I'm about to say some things which will get people upset)
My lodge owns a building outright of some reputation; and frankly I think the ownership is a bit of an albatross. The better/more historic your building is, the more masons get involved in the governance of said building, which tends to make its administration more conservative. There aren't enough masons & dues to support the place, yet everyone wants an opinion about who ought to be permitted to rent and what they can do with it. They've conflated masonry and a business.
My basic position is that we're a fraternity, not a real estate holding corporation. In situations where there is clear local financial advantage to owning a building *and* the oversight resources to be a responsible landlord, (having a pulse and a bank account is not sufficient) I think it's a fine idea for lodges to own buildings. Owning a building and renting space is a business, not a fraternity and we should charge market rates. If brethren find this idea a bit extreme or offensive, let's put it another way: just make explicit what's happening financially to your membership. If you want to charge $100 rent out of the goodness of your heart, but market is $1,000....then charge $1,000 in rent and bring a vote to the lodge to subsidize that other masonic body to the tune of $900 monthly, because that is financially what is occurring. Most lodges won't want to have that vote, and it should give us pause about $100 rent, since (in my view) it serves to hide financially what's going on.
"Hiding financially what is going on" takes several other forms I commonly see. Lodges with free meals and unrealistically low dues are *not* voting to spend down their lodge funds, year over year. And yet so it goes. Everyone wants free dinner, nobody will vote to eat up all the seed corn.
Failing either of those conditions (being in a financial position and having a good landlord ability), ownership is a drag on the brethren's focus and attention and is a distraction from freemasonry. It's time we spend arguing about rents, tenants, and building improvements that we could be spending spreading the cement, so to speak.
At Freemasonry's peak (millions more members) you had a core of guys so much larger, 9/10ths of the active membership could afford not to care about the building and still everything went smoothly. This is not then; smaller lodges + building ownership means people are forced to engage, effectively in business matters that have little to do with fraternity.
People are busy, particularly younger men and every hour is opportunity cost. I want education and fellowship in my meetings. Discussions of how we're going to keep the building financially afloat and attend to its proper administration is frankly not why I signed up.
>>>Discussions of how we're going to keep the building financially afloat and attend to its proper >>>administration is frankly not why I signed up.
I think that most Masons agree with this, 100%, and I have watched with my own eyes, a building strangle, and eventually kill the Lodge that owned it. One of the oldest Lodges in our Jurisdiction, we will never get it back, but it could still be thriving today had they decided to sell the building at any point after they figured out that they had zero means to support it.
Our temple board has a consistent rental rate for use of the hall of which lodge pays as well. The structure, if I'm remembering correctly, (dangerous I know) is we have a rental fee for 4 hours and then a per hour fee after. We also have limited storage space included and charge a small fee for extra based on square footage. This is available to those who rent consistently.
For one off rentals regular rentals we still require a rental agreement and follow the rental fee schedule. We don't have youth groups as consistent renters, though we'd like to welcome them. However, in the few times we have lodge graciously picked up the rental fee on their behalf. This keeps the temple corporation separate and in line with their responsibility of managing the building and renting it out. It is better, in our view, to be as agnostic as possible when it comes to hall rental since the Temple Corp is separate from lodge. We see the Corp as a 3rd party management company whose board is lodge brothers. No different than if the board happened to all work at the same bank as their regular jobs.
As for the retail space that is a completely separate rental process.
>>>We don't have youth groups as consistent renters, though we'd like to welcome them. However, >>>in the few times we have lodge graciously picked up the rental fee on their behalf.
This is a great idea, and a very gracious way for the Lodge to help I think.
If our Masonic bodies did that, we would have the money we need to properly maintain, improve, and update the building. I think you hit it on the head.
May I ask if you find the shared ownership to work out well? The idea of shared ownership has always made me a little nervous, but perhaps that nervousness is misguided.
My lodge owns the building and other lodges, masonic orders use it for rehearsals and meetings.
We all pay equal shares for the upkeep and outgoings of the building ie. Water, gas, electricity rates insurance.
