asterisk-asterisk-asterisk-asterisk (wtf?), I was responding specifically to Webster52′s claim that City Parks & Rec “does all of what [was] stated above. The Carver Rec Center will serve our low income city residents better than the Y. The Y will mostly serve county residents.” City Parks & Rec doesn’t appear to have the budget to build the kind of facility the Y is going to build. The City isn’t going to prioritize that kind of facility, so to get it built, we get someone else to spend most of the money. Webster52 seems to believe that City Parks & Rec is more than enough for “our low income city residents,” which is really, really generous of him. “Be happy with Carver Rec, that’s good enough for you.”

The not for profit vs. profit things you bring up are religious arguments. That is, one is good and one is evil. There’s no way to respond to that. I stand by my argument that it’s an artificial distinction not worthy of such a restriction in this case.

I do see a difference in the way that nonprofits and for-profits function. Nonprofits, in my experience, don’t have to adapt their product/services to the imperative to make as much money as quickly as possible–they don’t have to chase the market. That means they can do things like offer low-cost memberships; ACAC offers only expensive memberships, partly to make a lot of money, but ALSO because that keeps the riff-raff out, and the people who can pay a lot of $$ for ACAC expressly *don’t* want riff-raff exercising next to them. A nonprofit can prioritize other values besides the values of the marketplace. I think the point about executive compensation is a red herring–the fact that the executives get paid a lot has no bearing at all on whether or not a nonprofit functions differently from a for-profit.

In regards to the charter: I think the city “gets their money back” if part of the contract specified that the YMCA couldn’t change its charter. But if the contract specifies “you build this facility and give residents access to it” and that’s what the YMCA does, then I’m not sure why the city would get its money back if the Y makes a change to its charter.

One pet peeve I have is this not for profit shield or excuse. That’s mostly meaningless. If you want to find the highest paid executives amongst organizations, look to not for profits first. Most organizations don’t make “profit”, they make sure they spend or invest what they take in. It’s an artificial differentiation. Not that I’m a fan of any particular organization, but this seems like it was effectively a no bid award, which should always give people pause.

Another question, so if this religions based organization changes their charter down the road, say like the Boy Scouts did, does the city, and their taxpayers, get their money back?