We don't have youth groups, but if it was up to me, I wouldn't charge a rent to these groups but have them contribute to the at the rate of 12/365 or number of days used of the total costs.
If they insist on paying rent take it and donate an appropriate amount back for their charities.
All other rentals for weddings or birthdays etc. Masonic discount to members and all others $250 Inc $100 key deposit.
If the building is of historical significance ask government for a grant to bring the building up to code.
>>>If they insist on paying rent take it and donate an appropriate amount back for their charities.
Agreed, this makes a lot of sense. The Temple Board can just remit whatever it might receive from the youth groups to the Lodge, and the Lodge can donate it back.
Well MW I would not call it "dull" but this is a lot of questions the can use many answers.
I am a member at Lodge #6 and #107 and both are owned by the Lodge and also the cemetery.
We seem to always pay the bills and have money in the accounts but I see many small things and BIG things that we need to do as far as upgrades and even new additions that I think about every time I am at the Lodges.
Especially #6 since it is old and could use many repairs and upgrades and some important things are one the list right now but still should be taken care of before Winters since it is ALL of the OLD windows need to be replaced.
That isn't cheap and then there is updating to the modern world as far as heating and in the kitchen since it is part of using to collect rent money and when I was about early for the last week Stated meeting by an hour I opened up and actually had a person stop by asking about renting the Lodge so maybe we can add another renter.
#107 tends to get things like that taken care of but there are a couple things we should take care of.
In that case updating the Outdoor area.
I see some Lodges that look fantastic and makes me think about even more upgrading.
The Lodge where I am an a S.R. member is huge and nice but I am not an expert there but I know it is a shared Lodge
But the 2 District 11 Lodges are mainly Masons and then the Rainbow Girls and Eastern Star something I am not involved in but I know who is and he is a member that seems to do everything at 4 or the 5 District Lodges ( so you know who I mean)
As far as #6 , I don't know if I should mention things I wish we would do but some are very much needed and one is something I think should have been there since 1938 .
But I did at tonights Stated meeting give the Brothers a surprise lesson about satellites and the International Space Station since I knew that 10 minutes after we closed I got them out in the parking lot in the dark to watch the ISS fly over us at 17,000 mph and 225 miles above us and let them know when it was almost out of sight that it was actually already over Montana and would be back close to 90 minutes later........now if I can get them to look at and think about some of my actual important Lodge subjects ......well maybe.......and while I am at home at 3:30am I tend to think about just doing it myself ( and I have done that before)
Ok goodnight and thanks for another great emeth topic MW
>>>We seem to always pay the bills and have money in the accounts but I see many small things >>>and BIG things that we need to do as far as upgrades and even new additions that I think about >>>every time I am at the Lodges.
This is I think my concern as well. We seem to charge enough to keep things going, but not enough to actually update or improve things. We have enough money to handle one disaster, we do not have enough to handle two. Yet we have three potential disasters (roof, elevator, stucco on a 4 story high wall.)
These points, and those in the comments, are a great start to a Lodge or Temple Board rental policy.
It doesn’t really matter what that policy is, it matters more that there is one.
Remember to include a clause allowing Lodge or Temple Board to waive or vary part of it (like rental rates for Rianbow Girls or similar groups).
Remember to include a rental agreement, which specifies insurance requirements, cleaning deposits, emergency contacts…
I guess our Temple Board has some work to do.
Cheers!
>>>I guess our Temple Board has some work to do.
It is, I think, never ending!
Business must keep up with inflation. I would see what the going rate is for similar space rentals at hotels, restaurants, and other venues, then set the rental for unaffiliated organizations to a rate about 25% below those going rents to be competitive, and 50% lower for affiliated adult organizations and members and 99% lower for children's organizations. These numbers would still be a significant increase over what is currently charged for all but the rainbow. But will still be lower than what any of these organizations will have to pay if they lose the building to disrepair and have to rent space at hotel conference rooms.
Part of the increase should go toward hiring professional janitorial services and building maintenance services on a regular basis. Don't wait for the heater to fail. Hire a heating company to do annual checkups. Have a roofer do semi annual checkups. Have a plumber do annual checkups. Etc.
Agreed. 100%. Most of our Masonic buildings in this Jurisdiction are obviously not getting the cleaning nor TLC that they need, haven't for decades, and it shows.
Such things do not make a good impression on the younger man who is contemplating Freemasonry, nor do they encourage the seasoned Mason to remain.
I actually looked into this today. The old Elks building is very close to my house, so I know that its Lodge room is rented out very frequently. $1,300 per day for that Lodge room on weekdays, $2,200 per day for it on weekends.
Contrast that to our Lodge charging Masonic organizations $900 per year.
It is no wonder that there is never enough money to properly maintain the building.
Hopefully we can get those rents raised to a more realistic level within the next month or two.
So let's see if I understand ... the costs are at market and the rents are often below market. Clearly that equation is out of balance so unless there's a way to bring the costs below market the rents should increase to a market level.
A discount for Lodge (owner) members' private events is fine.
This leads to a related issue. If the rents are adjusted to market and the equation is still out of balance it's time for a new approach. If the market-rate rents are still inadequate to properly maintain the building, or if there's simply not enough demand from non-Masonic renters, then the choice is to either sell the building or let it crumble in place. The right choice would be obvious if some of us didn't have an Edifice Complex.
>>>If the market-rate rents are still inadequate to properly maintain the building, or if there's simply >>>not enough demand from non-Masonic renters, then the choice is to either sell the building or let >>>it crumble in place. The right choice would be obvious if some of us didn't have an Edifice >>>Complex.
Agreed. We have Lodges in this Jurisdiction that are truly superb, but do not own a building, or meet in a building owned by the Fraternity.
When we can't afford our building, we need to sell it. Selling it doesn't mean that our Lodge is going away.
We also of course have Lodge buildings that are on very firm financial foundations, proving that it can be done, if we are willing to do it.
This is a tough topic that we have been dealing with. We had a tenant for well over 50 years who rent was a third of the market rate.
Now we are renovating our rental space from a state grant and the anticipated rental income should take us from closing in 10-15 years to another 100 years of history at a minimum.
The lodge needs to run the temple as a business in order to maintain it. Youth should be charged a fair rate to utilize the spaces we have, but within reason. This is an opportunity to teach responsibilities and we can guide them by having them understand the realities of running an organization.
One thing i always hear is dues are expensive, but brothers Men in the early 1900’s would have dues in the hundred dollar range which is close to $1,000 today. I dont know a single lodge that could easily build a new building from member donations outside of extremely large ones.
Rent and dues should increase to match the market. Masonry is a noble and glorious task, why do we trivialize it? There should be a weight and value. Why do we always pass the hat? Yet if we took that money and paid it into dues we would have reserves and be able to replenish scholarship funds and vote on resolutions to fund things.
As for dues being expensive its the choice of a brother to hold multiple memberships and as such you should bear the responsibility of supporting that lodge as well as any brother. Did we not receive the right to travel?
You are 100% correct that we need to increase Lodge dues. I think I can say with confidence that we need to increase dues in every single Lodge within Washington State.
As a concrete example of what you write above, when my Great Grandfather petitioned for the Degrees a little over a hundred years ago he paid the equivalent to over $1500 in today's dollars. That was at a time when Freemasonry was growing like mad, among all income classes, so claims that men will not join, or will quit if dues are raised to a reasonable level are absurd on their face, and deny our own history.
Unless we are willing, as an institution, to pay for Freemasonry, we will eventually lose Freemasonry.
In my former lodge, the temple board charges all of the appendant/concordant bodies rent, which includes all three youth groups and OES. They also have an outside group that pays a pittance for rent, they only use the downstairs room for a couple hours a month. They also get occasional rentals for private events.
But specifically, they waive rents for the youth groups if they complete their assigned chores for the month. For the boys, it's maintaining the outside (mowing, trimming, etc.) as well as cleaning the mens bathroom. The girls are supposed to clean the women's bathroom and the upstairs carpet outside of the lodge room.
The worst was OES, as they balk and push back if the TB tried to raise rent. OES has ridiculously low annual dues of $35 dollars and refuses to charge more.
That particular lodge had a unique situation where they own the building, and the two lots on either side of it. One is neglected (for a reason) but the other side is used as a parking lot, which the county rents for day time use for the employees at the community center across the street. The annual rent typically was enough to cover the property taxes every year. A few years ago the TB secretary was able to file for tax exempt status, so that money now is just profit.
Parking lots, especially in urban areas, can be cash cows. Make deals with local businesses or government agencies, set up pay stalls, etc. My current TB rents the parking stalls for workers at the shipyard next door. Parking at the shipyard is a nightmare, and the city is making piles of cash off parking enforcement nearby.
Our OES Chapter charges $15 per year in dues. A shamefully low amount that leads to an inability to meaningfully contribute to anything, let alone the building they have met in for the last century.
How would your lodges feel about renting / leasing to other Orders, mixed or female masonry perhaps? You'd have regular renters who honor and respect the temple building; who believe in stewardship and would help to maintain and improve the building. Seems like it might be a positive for both.
renting to mixed or female freemasonry is a very interesting test case for a lodge. If one looks at the building as a business to be used by the broader community and generate rents, it is 100% obvious to me that those users of the building would be fine. Their money is as green as anyone else's, and they're not damaging anything.
If we look at governance of a masonic building as an extension of a lodge, I would expect major trouble renting to those groups; general grumbling.
It's an interesting wedge in the sense that it forces the administration of a building to decide whether it's a business or a masonic lodge, for the purposes of administering that building.
The Temple Board at my Lodge clearly doesn't think like a business when it comes to the amount of rent it charges the Lodge.
But I don't think we would have a debate about this if such an opportunity arose. Perhaps because we have major commercial tenants. We seem to always look at the tenants (other than ourselves) in a very businesslike manner.
Renting to people other than ourselves always seems smooth and easy. We have attorneys write good leases, we charge market rates as best we can figure them, we collect the rent on time, and we meet our responsibilities.
It's only when we rent to the organizations that we ourselves belong to that we seem to twist ourselves up in knots.
I would have no objection at all. I am aware of one of our buildings that has a long time landlord/tenant relationship with an OTO body.
Our obligations restrict us from 'communicating Masonically' with those we don't consider to be Regular. They certainly don't restrict us from renting to each other, talking about shared concerns, or assisting each other.
I'm on the Temple Board for a SR Valley. We have 3 Washington Lodges, Scottish Rite, Prince Hall Lodges / Scottish Rite and Oddfellows as permanent paying tenants. Also there is a Rainbow Assembly but they don't pay rent, but support the Valley with clean up and servicing at a few special dinners.
The Masonic bodies have the same rent per meeting.
There are also catering services that use the kitchen to prepare the meals for transport for their own businesses. They have a different rate due to the nature of their work.
>>>The Masonic bodies have the same rent per meeting.
This is part of our debate right now. Currently we are going on a per meeting plan, with I think the goal of keeping that rate about the same for everyone.
But I'm not sure if that is fair, given the actual use of our building.
Specifically, the Royal Arch. So the Royal Arch only meets about 4 times a year, yet pays about the same per meeting as the two Masonic Lodges and the two OES Chapters. So, significantly less per year.
But, while the Lodges each have a fairly small closet to keep their things in, and the OES Chapters are the same, the Royal Arch has our building stuffed full of stuff! They have piles of stuff in the attic, they have consumed all of the storage on our 4th floor, (most people don't even know our building is 4 stories high, because there is nothing up there but York Rite stuff) have more storage on the 3rd (Lodge Room floor) floor than any other group, and the stuff still sometimes overflows into the dining room.
Where on earth all this stuff ever came from is beyond me, but we are drowning in stuff.
So I wonder, if this body, that utilizes more space in the building, by a very large percentage, should really be allowed to pay the lowest rent?
I wonder if a per use rent plus a storage rental combination would work? Our catering vendors rent storage on a monthly basis plus an hourly rate to use the kitchen.
Now you have me thinking about that.
Yes. I think that is the solution. Charge them per meeting, and charge them a fee for excess storage. It seems like the only fair thing for us to do.
I want to preface these comments (which may be strong) with a disclaimer that nothing's right for everybody (because I'm afraid I'm about to say some things which will get people upset)
My lodge owns a building outright of some reputation; and frankly I think the ownership is a bit of an albatross. The better/more historic your building is, the more masons get involved in the governance of said building, which tends to make its administration more conservative. There aren't enough masons & dues to support the place, yet everyone wants an opinion about who ought to be permitted to rent and what they can do with it. They've conflated masonry and a business.
My basic position is that we're a fraternity, not a real estate holding corporation. In situations where there is clear local financial advantage to owning a building *and* the oversight resources to be a responsible landlord, (having a pulse and a bank account is not sufficient) I think it's a fine idea for lodges to own buildings. Owning a building and renting space is a business, not a fraternity and we should charge market rates. If brethren find this idea a bit extreme or offensive, let's put it another way: just make explicit what's happening financially to your membership. If you want to charge $100 rent out of the goodness of your heart, but market is $1,000....then charge $1,000 in rent and bring a vote to the lodge to subsidize that other masonic body to the tune of $900 monthly, because that is financially what is occurring. Most lodges won't want to have that vote, and it should give us pause about $100 rent, since (in my view) it serves to hide financially what's going on.
"Hiding financially what is going on" takes several other forms I commonly see. Lodges with free meals and unrealistically low dues are *not* voting to spend down their lodge funds, year over year. And yet so it goes. Everyone wants free dinner, nobody will vote to eat up all the seed corn.
Failing either of those conditions (being in a financial position and having a good landlord ability), ownership is a drag on the brethren's focus and attention and is a distraction from freemasonry. It's time we spend arguing about rents, tenants, and building improvements that we could be spending spreading the cement, so to speak.
At Freemasonry's peak (millions more members) you had a core of guys so much larger, 9/10ths of the active membership could afford not to care about the building and still everything went smoothly. This is not then; smaller lodges + building ownership means people are forced to engage, effectively in business matters that have little to do with fraternity.
People are busy, particularly younger men and every hour is opportunity cost. I want education and fellowship in my meetings. Discussions of how we're going to keep the building financially afloat and attend to its proper administration is frankly not why I signed up.
>>>Discussions of how we're going to keep the building financially afloat and attend to its proper >>>administration is frankly not why I signed up.
I think that most Masons agree with this, 100%, and I have watched with my own eyes, a building strangle, and eventually kill the Lodge that owned it. One of the oldest Lodges in our Jurisdiction, we will never get it back, but it could still be thriving today had they decided to sell the building at any point after they figured out that they had zero means to support it.
Our temple board has a consistent rental rate for use of the hall of which lodge pays as well. The structure, if I'm remembering correctly, (dangerous I know) is we have a rental fee for 4 hours and then a per hour fee after. We also have limited storage space included and charge a small fee for extra based on square footage. This is available to those who rent consistently.
For one off rentals regular rentals we still require a rental agreement and follow the rental fee schedule. We don't have youth groups as consistent renters, though we'd like to welcome them. However, in the few times we have lodge graciously picked up the rental fee on their behalf. This keeps the temple corporation separate and in line with their responsibility of managing the building and renting it out. It is better, in our view, to be as agnostic as possible when it comes to hall rental since the Temple Corp is separate from lodge. We see the Corp as a 3rd party management company whose board is lodge brothers. No different than if the board happened to all work at the same bank as their regular jobs.
As for the retail space that is a completely separate rental process.
>>>We don't have youth groups as consistent renters, though we'd like to welcome them. However, >>>in the few times we have lodge graciously picked up the rental fee on their behalf.
This is a great idea, and a very gracious way for the Lodge to help I think.
All should pay, at going market rates less 10%.
If our Masonic bodies did that, we would have the money we need to properly maintain, improve, and update the building. I think you hit it on the head.
Our Lodge is 1 of a 6 that share ownership of our Lodge building. We currently pay $160 per meeting rent. External organizations pay $250 per day.
May I ask if you find the shared ownership to work out well? The idea of shared ownership has always made me a little nervous, but perhaps that nervousness is misguided.